U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
ESTES LAKE
YORK COUNTY
MAINE
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, 3
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
ESTES U\KE
YORK COUNTY
MAINE
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, 3
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AND THE
MAINE NATIONAL GUARD
1974
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Maine Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map V
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Introduction 2
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
V. Nutrient Loadings 10
VI. Literature Reviewed 16
VII. Appendices 17
-------
IT
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)], water quality criteria!
standards review [ 3O3(c)J, 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.
-------
ill
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 th 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 Maine Department of
Environmental Protection for professional involvement and to the
Maine National Guard for conduct of the tributary samoling phase
of the Survey.
William R. Adams, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Protection, and William P. Hirickley and Matthew Scott of the Division
of Lakes and Biological Studies, provided invaluable lake documentation
and counsel during the course of the study.
Major General Edwin W. Heywood (Retired), then the Adjutant
General of Maine, and Project Officer Lieutenant Colonel Earl B. Adams
who directed the volunteer efforts of the forty-one participating Maine
National Guardsmen are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance
to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MAINE
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Moosehead Lake Piscataquis, Somerset
Estes Lake York
Long Lake Cumberl and
Bay of Naples & Sebago Lake Cumberl and
Rangeley Lake Franklin
Long Lake Aroostook
Mattawamkeag Lake Aroostook
Sebasticook Lake Penobscot
-------
:1’
L
ESTES LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
0 Tributary Sampling Site
Seuage Treatment Facility
-‘Direct Drainage Area Boundary
0 1 2
Mi.
in e
-------
ESTES LAKE
STORET NO. 2304
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate Estes Lake is eutrophic. Chlorophyll a
values were extremely high, Secchi disc values were low, and
nutrient concentrations in the lake were rather high.
Data obtained in a 1954 study indicate Estes Lake was free
of aquatic nuisance conditions at that time. More recent studies
show Estes Lake experiencing frequent and heavy blooms of
nuisance algae, excessive growth of aquatic weeds, and depletion
of dissolved oxygen in the deeper areas of the lake.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results show that Estes Lake was nitrogen limited
at the time the sample was collected. The lake data indicate
nitrogen limitation for the other sampling periods as well.
C. Nutrient Sources; Controllability:
1. Point Sources - During the Survey year, the Sanford waste
treatment facility contributed about 74% of the total phosphorus
loading to Estes Lake. High level reduction of phosphorus from
this source should result in somewhat improved lake water quality.
2. Non-Point Sources - Nitrogen loading from diffuse sources
is calculated to be nearly 75% of the total, while only one-fourth
of the total phosphorus is contributed from these sources.
Because non-point phosphorus loading alone exceeds the predicted
“permissible” level of Vollenweider, reduction of areal con-
tributions could also be expected to yield improved water quality.
-------
2
II. INTRODUCTION
Estes Lake is an impoundment; and, as such, it is not typical of
the nearly 3,000 natural lakes and ponds in Maine. The lake was formed
by the construction of a 20-foot-head power dam on the Mousam River
in the southwestern part of the State. At present,the small hydroelectric
plant served by the impoundment operates only periodically and infrequently.
The primary use of the lake now is for irrigation, and recreational uses
are limited. The direct drainage area is estimated to be 25% urban,
30% agricultural, and 45% woodland and non-agricultural.
In August, 1954, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game
conducted a biological survey of Estes Lake as part of the Mousam River
Fish Restoration Survey. At that time, the waters of Estes Lake were
described as light brown in color with no algal blooms or abundant growths
of aquatic plants, and conditions favored recreational uses; Estes
Lake was considered suitable for warm-water fishery management.
The Sanford Sewerage District wastewater treatment facilities became
operational in 1962, and in August of 1967, personnel of the Maine Depart-
ment of Inland Fisheries and Game conducted another biological survey.
In the report on that survey, Estes Lake was depicted as quite different
than described in the 1954 report. Phytoplankton blooms were reported
as quite heavy (turning the water “bright green”), and heavy growths of
the aquatic plant Lemna p. (considered an indication of high enrichment)
-------
3
were present in most areas of the lake. The report, along with a
reported fish kill in 1963, indicated Estes Lake was exhibiting the
effects of cultural eutrophication.
