U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
ARROWHEAD mUNTAIN LAKE
CHITTENDEN g FRANKLIN COUNTIES
VERTOT
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, \7
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
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN LAKE
CHITTENDEN g FRANKLIN COUNTIES
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, J7
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
VERMONT AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
AND THE
VERMONT NATIONAL GUARD
JULY, J974
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Vermont Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Maps v, vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Introduction 3
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
V. Nutrient Loadings 10
VI. Literature Reviewed 18
VII. Appendices 19
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 as a
research project in response to an Administration commitment to
investigate the nationwide 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 fresh water 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, in fact, 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
This report documents the first stage of evaluation of lake and
watershed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin.
It is formatted to provide state environmental agencies with specific
information for basin planning [ 3O3(e)1, water quality criteria!
standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 3l4(a,b)J, and water quality
monitoring [ glO6 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
condition 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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation for professional involvement and to the Vermont National
Guard for conduct of the tributary sampling phase of the Survey.
Martin L. Johnson, Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation; Gordon R. Ryper, Commissioner of the Water Quality
Division; David L. dough, Director, James W. Morse II, Biologist, and
Wally McLean, Sanitary Engineer of the Water Quality Division, provided
invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the study. Reginald
A. LaRosa, Director of the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division,
and James F. Agan, Chief of the Operations Section of the Environmental
Engineering Division, were most helpful in arranging for the sampling
of wastewater treatment plants involved in the Survey.
Major General Reginald M. Cram, the Adjutant General of Vermont,
and Project Officer Major Howard Buxton, who directed the volunteer
efforts of the Vermont National Guardsmen, are also gratefully
acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
LAKE NAME
Arrowhead Mountain Lake
Clyde Pond
Harriman Reservoir
Lake Champlain
Lake Lamoille
Lake Memphremagog
Waterbury Reservoir
COUNTY
Chi ttenden, Frankl in
Orleans
Windham
Addison, Chittenden,
Franklin
Lamoille
Orleans
Washington
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF VERMONT
-------
V
ARROWHEAD
MOUNTAIN
LAKE
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Location
440 391
-------
Th
ARROWH EAD
Tributary San 1lng
MOUNTAIN LAKE
Direct Drainage Area
LIits
Lake S np1ing Site Indirect Drainage Area
Sewage Treatment Facility
-------
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN LAKE
STORET NO. 5010
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Arrowhead Mountain Lake is a eutrophic body of water, but
major nuisance conditions have not developed because of the very
short hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Because of the atypical growth response of the test alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum , the aloal assay results are not con-
sidered a reliable indicator of the limiting nutrient. However,
the lake data indicate phosphorus limitation at all sampling times;
i.e., N/P ratios were 22/1 or greater, and phosphorus limitation
would be expected.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1 . Point sources--During the sampling year, Arrowhead
Mountain Lake received a total phosphorus load at a rate more
than ten times greater than a eutrophic rate (see page 15).
Point sources contributed less than 30% of the load, and it is
calculated that even complete removal of phosphorus at the point
sources would only reduce the loading rate to seven times a
eutrophic rate. Therefore, it is concluded that phosphorus con-
trol at the point sources would not result in a significant im-
provement in the trophic condition of the lake.
-------
2
Provision of waste treatment facilities is underway at the
point sources that discharged raw sewage during the Survey (see
page 16).
2. Non-point sources--The mean annual non-point phosphorus
exports in streams in the Arrowhead Mountain Lake drainage are
somewhat higher than those of other Vermont systems studied (see
pages 15 and 16). The cause of these higher exports is not appar-
ent, but the rather high drainage area/lake area ratio of 538/1
will insure an excessive phosphorus loading to the lake until
inputs from non-point sources can be reduced.
-------
3
II. INTRODUCTION
Arrowhead Mountain Lake is an impoundment of the Lamoille River formed
in 1937 by the construction of the Clark Falls dam at the Village of Milton
to provide a 42-foot head for power generation (see map, page v).
The lack of convenient access and boat-launching facilities limits the
present recreational use of the lake, and most of the fishing is done in
the winter. There is very little development alonn the lake shore.
