U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LECH LAIC
CASS COUNTY
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 105
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
LECH LAKE
CASS COUNTY
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 105
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
AND THE
MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD
DECEMBER, 1974
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Minnesota Study Lakes iv, v
Lake and Drainage Area Map vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 10
V. Literature Reviewed 15
VI. Appendices 16
-------
11
F 0 R E W 0 R D
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water 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 [ g303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [ g303(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.
-------
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
fresh water 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.
ACKNOWLE DGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for professional involvement and to the Minnesota National
Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey.
Grant J. Merritt, Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, John F. McGuire, Chief, and Joel G. Schilling, Biologist,
of the Section of Surface and Groundwater, Division of Water Quality,
provided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the course
of the Survey; and the staff of the Section of Municipal Works, Divi-
sion of Water Quality, were most helpful in identifying point sources
and soliciting municipal participation in the Survey.
Major General Chester J. Moeglein, the Adjutant General of
Minnesota, and Project Officer Major Adrian Beltrand, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Minnesota National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Albert Lea Freeborn
Andrusia Beltrami
Badger Polk
Bartlett Koochiching
Bear Freeborn
Bernidji Beltrami
Big Stearns
Big Stone Big Stone, MN; Roberts,
Grant, SD
Birch Cass
Blackduck Beltrami
Blackhoof Crow Wing
Budd Martin
Buffalo Wright
Calhoun Hennepin
Carlos Douglas
Carrigan Wright
Cass Beltrarni, Cass
Clearwater Wright, Stearns
Cokato Wright
Cranberry Crow Wing
Darling Douglas
Elbow st. Louis
Embarass St. Louis
Fall Lake
Forest Washington
Green Kandiyohi
Gull Cass
Heron Jackson
Leech Cass
Le Homme Dieu Douglas
Lily Blue Earth
Little Grant
Lost St. Louis
-------
V
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Madison Blue Earth
Malmedal Pope
Mashkenode St. Louis
McQuade St. Louis
Mi nnetonka Hennepi n
Minnewaska Pope
Mud Itasca
Nest Kandiyohi
Pelican St. Louis
Pepin Goodhue, Wabasha, MN;
Pierce, Pepin, WI
Rabbit Crow Wing
Sakatah Le Sueur
Shagawa St. Louis
Silver McLeod
Six Mile St. Louis
Spring Washington, Dakota
St. Croix Washington, MN; St. Croix,
Pierce, WI
St. Louis Bay St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI
Superior Bay St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI
Swan Itasca
Trace Todd
Trout Itasca
Wagonga Kandiyohi
Walimark Chisago
White Bear Washington
Winona Douglas
Wolf Beltrami, Hubbard
Woodcock Kandiyohi
Zunibro Olnistead, Wabasha
-------
S
Ml n
Map Location
LEECH LAKE
0 Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
—‘ _ Direct Drainage Area Boundary
I
-------
LEECH LAKE
STORET NO. 2746
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data show that Leech Lake is mesotrophic. Of the
60 Minnesota lakes studied in the fall of 1972, when essen-
tially all were well-mixed, eight had less mean total phos-
phorus, 21 had less mean dissolved phosphorus, and seven had
less mean inorganic nitrogen. Of the 80 Minnesota lakes sampled,
only three had less mean chlorophyll a, and 10 had higher
Secchi disc transparency.
Near-depletion of hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen occurred
at station 1 in September, 1972.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The results of the algal assay indicate that nitrogen was
limiting in Leech Lake at the time the sample was collected.
Nitrogen limitation is also indicated by the lake data obtained
at the time the assay sample was collected (i.e, the N/P ratio
was 5/1). During the July and September sampling, the N/P
ratios were greater than 14/1, and phosphorus limitation would
be expected.
-------
2
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources-—During the sampling year, Leech Lake
received a total phosphorus load at a rate less than the rate
proposed by Vollenweider (in press) as “pernhissible ; i.e.,
an oligotrophic rate (see page 14). Of that load, it is cal-
culated that the City of Walker and the Ah-Gwah-Ching Nursing
Home contributed nearly 10%.
The waste treatment facilities of the City of Walker have
been upgraded to include land disposal of the effluent by spray
irrigation, and the wastes from the Nursing Home are now directed
to the Walker municipal system (McGuire, 1974). The new facili-
ties became operational in November, 1973, and the discharges
to Leech Lake have been eliminated.
The removal of these sources of phosphorus provides protection
for the existing trophic condition of Leech Lake and should enhance
water quality in the local areas of the lake formerly receiving
the discharges.
2. Non-point sources (see page 14)--The phosphorus exports
of the Leech Lake tributaries were quite low and probably result
from the land-use practices in this largely-forested region of
Minnesota.
In all, it is estimated that non-point sources contributed
about 86% of the total phosphorus load reaching Leech Lake during
the sampling year.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 112,000 acres.