In the summer and fall of 1971, a water quality study was conducted
on Estes Lake and its tributaries by Dr. Robert Ciullo of the Biology
Department of Nasson College, Springvale, Maine. Dr. Ciullo also
indicated Estes Lake was exhibiting effects of cultural eutrophication;
i.e., plankton blooms were present, aquatic weed growths were heavy,
Secchi disc readings were poor, and the levels of nutrients entering
Estes Lake were quite high.
It appears that the trophic condition of Estes Lake has changed
markedly in the last two decades.
-------
4
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 387 acres
2. Mean depth: 10 feet
3. Maximum depth: 30 feet
4. Volume: 3,870 acre/ft
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 11 days
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data; also see page 15)
1 . Tributaries -
Name Drainage areat Mean flowt
Mousam River 50.5 mu 2 85.3 cfs
Hay Brook 2.8 mi 2 4.7 cfs
Middle Br., Mousam River 16.8 mi 2 28.4 cfs
Littlefield River 24.6 mi 2 41.6 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage - 9.7 mi 17.4 cfs
Totals 104.4 mi 2 177.4 cfs
2. Outlet -
Mousam River 105.0 mi 2 * 177.4 cfs
C. Precipitation**:
1. Year of sampling: 53.7 inches.
2. Mean annual: 39.2 inches.
* Includes area of lake.
** See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
t Drainage areas are accurate within ±1% and mean annual flows within ±5%.
-------
5
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Estes 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 three stations
on the lake and from a number of depths at each station (see map, page v).
During each visit a single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sam-
pie was composited from the three 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 depth-
integrated samples were collected at the stations for chlorophyll a anal-
yses. Maximum depths sampled were 15 feet at station 1, 16 feet at station
2, and 4 feet at station 3.
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
samples.
For the differences in the various parameters at the other sampling times,
i efer to Appendix B.
-------
6
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
(10/02/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 14.9 15.9 16.0 16.4
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 6.9 7.7 7.6 9.2
Conductivity (pmhos) 67 77 80 82
pH (units) 5.8 6.7 6.6 7.3
Alkalinity (mg/i) 15 18 19 22
Total P (mg/i) 0.015 0.087 0.083 0.152
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.014 0.067 0.059 0.113
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.070 0.099 0.095 0.140
Am onia mg/1) 0.090 0.285 0.155 0.590
ALL SAMPLES
Secchi disc (inches) 30 41 36 72
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton* -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
10/02/72 1. Oscillatoria 1,608
2. Flagellates 1,482
3. Cryptomonas 377
4. Anabaena 352
5. Dinobryon 327
Other genera 2,236
Total 6,382
* T é other phytoplankton samples were lost in transit.
-------
7
2. Chlorophyll a -
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following chlorophyll values may be in error by plus or
minus 20 percent.)
Sampling
Date ________ _______________
06/03/ 72
Station Chlorophyll a
_______ Number ( pg/l )
01 3.0
02 5.5
03 6.3
08/05/72 01 59.5
02 47.3
03 2.4
10/02/72 01 63.7
02 49.0
03 18.2
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/l) Conc. (mg/l) Conc. (mg/l) ( mg/i-dry wt. )
Control 0.048 0.333 11.2
0.006 p 0.054 0.333 11.1
0.012 P 0.060 0.333 10.6
0.024 P 0.072 0.333 10.8
0.060 P 0.108 0.333 10.3
0.060 P + 10.0 N 0.108 10.333 70.7
10.0 N 0.048 10.333 28.2
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates a rather high level of potential primary
productivity in Estes Lake at the time the sample was col-
lected. Also, the lack of yield response to increments of
orthophosphorus indicates the lake was nitrogen limited (note
-------
8
that the only significant yield responses occurred with the
addition of nitrogen alone or in combination with orthophos-
phorus).
The field data confirm the conclusion that Estes Lake was
nitrogen limited; nitrogen to phosphorus ratios at all depths
and sampling times were predominantly less than 14 to 1 (i.e.,
nitrogen limitation would be expected).
On the basis of assay and field data, it appears the avail-
able phosphorus level in Estes Lake would have to be reduced to
about 0.022 mg/l to make phosphorus limiting (assuming no
appreciable change in inorganic nitrogen concentrations).
D. Trophic Condition:
The results of the lake sampling and the algal assay indicate
Estes Lake is eutrophic. Chlorophyll a values were high, Secchi
disc transparencies were low, and nutrient levels were quite high
for a water body with such a short retention time.
Survey limnologists noted that there were heavy algal
blooms present during the August and October sampling periods.
They described the appearance of Estes Lake as “poor”.
Ciullo (1972), in his review of historical data on Estes Lake,
cites a 1954 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game report
in which the lake was said to be relatively free of eutrophic con-
-------
9
ditions. However, subsequent studies and reports, Ciullo’s in-
cluded, indicate the lake was exhibiting signs of eutrophication
(frequent and heavy algal blooms, abundant growths of aquatic
weeds, and depletion of dissolved oxygen in the deeper areas).
Estes Lake appears to have become eutrophic in the last 20
years.
-------
10
V. NUTRIENT LOADINGS*
(See Appendix B for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, from September, 1972,
through August, 1973, the Maine National Guard collected monthly near-
surface grab samples at 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, and when cold weather prevented sampling
one or more times at three of the sites.
Stream flow estimates were provided by the Maine District Office of
the U.S. Geological Survey through an interagency agreement. However,
these data indicate more water flowing into Estes Lake than flowing out
(see Appendix A). Therefore, the runoff coefficient (cubic feet per
second flow per square mile of drainage) from a near-by U.S.G.S. gaging
station was used to estimate flows (cfs/mi 2 x drainage areas in mi 2 )
for each of the tributaries.
In this report, tributary loads were calculated using mean flows and
mean concentrations. The loads for unsampled “minor tributaries & immediate
drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were calculated using ZZ flows and Middle Branch
of the Mousam River concentrations at site C-i.
The operator of the Sanford Sewerage District treatment facilities
provided monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data for the
determination of nutrient loads from this source.
* Based on sampling frequency and variations in concentrations, single
tributary loadings for gaged sites are believed to be within ±16% of
the true value 67% of the time and within ±32% of the true value 95%
of the time.
-------
11
A. Waste Sources:
1. Municipal -
Pop. Mean Receiving
Name Served Treatment Flow (mgd) Water
Sanford 16,000 Stabiliza- 4.0 Mousam River
tion Lagoons
2. Industrial - None known
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading —
1 . Inputs -
lbsP/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Mousam River 4,870 14.7
Hay Brook 280 0.8
Middle Br., Mousam River 1,100 3.3
Littlefield River 1,520 4.6
b. Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage
(non-point load)* - 680 2.0
c. Municipal STP’s -
Sanford 24,700 74.3
d. Septic tanks** - 30 0.1
e. Industrial -
None known -
f. Direct Precipitation* - 60 0.2
Total 33,320 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet (Mousam River) 31 ,430
3. Net annual P accumulation - 1,810 lbs.
* Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1 , “Survey Methods”
** Estimated 50 residences within 500 feet of Estes Lake.
-------
12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading -
1. Inputs -
lbs NI %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Mousam River 114,100 30.0
Hay Brook 10,420 2.7
Middle Br., Mousam River 53,730 14.1
Littlefield River 65,440 17.2
b. Minor tributaries &
inifflediate drainage
(non-point load)* - 32,920 8.6
c. Municipal STP’s -
Sanford 99,650 26.1
d. Septic tanks** - 1,060 0.3
e. Industrial -
None known - -
f. Direct precipitation* - 3,730 1.0
Total 381,050 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet (Mousam River) 426,420
3. Net annual N loss - 45,370 lbs.
* Estimated; see Working Paper No. 1 , “Survey Methods”
** Estimated 50 residences within 500 feet of Estes Lake
-------
13
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Sub-drainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/rni 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Mousam River 96 2,259
Hay Brook 100 3,721
Middle Br., Mousam River 65 3,198
Littlefield River 62 2,660
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 oligotrophic
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 85.9 4.7 984.6 loss
grams/rn /yr 9.63 0.52 110.4 -
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus (g/m 2 /yr) based on mean
depth and mean hydraulic retention time for Estes Lake:
‘Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 1 .92
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.96
F. Nutrient Loading and Controllability:
During the Survey year, Estes Lake received a total phosphorus
load at a rate far greater than that proposed by Vollenweider as
“dangerous” (i.e., a eutrophic rate). Of this load, the Sanford
-------
14
Sewerage District treatment facility contributed about 74%.
