U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER • CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
^T GPO S97.O32
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE NAOMI
MONROE COUNTT
PENNSYLVANIA
EPA REGION III
WORKING PAPER No, 421
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
AND THE
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1975
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Pennsylvania Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 13
VI. Appendices 14
-------
•11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey’s eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [ 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.
-------
ill
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources for professional Involvement and to
the Pennsylvania National Guard for conducting the tributary
sampling phase of the Survey.
Walter A. Lyon, Director of the Bureau of Water Quality
Management, Richard M. Boardman, Chief of the Division of Water
Quality, and James 1. Ulanoski, Aquatic Biologist of the Division
of Water Quality, provided invaluable lake documentation and
counsel during the Survey, reviewed the preliminary reports, and
provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this Working
Paper series.
Major General Harry J. Mier, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Pennsylvania, and Project Officer Major Ronald E. Wickard, who
directed the volunteer efforts of the Pennsylvania National
Guardsmen, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance
to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Allegheny Reservoir McKean, Warren, PA;
Cattarugus, NY
Beaver Run Reservoir Westmoreland
Beltzville Carbon
Blanchard Reservoir Centre
Canadohta Crawford
Conneaut Crawford
Conewago (Pinchot) York
Greeni ane Montgomery
Harveys Luzerne
Indian Somerset
Naomi Monroe
Ontelaunee Berks
Pocono Monroe
Pymatuning Reservoir Crawford, PA;
Ashtabula, OH
Shenango River Reservoir Mercer
Stiliwater Monroe
Wallenpaupack Pike, Wayne
-------
V
Map Location
LAKE NAOMI
®Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
-------
LAKE NAOMI*
STORET NO. 4224
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Lake Naomi is mesotrophic. It
ranked first in overall trophic quality when the 17 Pennsylvania
lakes sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination of six
lake parameters**. Three of the lakes had less median total
phosphorus, one had less and three had the same median dissolved
phosphorus, two had less median inorganic nitrogen, five had less
mean chlorophyll a, and nine had greater mean Secchi disc trans-
parency.
Survey limnologists noted sparse rooted aquatic vegetation in
July, 1973.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Lake Naomi was limited
by phosphorus at the time the sample was taken (04/17/73). The
lake data indicate phosphorus limitation at all sampling times.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources--The estimated phosphorus load from point
sources amounted to 8.0% of the total load. Of this estimated
load, 5.4% was contributed by the Radio Church of God, and 2.7%
was from shoreline septic tanks.
* Table of metric conversions--Appendix A.
** See Appendix B.
-------
2
While the present phosphorus loading rate of 0.28 g/m 2 /yr
is less than that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and
Dillon, 1974) as an oligotrophic rate (see page 12), every
effort should be made to reduce all phosphorus inputs to the
lowest practicable level to protect the existing high quality
of Lake Naomi.
2. Non-point sources--The phosphorus load from non-point
sources, including precipitation, was 92.0% of the total load
reaching the lake during the sampling year. Most of this load
was contributed by Upper Tunkhannock Creek (63.4%). The
ungaged drainage area was estimated to have contributed 22.3%.
The non-point phosphorus export of Upper Tunkhannock Creek
(see page 12) is quite comparable to the exports of the two
tributaries of nearby Stiliwater Lake* (mean of 10 kg/km 2 /yr;
range of 8 to 12) and the three tributaries of downstream
Pocono Lake* (mean of 10 kg/km 2 /yr; range of 5 to 14).
* Respectively, Working Paper No. 427 and No. 424.
-------
3
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 2.02 kilometers 2 .
2. Mean depth: 0.9 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 4.9 meters.
4. Volume: 1.818 x 106 m 3 .
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 21 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km 2 )* ( m 3 /sec)*
Upper Tunkhannock Creek (A-2) 35.0 0.7
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 12.5 0.3
Total 47.5 1.0
2. Outlet -
Upper Tunkhannock Creek (A-i) 49•5** 1.0
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 149.0 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 120.3 centimeters.
t Ulanoski, 1975.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, “...Survey Methods,
1973-1976”.
** Includes area of lake.
See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Naomi was sampled three times during the open—water season
of 1973 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from one
or more depths at a single station on the lake (see map, page v).
