U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
WASHINGTON AND UTOLLE COUNTIES
VERMONT
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, 38
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
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
WASHINGTON AND l/TOLLE COUNTIES
VERMONT
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER to, 38
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
VERMONT AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
AND THE
VERMONT ^TIONAL GUARD
JULY, 107'!
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Vermont Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Introduction 3
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
V. Nutrient Loadings 11
VI. Literature Reviewed 17
VII. Appendices 18
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 as a
research project in response to an Administration comrnitnient to
investigate the nationwide threat of accelerated eutrophication to
fresh water lakes and reservoirs.
OBJ ECT IV ES
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)], water quality criteria!
standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 314(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
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
Chittenden, Franklin
Orleans
Wi ndham
Addison, Chittenden,
Franklin
Lamoille
Orleans
Washington, i.amoille
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF VERMONT
-------
)
)
I
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
Tributary San 1lng Site
X Lake Sampling Site
Direct Drainage Area Limits
C 1 2 3m 1 1.s
-------
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
STORET NO. 5011
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data show that Waterbury Reservoir is mesotrophic. Of
the other six Vermont water bodies studied, none had less mean
total and dissolved phosphorus (Waterbury compares very well with
oligotrophic Moosehead and Rangeley lakes in Maine in this respect),
only mesotrophic Harriman Reservoir had greater Secchi disc trans-
parency, only two Vermont water bodies had less mean chlorophyll a,
but only Harriman Reservoir had a greater level of mean inorganic
nitrogen. Some depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred
at station 1 in August, 1972, but the lowest concentration measured
was still 48% of saturation.
Survey limnologists noted the good appearance of Waterbury
Reservoir on all sampling visits; and no algal concentrations were
evident.
B. Rate—Limiting Nutrient:
Because of the atypical growth response of the test alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum , the algal assay results are not con-
sidered reliable. However, the lake data indicate phosphorus
limitation at all sampling times; i.e., N/P ratios were 55/1 or
greater, and phosphorus limitation would be expected.
-------
2
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources--During the sampling year, Waterbury
Reservoir received a total phosphorus load at a rate just a
little less than a eutrophic rate (see page 15). Of this load,
it is estimated that the Village of Stowe contributed over 39%.
It is calculated that 80% removal of phosphorus at this source
would reduce the loading rate to 8.2 lbs/acre/yr or 0.92 g/m 2 /yr
(a mesotrophic loading rate).
It is concluded that 80% phosphorus removal at the Village of
Stowe would protect the existing niesotrophic condition of Water-
bury Reservoir.
At the time of preparation of this report, the preliminary
engineering report on tertiary wastewater treatment facilities,
with phosphorus removal, has been approved, and the next higher
phase of planning is underway.
2. Non-point sources--The mean annual nutrient exports of
the Waterbury River were significantly higher than the exports of
the other two Waterbury Reservoir tributaries studied (see page
15). However, since the waste discharge of the Village of Stowe
was not sampled, the apparent higher export rates may be due only
to underestimation of the Stowe nutrient loads, but a need for
further study is indicated.
-------
3
II. INTRODUCTION
Waterbury Reservoir, located in Washington and Lamoille Counties,
was formed in 1930 by construction of a dam by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers which impounded the Little River. The purpose of the reser-
voir was primarily flood control and hydroelectric power generation
by the Green Mountain Power Company which operates a 5,520 kilowatt
plant at the dam.
The land surrounding the reservoir is owned by the State of Vermont
and there has been no private shoreline development; however, the reser-
voir is used by the public for fishing, boating, and other recreational
activities. A public boat-launching site is located near the dam; and a
State Park, located at the southwest corner of the reservoir, provides
access for fishing, swimming, and camping.
Reportedly (Anderson, 1969), Waterbury Reservoir supports only a
mediocre fishery due to the water level fluctuations (as much as 50 feet)
resulting from the dual use of the reservoir for flood control and power
generation; these water level fluctuations have prevented the reservoir banks
from stabilizing and bank erosion has occurred. According to the report,
the continual bank erosion has resulted in the suspension of fine clay par-
ticles in the water which has reduced light penetration and inhibited
primary productivity. It was concluded that a good fishery in Waterbury
Reservoir could not be expected until water level fluctuations are minimized.