Institution of 90% phosphorus removal at this source would
reduce the total phosphorus loading to the lake by 67%
(about 22,230 pounds per year) and would result in a loading
rate of about 28 lbs/acre/yr or about 3 g/m 2 /yr.
This loading rate, although still somewhat higher than a
eutrophic rate, should result in a reduction in the incidence
and severity of nuisance algal blooms and essentially restore
the conditions that existed in Estes Lake before the Sanford
facilities became operational in 1962.
Because of the very short hydraulic retention time, a new
phosphorus equilibrium should become established shortly after
phosphorus input has been reduced, particularly if the operation
of the 20-foot-head dam would permit one or more drawdowns.
The net effects of sediment consolidation, a new phosphorus
equilibrium and a lowered phosphorus loading rate should be
beneficial; aesthetic and recreational improvements should be
expected.
It is noted that there was an apparent nitrogen loss from
Estes Lake during the year of sampling. Although Survey data
do not provide an explanation for this, there are several
possibilities, including nitrogen fixation by bacteria and/or
blue-green algae, resolubiliation of nitrogen from bottom
sediments, and recharge with ground water of relatively high
nitrogen content.
-------
15
A similar loss of nitrogen has been observed in other
Survey lakes; and Shagawa Lake in Minnesota, which has been
intensively studied by the National Eutrophication Research
Branch of EPA, has exhibited this phenomenon.
-------
16
VI. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1967. Estes Lake survey report. Dept. of Inland Fisheries
& Game, Augusta.
Ciullo, Robert H., 1971. A report on a study of the Sanford Sewerage
District stabilization pond system. MS, Biology Dept., Nasson
College, Springvale.
_________________ 1972. Final report on the water quality study pro-
gram of Estes Lake and its tributaries, York County, Maine. MS,
Biology Dept., Nasson College, Springvale.
Hinckley, William P., 1972. Personal communication (possible point
sources contributing nutrients to Estes Lake; description of
Sanford waste treatment facility). Dept. of Environmental
Protection, Augusta.
Scott, Matthew, 1974. Personal communication (trophic condition of
Estes Lake). Dept. of Environmental Protections Augusta.
-------
17
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR MAINE 6/25/74
LAKF CODE 2304 ESTES LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKF 105.00
SUB-DRAINAGE NORMALIZED FLOWS
TRIBUTARY AREA JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN
210441 105.00 135.00 157.00 253.00 444.00 223.00 103.00 57.00 46.00 59.00 110.00 187.00 200.00 164.19
2104A1 50.50 93.00 80.00 149.00 190.00 140.00 69.00 34.00 29.00 50.00 45.00 75.00 92.00 87.13
210481 2.80 4.90 4.40 9.70 18.00 6.80 3.00 1.40 1.10 1.70 2.50 6.50 6.70 5.55