2. Mean depth: 15.5 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 150 feet.
4. Volume: 1,736,000 acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 5.2 years.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name Drainage area* Mean flow*
Boy River 400.0 mi2 200.5 cfs
Portage Lake/Leech Lake 2
Connection 16.2 mi~ 7.2 cfs
Sucker Creek 25.5 mi^ 11.1 cfs
Steamboat Lake/Steamboat 2
Bay Connection 130.0 mi 63.7 cfs
Swamp Lake/Steamboat River 2
Connection 11.8 mi 5.2 cfs
Kabekona Bay/Walker Bay 2
Connection Hl.Omif 69.6 cfs
Shingobee Creek 28.4 mi 12.3 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage - 112.1 mi 91.8 cfs
Total 865.0 mi2 461.4 cfs
2. Outlet -
Leech Lake River 1,040.0 mi2** 461.4 cfs
t Schilling, 1974.
* Drainage areas are accurate within ±5%; mean daily flows are accurate
within ±10%; and ungaged flows are accurate within ±10 to 25% for
drainage areas greater than 10 mi2.
** Includes area of lake.
-------
4
C. Precipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 26.7 inches.
2. Mean annual: 23.8 inches.
* See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
5
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Leech Lake was sampled three times during the open-water season
of 1972 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from four
stations on the lake and from a number of depths at each station (see
map, page vi). During each visit, a single depth-integrated (15 feet
or near bottom to surface) sample was collected from the stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the last visit,
a single five-gallon depth-integrated sample was collected 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 83 feet at station 1, 11 feet at station 2, 20 feet at
station 3, and 18 feet at station 4.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B, and the
data for the fall sampling period, when the lake essentially was well—
mixed, are summarized below. Note, however, the Secchi disc summary
is based on all values.
For differences in the various parameters at the other sampling
times, refer to Appendix B.
-------
6
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
(10/21/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 3.9 5.5 5.5 7.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 10.4 11.6 11.4 14.0
Conductivity (pmhos) 252 261 261 265
pH(units) 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3
Alkalinity (mg/l) J30 132 132 135
Total P (mg/i) 0.009 0.029 0.029 0.044
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.003 0.021 0.023 0.038
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.040 0.046 0.045 0.060
ArT onia ?mg/1) 0.050 0.067 0.070 0.090
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 66 87 84 120
-------
7
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
07/11/72 1. Microcystis 3,418
2. Chroococcus 778
3. Fragilaria 778
4. Dinobryon 416
5. Anabaena 325
Other genera 2,495
Total 8,210
09/08/72 1. Microcystis 1,685
2. Lyngbya 1 ,338
3. Anabaena 383
4. Aphanocapsa 210
5. Dinobryon 181
Other genera 484
Total 4,281
10/21/72 1. Flagellates 3,367
2. Dinobryon 2,764
3. Microcystis 1,849
4. Lyngbya 1,055
5. Fragilaria 704
Other genera 3,075
Total 12,814
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a -
(Because of instrumentation
the following values may be
problems during the 1972 sampling,
in error by plus or minus 20 percent.)
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
1. Autociaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Chlorophyll a
(pg/i) —
4.7
6.9
7.9
8.7
7.5
3.2
8.4
4.0
5.5
5.5
5.7
6.9
Spike (mg/i )
Ortho P
Conc. (mg/i )
Inorganic N
Conc. (mg/i )
Maximum yield
( mg/i-dry wt. )
2. Discussion —
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
Station
Number
Sampling
Date
07/1 1/72
09/08/7 2
10/21/ 72
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
Control
0.017
0.060
0.5
0.005 P
0.022
0.060
0.6
0.010 P
0.027
0.060
0.6
0.020 P
0.037
0.060
0.6
0.050 P
0.067
0.060
0.7
0.050 P +
10.0
N
0.067
10.060
23.4
10.0 N
0.017
10.060
2.8
of Leech Lake was relatively low at the time the assay sample
-------
9
was collected. Also, the lack of significant change in
yield with increased levels of orthophosphate until nitrogen
was added shows that the lake was nitrogen limited at this
time. Note that the addition of only nitrogen resulted in
a yield greater than the control yield.
Nitrogen limitation is also indicated
obtained at the time the assay sample was
ratio was 5/1). However, during the July
ling the N/P ratio was greater than 14/1
limitation would be expected.
by the lake data
collected (the N/P
and September samp-
and phosphorus
-------
10
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Minnesota National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the tribu-
tary sites indicated on the map (page vi), except for the high runoff
months of April and May when two samples were collected. Sampling was
begun in October, 1972, and was completed in September, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the year
of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by the Minne-
sota District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the tributary sites
nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were determined
by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer program for
calculating stream loadings*. Nutrient loadings for unsampled “minor
tributaries and immediate drainage” (“U” of U.S.G.S.) were estimated by
using the mean of the nutrient loads, in lbs/mi 2 /year, at stations C-i,
0-1, F-i, G-l , H-l, and J-i and multiplying the means by the LZ area in mi 2 .