No major algal blooms, fish kills, or other nuisance conditions have
been reported, even though the lake has received raw sewage directly and
indirectly and treated wastes indirectly.
-------
4
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:
1 . Surface area: 826 acres.
2. Mean depth: 10.3 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 33 feet.
4. Volume: 8,508 acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 3.5 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name Drainage area* Mean flow*
Lamoille River 686.0 mi 2 1,189.9 cfs
Unnamed Stream 8.5 m1 2 14.7 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage - 5.2 mi 11.3 cfs
Totals 699.7 mi 2 1,215.9 cfs
2. Outlet -
Lamoille River 701.0 mi 2 ’ 1,215.9 cfs
C. Precipitation
1. Year of sampling: 43.4 inches.
2. Mean annual: 33.8 inches.
* Drainage areas are accurate within ±1%; gaged flows are accurate within
±15% and ungaged flows are accurate within ±20%.
** Includes area of lake.
t See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
5
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Arrowhead Mountain 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 two sta-
tions on the lake and usually from several depths at each station (see map,
page v). During each visit, a sinqie depth-integrated (15 feet or near
bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations for phytoplankton
identification and enumeration; and during the last visit, a single five-
gallon depth-integrated sample was composited for algal assays. Also each
time, a depth-integrated sample was collected from each of the stations for
chlorophyll a analysis. Maximum depths sampled were 5 feet at station 1 and
24 feet at station 2.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B, and the data
for the fall sampling period, when the lake was essentially 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
(10/05/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 14.0 14.6 14.6 15.1
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 7.3 8.0 8.0 8.8
Conductivity (pmhos) 155 156 155 158
pH (units) 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.0
Alkalinity (mg/i) 44 46 46 48
Total P (mg/l) 0.013 0.032 0.017 0.079
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.009
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.120 0.134 0.120 0.160
Ami onia mg/l) 0.040 0.048 0.040 0.060
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches)
52 63
64 72
-------
7
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
06/20/72 1. Synedra 1 ,355
2. Chroococcus 753
3. Dinobryon 648
4. Flagellates 482
5. Rhaphidiopsis 166
Other genera 527
Total 3,931
07/31/72 1. Dinobryon 733
2. Cryptomonas 131
3. Flagellates 95
4. Merismopedia 80
5. Gloeocapsa 50
Other genera 267
Total 1 ,356
10/05/72 1. Fragilaria 964
2. Flagellates 753
3. Melosira 467
4. Dinobryon 392
5. Cyclotella 211
Other genera 707
Total 3,494
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a -
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following values may be in error by plus or minus 20 percent.)
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number _ ( pg/l )
06/02/72 01 20.5
02 8.1
07/31/72
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N
Spike (mg/l) Conc. (mg/1 Conc. (mgLfl
Control 0.014 0.210
0.006 P 0.020 0.210
0.012 p 0.026 0.210
0.024 p 0.038 0.210
0.060 P 0.074 0.210
0.060 P + 10.0 N 0.074 10.210
10.0 N 0.014 10.210
2. Discussion —
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Arrowhead Mountain Lake was relatively low at the time
the sample was collected. However, the growth of the test
organism was atypical in the control sample and all spiked
10/05/72
01
02
01
02
5.0
11.7
2.5
3.1
Maximum yield
( n g/l-dry wt.I
0.2
0.7
2.8
4.4
4.9
29.5
0.2
-------
9
samples, except for the combined N and P spike. For example,
at the nutrient levels shown, the expected control yield would
have been a rather high 6 mg/l dry weight; but the expected
yield of the combined N-P spike sample would have been about
32 mg/i dry weight or essentially the same as that obtained in
the assay. The cause of the atypical growth is not known.
The lake data indicate Arrowhead Mountain Lake was phos-
phorus limited at all sampling times; i.e., N/P ratios were
22/1 or greater, and phosphorus limitation would be expected.
D. Trophic Condition:
The apparent trophic condition of Arrowhead Mountain Lake is
largely the result of the very short hydraulic retention time of
3.5 days, which accounts for the absence of major aquatic nuisance
conditions despite a total phosphorus loading of about 100 lbs/
acre/yr (11.3 g/m 2 /yr).