-------
4
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 890± acres.
2. Mean depth: 41.6± feet.
3. Maximum depth: 100± feet.
4. Volume: 37,024± acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 83 dayst.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for all flow data)
1 . Tributaries -
Name Drainage area* Mean flow*
Waterbury River 52.6 mi 2 105.9 cfs
Miller Brook 13.2 nii 2 26.6 cfs
Barrows Brook 2.1 mi 2 4.2 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage - 42.7 mi 88.6 cfs
Totals 110.6 mi 2 225.3 cfs
2. Outlet -
Little River 112.0 mi 2 ** 225.3 cfs
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 46.4 inches.
2. Mean annual: 35.0 inches.
-I- At conservation pool level of 592 feet MSL.
* Drainage areas are accurate within ±1%; gaged flows are accurate within
±15%, and ungaged flows are accurate within ±20%.
** Includes area of reservoir.
*** See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
5
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Waterbury Reservoir 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 from a number of depths at each station (see map,
page v). 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. Maximum depths sampled were 70 feet at sta-
tion 1 and 15 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.) 15.8 16.5 16.5 17.2
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 5.6 7.2 7.1 8.4
Conductivity (pmhos) 80 81 80 82
pH (units) 6.1 6.3 6.3 6.5
Alkalinity (mg/i) 23 24 24 26
Total P (mg/i) 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.008
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.006
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.120 0.146 0.130 0.200
Arn onia mg/l) 0.050 0.072 0.075 0.100
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 72 94 85 144
-------
7
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
06/02/72 1. Dinobryon 1,947
2. Cryptomonas 289
3. Flagellates 78
4. Navicula 36
5. Synedra 36
Other genera 97
Total 2,483
08/02/72 1 . Dinobryon 1 ,465
2. Polycystis 940
3. Gloeocapsa 452
4. Flagellates 271
5. Cryptomonas 217
Other genera 453
Total 3,798
10/05/72 1 . Dinobryon 301
2. Flagellates 211
3. Cryptomonas 191
4. Polycystis 156
5. Scenedesmus 50
Other genera 372
Total 1,281
-------
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
02
08/02/72
10/05/72
Maximum yield
___________ _________ _________ ( mg/i-dry wt. )
0.1
0.1
1.2
3.7
3.5
21 .2
0.1
7.5
5.8
6.8
0.9
5.2
01
02
01
02
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N
Spike (mg/l) Conc. (ma/fl Conc. (mci/fl _____________
Control 0.005 0.168
0.006 P 0.011 0.168
0.012 P 0.017 0.168
0.024 P 0.029 0.168
0.060 P 0.065 0.168
0.060 P + 10.0 N 0.065 10.168
10.0 N 0.005 10.168
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Waterbury Reservoir was quite low at the time the sample
was collected. However, the growth of the test alga was
atypical in the control sample and all spiked samples, except
possibly in the combined N and P spike. At the indicated
nutrient levels, the expected control yield would have been about
-------
9
2 mg/i dry weight, and the expected yield of the 6 fig/i
spike would have been about 5 mg/i dry weight (note,
however, there was no increase in yield with this spike).
The expected yield of the combined N and P spike would have
been about 27 mg/i dry weight which approximates the
actual yield. The cause of the atypical growth response
is not known.
The lake data indicate Waterbury Reservoir was phosphorus
limited at all sampling times; i.e., N/P ratios were 55/1 or
greater, and phosphorus limitation would be expected.
D. Trophic Condition:
The Survey data show that Waterbury Reservoir is mesotrophic.
Phosphorus concentrations were exceptionally low, and the highest
level of total phosphorus measured in any of the samples was 0.016
mg/i . Inorganic nitrogen concentrations were less impressive, but
the highest level measured in any of the samples was only 0.59 mg/l.
Some depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred at
station 1 in August, 1972, but the lowest concentration measured
(4.5 mg/i) was still 48% of saturation; and, in the deepest sample
taken (at 62 feet), the dissolved oxygen was 6.4 mg/l.