The City of Walker and the Ah-Gwah-Ching Nursing Home did not participate
in the Survey, and nutrient loads from these sources were estimated at 2.5
lbs P and 7.5 lbs N/capita/year.
* See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
11
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipalt -
Pop. Mean Receiving
Name Served Treatment Flow (mgd) Water
Walker 1,073 trickling 0.107* Leech Lake
filter
Ah-Gwah-Ching 473 trickling 0.047* Leech Lake
Nursing Home filter
2. Known industrial - None
t Anonymous, 1974.
* Estimated at 100 gal/capita/day.
-------
12
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbsP/ %of
Source ______ total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Boy River 8,000 20.2
Portage Lake/Leech Lake
Connection 620 1.6
Sucker Creek 580 1.5
Steamboat Lake/Steamboat
Bay Connection 2,020 5.1
Swamp Lake/Steamboat River
Connection 260 0.7
Kabekona Bay/Walker Bay
Connection 2,170 5.5
Shingobee Creek 1,480 3.7
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 3,140 7.9
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Walker 2,680 6.8
Ah-Gwah-Ching Nursing Home 1,180 3.0
d. Septic tanks* - 10 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 17,470 44.] _
Total 39,610 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Leech Lake River 18,130
3. Net annual P accumulation - 21,480 pounds
* Estimate based on Boy River population of 44 (1970 census); shoreline
cottages not included (see Working Paper No. 1).
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
13
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
lbs N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Boy River 684,320 28.8
Portage Lake/Leech Lake
Connection 20,240 0.9
Sucker Creek 27,100 1.1
Steamboat Lake/Steamboat
Bay Connection 171,730 7.2
Swamp Lake/Steamboat River
Connection 16,880 0.7
Kabekona Bay/Walker Bay
Connection 191,310 8.1
Shingobee Creek 30,870 1.3
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 140,240 5.9
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Walker 8,050 0.3
Ah-Gwah-Ching Nursing Home 3,550 0.2
d. Septic tanks* - 400
-------
14
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/mi 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Boy River 20 1 ,711
Portage Lake/Leech Lake Connection 38 1 ,249
Sucker Creek 23 1 ,063
Steamboat Lake/Steamboat Bay Connection 16 1,321
Swamp Lake/Steamboat River Connection 22 1 ,430
Kabekona Bay/Walker Bay Connection 15 1,357
Shingobee Creek 52 1 ,087
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (in press).
Essentially, his “dangerous’ rate is the rate at which the
receiving waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his “permissible” rate is that which would result in the
receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligo-
trophic if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic rate would
be considered one between “dangerous” and “permissible”.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Units Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
1bs/acr /yr 0.4 0.2 21.2 10.9
grams/rn /yr 0.04 0.02 2.4 1.2
Volle weider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Leech Lake:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 0.18
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.09
-------
15
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1974. Wastewater disposal facilities inventory. MPCA,
Minneapolis.
McGujre, John F., 1974. Personal communication (present status of
treatment facilities at Leech Lake). MPCA, Minneapolis.
Schilling, Joel, 1974. Personal communication (lake morphometry).
MPCA, Minneapolis.
Vollenweider, Richard A. (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
A. Hydrol.
-------
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
1918(JTa-CY F1Ot INFOMMATION FOR MINNESOTA
10/30/74
LAKE CODE 7746
LEFC-l LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE 1C40.O0
T IRUTA Y MONT-,
YEAP ‘ jEAN FLfl DAY
FLOW DAY FLOW DAY
FLOW
15 151.00
23 315.00
StiR— nRA jN AGE
T919(JTAPY AREA
274641
400.00
274681
1040.00
441.70
2746C1
16.?0
?. 14
774601
25.50
3.
?746F 1
110.00
16.60
?746G1
11.80
1.9
274691
141.00
37.60
?74 6J1
78.40
4.31
274677
‘87.10
?0.A9
NOkMALIZED FLOWS
JUN JUL AUG
1 14. 110
421 .70
7•7
4.75
16.P0
I .76
4 . 7
26.70
109.00
33t . 30
3.20
5. 12
41 • 70
7 59
39.80
• 54
3t 1. 00
369.00
229.50
13.10
10.40
108.00
8.76
117.00
21 • 70
242.7?
SEP OCT
349 • 00
372.30
15.30
22.90
121 .00
10.80
131.00
23.50
195.84
282.00
497.70
13.10
19.60
105.00
9.81
112.00
20.10
209.20
JAN
FF8
MA 7
APR
MAY
TOTAL
DRAINAGE
AREA OF LAKE
=
1040.00
TOTAL FLO.q IN = 5532.90
SU 1 OF SUH—F)PAINAGE
A’ EAS
=
1040.00
TOTAL FLOW OUT = 5532.39
186.00
528.40
7.08
11.00
60.30
5.51
66.80
12.30
93.58
NOV DEC MEAN
178.00
595. 10
4.84
7.93
44. 61)
3.66
51.50
10.30
55.82
129.00
621.80
4.54
7.00
44.20
4.58
49.80
9.72
49.60
MFAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND ,)AILY FLOWS
257.00
589.80
9.94
14.30
71.20
6.12
82.50
15.40
67.31
213.00
460.40
6.97
19.80
56.10
4 • 28
65.40
11.30
67.51
SUMMARY
132.00
437.70
3.75
6.09
38.60
2.79
42.10
7.61
33.50
200.45
461.45
7.24
11 • 10
63.74
5.23
69.64
12.34
91.70
274641
10
72
166.10
15
167.00
I
7 ’
5?.’ 0
S
57.00
I?