-------
10
V. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Vermont National
Guard collected a monthly near—surface grab sample from each of the
sites indicated on the map (page vi), except for the high runoff
month of April when three samples were collected. Sampling was begun
in July, 1972, and was completed in June, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by
the New England District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were deter-
mined by using a modification of the U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings (“STATPAC”) . Nutrient load-
ings for unsampled “minor tributaries and immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of
U.S.G.S) were estimated by using the nutrient loads, in lbs/mi 2 /year,
in the Unnamed Stream at station 21 and multiplying by the ZZ area in
mi 2 .
The operator of the Village of Johnson wastewater treatment plant
provided monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data. However,
the untreated sewage discharges from the villages of Milton, Fairfax,
Hyde Park, Cambridge, and Jeffersonville were not sampled during the
* See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
11
Survey; nutrient loads attributed to these sources were estimated* and
were assumed to have reached the lake during the sampling year.
Also, the discharges from the villages of Morrisvilie and Hardwick
impact Lake Lamoilie some 37 stream miles upstream from Arrowhead
Mountain Lake, and the nutrient loads from these sources, minus the
amounts retained in Lake Lamoille (20% phosphorus retention and 5%
nitrogen retention), are assumed to have reached Arrowhead Mountain Lake
as well.
In this report, the nutrient loads attributed to the Lamoilie River
are those measured at station 42 minus the upstream point-source loads.
The Milton Co-op Creamery, at Milton, discharges wash water only
directly to the lake; this waste was not sampled during the Survey.
Estimates of nutrients contributed by this source were based on 1/3
gallon of wastewater per pound of milk processed with a total nitrogen
concentration of 70 mg/i and a total phosphorus concentration of 50 mg/i
(Boydston, 1973). Data on production at the Creamery were provided by
personnel of the Vermont Department of Water Resources (dough, 1973).
* See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
2. Known industrial -
Product Treatment
Cheese None
& dairy
* Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
One-half of Milton wastes are discharged to Lamoille River below
Clark Falls dam.
Pop.
Served*
Mean
Flow (mgd )
Receiving
Water
Name
Treatment
Johnson 1 ,296
act.
sludge
0.141
Lamoille River
Miltoni 1,164
None
0.116*
Arrowhead Mtn.
Lake
Fairfax
400
None
0.040*
Lamoille River
Hyde Park
418
None
0.042*
Lamoille River
Cambridge
235
None
0.024*
Lamoille River
Jeffersonville
382
None
0.038*
Lamoille River
Hardwick 1 ,503
None
0.150*
Lamoille River
& Cooper Brook
Morrisvil le 2,116
None
0.212*
Lake Lamoille
Name
Milton Co-op
Creamery
Mean
Flow (mgd )
Receiving
Water
0.061 Arrowhead Mtn. Lake
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1 . Inputs -
lbsP/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Lamoille River 56,630 68.2
Unnamed Stream 91 0 1 . 1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 560 0.7
c. Known municipal systems -
Johnson SIP 1,260 1.5
Milton 2,040 2.5
Fairfax 1,400 1.7
Hyde Park 1 ,460 1 .8
Cambridge 820 1.0
Jeffersonville 1,340 1.6
Hardwick 2,100 2.5
Morrisville 5,930 7.1
d. Septic tanks* - 10 <0.1
e. Known industrial -
Milton Co-op Creamery 8,380 10.1
f. Direct precipitation** - 130 0.2
Total 82,970 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Lamoille River 60,490
3. Net annual P accumulation - 22,480 pounds
* Estimated 16 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 1, “Survey
Methods”.
** Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1.
-------
14
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source _______ ______
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Lamoilie River
Unnamed Stream
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) -
c. Known municipal systems -
Johnson SIP
Milton
Fai rfax
Hyde Park
Cambridge
Jeffersonvi lie
Hardwick
Morrisville
d. Septic tanks* -
e. Known industrial -
Milton Co-op Creamery
f. Direct precipitation** -
Total
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Lamoille River 2,477,840
3. Net annual N loss - 65,640 pounds
* Estimated 16 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 1, “Survey
Methods”.
** Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1 , “Survey Methods”.
lbs NI
yr
% of
total
2,288,340 94.8
30,210 1.3
18,480 0.8
5,160
5,470
3,760
3,930
2,210
3,590
12,080
18,900
380
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.8
<0.1
0.5
0.3
100.0
11,730
7,960
2,412,200
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/mi 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Lamoille River 83 3,336
Unnamed Stream 107 3,554
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (1973).
Essentially, his “dangerous” rate is the rate at which the
receiving waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his “permissib1e 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
lbs/acr /yr 100.4 27.2 2,920.3 loss*
grams/rn /yr 11.26 3.05 327.3 -
Volle 2 weider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Arrowhead Mountain Lake:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 1.04
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.52
* There was an apparent loss of nitrogen during the sampling year. This may
have been due to nitrogen fixation in the lake, solubilization of previously
sedimented nitrogen, recharge with nitrogen-rich ground water, unknown and
unsampled point sources discharging directly to the lake, or underestimation
of the nitrogen loads from the Village of Milton and/or the Milton Co-op
Creamery. Whatever the cause, a similar nitrogen loss has occurred at Shagawa
Lake, Minnesota, which had been intensively studied by EPA’s National Eutro-
phication Research and Lake Restoration Branch.
-------
16
F. Controllability of Nutrients:
1. Point sources--During the sampling year, Arrowhead Mountain
Lake received a total phosphorus load at a rate more than ten times
greater than a eutrophic rate. Of this load, it is calculated that
the known point sources contributed a little less than 30%. Even
complete removal of phosphorus at these sources would only reduce
the loading rate to about 70 lbs/acre/yr or 7.9 g/m 2 /yr ( a rate
still more than seven times the eutrophic rate). It is concluded,
therefore, that point-source control of phosphort. s would not result
in a significant improvement in the trophic condition of Arrowhead
Mountain Lake unless non—point phosphorus export to the lake also
can be reduced.
It is noted that at the time of preparation of this report,
construction of secondary wastewater treatment facilities at the
Village of Morrisville has been completed; plans for secondary
treatment at the villages of Fairfax, Hardwick, and Hyde Park have
been approved; and a preliminary engineering report on secondary
treatment at the Village of Milton has been approved (Morse, 1974).
2. Non-point sources--The mean annual phosphorus exports of
the Lamoille River subdrainage and the unnamed stream subdrainage
(see page 15) are appreciably higher than those of unimpacted
Vermont streams studied outside of the Lamoille drainage system
(mean = 52 lbs/mi 2 /yr; range = 30-65 lbs/m1 2 /yr). Whether the
native characteristics of the subdrainages, agricultural practices,
or other factors are the cause of the higher export rates is not
-------
17
known. Whatever the cause(s) nay be, the rather high drainage area!
lake area ratio of 538/1 will insure an excessive phosphorus load
to the lake from the Lanioille River alone of 68 lbs/acre/yr (7.7
g/m 2 /yr) until inputs from non—point sources (if amenable to con-
trol) can be reduced.
-------
18
VII. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1968. Report on water quality and pollution control of the
Lamoille River basin. Dept. Water Resources, Montpelier.
Boydston, James R. , 1973. Personal comunication (typical wastewater
volumes and nutrient concentrations in milk-processing wash waters).
Waste Treatment Branch, Pac. NW. Env. Res. Lab., EPA, Corvallis, OR.
dough, David, 1973. Personal communication (area of Arrowhead
Mountain Lake; land use in the Lamoille River Basin; amount of
milk processed at Milton Co-op Creamery). Dept. of Water
Resources, Montpelier.
Morse, James W., 1974. Personal communication (status of Vermont
water pollution control facilities, Jan., 1974). Dept. Water
Resources, Montpelier.
Pagel, Carl (Editor), et al, 1970. A lirrinological survey of Arrowhead
Mountain Lake. MS, Freshwater Biol. Class Proj., U. of VT,
Burlington.