During each visit, a single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface)
sample was collected for phytoplankton identification and enumeration;
and a similar sample was collected for chlorophyll a analysis. During
the first visit, an 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was collected
for algal assays. The maximum depth sampled was 1.2 meters.
The lake sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and
are sumarized in the following table.
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHAHACTEHIST1CS FO LAKE NAOMI
STUMET CUJE 4224
1ST SAMPLING ( 4/17/73)
I SITES
MEAN MEUIAN
10.9
10.8
50.
7.5
2HD SAMPLINL, C 7/23/73)
I SITES
— 10.9
— 10.6
— 50.
- 7.6
MANGE
10.9
10.6
SO.
7.5
MEAN MEOIAN
3M1.) SAMPLING (10/ 3/73)
I SITES
PAMAM TEM
PANGE
MANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
TEMP (C)
10.9
22.7
— 22.7
22.7
22.7
17.1
— 17.1
17.1
17.1
0155 GM (MG/I)
10.8
7.0
— 7.0
7.0
7.0
6.2
— 8.2
8.2
8.2
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
50.
32.
— 32.
32.
32.
2e ’.
— 27.
27.
27.
PH (STAND UNITS)
l.S
5.5
- 5.5
5.5
5.5
6.0
— 6.0
6.0
6.0
TOT ALK (MG/U
10.
— 10.
10.
10.
10.
— 10.
10.
10.
10.
— 10.
10.
10.
TOT P (MG/I)
0.011
— 0.011
0.011
0.011
0.020
— 0.020
0.020
0.020
0.017
— 0.017
0.017
0.011
OMTHO P (MG/I)
0.008
— 0.006
0.006
0.008
0.005
— 0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
— 0.004
0.004
0.00’.
802.N03 (MG/I)
( ,.I00
— 0.100
0.100
0.100
0.090
— 0.090
0.090
0.090
0.030
— 0.030
0.030
0.030
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/I)
0.030
0.200
— 0.040
— 0.300
0.035
0.250
0.035
u. 5u
0.100
0.500
— 0.100
— 0.500
0.100
0.500
0.100
0.500
0.050
0.400
— 0.050
— 0.400
0.050
0.400
0.050
0.400
18080 N (MG/I)
0.130
— 0.140
0.135
0.135
0.190
— 0.190
0.190
0.190
0.080
— 0.080
0.080
0.080
TOTAL N (MG/I)
0.300
— 0.400
0.350
0.350
U.5 0
— 0.590
0.590
0.590
0.430
— 0.430
0.430
0.430
CHLRPYI A (05/LI
1.8
— (.8
1.5
j.
10.5
— 10.5
10.5
10.5
4.3
— 4.3
4.3
4.3
ECCHI )METE S)
1.
— 1.5
1.
1.5
1.3
— 1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
— 1.5
1.5
U,
-------
6
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton* -
Sampling
Date
07/23/73
Dominant
Genera
1. Synedra
2. Melosira
3. Glenodinium
4. Asterionelia
5. Arthrodesmus
Other genera
Total
Algal units
per ml
1 ,784
758
558
312
223
447
4,082
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
04/17/73
07/23/73
10/03/73
1. Flagellates
2. Peridinium
3. Cryptomonas
4. Chlorophyta cells
5. Asterionelia
Other genera
Station
Number
01
01
01
1 ,080
163
1 31
65
33
99
1 ,571
Chlorophyll a
(pg/i)
1.8
10.5
4.3
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked —
10/03/73
Total
Spike (mg/i)
Ortho P
Conc. (mg/i)
Inorganic N
Conc. (mg/i)
Maximum yield
(mg/i-dry wt.)
N/P
Ratio
<0.005
0.126
0.1
25/1
Control
0.050 P
0.055
0.126
1.2
2/i
0.050 P +
1.0 N 0.055
1.126
7.6
20/1
1.0 N
<0.005
1.126
0.1
225/1
* The April sample was lost in shipment.
-------
7
2. Discussion —
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri—
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Lake Naomi was low at the time the assay sample was col-
lected. The relatively small but significant increase in
yield when orthophosphorus was added and the lack of change
in yield when only nitrogen was added indicate phosphorus
limitation.
The relatively small increase in yield resulting from the
orthophosphorus spike was due to the shift to nitrogen limi-
tation when the excess phosphorus was added (note the change
in the N/P ratios). The control sample would have become
nitrogen limited with the addition of only about 0.010 mg/i
of orthophosphorus, so 4/5ths of the 0.050 mg/l spike could
not be utilized by the assay algae. Hence the small growth
response to the phosphorus addition.