7?
I90.uO
1?
IP I2.O0
I
71
I 3?. tO
12
173.00
7
7 1
I41. ’O
17
139.00
1
71
32O.Ii
1-1
3611.00
7
161.ufl
4
159.00
S
73
V’7.i)
IC
2.00
6
7
7 82.’)CI
1
2 Sb.00
7
71
3(Q.t J
-
324.00
Q
73
1C1. 1f)
7
75 .O0
Q
71
-‘- - . (3
10
3 1.00
274681
10
)
I?
1
‘
1
5
‘
7
4
7’
7 ’
1?
7’
(3
7 1
11
73
7 1
7 i
71
71
478.;)
‘ - 7.)
7 E.10
76”.( )
775.u
2 1• 0
- 9 . 3
I C. j’
I,)’. Cl
I II.))
I ..0u
IL3.r
1’
i
l
I’
Ii
I’
‘+
IC
18
4
7
lu
912.00
Q’i0.O0
770.00
71 5.00
717.00
6.O0
- ‘- .00
101.00
102. )O
100.00
104.00
104.011
15
23
99.00
100.00
-------
1Qj IJTA Y ILOb INF0 MAt1ON FOP MIN”4ESOTA 10/30/74
LA(F COOF ‘746 LEECh Ls E
4FAN M0 4THL( FLOwS ANO DAILY FLOWS
TPTOUrAPY MONTI YFA 4EA 4 FLO’4 1)AY FLOW OA’I ’ FLOW DAY FL0
?746C1 10 77 6., 15 6.40
I I 72 1.73 5 1.AO
I? 72 S.oO I? 5.20
73 .0? 12 4. 10
7 73 3.41 17 3.30
7 73 9.41 lB 11.00
4 73 5.71 4 5.60 IS 5.40
5 73 ‘.10 ID 17.00 23 13.80
6 71 13.1) 19 12.00
7 71 1l.P0 9 12.00
8 73 .‘2 7 7.60
9 73 10.60 10 12.00
274601 10 7 9.10 15 9.30
II 7? 2.50 5 2.80
1? 7? R.7 10 8.70
71 ‘ .‘.0 12 8.10
73 ‘.96 17 5. 0
73 15.60 18 18.0’)
6 73 0.65 4 8.60 15 8.10
S 73 24.10 10 25.00 23 21.00
73 19.6fl 19 1c3.00
7 71 10.40 9 10.00
9 71 13.30 7 12.00
9 73 If..?0 10 18.00
?746F 1 10 77 45.40 15 46.00
I I 7? 13.00 5 15.00
1? 7’ 55.70 10 55.00
1 71 7R• 3 12 7 .0 ’ )
‘ 73 4 ’.i ’0 17 45.00
7 73 I’?.OO 19 140.00
4 71 47.50 4 47.00 IS 45.00
5 71 1?7. ,i) 10 112.00 23 109.00
6 73 luc.o 19 96.00
7 73 100.10 9 105.00
9 1. 75.90 7 70.00
73 1G3.00 10 117.00
?74f C ,l 10 77 3.90 IS 4.00
I I 7? 1.16 5 1.10
I’ 77 4.,)? 10
I 73 4.I ’ 1? 4.00
2 71 .‘1 U .I0
I 7 7.SC) l p3.70
4 71 4 3.oO 15 3.60
5 73 I1. 0 tO 17.00 23 9.70
A 71 Q. ’ l 10 9.90
7 73 1 0.60
U 7 “.71 7 S.?0
O 73 10.60 10 12.00
-------
T Ir IIJA y FLOW Ir 0 MAT!UI J FOI M1rJNEsor4
10/30/ 74
LA(F CO’ ‘74 LF C’- L ’(I-
1E .l’4 MONTHL( FL S A’J’, )AILY FL’) S
T 1’ UTM’Y MUNT- YE -’ AEAN FLfl r y l-L(H PAY I-LOW OaY FLOw
?74 H1 10 7.? 5?. f 15 54.00
Ii 7 16.?0 S 17.0)
12 77 ‘,).7 17 00
I 73 4O.S0 l 7e ,.03
2 71 4U ) 17
7$ 117.’ 0 1 135.00
73 51.00 15 4i - .O0
S )3i .”) 1 143.03 23 I IM.00
73 11?.;0 19 102.01
7 73 I 1 1 . , 117.0 )
F B1.O0
73 I 1( 13?.0(
?74 Jl 10 72 9. c 15 10.0 .