2104C1 16.80 26.00 ?4.0O 50.00 104.00 46.00 22.00 9.60 6.70 10.00 15.00 37.00 35.00 32.05
210401 24.60 47.00 41.00 91.00 132.00 59.00 29.00 12.00 8.00 12.00 17.00 48.00 51.00 45.52
2104Z? 10.10 22.00 22.00 34.00 45.00 22.00 12.00 5.20 3.70 4.60 5.90 16.00 24.00 17.99
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 105.00 TOTAL FLOW IN = 2261.40
SUM OF SUB—DRAINAGE APEAS = 104.80 TOTAL FLOW OUT = 1974.00
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
210441 72 58.00 16 75.00
10 72 97.00 14 92.00
11 72 276.00 4 162.00
I? 72 287.00 3 296.00
I 73 267.00 7 194.00
2 73 293.00 3 664.00
3 73 431.00 4 179.00
4 71 560.00 7 764.00 21 286.00
5 73 435.00 5 334.00 19 502.00
6 73 187.00 2 330.00
7 73 117.00 14 20.00
8 73 76.00 12 20.00
230443 9 72 58.00 16 55.00
10 72 45.00 14 49.00
Ii 7 127.00 4 82.00
12 72 165.00 3 208.00
1 73 157.00 7 107.00
2 73 ?28.00 3 484.00
3 73 440.00 4 90.00
4 73 217.00 7 265.00 21 155.00
5 73 231.00 5 193.00 19 258.00
6 73 142.00 2 196.00 10 107.00
7 73 162.00 14 122.00
8 73 94.00 12 93.00
-------
TPII3IJTAPY FLOv. INFONHATION VON MAINE
6/25/74
LA(F CO1)V ‘304
ESTF.S LAPcE
MEAN HONINLY FL() S 660 iAILY FLOWS
72 2.30
tO 72 2.40
I I 7? 11.00
I ? 72 12.00
I 71 8.30
P 71 12.00
3 73 25.00
73 ?0.00
c 73 12.00
6 73 6.50
7 7) 8.90
9 73 5.90
9 72 14.00
10 72 15.00
II 72 61.00
I? 7? 62.00
I 73 44.00
P 73 63.00
3 73’ 130.00
4 73 115.00
5 73 81.00
6 73 48.00
7 73 61.00
8 73 36.00
9 77 17.00
I n 7? 16.00
I I 72 79.00
1? 72 90.00
I 73 80.00
2 73 108.00
3 73 ?37.00
4 73 147.00
S 71 104.00
6 73 63.00
7 71 76.00
9 7) 43.00
9 72 6.30
10 77 5.70
II 72 P6.00
1? 72 42.00
1 73 37.00
73 58.00
3 73 98.00
6 73 50.00
5 73 39.00
6 73 26.00
7 73 33.00
9 73 20.00
16 2.10
1’ 2.90
4 7.30
3 15.00
7 5.60
3 25.00
4 6.50
7 24.00
5 9.80
2 9.10
1’. 6.60
12 5.80
16 13.00
I’. 17.00
4 40.00
3 78.00
7 30.00
3 130.00
4 34.00
7 136.00
5 66.00
2 67.00
14 45.00
I? 36.00
It ’ 15.00
14 18.00
4 52.00
3 113.00
7 54.00
3 224.00
4 62.00
7 173.00
5
2 68.00
14 56.00
I? 43.00
TPIRJTAPY MONTH YE84 HEA6 FLO DAY
F1O DAY
230441
p lØ4( 1
?30’I ’
P 06//
FLOW DAY FLOG
21 15.00
19 14.00
21 99.00
92.00
21 113.00
19 118.00
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
K - Value is less than indicated
J - Value known to be in error
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
230401
43 25 24.0 070 40 06.0
ESTES LAKE
23007 MAINE
72/06/03 12 30 0000
12 30 0006
72/08/05 14 40 0000
14 40 0001
14 40 0005
72/10/02 07 20 0000
07 20 0004
07 20 0015
7.2
7.2
9.0
8.R
9.2
6.9
2111202
0007 FEET DEPTH
00665 00666
PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
MG/L P MG/I P
DATE TIME
FROM OF
TO DAY
72/06/03 12
72/08/05 14
72/10/02 07
32217
DEPTH CHIRPHYL
A
UG/L
3.OJ
59.sJ
63. 7J
1 1EPALES
3
DATE
00010
TIME DEPTH lATER
00300
DO
TRANSP
CNDUCTVY
PH
T
ALK
CACO3
NO2 NO3
P4—TOTAL
NH3—N
TOTAL
FROM
OF
TEMP
SECCHL
MG/L
MG/I
MG/I
20.6
19.6
23.1
22.9
16.4
16.3
6.70
lOX
0.060
0.130
0.100
0.045
90
7.00
13
0.050
0.100
0.129
0.070
30
6.90
12