-------
19
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIOUIARY FLOW INFO MATlON FOP VERMONI 7/9/74
LAcE CODE SOlO LA
-------
T jr3’PTAr Y F-LflW JNFO- MATJON FOk VF MONT
7,9,74
LA [ CO’) ‘ 10
L ‘HE L
-lEAN MO\ITHLY rLo4c ANI uAILY FLOWS
t Ot\IT —1 y’FA .J M L AN FLO
TRtkUT a — Y
c . 1
0 I(’ ?
I)j Y FLO DAY P-LOW DAY
,
7
I - 0.()
J’-
66b,00
I )
}0
1?
,74.00
C)
7 ,
3 3.00
10
7’
p 13 . 00
‘+Q1.00
II
7?
1493.O()
4
2
/2
l ) 3.00
?
9’ 1.00
1
73
1 ’O .’)0
13
I5 U.00
?
7
1195.CO
21
1050.00
3
11
3165.00
10
1920.00
£
71
334?.’ O
7
352b.O0
‘
73
?66F , jØ
12
?9f 5.0O
6
7
2S 97.00
3
?432.O0
7
/2
1?2L .00
15
6 2.00
77
614.OC
12
7?
37 5. 00
10
77
7Y4.O0
‘
II
7
1’.64.00
4
960.00
i
7?
1’lS.OO
2
960.00
I
7’
1 /U.)0
13
1540.00
2
7j
I)?1.( fl
21
1030.00
3
71
3I0 4.(’0
10
1 4 U.0 l
4
7’
3?7?.fl )
7
3450.00
73
2615.00
12
2902.00
6
73
?, P.00
3
15 771.00
15 1626.00 21
15 755.00
15 1592.00 21
FLOW
2930.00
2867.00
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
K - Value is less than indicated
J - Value known to be in error
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501001
44 40 51.0 073 06 02.0
LA (E ARROWHEAD
SO VERMONT
1 1EPALES
3
2111202
0009 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
to
72/06/07
72/07/31
7?/ 10/05
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 31 0000
19 10 0000
09 10 0000
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
20 .5J
5.0J
z.5J
DATE
F P OH
TO
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
00010
WATFP
TEMP
CENT
16.R
21.2
77/06/02 15 31 0000
72/07/31 19 10 0000
19 10 0005
72/10/05 09 10 0000
09 10 0004
00300 00077
DO TRANSP
SECCHI
MG/L INCHES
9.2
9.8
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
M ICROMHO
54 120
52 105
110
72
00400 00410
PH T ALP
CACO3
SU MG/L
7.60
8 • 4Q
7.60
00630
N 026N03
N— TOTAL
MG/L
00610
NH3—N
TOTAL
MG/L
00665 00666
PHOS-TOT PI4OS—DIS
MG/L P MG/L P
27
0.170
0.060
0.015
0.011
28
0.210
0.060
0.016
0.0*0
48
0.150
0.040
0.016
0.007
44
0.160
0.060
0.079
0.009
-------
SIDRET PETRIEVAL L)ATE 74/07/02
so i 002
44 19 45.0 071 06 ‘.6.0
LAKE ARROWHEA.)
50 VEHMONT
IIEPALFS 2111202
3 0028 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00?30 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY PH 1 ALK N02&N03 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—OTS
FNOM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACOI N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO Day FEET CENT G/L INCHES MICROUHO 50 MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
72/06/0? 15 45 0000 19.1 8.6 60 120 7.60 36 0.170 0.070 0.008 0.004
15 45 0015 19.4 7.8 120 7.40 37 0.170 0.050 0.006 0.004
72/07/31 19 30 0000 68 100 7.40 27 0.170 0.060 0.014 0.010
19 30 0004 22.0 9.6 95 7.40 27 0.170 0.070 0.015 0.015
19 30 0010 22.0 9.6 95 7.30 26 0.180 0.060 0.015 0.011
19 30 0015 19.7 7.8 100 7.00
19 30 0019 19.5 8.0 100 6.90 27 0.230 0.100 0.020 0.011
19 30 0024 19.3 7.6 100 7.00 27 0.240 0.110 0.019 0.014
72/10/OS 08 50 0000 72 158 7.00 46 0.120 0.040 0.017 0.007
08 50 0004 15.1 9.8 155 7.00 48 0.120 0.060 0.013 0.004
08 50 0011 14.0 7.3 155 6.80 45 0.120 0.040 0.033 0.009
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLPPHYL
FROM OF A
10 DAY FEET UIi/L
72/06/02 IS 45 0000 8.IJ
72/07/31 19 30 0000 11.7J
72/10/OS 08 50 0000 3. IJ
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
K - Value is less than indicated
J - Value known to be in error
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501021 LS501021
44 41 00.0 073 05 30.0
NO NAME
50 7.5/MILTON
T/ARROWHEAD MTN LAKE
CEMENT BROG ON ST RI 104A
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2 NO3 TOT t JEL NH3-N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG L MG/L P MG/L P
1?/07/15 11 35 0.139 0.525 0.022 0.011 0.034
7?/08/12 12 00 0.169 0.760 0.031 0.006 0.019
7?/1O/04 09 40 0.140 0.350 0.050 0.006 0.031
72/10/15 11 20 0.234 1.100 0.235 0.006 0.039
7?/l1/04 10 00 0.160 1.260 0.100 0.005K 0.024
7?/12/02 10 40 0.340 0.780 0.024 0.005K 0.027
73/01/13 11 30 0.490 0.420 0.042
73/02/10 13 45 0.450 0.420 0.054 0.006 0.015
73/03/10 10 00 0.252 0.600 0.094 0.011 0.070
73/0’./07 10 10 0.154 0.420 0.062 0.009 0.025
73/04/15 14 00 0.370 0.400 0.076 0.009 0.020
73/04/21 09 30 0.250 1.200 0.?90 0.008 0.030
73/0 /12 11 00 0.063 0.650 0.093 0.005K 0.030
73/06/03 16 40 0.105 2.200 1.470 0.005K 0.035
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501031 LSSO1O31
44 39 00.0 073 01 00.0
BROWNS RIVER
50 7.5/MILTON
1/ARROWHEAD MIN LAKE
BRDG ON ST PT 128
1 IEPALES
4
2111204
0000 FEET
DEPTH
00630
00625
00610
00671
00665
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
NO2&N03
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
PHOS-DIS
PHOS-TOT
FROM
OF
N—TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
M&/L
MCi/L P
MG/L P
7?/07/15
10
10
0.273
0.400
0.026
0.013
0.015
7?/08/12
10
00
0.286
0S S0
0.023
0.006
0.023
72/10/04
10
45
0.290
0.300
0.035
0.007
0.011
7?/10/15
11
30
0.310
1.600
0.115
0.005K
0.023
7?/1l/04
09
40
0.330
0.580
0.044
0.007
0.038
7?/12/02
09
35
0.360
0.390
0.033
0.005K
0.024
73/0 1/11
09
30
0.570
0.540
0.031
0.014
0.100
73/03/10
14
45
0.450
0.420
0.046
0.009
0.075
73/04/07
12
45
0.260
0.690
0.078
0.007
0.035
73/04/15
14
30
0.357
0.580
0.042
0.005K
0.015
73/04/21
10
00
0.490
0.840
0.407
0.005
0.030
73/05/12
13
50
0.168
0.380
0.032
0.005K
0.050
73/06/03
14
15
0.170
1.760
1.260
0.005K
0.030
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501041 LS SO1O41
44 38 15.0 073 06 30.0
LAMOILLE RIVER
50 7.5/MILTON
0/ARROWHEAD MTN LAKE
AT FENCE END ABOVE HWY BRDGIN MILTON
1 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPT 1
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2 NO3 TOT P JEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
7?/07/15 11 45 0.159 0.500 0.023 0.011 0.012
7?/08/1? 11 00 0.200 1.050 0.026 0.005K 0.021
72/10/04 09 00 0.182 0.250 0.072 0.006 0.019
72/10/15 11 00 0.234 0.550 0.091 0.00 5K 0.030
72/11/04 10 15 0.234 0.630 0.063 0.006 0.019
7?/12/02 11 15 0.336 0.460 0.026 0.005K 0.025
73/01/13 11 00 0.520 1.500 0.086 O.OOB 0.020
73/03/10 12 05 0.560 0.400 0.097 0.014 0.060
73/04/07 05 15 0.330 0.540 0.058 0.009 0.030
73/04/15 13 45 0.440 0.880 0.680 0.006 0.015
73/04/21 10 50 0.370 0.210 0.056 0.005K 0.025
73/05/12 10 40 0.240 0.260 0.060 0.005K 0.015
73/06/03 11 15 0.190 2.050 1.790 0.00 5K 0.030
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501042 LS501042
44 41 00.0 073 04 00.0
LAMOILLE RIVER
50 7.5/MILTON
I/ARROWHEAD MTN LAKE
AT USGS GAGE SIN ABOVE EASIGEORGIA
1 IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2&N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
7?/0 /12 12 30 0.200 0.630 0.033 0.005K 0.025
7?/10/04 10 00 0.250 0.300 0.060 0.006 0.012
72/10/15 11 20 0.234 0.500 0.083 0.005K 0.020
7?/11/04 09 50 0.270 0.310 0.021 0.005K 0.022
72/12/0? 10 00 0.357 0.860 0.052 0.005K 0.020
73/01/13 12 45 0.390 1.570 0.031 0.010
73/03/10 13 00 0.610 0.670 0.100 0.014 0.065
73/04/07 11 00 0.357 0.295 0.04? 0.007 0.035
73/04/15 14 15 0.440 0.390 0.250 0.006 0.015
71/04/21 12 30 0.360 0.260 0.052 0.005K 0.035
73/05/12 12 30 0.190 0.380 0.022 0.00 5K 0.040
73/06/03 13 45 0.176 1.760 1.400 0.005K 0.035
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501011 P000900
44 38 00.0 072 11 00.0
JOHNSON
50 1/250000 LK CHAM
1/ARROWHEAD MTN LAKE
LAMOILLE RIVER
1 IEPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO RATE FLOW—MGD
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/I MG/L P MG/L P INST MGD MONTHLY
73/01/10 08 00
CP(T)— 4.300 12.600 4.900 3.200 3.650 0.100 0.100
73/01/10 16 00
73/03/01 10 00
CPU)— 1.320 16.000 9.200 3.100 3.100 0.100 0.120
73/03/03 10 00
73/04/18 10 00 0.400 6.600 5.000 0.770 0.893 0.200 0.150
73/05/31 08 00
CP(T)— 9.630 1.260 0.286 2.830 2.900 0.120 0.110
73/05/31 13 00
73/08 28 08 00
CP(T)— 1.600 0.850 4.700 0.120 0.115
73/08/31 11 00
73/09/24 07 00
CP(T)— 0.290 3.400 0.320 0.740 1.050 0.185 0.145
73/09/30 1? 00
73/10/25 07 00
CPT— 0.720 16.500 5.700 2.850 3.900 0.145 0.155
73/10/25 12 00
73/11/26 07 00
CP(T)— 15.600 0.550 0.040K 3.150 3.500 0.140 0.150
73/11/26 14 00
73/12/28 07 00
CPU)— 9.700 4.100 0.062 1.875 2.200 0.180 0.160
73/12/31 13 00
64/12/28 07 00
çP(T)— 0.180 0.160
74/01/02 13 00
74/01/29 08 00
CP(T)— 12.800 2.000 0.820 2.700 3.200 0.115 0.115
74/02/04 16 00
74/02/25 08 00
CP(T)— 1.400 8.900 3.600 4.900 5.500 0.160 0.169
74/03/01 13 00
74/03/25 12 00
CPU)— 0.760 12.500 4.800 3.300 3.950 0.150 0.157
74/04/0 1 16 30
-------
STORET c ETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501011 P000900
44 38 00.0 072 11 00.0
JOHNSON
50 1/250000 LK CHAM
1/ARROWHEAD MTN LAKE
LAMOILLE RIVER
1 IEPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO RATE FLOW—MGD
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P INST MGD MONTHLY
74/04/26 07 00
CP(T)— 3.500 3.400 0.530 1.250 1.700 0.180 0.193
74/05/01 16 00
------- |