11 S 3.00
12 “‘ I1.i’( U? 11.00
Q.-’ + 1’
‘. ii ‘.00
3 73 Iq.’’ 1 ’ 22.0’
.- ‘• 9.40 15
S (3 74•7 ) 11 ?b.fl0 ‘3 1.00
73 ‘ .U’ jL
7 7 7fl t ?1. Oi)
7 16.0f
73 ? ‘. ‘) I C,
77 .77 U’ 72 1 42.00
II 77 14.-”’ ‘ 11.00
U? 6’.?’ I’ 44.00
73 ‘. ‘.— 1’
2 73 IT
I 7 J ’7• ‘ I
4 lf ’j.UU 1’ 9 4.fl0
S 10 ?.0 73 172.00
73 7IJ4 ( I L 4
7 7 1 - .’1. . ic L4.0U
73 i .i’
9 7i iir. IC, 1’,.lO
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STOPET PETPIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
274601
47 07 00.0 094 35 00.0
LEECH LAKE
MINNESOTA
IIEPALES 2111202
4 0016 FEET DEPTH
(‘0010 00303 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE IjMf DE”TH MATFP DO T AN5P CNDIICTVY H T ALK WO2 .NO3 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FPOM OF IE -IP SECCHI FIELD CACO1 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO ‘)AY FEET CFNT NC /L INCHFS NICPOUHO SO MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/I P
72/07/Il I’ . 00 0000 120
I’. 00 0004 22.7 9.2 700 6.3 ) 145 0.080 0.090 0.013 0.008
I’. 00 0015 20.7 9.0 300 7.70 144 0.070 0.080 0.019 0.018
14 00 0030 14.7 6.6 100 7.70 1’.9 0.100 0.040 0.015 0.006
14 00 0036 1’.6 -. 2 310 7.50 154 0.080 0.060 0.011 0.005
72/09/08 15 30 0000 100 242 4.35 133 0.060 0.080 0.014 0.007
IS 10 0004 24? 8.35 128 0.050 0.060 0.015 0.007
IS 10 0015 18.0 26? 8.30 129 0.040 0.060 0.015 0.010
15 30 00?’) 17.1 .5 248 6.30 130 0.040 0.070 0.014 0.010
IS 30 0026 17.1 0.2 24? 8.35 120 0.050 0.070 0.026 0.013
15 30 0033 17.7 245 0.35 127 0.050 0.060 0.013 0.006
15 30 0043 16.5 2.6 26? 7.60 141 0.080 0.060 0.014 0.007
15 30 0051 11.8 1.0 270 7.40 148 0.120 0.050 0.013 0.008
IS 30 0061 10.4 1.0 270 7.40 147 0.110 0.040 0.013 0.009
15 10 0071 4.7 1.1 775 7.35 152 0.170 0.050 0.013 0.009
15 10 0083 7.8 1.3 275 7.30 148 0.220 0.040 0.021 0.013
72/10/21 16 00 00)0 80 265 8.20 135 0.040 0.060 0.043 0.037
16 00 000’. 7. 4 10.4 250 8.10 134 0.040 0.060 0.036 0.030
if, 00 0015 7.1 10.8 760 M.?0 134 0.040 0.050 0.030 0.025
16 04) 0075 6. 1 ). ? 255 0.20 115 0.040 0.050 0.029 0.024
1 00 004’) 6.3 II. ? ?62 8.20 13? 0.040 0.050 0.036 0.029
If- 00 ooco 6. ’ ) II . ? 26? 8.?’) 132 0.040 0.050 0.044 0.038
16 00 00f ’l 6.5 1).? 262 M.?0 133 0.050 0.060 0.039 0.023
3’21 7
‘IATE T1 1F r)E. rd CHL PHYL
FL)Oi ‘IF
TO jAY FEET lJr./L
77/07/I l 14 00 0000 4.7J
7?/0 - /O -4 IS IC 0000 i. SJ
72/10/71 16 00 0000 5.5J
J V’L ’I < O ”! T
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
274602
47 11 40.0 094 28 50.0
LEECH LAt E
27 MINNESOTA
1IEPALES 2111202
4 0008 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTI-I ATEP DO TRANSP CNOuCTVv PH 1 ALK N0?&N03 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIFL ) CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT MG/L INCHES MICROMI-40 SU MG/L MG/L M(/L MG/L P MG/L P
72/07/LI 14 45 0000
14 45 0004 21.7 8.8 2’3C 8.10 142 0.070 0.080 0.015 0.009
14 45 0008 21.4 Q.0 280 8.10 144 0.050 0.060 0.016
72/09/08 16 25 0000 66 240 8.40 126 0.080 0.100 0.016 0.007
16 25 0004 18.0 8.8 239 8.40 127 0.070 0.090 0.016 0.008
16 25 0011 17.’ 9.4 240 8.49 127 0.070 0.090 0.015 0.009
72/10/2 1 17 10 0000 6. 265 8.30 131 0.050 0.080 0.009 0.003
17 10 0004 4.0 12.4 760 8.30 131 0.040 0.070 0.019 0.013
17 10 0009 3.9 14.0 2 2 8.30 131 0.040 0.080 0.020 0.012
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLRPP-IYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET tJG/L
72/07/lI 14 45 0000 6.9J
72/09/08 16 25 9000 3.2J
72/10/21 17 10 0000 5.5J
J VALUE KNO N To I RO
-------
STOF4ET ETRTEVAL DATE 74/10/30
274603
47 13 00.0 094 20 10.0
LEECH LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
1 1EPALES
2111202
0018 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FR OH
TO
00010
w T ER
T E HP
CENT
00300 00077
DO TP ANSP
SE CCH I
INCHES
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICRONHO
00630
NO 2 NO 3
N—TOTAL
MG/L
00610
NH3-N
TOT AL
MG/L
00400 00410
PH 1 ALK
CACO3
S1J
TIME
DEPTH
OF
DAY
FEET
72/07/11
15 00
15 00
15 00
15 00
0000
0004
0015
0018
72/09/OP
16 45
16 45
16 45
16 45
0000
0004
0015
0020
72/10/21
16 50
16 50
16 50
0000
0004
0015
DATE
TIME
OEDTH
3??17
CHL’ PHYL
FPOM
OF
A
TO
DAY
FEET
UG/L
72/07/11
15 00
0000
7.9J
72/O9/O
16 45
0000
8.4J
72/10/21
16 50
0000
5.IJ
00665 00666
PHOS-TOT PHOS-DIS
HG/L P MG/L P
96
21.7
8.6
280
8.30
136
0.040
0.060
0.013
21.1
280
8.20
138
0.050
0.070
0.013
21.1
9.0
84
?80
245
8.20
8.30
142
131
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.110
0.011
0.015
0.009
0.009
18.3
8.6
258
8.30
131
0.060
0.100
0.018
0.008
17.6
8.3
?60
8.25
129
0.060
0.100
0.013
0.007
17.6
R.
72
245
262
8.30
8.30
129
131
0.060
0.060
0.090
0.090
0.014
0.016
0.007
0.007
4.5
11.8
252
8.30
131
0.060
0.070
0.029
0.022
4.4
11.7
262
8.30
130
0.050
0.070
0.027
0.020
J vALI’c 1C) - I” ‘-
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
DATE
FROM
TO
TIME DEPTI
OF
DAY FEET
3’?l 7
CHLRPH’rL
A
(JG/L
274604
47 05 30.0 094 23 00.0
LEECP-i LAKE
77 MINNESOTA
1 1FPALES
4
72/0 7/11
72/09/OR
72/10/21
15 35 0000
IS 05 0000
16 15 0000
8. 7J
4. 0J
6.9J
2111202
0015 FEET OEPTN
00010
00300
00077
00094
00400
00410
00630
00610
00665
00666
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRAMSP
CNOIJCTVY
P 1-f
T ALK
NO2 .N03
NI - 13-N
PHOS—TOT
PHOS—DIS
FROM
OF
IEMP
SECCI-il
FIELD
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
4G/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
72/07/11
15 35 0000
00
15 35 0004
22.2
9.9
2130
8.30
136
0.050
0.070
0.014
0.011
15 35 0015
20.7
9.2
295
8.10
136
0.050
0.060
0.014
72/09/OH
15 05 0000
240
8.30
1?8
0.070
0.100
0.01’.
0.010
15 05 0004
18.0
9.2
239
8.35
128
0.060
0.080
0.016
0.008
15 05 0015
17.2
0. .
240
8.30
128
0.070
0.090
0.018
0.008
15 05 0018
17.2
10.0
240
8.30
129
0.070
0.080
0.014
0.007
7?/1O/21
16 35 0000
7?
260
8.30
131
0.050
0.080
0.014
0.007
16 35 0004
4.7
11.8
260
8.30
131
0.050
0.070
0.038
0.029
16 35 0015
4.7
11.8
260
8.30
132
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET ?ETPLEVAL DATE 74/10/30
274641 LS274641
47 10 00.0 093 11 00.0
t4OY r IVER
27 Co #11, SHEET 4
1/LEECH LAKE
Co rIWY 8 BROG 2.5 M I W OF BOY RIVER
1 IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
O( ,630 006?S 00610 00 571 006 5
DATE TIME DF TH ‘4O? .N03 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—r OTAL N TOT#L OPT -4O