0.060
0.130
0.132
0.076
85
6.90
11
0.070
0.130
0.140
0.077
80
7.25
18
0.090
0.140
0.085
0.061
32
80
7.10
15
0.090
0.140
0.068
0.057
16
0.100
0.170
0.082
0.057
FEET
30 0000
40 0000
20 0000
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
230402
43 25 42.0 070 41 00.0
ESTES LAKE
23 MAINE
1 1EPALES 2111202
3 0016 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER 00 TRAP4SP CNDUCTVY PH 1 ALK NO2 NO3 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCP4I FIELD CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT MG/L INCHES MICROMHO SU MG/I MG/L MG/I MG/L P NG/L P
72/06/03 12 SO 0000 19.6 5.9 36 60 6.60 10K 0.080 0.200 0.088 0.039
12 50 0006 18.0 5.3 60 6.50 10K 0.080 0.200 0.059 0.025
12 50 0012 16.5 3.8 55 6.30 10K 0.070 0.160 0.062 0.026
12 50 0016 14.6 2.2 60 6.20 10K 0.060 0.310 0.174 0.066
72/08/05 14 55 0000 36 85 6.90 14 0.080 0.110 0.138 0.017
14 55 0004 22.7 8.0 90 6.80 15 0.080 0.210 0.147 0.091
14 55 0007 22.6 8.0 95 6.70 15 0.100 0.260 0.184 0.102
72/10/02 07 45 0000 36 80 6.60 22 0.110 0.540 0.143 0.108
07 45 0004 16.0 7.6 80 6.55 19 0.100 0.520 0.136 0.110
07 45 0008 15.9 7.8 82 6.65 19 0.140 0.590 0.152 0.113
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CMLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET UG/L
72/06/03 12 50 0000 5.5J
72/08/05 14 55 0000 47.3J
72/10/02 07 45 0000 49.OJ
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
230403
43 27 30.0 070 42 12.0
ESTES LAKE
23 MAINE
1 IEPALES 2111202
3 0006 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY PH T ALK N02&N03 NH3—N P.405—TOT PHOS—OIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT MG/L INCHES HICROMNO SU MG/L MG/L MG/L HG/L P MG/L P
72/06/03 14 00 0000 21.9 7.6 48 40 6.50 10K 0.110 0.160 0.032 0.012
72/08/05 15 15 0000 72 60 6.40 10K 0.100 0.070 0.026 0.016
15 15 0004 21.6 7.4 65 6.50 11 0.090 0.110 0.021 0.013
72/10/02 08 00 0000 38 70 6.50 20 0.090 0.090 0.016 0.015
08 00 000’. 14.9 7.2 75 5.80 17 0.070 0.090 0.015 0.014
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET UG/L
72/06/03 14 00 0000 6.3J
72/08/05 15 15 0000 2.4J
72/10/02 08 00 0000 18.2J
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
K - Value is less than indicated
J - Value known to be in error
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
2304A1 LS2304A1
43 25 00.0 070 39 30.0
MOUSAM RIVER
23007 15 KENNE8UNK
0/ESTES LAKE
WITCHERS MILL RD NE OF SANFORD CITY
1 IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
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/L MG/L P MG/I P
72/09/16 12 40 0.117 1.600 0.105 0.072 0.198
72/10/14 11 30 0.180 0.950 0.315 0.048 0.120
72/11/04 11 45 0.130 2.100 0.380 0.050 0.130
72/12/03 11 00 0.110 0.600 0.220 0.039 0.069
73/01/07 13 00 0.147 0.730 0.230 0.046 0.072
73/02/03 0.150 1.260 0.350 0.054 0.080
73/03/04 0.220 0.023 0.055
73/04/07 0.105 0.460 0.105 0.019 0.050
73/04/21 0.110 0.440 0.115 0.025 0.045