Among the Vermont water bodies studied, only Harriman Reservoir
had greater Secchi disc transparency; and, during the Survey samp-
ling, there was no evidence that the primary productivity of the
-------
10
reservoir was inhibited by turbidity as previously reported
(Anderson, 1969). However, the Survey sampling period was one
of above-normal stream flows. From March to October, 1972, the
outlet flows averaged about 1.5 times normal. Assuming that
the reservoir remained relatively full due to high stream flows,
bank erosion may have been relatively minor and turbidity due
to bank erosion may have been less than usual during the sum-
mer of 1972.
-------
11
V. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Vermont National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the high
runoff months of April and May when two samples were collected. Samp-
ling 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 (h’STATPAC”)*. Nutrient loadings
for unsampled “minor tributaries and immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S)
were estimated by using the means of the nutrient loads, in lbs/mi 2 /year,
in Miller Brook and Barrows Brook at stations 21 and 31 and multiplying
the means by the ZZ area in mi 2 .
The untreated wastes from the Village of Stowe were not sampled during
the Survey, and nutrient loads were estimated*.
In this report, the nutrient loads attributed to the Waterbury River
are those measured at station 52 minus the estimated loads from the Village
of Stowe.
* See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Pop.* Mean** Receiving
Name Served Treatment Flow (mgd) Water
Stowe 1,200 None 0.120 Waterbury River
2. Known industrial - None
* The 1970 census of Stowe Village was 435; however, a population estimate
of 1 ,200 was recommended by Vermont personnel to include the influx of
tourists.
** Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
lbs P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Waterbury River 4,010 37.7
Miller Brook 320 3.0
Barrows Brook 130 1.2
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 1,840 17.3
c. Known municipal -
Stowe 4,200 39.5
d. Septic tanks - None known -
e. Known industrial - None -
f. Direct precipitation* - 140 1.3
Total 10,640 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Little River 8,110
3. Net annual P accumulation - 2,530 pounds
* Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
14
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
lbsN/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Waterbury River 208,680 55.1
Miller Brook 32,540 8.6
Barrows Brook 5,790 1.5
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 111,490 29.5
c. Known municipal -
Stowe 11,280 3.0
d. Septic tanks - None known -
e. Known industrial - None -
f. Direct precipitation* - 8,570 2.3
Total 378,350 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Little River 344,140
3. Net annual N accumulation - 34,210 pounds
* Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/ini 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Waterbury River 94 4,899
Miller Brook 24 2,465
Barrows Brook 62 2,757
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 “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 12.0 2.8 425.1 38.4
grams/rn /yr 1.34 0.32 47.6 4.3
Vo11e weider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m /yr) based on mean depth and mean hydraulic
retention time of Waterbury Reservoir:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 1.40
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.70
F. Controllability of Nutrients:
1. Point sources--During the sampling year, Waterbury Reservoir
received a total phosphorus load at a rate of 12 lbs/acre/yr or 1.34
-------
16
g/m 2 /yr. Of this load, it is estimated that the only known point
source, the Village of Stowe, contributed 39.5%. It is calculated
that removal of 80% of the phosphorus from this source would reduce
the loading rate to 8.2 lbs/acre/yr or 0.92 g/m 2 /yr and thus would
result in a mesotrophic rate. It is concluded that this degree of
phosphorus control would adequately protect the existing mesotro-
phic condition of Waterbury Reservoir.
It is noted that a preliminary engineering report on tertiary
wastewater treatment facilities for the Village of Stowe, includ-
ing phosphorus removal, has been approved by the Vermont Agency of
Environmental Conservation, and the next higher phase of planning
is underway (Morse, 1974).
2. Non-point source--The mean annual nutrient exports of the
Waterbury River were significantly higher than the exports of the
other two Waterbury Reservoir tributaries studied (the latter com-
pare favorably with the phosphorus exports of unimpacted Vermont
streams elsewhere in which the mean P export was 52 lbs/mi 2 /yr and
the range was 30 to 65 lbs/mi 2 /yr). The apparent higher export rates
of the Waterbury River may be due only to underestimation of the
nutrient loads from the Village of Stowe, but unknown point sources--
such as septic tank discharges--may be involved, and a need for fur-
ther study is indicated.