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation at all samp-
ling times (the mean N/P ratios were 20/1 or greater, and
phosphorus limitation would be expected).
-------
8
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the deter i ination of nutrient loadings, the Pennsylvania
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 February and March when two samples were col-
lected. Sampling was begun in May, 1973, and was completed in April,
1974.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by
the Pennsylvania 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 a U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings*. Nutrient loads shown are
those measured minus point-source loads, if any.
Nutrient loads for unsampled “minor tributaries and immediate
drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the means of the
nutrient loads, in kg/km 2 /year, at station A-2 and multiplying the
means by the ZZ area in km 2 .
The Radio Church of God did not participate in the Survey, and
nutrient loads were estimated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401 kg N/capita/year.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
9
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known muncipal* -
Pop. Mean Flow Receiving
Name Served Treatment 1m 3 /d) Water
Radio Church 300** lagoon Lake Naomi
of God
2. Known industrial - None
* Ulanoski, 1975.
** Population is seasonal with a maximum of 300 persons for approximately
one month.
-------
10
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
kgP/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Upper Tunkhannock Creek (A-2) 355 63.4
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non—point load) - 125 22.3
c. Known SIP’s —
Radio Church of God 30 5.4
ci. Septic tanks* — 15 2.7
e. Known industrial - None - -
f. Direct Precipitation** — 35 6.2
Total 560 100.0
2. Outputs —
Lake outlet - Upper Tuckhannock
Creek (A-l) 540
3. Net annual P accumulation - 20 kg.
* Estimate based on 60 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading — Average Year:
1. Inputs —
kgN/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Upper Tunkhannock Creek (A—2) 13,820 63.8
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 4,940 22.8
c. Known STP’s -
Radio Church of God 85 0.4
d. Septic tanks* - 640 3.0
e. Known industrial - None — —
f. Direct precipitation** - 2,180 10.0
Total 21,665 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Upper Tunkhannock
Creek (A—l) 17,695
3. Net annual N accumulation — 3,970 kg.
* Estimate based on 60 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary k P/km 2 /yr kg N/km 2 /yr
Upper Tunkhannock Creek (A-2) 10 395
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollen-
weider and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his “dangerous” rate
is the rate at which the receiving water 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”.
Note that Vollenweider’s model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus _____________________
Total Accumulated
0.01
Total
Accumulated
10.7
2.0
grams/m 2 /yr 0.28
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m 2 /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake Naomi:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate)
0.74
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate)
0.37
-------
13
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Ulanoski, James T., 1975. Personal communication (point sources at
Lake Naomi). PA Dept. of Env. Resources, Harrisburg.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of the
phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research. Natl.
Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
VI APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 1O = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = lbs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 4224 LAKE NAOMI 445
2 4220 BELTZVILLE DAM 423
3 4222 HARVEY’S LAKE 413
4 4228 STILLWATER LAKE 401
5 4227 POCONO LAKE 389
6 4223 INDIAN LAKE 383
7 3b41 ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR 335
8 4229 LAKE WALLENPAUPACK 371
9 4221 CANADOHTA LAKE 369
10 4219 BEAVER RUN ESERVOIP 360
11 6204 CONNEAUT LAKE 307
12 4226 PINCHOT LAKE 256
13 4213 PYHATUNING RESERVOIR 206
14 4216 SHENANGO RIVER RESERvOIR 157
15 4225 ONTELAUNEE DAM 101
16 4201 BLANCHARD RESERVOIR 85
17 4207 GREENLANE DAM 53
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES ITrI rIIGHER VALUES (NUMt3ER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 15— MEDIAN INDEX
CuDE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORG N MEAN SEC CHLOHA MIN DO DISS NO
3b4 1 ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR 56 C 9) 38 C 6) 63 C 10) 100 C 16) 69 ( U) 59 C 8) 385
4201 BLANCHARD RESERVOIR 13 ( 2) 13 ( 2) 25 C 4) 31 C 5) 3 C 0) 0 C 0) 85
4204 CONNEAUT LAKE 44 C 7) 63 ( 10) 69 ( 11) 56 ( 9) 34 ( 5) 41 C 6) 307
4207 GREEWLANE DAM 6 C 1) 6 C 1) 19 ( 3) 13 ( 2) 3 ( 0) 6 C 1) 53
4213 PYMATUNING RESERVOIR I) ( 0) 72 C 11) 6 ( 1) 0 C 0) 100 ( 16) 28 C 4) 206
4216 SHENANGO RIVER RESERVOIR 19 C 3) 44 C 7) 13 C 2) 6 C 1) 47 C 7) 28 C 4) 157
4219 BEAVER RUN RESERVOIR 94 C 15) 19 C 3) 88 C 14) 81 C 13) 19 C 2) 59 C a) 360
4220 BELTZVILLE DAM 88 C 14) 25 C 4) 94 C 15) 94 C 15) 34 ( 5) 88 ( 13) 423
4221 CANAOOHTA LAKE 50 C ) 97 C 15) 56 ( 9) 19 C 3) 59 C 9) 88 C 13) 369
4222 HARVEY’S LAKE 63 C 10) 81 ( 13) 100 C 16) 63 C 10) 47 ( 7) 59 C 8) 413
4223 INDIAN LAKE 100 C 16) 31 C 5) 75 12) 75 12) 19 C 2) 88 C 13) 388
4224 LAKE NAOMI 81 C 13) 88 C 14) 44 C 7) 69 C 11) 88 C 14) 75 C 12) 445
4225 ONTELAUNEE DAM 25 C 4) 0 C 0) 0 C 0) 44 ( 7) 19 ( 2) 13 C 2) 101
4226 PINCHOT LAKE 31 C 5) 56 C 9) 31 C 5) 38 C 6) 81 C 13) 19 C 3) 256
227 POCONO LAKE 38 C 6) 97 C 15) 50 C 8) 88 ( 14) 75 C 12) 41 C 6) 3d9
4228 STILLWATEp LAKE 72 C 11) 72 C 1)) 38 C 6) 25 C 4) 94 C 15) 100 C 16) 401
4229 LAKE WALLENPAUPACK 72 C 11) 50 ( 8) 81 C 13) 50 C 8) 59 C 9) 59 C 8) 371
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
LAKE NAME
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
MEL)1AN
INOr G N
500—
MEAN SEC
MEAN
CMLO A
15—
MIN DO
MEDIAN
DISS
P
36’ .1
ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR
0.016
0.380
414.250
3.700
13.800
0.006
4201
BLANCI-IARD RESERVOIR
0.06’.
1.300
453.143
15.187
14.900
0.046
4204
CUNNEAUT LAKE
0.023
0. ldS
402.000
7.567
14.600
0.007
4207
G EENLANE DAM
0.066
1.475
460.222
24.011
14.900
0.020
4213
PYMATUNING RESERVOIR
0.070
0.180
467.750
56.333
7.700
0.008
4216
SHENANGO RIVER RESERVOIR
O.0 8
0.340
463. 5 55
26. iO0
14.500
0.008
4219
BEAVER RUN RESERVOIR
0.009
0.835
38 ’ .. 33
5.183
14. 00
0.006
4220
BELTZVILLE DAM
0.010
0.815
362.444
4.856
14.600
0.005
4221
CANADOHTA LAKE
0.020
0.130
436.000
19.167
14.100
0.005
4222
HARVEY’S Lt KE
0.015
0.160
338.000
5.967
14.500
0.006
4223
INDIAN LAKE
0.008
0.520
400.222
5.211
14.800
0.005
4224
LAKE NAOMI
0.014
0.135
443.333
5.533
8.000
0.005
4225
ONTELAUNEE DAM
0.040
2.150
470.667
11.783
14.800
0.011
‘.226
PINCI-10T LAKE
0.027
0.245
453.000
13.950
11.500
0.008
4227
POCONO LAKE
0.024
0.130
438.800
4.980
13.200
0.001
4228
STILLWATER LAKE
0.015
0.180
449.000