TO DAY FFET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L
7?/10/1 5 0.117 0.f 65 0.120 0.005 K 0.014
72/11/05 11 50 0.015 0.460 0.005K 0.006 0.015
73/03/18 0? 40 0.096 ?.000 0.110 0.016 0.035
73/04/04 13 10 0.010K 1.600 0.05? 0.005K 0.025
73/04/15 15 10 0.010K 1.380 0.0?6 0.006 0.020
73/05/10 14 05 0.014 2.600 0.061 0.0?3
71/05/23 21 3”) 0.010 K ‘.943 0.068 0.008 0.030
71/06/ lq 14) ( ‘.03 ’ 0. ’0 0.021 0.010 0.015
73/07/OQ 11 50 i .011JK 3.000 0.0 0 0.005K 0.015
71/08/07 14 30 0.010K 0. 60 0.0?7 0.012 0.015
73/O /10 1140 0.010K ?.310 0.028 0.005K 0.015
K VALUE KNOWN TO 3E LESS
T-I N I NDICATED
-------
STDPET ?ET91EVAL DATE 74/1 /30
274651 LS2746 1
41 14 30.0 093 13 00.0
LEECH LA,
-------
STORFI RETRIEVAL DATF 7’./1fl/30
2746C1 L 52746C1
47 19 00.0 093 18 00.0
POkTAG LK/LEECH LK CONNECTION
27 CO 11.SHEET 0 .
T/LEECH LAKE
XING 5 MI WSW OF AENA
I 1 PALFS
4
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
‘) )530
00675
ODt’ I O
(10671
00665
DATE
TIME
DE T’-I
•‘JO N03
TOT KJEL
NHJ—N
PHOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
RROM
OF
N—tOTAL
N
TOTAL
OPTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
‘iC /L
MG/L
MC /L P
MG/L P
7?/1O/1S
ii
On
0.045
0.550
0.075
0.OOSK
0.019
7?/I1/0
13
15
0.020
0. 0fl
0.005K
0.005K
0.023
71/03/1-
ii
fl
j .M’ )
0.110
0.006
0.030
73/ )L+/04
1)
00
o.oij ’c
0.590
0.061
0.005K
0.035
73/04/1
14
SS
0.0 M
3.300
J.1?6
0.006
0.045
71/05/10
13
10
0.071
1.30
0.320
0.035
0.115
73/05/73
?fl
45
0.010 <
1. 0 )
).04?
0.0?1
0.070
71/06/1
13
15
(‘.033
0.7 0
‘.031
0.02?
0.045
71/07/0 ’
ii
30
0.012
3. 00
d.5 C
0.023
0.050
73/0, /07
13
50
0.010 ’ s
0.757
..01Q
0.013
0.025
71/0 /10
ii
10
0.010<
1.?I 0
( .3Sc
0.005K
0.u20
K V4LUr KNOWN TO ‘3E LESS
THAN INDIC TFi)
-------
STOPET ETPIfVAt DATE 7’./10/30
774601 LS2746D1
47 19 30.0 093 26 00.0
SUCKER CREEK
27 Co se)). SHEET 4
1/LEECH LAKE
XIr 13 DOWNSTREAM OF LOWER SUCKEP LAKE
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
()0 3) 006? ’S 00 1u 0fl 7l 0O6 S
)ATF TIME DEPT-i “J0? ’lO3 TOT KJ L NH3—N P,-IOS—O1S PHOS—TOT
OF N—TOTAL TOTAL OPT -4O
TO DAY FEET M6/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
72/10/IS 11 30 0.039 0.R6 5 ‘).0 7 0.00 K 0.033
7?/11/0 17 0 0.016 ).6’lS 0.005K 0.00 5K 0.031
77/17/10 I? 00 0.010K o. o 0.00c c 0.005K 0.010
73/0 1/17 1’ 30 0.011 0.e O0 0.062 0.005K 0.015
73/02/17 10 15 0.0 6 0.060 0.0O K 0.015
73/03/! 11 70 0.IE P 1. 00 0.O7 0.005K 0.015
73/04/IS 14 30 0.09) I. flO 0.110 0.005K 0.040
73/05/10 J2 ‘0 ( .Øj’ 1.400 0.105 0.013 0.040
73/05/23 0 30 0.010 K l.J0’) 0.0 4 O.00 0.027
71/06/1’ -) 11 10 0.010K 0.9 t) (1.027 0.00f4
71/07/09 13 05 (‘.010K 3.400 0.097 0.015 0.025
71/OH/fl 13 30 0.010K 0.710 0.O?1 0.010 0.025
73/0 4/1i) 1? c i) 0. OlOrc 1.(50 O.O5 0.007 0.045
K VALUE N0WN TO HE LESS
THI’N INOICATFI )
-------
STOPET ETRftVAt DATE 74/10/30
?7’+6F1 LS2746F1
47 16 00.0 093 3 3 J0.0
STEAMHOAT LK/STEAM 3OAT SAY CONN
27 Co ii SHEET 4
T/LEECH LAKE
uS 371 BPI)G 7 M I S OF CASS LAKE CITY
1IEPuLES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
4
0063()
00 ’’5
0 1)610
00671
DATF
I ! W
DEPTH
iO2 ’JO1
TOT KJEL
NH3—N
PrIOSD IS
PHQSTOT
FROM
OF
‘J—TOTAL
r .