The favorable drainage area/lake area ratio of 80/1 lessens the
impact of non-point source nutrients which may not be controllable.
-------
17
VI. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anderson, Jon K., 1969. Waterbury Reservoir, Washington County. VT
Dept. of Fish and Game, Montpelier.
Anonymous, 1970. Waterbury Dam and Reservoir regulation manual. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Morse, James W., 1974. Personal communication (status of Vermont
water pollution control facilities as of January, 1974). VT
Dept. of Water Resources, Montpelier.
Vollenweider, Richard A., 1973. Input-output models. MS, Canada
Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
18
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
tRIBJTA Y FLOW INFORMAT ION FOR VERMONT 7/9/74
LA(F CJ)E SOIl A1’PHI)RY NES PVOIP
TOTAL U AINAflE AREA ( ‘F LA Sh 112.00
5 ’S—f)RAj NAr,E NORMALIZED FLOWS
TPI lTA ’1 AREA JA FF14 ‘40P ARN WAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAt
SOIl’? ..4.13 ‘? .I0 65.00 114.00 249.00 1o9.00 66.60 ‘1.30 34.50 62.9C 6’ .lO 91.30 72.40 68.81
SCill?I 13.’O lS.bJ 13.50 34.20 50.40 50.60 19.90 12.30 10.30 12.80 ?0.10 27.30 21.60 2b.56
501111 7.1 1 7•65 ? . 2 5.34 12.70 7.97 3.14 I.9 I. 2 .02 3.14 4.30 3.41 .I9
50115 ? 52. Y 1 -7.10 ‘3.5) 13N.00 320.00 202.00 79.40 49.30 41.10 51.20 80.OC 109.00 86.30 105.89
S0II ’ I 112.00 1”.flO 1 14.(’0 290.00 652.00 429.00 169.00 104.00 87.50 109.00 .70.00 232.00 184.00 225.32
SUMMARY
TOTAL I 14AINAC,E AREA OF LAKE = 112.00 TOTAL FLOW IN = 2704.02
SIJU OF Slip—DRAINAGE APEAS 111.98 TOTAL FLOW OUT = 2702.50
MEA. MflNTNLY FLOWS AND UAILY FLOWS
TPIRJTAPY MONT-i YEAR HEAN FLOW r)Ay FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
5011/7 7 7’ 50.00
S 39.70
9 72 ?6.S0
10 7? 60.50
77 110.00
I? 7 ? 94.50
1 73 99.50
7 71 75.50
3 73 3Q.00
4 73 ?43.00
5 73 277.00
6 73 226.00
01l2I 7 72 ?6.40 IS 11.90
9 77 11.80 12 9.50
9 7’ 7.90 16 7.60
10 72 18.20 14 11.50
II 72 33.00 4 17.00
1? 77 28.10 3 13.20
I 73 29.00 6 19.50
7 71 71.64) 4 51.10
1 73 71.A0 3 19.10
4 73 7 .80 8 54.90 22 76.20
5 73 03.00 5 54.50 24 59.10
6 73 67.50 10 1 .80
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW !NFOI MATION FOR VERMONT 7/9/74
LAKE CODE 5011 WATERBURY RESERVOIR
MEAN MO JTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
501131 1 72 4.20 15 1.90
8 72 1.90 12 1.50
9 7 1.20 16 1.20
10 72 2.90 14 1.80
11 12 5.20 4 2.70
12 72 4.50 3 2.10
1 73 4.70 6 3.10
73 3.10 4 8.10
3 73 11.30 3 3.00
4 73 11.50 8 8.70 22 12.00
5 73 13.10 5 8.60 24 9.30
6 73 10.60 10 2.80
501152 7 72 105.00 15 47.30
8 12 47.30 12 31.70
9 72 31.60 16 30.20
10 72 72.50 14 46.00
11 72 132.00 4 67.90
12 72 113.00 3 52.40