73/05/05 0.105 0.780 0.060 0.019 0.065
73/05/19 0.081 0.500 0.060 0.022 0.070
73/06/02 0.071 1.980 0.097 0.026 0.065
73/07/14 0.168 1.260 0.132 0.031 0.085
73/08/1? 0.480 1.260 0.470 0.077 0.150
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
2304A2 LS2304A2
43 25 00.0 070 44 30.0
MOUSAM RIVER
23 15 KENNEBUNK
1/ESTES LAKE
ST HWY 4 BRDG ABOV SANFORD SIP
11EPALFS 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&P403 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS-TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L HG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
72/09/16 12 20 0.076 0.375 0.091 0.007 0.026
7/10/14 13 15 0.130 0.550 0.170 0.005K 0.029
72/11/04 12 45 0.078 1.200 0.126 0.006 0.033
72/12/03 09 50 0.132 0.340 0.072 0.005K 0.018
73/01/07 10 15 0.105 0.710 0.046 0.005K 0.011
73/03/04 0.170 0.380 0.048 0.007 0.010
73/04/07 0.132 0.450 0.075 0.019 0.050
73/06/21 0.120 0,370 0.052 0.015 0.065
73/05/05 0.091 0.580 0.050 0.005K 0.020
73/05/19 0.068 0.400 0.048 0.007 0.025
73/06/02 0.060 0.500 0.060 0.015 0.030
73/07/14 0.147 0.990 0.130 0.006 0.030
-------
ST0RE:T RETRTEVAL DATE 74/06/25
2304A3 LS2304A3
43 25 30.0 070 ‘ii 00.0
MOUSAM RIVER
23 15 (ENNEBUNK
1/ESTES L4I
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
2304B1 LS2304B1
43 26 30.0 070 44 00.0
HAY BROOK
23 15 KENNEBUNK
T/ESTES LAKE
ST HWY 4 BRDG SSW OF ALFRED
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
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/I P MG/L P
72/09/16 13 IS 0.100 1.000 0.139 0.022 0.039
72/10/14 10 50 0.090 0.950 0.131 0.007 0.019
72/11/04 11 15 0.032 0.600 0.044 0.007 0.019
72/12/03 10 30 0.115 2.400 0.050 0.005K 0.009
73/01/07 09 30 0.170 0.540 0.058 0.005K 0.010
73/03/04 0.280 0.690 0.066 0.012 0.015
73/04/07 0.089 0.420 0.022 0.009 0.015
73/06/21 0.073 0.310 0.031 0.005K 0.010
73/05/OS 0.078 2.400 0.078 0.007 0.020
73/05/19 0.066 0.460 0.031 0.010 0.025
73/06/02 0.046 1.540 0.050 0.017 0.030
73/07/14 0.066 0.900 0.063 0.018 0.065
73/08/12 0.026 1.200 0.100 0.042 0.110
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
2304C1 LS2304C1
43 28 00.0 070 42 30.0
MIDDLE BR MOUSAM RIVER
23 15 KENNEBUNK
1/ESTES LAKE
BROG W OF ALFRED MILLS GELD ALFRED SIPS
1 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
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/L MG/I. P MG/I. P
72/09/16 14 00 0.110 1.600 0.176 0.025 0.060
72/10/14 09 45 0.208 0.750 0.138 0.007 0.024
72/11/04 10 15 0.058 0.840 0.087 0.005K 0.021
72/12/03 09 30 0.078 0.250 0.011 0.005K 0.008
73/01/07 11 45 0.054 0.580 0.018 0.005K 0.008
73/02/03 0.082 0.400 0.028 0.011 0.015
73/03/04 0.100 0.365 0.022 0.005K 0.010
73/04/07 0.054 0.250 0.032 0.005K 0.010
73/04/21 0.048 0.200 0.026 0.005K 0.005K
73/05/05 0.088 0.290 0.021 0.005K 0.010
73/05/19 0.086 0.080 0.007 0.017
73/06/02 0.084 2.520 0.083 0.007 0.020
73/07/14 0.360 2.200 0.150 0.009 0.035
73/08/12 0.300 0.630 0.050 0.021 0.035
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
2304C2 LS2304C2
43 28 00.0 070 43 30.0
MIDDLE BR HOUSAM RIVER
23 15 KENNEBUNK
1/ESTES LAKE
ST HWY 4 BRDG AROV ALFRED SIPS
11FPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/I MG/I MG/L MG/I P MG/L P
72/09/16 13 30 0.164 0.537 0.180 0.024 0.028
72/10/14 10 15 0.117 0.800 0.170 0.008 0.026
72/11/04 10 45 0.034 0.960 0.052 0.005K 0.019
7/12/03 12 00 0.046 0.270 0.009 0.005K 0.008
73/02/03 0.066 0.295 0.023 0.008 0.025
73/03/04 0.198 0.290 0.02? 0.005K 0.010
73/06/07 0.026 0.160 0.005K 0.005K 0.005K
73/04/21 0.022 0.360 0.018 0.005K 0.010
73/05/05 0.034 0.290 0.017 0.005K 0.015
73/05/19 0.030 0.310 0.018 0.006 0.015
73/06/02 0.024 1.500 0.042 0.013 0.020
73/07/14 0.105 0.650 0.036 0.010 0.040
73/08/12 0.069 0.690 0.030 0.016 0.035
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/06/25
230401 LS2304D1
43 28 00.0 070 42 00.0
LITTLEFIELO RIVER
23 15 KENNEBUNK
T/ESTES LAKE
BROG IN ALFRED MILLS
1IEDALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
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 14G/L MG/I P MG/I P
72/09/16 13 40 0.099 0.500 0.105 0.008 0.023
72/10/14 09 15 0.045 0.850 0.066 0.005K 0.017
72/11/04 09 45 0.055 0.690 0.110 0.005 1 < 0.020
72/12/03 11 30 0.080 0.560 0.022 0.0051< 0.012
73/01/07 11 00 0.170 0.300 0.034 0.005K 0.012
73/02/03 0.200 0.460 0.042 0.008 0.010
73/03/04 0.252 0.330 0.040 0.007 0.015
73/04/07 0.058 1.200 0.019 0.0051< 0.010
73/04/21 0.054 0.300 0.016 0.005K 0.010
73/OS/OS 0.064 0.365 0.015 0.005K 0.017
73/05/19 0.044 0.670 0.050 0.0051< 0.020
73/06/02 0.052 1.300 0.044 0.0051< 0.030
73/07/14 0.050 1.890 0.138 0.006 0.035
73/08/12 0.018 0.560 0.033 0.010 0.030
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 14/06/25
230450 P0230450
43 24 30.0 070 44 00.0
SANF OHD
23007 15 KENNEBUNK
T/ESTES LAKE
MOUSAP4 RIVER
1 1EPALES
4
P014800
2141204
0000 FEET DEPTH
00630
00625
006)0
00671
00665
50051
50053
DATE
TI’4E
DEPTH
N02&N03
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
PHOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
FLOW
CONDUIT
FROM
OF
N—TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
RATE
FLOW—MGD
TO
OAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
INST MGD
MONTHLY
73/01/15
10 00
0.010K
10.000
5.350
1.890
2.300
3.090
4.000
73/02/14
10 00
0.115
9.100
5.800
1.400
2.100
4.000
4.000
73/03/13
09 30
0.065
8.700
5.500
1.470
1.900
5.190
4.000
73/04/19
10 10
0.105
7.200
2.300
0.820
1.530
3.400
3.700
73/05/16
09 45
0.065
6.100
3.200
1.200
1.600
4.990
4.000
73/06/14
10 50
0.044
8.200
4.620
1.500
2.100
5.500
4.000
73/07/17
10 30
0.044
7.800
3.440
1.700
2.300
5.600
4.000
73/08/14
09 30
0.044
7.100
2.300
1.700
2.200
5.000
4.600
73/09/07
09 00
0.010K
7.600
2.260
1.840
2.300
4.600
4.000
73/10/10
09 30
0.160
6.700
4.100
2.000
2.350
3.250
3.500
73/11/13
09 45
0.110
8.300
5.200
2.000
2.000
3.270
3.500
73/12/04
09 45
0.190
7.300
5.100
1.890
2.300
3.500
3.500
------- |