TOTAL
OPTHO
TO
DAY
FE T
MG/L
‘ 1 ’/L
1G/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
7?/10/1
10
30
0.019(
0. 120
0.048
0.00 5K
0.026
72/fl/OS
ii
70
0.010K
0.400
0.005K
0.005K
0.015
77/17/lu
Ii
10
fl•Q 1
0.730
0.0??
0.005K
0.0)7
71/01/12
11
25
0.0 10K
0. 500
0.0??
0.005K
0.010
73/02/17
00
10
0.010K
0.440
0.07?
0.005K
0.01’)
71/01/IP
11
55
1.100
0.120
0.005K
0.017
73/04/0’.
11
40
0.019
1.# 00
C.370
0.005K
0.015
73/04115
Il
05
.039
2. 0(’
0.078
3.005K
0.020
73/05/10
ii
25
( .01)
1.760
O.0 ?
0.015
71/35/23
19
15
0.010K
0. 00
0.020
0.007
0.020
71/G6/1
Ii
45
0.011
1.10 ’
‘ .02Q
0.007
0.020
71/0T/0’
11
15
4.R0 0
0.154
0.005K
0.015
73/08/07
11
-5
0.010K
0. ’ . J
C.O15
0.005K
0.010
71/04/10
I I
15
i .O)OK
.400
•33t.
0.005K
0.015
K VALUE KNOWN TO W LESS
THAN PIDICATFO
-------
STORET ETRTEVAL DATE 74/10/30
2746G1 LS274661
47 13 30.0 093 3H 00.0
SWAMP LAKE/STEAMBOAT RIVER CONN
27 Co #11, SHEET 4
1/LEECH LAKE
US 371 BRDG ).5 MI S OF WILKINSON
1 IEPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00626 00 10 00671 00665
OATE TIME DF TH N0 NO1 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
F 0M OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL O THO
TO DAY FEET MG/L 1G/L MG/L Mr /L P MG/L
72/10/16 10 25 0.034 0.690 G. 069 0.005K 0.017
72/11/0511 10 v.010K 0.F?0 0.00 6K 0.005K 0.013
72/12/10 1100 0.010K 0.’.40 lj.007 0.005K 0.011
71/01/1211 10 0.010K 1.050 0.100 0.fl05K 0.020
71/O3/1 11 40 O.0 P 1. ?0 a. 130 0.00 6K 0.030
71/04/04 11 10 0.010K 1.’4 J() 0.110 0.005K 0.015
73/04/15 1? 55 0.027 ‘. 1iD 0.095 0.005K 0.020
71/06/10 ii 15 0.01’ 7.600 0.0 96 0.012 0.030
73/05/23 A S ‘.0?0 1.740 ‘ .C,5P 0.007 0.015
71/06/19 11 35 0.024 1.320 J.11? 0.011 0.015
73/07/0 11 30 0.011 ?.650 0.450 0.016 0.075
71/04/07 ii 45 0.010< 1.’OO 0.063 0.01? 0.035
71/0 *4/10 11 10 .019 7.160 0.700 0.005k 0.1120
K VALUE KNOWN TO HE LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
,STDPET ETPT VAL OATE 74/l0/3
2746r-l1 LS274€ Hl
447 Od 00.0 094 17 30.0
AHE,cONA AY/WAL (E I34Y CONN
27 Co s1l . SHEET 2
T/LEECI-i LAKF
115 371 BROG 2.5 MI NW OF W ALKE’
u1E -’ALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
O OAI O 00 71 0(,665
r)ATE TIME DEPTH O NO3 TOT KJFL NH3—N PHOS—fliS PHUS—TOT
FROM QF t J—TOTAL N TOTAL OPT ’l O
TO 1)AY F T MG/L ‘ lG/L MG/L MG/L P M /L P
7?/10/lS tO 10 0.0.?5 0.”PO 0.0 ? 0.00”K 0.015
7?/fl/0 ii 00 ).010< 0. U .0O5’ 0.005K 0.013
73/03/l’ ii 10 O.I 0 O. ’O 0.210 0.00 0.030
71/04/04 11 70 2 5f () . 1 15 0.005K 0.010
73/0’-4/l5 17 45 i,.0 ? . 0(’ (i.C 0 0.0 0 5 K 0.0 10
71/05/10 10 50 0. OlOr\ ?.40fl 0.C50 0.010 0.015
71/05/?3 1 40 .010K 1.’f O 0.010 0.0u7 0.015
71/0 /1 I 7 0.U40 0. (3’ 0.006 0.015
73/07/09 11 20 0.0 OK ).9 C J. j33 0.005K 0.01i
71/0 /O7 1115 0. OI iK O.- , 00 C.015 0.0 i5K 0.015
71/o9/1() 11 00 0.010 K 1. 00 D.04P 0.005K 0.020
K VJ LUF KNOW’ J TO HE LE’,S
THEM INDICATED
-------
STD ET RETR1EV4 O4TE 74/IC/30
7746J1 LS2746J1
47 01 30.0 094 36 00.0
Sr4INGO’-3EE C E P(
Co 1L SHEET P2
T/LE CH LA1
------- |