1 73 119.00 6 77.80
2 73 93.80 3 204.00
3 73 286.00 3 76.30
4 73 290.00 B 219.00 22 304.00
5 73 331.00 5 217.00 24 236.00
6 73 269.00 10 71.00
501161 7 72 208.00 15 11.00
A 72 141.00 12 13.00
9 72 33.80 16 12.00
10 72 69.10 14 17.00
11 72 228.00 4 13.00
1. 72 198.00 3 23.00
1 73 271.00 6 272.00
2 73 399.00 4 17.00
3 73 536.00 3 381.00
4 73 595.00 8 585.00 22 611.00
5 73 599.00 5 590.00 24 1220.00
6 73 646.00 10 616.00
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
K — Value is less than indicated
J - Value known to be in error
-------
STORET RErRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501101
44 23 06.0 072 46 06.0
WATERBURY RESERV01s
50 VERMONT
1 1EPALES 2111202
3 0066 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY PH 1 ALK N02&N03 NH3—N PPIOS—TOT PMOS—OIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT ‘G/L INCHES HICPOMHO SU MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
7?/Ob/02 13 32 0000 19.1 9.6 72 40 7.20 10K 0.330 0.010 0.004 0.002
13 32 0015 13.5 10.2 40 6.60 10K 0.400 0.020 0.004 0.004
13 32 0050 6.3 11.8 40 6.65 10K 0.480 0.020 0.010 0.002
72/08/02 17 35 0000 96 70 8.60 14 0.070 0.0 O 0.008
17 35 0004 23.9 9.8 60 8.70 12 0.070 o.06G o.uo 0.004
17 35 0015 20.8 5.6 70 6.70 13 0.220 0.10* 0.012 0.007
17 35 0030 18.5 4.5 60 6.60 10K 0.240 0.100 0.010 0.006
17 35 0040 17.6 5.0 60 6.70 10K 0.250 0.110 0.010 0.004
17 35 0050 16.5 5.5 60 6.60 10K 0.300 0.090 0.012 0.007
17 35 0062 15.6 6.4 60 6.30 10K 0.350 0.060 0 ,016 0.008
72/10/05 12 40 0000 108 82 6.20 23 0.170 0.060 0.006 0.004
12 40 0004 16.4 6.4 82 6.20 26 0.170 0.050 0.006 0.003
12 40 0015 16.5 5.6 80 6.10 24 0.200 0.070 0.90t 0.005
12 40 0050 16.4 7.0 80 6.25 24 0.130 0.080 0.008 0.0*4
12 40 0070 15.8 7.2 82 6.30 23 0.130 0.100 0.006 0.003
322 17
DATE TIME DEPTH CHIRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET UG/L
72/08/0? 17 35 0000 5.BJ
72/10/05 12 40 0000 0.9J
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
DATE
FROM
TO
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
32?!?
C HLRPH V I
A
UGh
501102
44 25 06.0 072 45 18.0
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
50 VERMONT
72/06/02
72/08/0?
72/10/0 5
14 08 0000
18 10 0000
13 10 0000
7.SJ
6.8 .J
5.2J
DATE
FROM
TO
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
1 IEPALES
3
72/06/02 j4 C8 0000
14 08 0008
72/08/02 IR 10 0000
18 10 0004
18 10 0015
72/10/05 13 10 0000
11 10 0004
13 10 0012
00010
00300
CNDUCTVY
PH
T
ALK
NO2&N03
NH3—N
WATER
DO
TWANS ’
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
TEMP
SECCHI
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
2111202
0020 FEET DEPTH
18.9
19.0
23.2
22.4
17.2
16.9
9.6
9.R
9.’.
8.5
8.4
8.4
72
73
144
00665 00666
PHOS—TOT PHOS—I)IS
14G/L P MG/I P
50 7.10
60 7.10
65 8.00
70 8.10
70 7.10
80 6.50
80 6.50
80 6.50
101 < 0.3t O
lOi( 0.310
14 0.100
14 0.100
16 0.120
24 0.130
24 0.120
2 ’. 0.120
0.0 10
0.010K
0.070
0.060
0.080
0.080
0.080
O • 060
0.006
0.004
0.006
0.010
0.010
0.00 7
0.007
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.006
0.005
0.004
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY DATA
K — Value is less than indicated
J - Value known to be in error
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
- 501121 LS501121
44 26 30.0 07? 44 30.0
MILLER BROOK
50 15/PIONTPELIER
1/WATERBURY RESERVOIR
MOSCOW RD BRIDGE ABOVE MOUTH
1 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJFL NH3—PJ PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORT’-fO
TO DAY FEET MC’/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L
7?/07/15 11 30 0.1 1 0.400 0.020 0.005K 0.005K
7?/08/1? 11 55 0.222 0.8?0 0.023 0.00 5K 0.009
7?/09/16 14 30 0.257 0.275 0.029 0.005K 0.006
7?/I0/14 13 20 0.170 0.?00 0.056 0.005K 0.0051<
7?/1I/04 11 30 0.221 0. 3O 0.031 0.005K 0.005K
7?/1?/03 10 10 0.420 0.230 0.029 0.0051< 0.0051<
71/01/06 0.399 0.1001< 0.016 0.005K 0.00 51<
73/02/04 12 10 0.490 0.150 0.040 0.005K 0.010
71/03/03 15 30 0.4 0 0.100K 0.062 0.005K 0.010
73/04/08 10 30 0.400 0.250 0.115 0.0051< 0.005K
71/04/2? 09 00 0.430 0.020 0.005K 0.055
73/05/05 10 50 0.290 0.290 0.050 0.0051< 0.005K
73/05/24 13 00 0.220 0.200 0.012 0.0051< 0.005K
73/06/10 10 15 0.198 0.520 0.045 0.0051< 0.00 51<
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501131
44 27 00.0 072 44 00.0
BARROWS BROOK
50 15/MONTPELIER
T/WATERBURY RESERVOII
AT CULVERT UNDER MOSCOW RD
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2 4O3 TOT KJEL NH3—N PI-4OS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L HG/L P MG/L P
72/07/15 0.082 0.400 0.033 0.010 0.017
7?/08/12 13 50 0.199 0.780 0.023 0.015 0.016
72/09/16 14 20 0.104 0.100K 0.036 0.005K 0.009
7?/10/14 13 50 0.117 0.300 0.050 0.005K 0.009
72/11/04 11 15 0.160 0.520 0.028 0.005K 0.012
72/12/03 10 00 0.300 0.100K 0.020 0.005K 0.007
73/01/06 0.336 0.290 0.033 0.007 0.015
73/02/04 12 00 0.340 1.400 0.640 0.005K 0.020
73/03/03 15 00 0.357 0.280 0.160 0.005K 0.010
73/04/08 10 45 0.260 0.270 0.052 0.008 0.025
71/04/22 09 15 0.350 0.710 0.063 0.005K 0.085
73/05/05 12 10 0.198 0.220 0.026 0.00 5K 0.022
71/05/24 13 15 0.189 0.220 0.013 0.007 0.025
73/06/10 10 00 0.320 0.850 0.042 0.005K 0.015
-------
STOPET PETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501141 15501141
44 ?6 30.0 07? 42 00.0
GOLD 3ROOP(
50 15/MONTPELIER
T/WATERBURY RESERVO1
AT RT 100 t3RIDGE S OF STOWE
1 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2€ NO3 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DA’Y FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
7?/07/15 12 00 0.241 0.800 0.021 0.021
72/08/12 14 00 0. 70 0.750 0.022 0.005K 0.006
7?/09/16 15 00 0.210 0.200 0.032 0.005K 0.007
72/10/14 12 30 0.112 0. 1SO 0.056 0.005K 0.005K
72/11/04 13 ?0 0.210 0.750 0.046 0.005K 0.009
7?/I2/03 10 10 0.364 0.100K 0.008 0.005K 0.007
73/01/0 0.350 0.200 0.016 0.005K 0.010
71/Q?/04 15 15 0.399 1.150 0.630 0.005K 0.010
73/04/08 11 00 0.320 0.130 0.033 0.006
73/04/22 09 40 0.520 1.050 0.050 0.005K 0.070
71/05/05 13 20 0.310 0.300 fl.115 0.005K 0.005K
73/05/24 13 15 0.250 0.190 0.019 0.005K 0.010
73/06/10 10 30 0.2?0 0.140 0.023 0.005K 0.005K
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501151 LS SO1151
44 28 00.0 072 41 00.0
WATERBURY RIVER
50 15/MONTPELIER
I/WATERBURY RESERVOIR
AT BRIDGE N OF STOwE
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
N02&N03
TOT KJEL
NH3—N
PHOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
FROM
OF
N—TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/I
MG/L P
MG/L P
72/07/15
1?
00
0.271
0.450
0.038
0.010
0.013
7?/C)8/12
14
20
0.260
0.270
0.023
0.005K
0.010
7?/09/16
15
30
0.370
0.150
0.060
0.010
0.012
72/10/14
12
50
0.190
0.300
0.050
0.005K
0.016
72/11/04
1?
45
0.200
1.380
0.252
0.005K
0.015
72/12/03
10
40
0.360
0.460
0.020
0.005K
0.010
73/02/04
13
55
0.399
0.290
0.084
0.005K
0.025
73/Q3/03
14
15
0.430
0.220
0.063
0.005K
0.015
73/04/08
11
15
0.378
0.602
0.105
0.009
0.055
73/04/22
10
00
0.370
1.260
0.025
0.005K
73/05/05
14
15
0.240
0.300
0.052
0.005K
0.025
73/05/24
13
30
0.231
0.260
0.030
0.005K
0.026
71/06/10
11
00
0.330
0.885
0.039
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501152 LS501152
44 27 00.0 07? 43 30.0
WATERBURY RIVER
50 15/MOF JTPELIEP
I/WATERBURY RESERVOIR
FROM SHORE BELOW STOWE AT CURTIS CONST
1 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2F NO3 TOT KJEL NHI-N PHOS—DIS PHOS-TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTrlO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/I P MG/L P
7?/Q8/1? 14 10 0.273 1.175 0.036 o.o0 5 c 0.012
7?/0/16 14 10 0.350 0.350 0.120 0.046 0.090
72/10/14 1? 40 0.221 0.350 0.058 0.016 0.065
7?/11/04 13 00 0.310 1.200 0.130 0.006 0.050
72/12/03 11 00 0.510 0.170 0.044 0.009 0.039
71/04/08 11 30 0.480 0.250 0.039 0.010 0.045
71/04/22 10 ?0 0.500 2.310 0.545 0.010
73/05/05 15 55 0.340 0.220 0.027 0.005K 0.015
73/05/24 13 45 0.315 0.300 0.058 0.007 0.020
71/06/10 10 45 0.357 0.480 0.260 0.005K 0.015
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/07/02
501161 LS501161
44 22 00.0 072 47 00.0
LITTLE RIVER
50 iS/CAMELS HUMP
0/WATERBURY RESERVOIR
US RT 2 BRIDGE NW OF WATERBURY
1 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO?&N03 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N 1OTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
7?/07/15 10 15 0.286 0.375 0.017 0.010 0.035
72/08/12 11 00 0.286 0.850 0.034 0.009 0.028
72/09/if’ 11 30 0.330 0.550 0.042 0.006 0.008
72/10/14 10 30 0.234 0.850 0.110 0.005K 0.012
72/11/04 10 30 0.182 1.000 0.046 0.005K 0.026
7?/1?/03 14 30 0.220 1.050 0.018 0.005K 0.016
73/01/06 0.240 0.230 0.013 0.005K 0.010
73/02/04 11 15 0.190 0.295 0.092 0.005K 0.010
71/03/03 11 30 0.460 0.110 0.020 0.005K 0.015
73/04/08 12 15 0.440 0.260 0.042 0.011 0.040
73/04/2? 11 00 0.430 0.220 0.0?R 0.005 1 < 0.015
73/05/05 09 15 0.410 0.290 0.0Th 0.0051< 0.010
73/05/?” 11 00 0.310 0.290 0.023 0.00 5K 0.020
73/06/10 14 00 0.280 0.170 0.038 0.OOSK 0.010
------- |