18.233
7.900
0.004
4229
LAKE WALLENPAUPACK
0.015
0.250
394.583
9.617
14.100
0.006
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
Twlri’JJe,rr FLOw 1.ruMMAIIuN FUM r’tiINSYLVANIA 1/27 /75
LAKE Coo l 4224 N.zOMl LAKL
TOtAL OI IAINAGE AkEA OF LAKtISO KIl l 49.5
SUR—DRA INA(,I NOr
-------
APPENDIX 0
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/01/27
73/114/17 10 30 0000
10 30 o004
73/07/23 10 30 0000
73/10/03 16 00 0000
11.011
0.011
0.017
422401
41 06 35.0 075 27 36.0
LAt E NAOMI
42o89 PENNSYLVANiA
1 1EPALES 2111202
3 0008 FEET DEPTH
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
FROM
OF
To
DAY
FEET
73/04/17
10 30
10 30
0000
0004
73/07/23
10 30
0000
73/li /03
16 00
0000
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
FROM
OF
TO
DAY
FEET
10.6
7.0
d.2
001110
00300
0 ou77
00094
00400
00410
00610
00625
00630
00671
WATER
DO
T ANSP
CNDUCTVY
Ph
T AL
NH3-N
TOT KJEL
N02&N03
PHOS—DIS
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
CACO3
TOTAL
N
N—TOTAL
ORTPI0
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SO
MG/I
MG/I
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
10.9
60
50K
7.60
10K
0.040
0.300
0.100
0.006
10.9
50K
7.50
10K
0.0311
0.200
0.100
0.006
22.7
50
32
5.50
10K
0.100
0.500
0.090
0.005
17.1
60
27
6.00
10K
0.050
0.400
0.030
0.004
00b6 32217
PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL
A
MG/L P UG/L
1 .
10.5
4.3
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STOi cET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/03
‘.224A 1
41 06
UPPEk
42111
0/NAOMI
HWY 423
1 IEPALES
4
30.0 u75 28 30.0
TUNKHANNOCK CR
7.5 POCONO PINES
LAISE
t3RDG IN TOwN OF PONOCO LAKE
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
00630
00625
00610
00671
0066
DAlE
TIME
DEPTr4
NO2 .NO3
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
73/u5/1’
15
37
o.0 8
0.310
0.005K
0.005 c
0.01 5
73/06/23
10
25
0.024
0.440
0.029
0.005K
0.025
73/07/14
09
20
0.012
0.750
0.078
0.010
0.020
73/08/05
10
15
u.021
0.320
0.022
0.005K
0.025
73/09/09
10
10
0.019
1.600
0.080
0.005K
0.025
73/10/07
11
10
0.013
0.350
0.020
0.006
0.012
73/11/11
14
00
0.024
1.050
0.052
0.020
73/12/09
12
40
0.092
0.300
0.020
0.005K
0.020
74/01/06
10
50
0.136
0.100
0.024
0.005K
0.010
74/Od/09
14
45
0.184
0.400
0.035
0.005K
0.005
74/02/23
1’+
45
0.192
0.300
0.025
0.010
O.U2u
74/03/lb
10
10
0.152
0.500
0.045
0.005K
0.015
74/0i/30
14
00
0.144
0.250
0.015
0.005
0.012
74/04/13
10
20
0.092
0.100
0.010
0.00 5K
0.010
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/03
‘ .224A2
41 07 02.0 075 25 31.0
UPPER TUi’iiS’iANNOCK C
4 1.5 POCONO PINES
1/NAOMI LAKE
MD 8F UG JUST 8ELO ST1LLWATEp LAP(E OUTLET
I IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO2 N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS—OIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORrHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L
73/05/19 15 30 0.056 0.340 0.005K 0.005K 0.015
73/Ob/23 10 05 0.011 0.400 0.020 0.005K 0.020
73/01/14 10 00 0.010K 0.630 0.08’. 0.008 0.015
73/08/05 10 30 0.010K 0.240 0.018 0.005K 0.015
73/09/09 10 00 0.012 2.100 0.126 0.005K 0.015
73/Lu/07 10 47 0.010K 0.400 0.034 0.006 0.010
73/11/11 13 15 0.056 1.000 0.052 0.016 0.020
73/12/0” 11 15 0.104 0.300 0.02’. 0.008 0.015
74/01/06 10 06 0.136 0.400 0.040 0.005K 0.010
74/02/09 14 27 0.168 0.600 0.055 0.005K 0.010
74/02/23 1’. 27 0.152 0.200 0.C10 0.010 0.U2s
74/03/16 09 40 0.168 0.800 0.055 0.005 0.025
74/03/30 12 00 0.152 0.300 0.035 0.005 0.010
74/04/13 11 40 0.116 0.200 0.015 0. 005K 0.015
K VALUE. KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |