U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
ALBERT LEA UWE
FREBORN COUN1Y
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 80
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
& GPO—697.032
-------
REPORT
ON
ALBERT LEA LAIC
REEBORN COUNTY
MINfESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 80
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
AND THE
MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD
OCTOBER, 1D74
-------
1
COIl TENTS
Page
Foreword
List of Minnesota Study Lakes iv , v
Lake and Drainage Area Map vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Introduction 4
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 5
IV. Lake Water Quality Sun iary 6
V. Nutrient Loadings 11
VI. Literature Reviewed 16
VII. Appendices 17
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration comit.ment 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 [ 3l4(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ lO6 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
111
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for professional involvement and to the Minnesota Elational
Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey.
Grant J. Merritt, Director of the rlinnesota Pollution Control
Agency, John F. McGuire, Chief, and Joel G. Schilling, Biologist,
of the Section of Surface and Groundwater, Oivision of Water Quality,
provided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the course
of the Survey; and the staff of the Section of Municipal Works, Divi-
sion of Water Quality, were most helpful in identifying point sources
and soliciting municipal participation in the Survey.
Major General Cnester J. Iloeglein, the Adjutant General of
Minnesota, and Project Officer Major Adrian Beltrand, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Minnesota National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Albert Lea Freeborn
Andrusia Beltrami
Badger Polk
Bartlett Koochiching
Bear Freeborn
Bemidji Beltrami
Big Stearns
Big Stone Big Stone, MN; Roberts,
Grant, SD
Birch Cass
Blackduck Beltrami
Blackhoof Crow Wing
Budd Martin
Buffalo Wright
Calhoun Hennepin
Carlos Douglas
Carrigan Wright
Cass Beltrarni, Cass
Clearwater Wright, Stearns
Cokato Wright
Cranberry Crow Wing
Darling Douglas
Elbow St. Louis
Embarass St. Louis
Fall Lake
Forest Washington
Green Kandiyohi
Gull Cass
Heron Jackson
Leech Cass
Le Homme Dieu Douglas
Lily Blue Earth
Little Grant
Lost St. Louis
-------
V
LAKE NAME
COUNTY
Madison
Mal medal
Mash kenode
McQuade
Mi nnetonka
Minnewaska
Mud
Nest
Pelican
Pepin
Rabbit
Sakatah
Shagawa
Silver
Six Mile
Spring
St. Croix
St. Louis Bay
Superior Bay
Swan
Trace
Trout
Wagonga
Wal lrnark
White Bear
Winona
Wo 1 f
Woodcock
Zumbro
Blue Earth
Pope
St. Louis
St. Louis
Hennepi n
Pope
Itasca
Kandiyohi
St. Louis
Goodhue, Wabasha, MN;
Pierce, Pepin, WI
Crow Wing
Le Sueur
St. Louis
McLeod
St. Louis
Wash i ngton,
Washington,
Pierce, WI
St. Louis,
St. Louis,
Itasca
Todd
Itasca
Kandiyoh I
C h i s a go
Was hi ngton
Douglas
Beltrami, Hubbard
Kandiyoh i
Olmstead, Wabasha
Dakota
MN; St.
Croix,
tIN; Do ugl as, WI
tIN; Douglas, WI
-------
I 5Milesto )
I STP near
I Clarks Grove
land Trib. Sampling
Site: #2702D1
\ —
oHOLLANDALE
JUNCTION
ALBERT LEA LAKE
Tributary Sampling Site x Lake Sampling Site
/
Direct Drainage Area Boundary Indirect Drainage Area
Sewage Treatment Facility
- fl
Mi nnesota
u PET IAN
—
I I
-------
ALBERT LEA LAKE
STORET 110. 2702
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others show that Albert Lea
Lake is highly eutrophic.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results are considered unreliable because
of a significant loss of nutrients. However, the lake data
show that Albert Lea Lake was nitrogen limited at all sampling
times.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources——During the sampling year, it is estimated
that Albert Lea Lake received a total phosphorus load at a rate
about 14 times that proposed by Vollenweider (in press) as “dan-
gerous”; i.e., a eutrophic rate (see page 15). Of that load,
the City of Albert Lea, Wilson & Company, and the Village of Clarks
Grove collectively contributed about 84% (one-half of the Clarks
Grove load is assumed to have been sedimented and/or biologically
assimilated in Fountain Lake).
In the following table, the total phosphorus loading rates
that can be achieved by specified levels of phosphorus removal
at all three point sources are shown and compared to Vollenweider’s
suggested rates.
-------
2
Total P Loading
lbs/acre/yr ci/m 2 /yr
% P Removal
Existing
56.3
6.31
50
32.7
3.67
70
23.3
2.61
80
18.6
2.08
90
13.9
1.56
100
9.2
1.03
Vol 1 enweider:
Eutrophic
Oligotroph
rate
ic rate
0.44
0.22
It will be noted that none of the above removal options would
reduce the phosphorus loading rate to an optimal level. However,
it is believed that a relatively high level of phosphorus removal
at the indicated point sources would result in a significant re-
duction in the incidence and severity of nuisance algal blooms
in Albert Lea Lake, but it would be expected that rooted aquatic
vegetation would continue to be a problem because of the alter-
nate source of nutrients in the sediments and the shallowness
of the lake. The dredging program at the lake should relieve
the weed problem in time.
It is noted that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agenc ’ has
stipulated that phosphorus reduction be instituted at the City
of Albert Lea wastewater treatment plant and that ammonia re-
duction shall be initiated conditional upon completion of bio-
assay studies to determine if existing levels are toxic; the
-------
3
Agency has provided funding to the City for Step I preliminary
plans (McGuire, 1974).
2. Non—point sources--It is calculated that non—point sources
contributed only about 16% of the total phosphorus load to Albert
Lea Lake during the sampling year. However, the nutrient exports
of Peter Lund Creek were quite high as compared to the exports of
Minnesota streams studied elsewhere (see page 15); it is not known
whether these exports reflect the intensive agriculture in the area
or resulted from other unmeasured sources.
-------
4
II. INTRODUCTION
Albert Lea Lake, Freeborn County, is a large but shallow natural
lake in the Cedar River (Iowa) drainage basin and is the headwaters of
the Shell Rock River, an interstate stream.
Freeborn County is located in southeastern Minnesota and borders
on the State of Iowa. The productive soil in the county supports
intensive agricultural uses, mainly the growing of field crops and
vegetables.
Recreational uses of the lake are largely limited to boating, swim-
ming, and camping. A large State park and an organizational campground
are located on the shoreline.
The Minnesota Department of flatural Resources manages the lake as
a waterfowl-game lake; the shallow depth and recurring oxygen depletion
prevent the establishment of a fishery.
-------
5
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry*:
1. Surface area: 2,453 acres.
2. Mean depth: 3.5 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 6 feet.
4. Volume: 8,586 acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 73 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name Drainage areat Mean flowt
Fountain Lake Outlet 99.2 mi 2 39.8 cfs
Peter Lund Creek 29.2 mi 2 12.5 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
ini’nediate drainage - 15.2 nh 7.0 cfs
Totals 143.6 rni’ 59.3 cfs
2. Outlet -
Shell Rock River 147.4 mi 2 tt 59.3 cfs
C. Precipitationttt:
1. Year of sampling: 42.4 inches.
2. 1ean annual: 28.7 inches.
DNR lake survey map (1964).
t Drainage areas are accurate within ±5%; n an daily f1o is are accurate
within ±10%; and ungaged 2 flows are accurate wituin ±10 to 2 % for drainage
areas greater than 10 mi
1- f Includes area of lake; outflow adjusted to equal sum of inflows.
ttt See Working Paper No 1, “Survey iletliods”.
-------
6
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Albert Lea 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 (see map, page vi). During each visit, a single
sample was composited from the stations for phytoplankton identification
and enumeration; and during the last visit, a single five—gallon sample
was composited from the three stations for algal assays. Also each time,
a sample was collected from each of the stations for chloropi y1l a analy-
sis. Because of lack of depth, only near-surface samples were collected.
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 summrnarized 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.
-------
7
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
(10/29/72)
Parameter Minimum ( lean iledian Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 11.1 14.0 14.0 17.0
Conductivity ( imhos) 725 767 750 825
pH (units) 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5
Alkalinity (mg/l) 200 215 208 238
Total P (mg/i) 0.363 1.274 1.380 2.080
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.048 0.936 1.060 1.700
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.660 3.210 0.670 8.300
Am onia ?mg/l) 0.140 0.970 0.170 2.600
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches)
3 7
6 12
-------
3
B. Biological characteristics:
1 . Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
07/01/72
Dominant
Genera
1. Oscillatoria
2. Scenedesmus
3. Merismopedia
4. Microcystis
5. Aphanocapsa
Other genera
Number
per ml
44,727
12,727
5 ,09 1
3,813
3,455
7,818
77,636
1. Oscillatoria
2. tlicrocystis
3. Lyngbya
4. Merisrnopedia
5. Anabaena
Other genera
1. Cyclotella
2. Uscillatoria
3. Flagellates
4. Fragilaria
5. Scenedesmus
Other genera
39,053
25,312
1 6 ,274
11,571
10,848
65,088
168,146
22,406
6,241
4,511
4,361
3,684
11,203
Total
08/30/72
10/29/72
Total
Total 52,406
-------
9
2. Chlorophyll a -
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following values nay be in error by plus or minus 20
percent.)
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( pg/i )
07/01/72 01 478.4
02 513.1
03 452.1
08/30/72 01 510.2
02 245.6
03 756.0
10/29/72 01 177.3
02 145.5
03 152.6
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
There was a significant loss of nutrients in the assay sample
between the time of collection and the beginning of the algal
assay, particularly inorganic nitrogen (the ammonia loss alone
was about 480 pg/i). Because of this loss, the assay results
are not reliable. However, had the loss not occurred, the
expected control yield would have been a very high 158 mg/i,
dry weight, of the test alga, Selenastrum capricornutum* .
D. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others show that Albert Lea
Lake is highly eutrophic. Survey limnologists noted that the
* Extensive testing by EPA’s Eutrophication Research. and Lake Restoration
Branch shows that the expected control yield of the test alga is 0.430
mg/i dry weight per pg/i of orthophosphorus or 0.038 mg/l dry weight per
pg/i of inorganic nitrogen, depending on which element is limiting in the
assay sample (providing something else is not limiting, of course).
-------
10
lake had the appearence of “pea soup” on all sampling visits
but that a particularly heavy algal bloom was occurring during
the August sampling period. They also reported heavy growths of
rooted aquatic vegetation.
Of the 60 Minnesota lakes on which sampling was completed,
only one had a higher mean inorganic nitrogen, only four had a
higher mean total and dissolved phosphorus, and none had a higher
mean chlorophyll a.
-------
11
V. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Minnesota National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the tribu-
tary sites indicated on the map (page vi), except for the colder months
when two samples were not obtained from the smaller streams. Sampling
was begun in October, 1972, and as completed in September, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the year
of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by the Minne-
sota District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the tributary sites
nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were determined
by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer program for
calculating stream loadings. Nutrient loadings for unsampled “minor
tributaries and immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were calculated
using the mean concentrations in Peter Lund Creek at station C-l and ZZ
flows.
The operator of the Albert Lea wastewater treatment plant provided monthly
effl uent samples and corresponding flow data; however, only one sample was
submitted by the Village of Clarks Grove, and nutrient loads from that
source were estimated.
The loads attributed to the Wilson and Company packing plant were
estimated on the basis of effluent information provided the U.S. Corps
of Engineers by the Company in a September, 1972, discharge permit
application (Schmiesing, 1974).
-------
12
In the following tables, the loads given for tributaries do not in-
clude point-source loads.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal —
Pop. Mean Receiving
Name Served* Treatment Flow (rngd) Water
Albert Lea 19,418 Act. sludge 4.337 Albert Lea Lake
Clarks Grove 480 Ponds 0.048** ditch to Fountain
Lake
Hayward 261 Pond, land 0.026** no discharge
disposal
2. Known industrialt -
Mean Receiving
Name Product Treatment Flow (mgd) Water
Wilson & meat Secondary 0.780 Albert Lea Lake
Company packing
(about 0.700 mgd of stronger wastes treated in City of Albert
Lea treatment plant)
* 1970 Census.
** Estimated at 100 gal/capita/day.
t Schrniesing, 1974.
-------
13
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbs P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Fountain Lake outlet 9,530 6.9
Peter Lund Creek 7,950 5.8
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) — 4,030 2.9
c. Known municipal -
Albert Lea 114,020 82.6
Clarks Grove 1,200 0.9
d. Septic tanks* - 30 <0.1
e. Known industrial -
Wilson & Company 870 0.6
f. Direct precipitation** — 380 0.3
Total 138,010 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Shell Rock River 98,260
3. Net annual P accumulation - 39,750 pounds
* Estimated 360 persons/day/4 months at park and campground; see Working
Paper No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
14
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading — Average Year:
1. Inputs -
lbs N I % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Fountain Lake outlet 516,900 38.6
Peter Lund Creek 267,690 20.0
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non—point load) - 130,610 9.8
c. Known municipal -
Albert Lea 389,480 29.1
Clarks Grove 3,600 0.3
d. Septic tanks* — 1,130 <0.1
e. Known industrial -
Wilson & Company 5,820 0.4
f. Direct precipitation** - 23,630 1 .8
Total 1,338,860 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Shell Rock River 848,660
3. Net annual N accumulation - 490,200 pounds
* Estimated 360 persons/day/4 months at park and campground; see Working
Paper No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
15
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/mi 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Fountain Lake outlet 96 5,211
Peter Lund Creek 262 8,825
E. Yearly Loading Rates;
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading rates
are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (in press). Essen-
tially, 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 a 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/acre/yr 56.3 16.2 545.8 199.8
grams/rn /yr 6.31 1.82 61.2 22.4
Volle 2 weider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time for Albert Lea Lake:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 0.44
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.22
-------
16
VI. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1962. Report on investigation of pollution of Albert
Lea Lake and watershed, Freeborn County. MN Dept. of Health,
Minneapol is.
Kiester, Charles E., 1961. Report on operation of waste treatment
works, Wilson and Company, Inc., Albert Lea, August 24-26, 1960,
and February 21, 1961. MN Dept. of Health, flinneapolis.
Lutz, Michael, and George R. Koonce, l970(?). Memorandum—-Wilson
and Company, Inc., Albert Lea. MPCA, Minneapolis.
r 1cGuire, John F., 1973. Personal communication (characteristics
of Albert Lea Lake; point-sources). F4PCA, Flinneapolis.
__________ 1974. Personal communication (comments on preliminary
report on Albert Lea Lake; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
requirements). MPCA, Minneapolis.
Schilling, Joel, 1974. Personal communication (map of lake; area
of lake). MPCA, Minneapolis.
Schmiesing, Glen, 1974. Personal communication (Wilson & Co.
nutrient and flow data from discharge permit application).
MPCA, Minneapolis.
Vollenweider, Richard A., (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
A. Hydrol.
-------
17
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFO iMATlON EON MINNESOTA 10/30/74
LAKE CODE ?70? ALBERT LEA LAKE
TOTAL r)RA!NAC,E AREA OF LAKE 147.00
SUB—DRAINAGE NORMALIZED FLOWS
TRIBUTARY AREA JAN MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NO DEC MEAN
270?A 1 99.20 10.40 16.60 72.70 95.30 51.40 60.00 35.20 30.10 28.60 28.80 28.20 18.90 39.77
270? B1 147.00 16.30 24.90 105.10 141.40 75.20 86.00 53.00 47.10 45.30 42.60 42.70 28.90 59.17
270?C1 29.20 4.O I 5.03 30.20 26.’.0 14.70 17.90 10.80 8.83 10.40 7.58 7.00 6.69 12.50
2702Z7 19.00 1.24 1.76 7.79 16.30 9.79 11.70 7.30 6.30 7.72 5.59 4.98 3.19 6.98
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE 147.00 TOTAL FLOW IN = 709.97
SUM OF SUB—DRAINAGE AREAS = 147.40 TOTAL FLOW OUT = 709.30
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND L)AILY FLOWS
TPIR’JTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
270241 10 7 ? 76.30 15 37.00
II 7? 76.70 4 176.00
1? 7? 31.30 2 37.00
1 73 50.30 7 24.00
2 73 21.30 3 24.00
3 73 250.00 3 295.00
4 73 172.00 B 57.00
S 73 216.00 19 69.00
6 73 24.60 3 69.00
7 73 85.90 14 28.00
8 73 54.50 11 47.00
9 73 135.00 15 46.00
270?R1 10 7 115.00 iS 55.00
Ii 7 118.00 4 270.00
17 72 48.60 2 SN.00
73 76.50 7 38.00
2 73 32.40 3 37.00
3 73 368.00 3 414.00
4 73 ?59.OO 8 86.00
5 73 32?.OO 19 103.00
6 73 36. O 3 102.00
7 73 132.00 14 42.00
8 71 98.30 Il 77.00
9 73 217.00 15 74.00
-------
TQ1t4LutA Y FLOW INFORMATION FO MINNESOTA
10/30/74
LA
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
270201
43 38 ‘.2.0 093 20 51.0
AL8EkT LEA LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
11E ALES 2111202
3 0002 FEET DEPTM
0’)O lO 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DE TH WATER DO T ANSP C ’JDIJCTVY PH T ALK NO?&N03 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT ‘IG/L INCHES MICROMHO SU MG/L MG/L MG/L HG/L P MG/L P
7?/07/01 09 30 0000 4.S 13.6 6 750 9.20 1HO 0.530 0.850 0.958 0.780
7?/0R/30 00 00 0000 204 0.260 1.120 1.260 0.685
14 00 0000 7.0 1’.8 4 680 .70
7?/10/29 13 35 0000 7.8 14.0 12 R?S 8.50 200 0.670 0.170 2.080 1.700
32 1 7
DATE TIME DE°TF4 CHLPPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET IJG/L
7?/07/O1 09 30 0000 478.4J
72/08/30 14 00 0000 10. J
72/10/29 13 35 0000 177.3J
J VALUE KNOWN TO BE IN ERROR
-------
ST0 T L)FT.fl1 JAt !)AJ - 1g./I ‘iu
?10202
43 37 06.0 093 18 27.0
ALr PT LEA LA (L
27 ‘UNINESOTA
I IEPALES
3
2111202
0002 FEET DEPTH
rm Tc
TO
72/0 7/01
72/0 P/ 3o
7 7/ I fl/? ’1
‘ rv
rq9M
77/07/0
77/fl ; /3)
77/ I )/? -)
TI’ F nc T-1
t)Af FFEI
00 50 C’000
I ’. 15 0000
11 4S flO( 0
T!M f) .’T-’
IW
d Y F T
9 60 O00
, 5 tj 0 00
I 1 1.c (0 1 10
l i i.
19u77
000’44
OU ’ .(iO
00.10
00630
fl
I v cP
C flUCTVY
T ALK
N021 .N03
NH3—N
Pi-iOS—TOT
P1105—015
Tl”
‘ 1CC l1
FIFLD
CACO1
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
r T
G/L
1’ C’- S
jCWUY’-lf)
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
“.
7.
570
c’.io
132
,1. ”
I .4
5
5 0
‘9. 13
is’.
7.
Ii • I
1?
72
8.0
20’
0.180
0.410
1.080
0.504
i I 1
CP- ’I h3L
‘I 3.1 J
• J
I .6.6J
J VALU KNOwN TO ‘3 IN FP O ’
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
270203
43 3 27.0 093 16 54.J
ALHEPT LEA LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
11&ALES 2111202
3 0002 FEET DEPTH
00310 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
OATE TIME DEPTH WATEP DO TF ANSP CNDUCTVY PH 1 ALK NO2&N03 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT MC,/L INCHES MICROMHO SU MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
7?/07/01 10 00 0000 ‘S.•D 11.0 470 9.40 93 0.060 0.030 0.029 0.016
72/08/30 14 50 0000 ?1.M .6 3 500 8.70 159 0.170 0.220 0.955 0.234
72/10/29 13 55 0000 7 Q 17.0 12 750 8.40 238 8.300 0.140 0.363 0.048
37217
DATE TIUF DFDTrI CrILRPHYL
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET UG/L
72/07/01 10 00 0000 452.IJ
7?/OR/30 16 50 G000 7S6.OJ
77/I0/2Q 13 SR 0000 L ?.5)
J VALUE KNOWN TO F3E IN ERROR
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STC) ET ETPT VAL OATE 74/10/30
?702A1 LS2702A1
43 39 00.0 093 21 30.0
AL 3EPT LEA / FOUNTAIN LAKE COMN.
270 5 15 4LA RT LEA
I/AL8E T LEA LAKE
US 69 B DG IN ALBERT LEA
1IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
( 0 3C 30675 004510 00671 00665
DATE ‘)F’- Tr-1 N( ?Y ’U3 rUT KJFL Nt-fl—N PHOS—1)IS PHOS—TOT
F OV OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL OPTHO
TO flAY FF T M1,/L M(/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
72/10/15 ‘ ‘5 0.1)4 ?.520 0.069 0.01 ’ 0.168
72/11/04 15 00 .0)0 1.9465 0.230 0.026 0.134R
72/12/02 1’ -‘ .0 -..P 0 l.’ ’0 O.0?4 0.00 0.066
71/01/07 I I ‘5 “.930 2.01r 0.285 0.041 0.075
71/02/03 145 30 6.600 2.700 0.610 0.180 0.223
71/03/03 16 (}5 4.9’)O 4.flO O 1.200 0.600 0.720
73/04/08 09 45 7.?( ,’) 2.U00 0.0?8 0.012 0.095
71/05/1 145 00 Q•7 ’fl 0.u10 0.009 0.080
73/06/031? 30 6.10U ?. 501) i). OLP 0.014 0.115
73/07/1’ 17 co 3.3,’) 2. 520 0.0?4 0.018 0.150
71/08/11 17 5 0.110 3.100 ).0?4 0.0?1 0.155
71/OQ/15 15 30 7. ’ ) 0.046 0.028 0.180
-------
STO FT RETRIEVAL DATE: 14/10/30
2702 -U LS2702A1
43 37 00.0 O 3 17 30.0
Sr4ELL ROCK RIVER
27 15 ALt3EPT LEA
O/ALt3ERT LEA LAKE
CO i-I Y 19 SE END OF LAKE
1 IEPALES
4
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
9fl63r.
006?5
00610
00671
00665
OATE
TIME
DEPTH
NU2 NO3
TOT KJEL
NH3—N
Ps-iOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
FPOM
O
“J—T’)T AL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
G/L
MG/i.
MG/I
MG/L P
MG/L P
72/10/15
16
15
0.220
6.400
0.520
0.120
0.360
72/11/01 .
5
fl
0.655
4•275
0.530
0.05
0.790
72/12/07
15
15
‘P.570
3.900
0.650
0.930
1.020
71/01/07
10
50
U.4 ’ t t
6.403
4.500
1 . 90
1.900
73/02/03
16
16
.0O0
.300
6.?0O
7.100
2.100
73/01/03
16
0
1.9’ O
?. 0 0
1.300
0.370
0.430
73/04/0
ii
00
-.M 00
4.300
0.180
0.130
0.420
71/05/1Q
17
0
.90’)
.100
0.014
0.032
0.270
71/06/03
11
00
1.1 0
‘.? 0i )
0.044
0.056
Q .345
73/07/14
15
25
0.0 ’-.
E. 00
0.048
0.320
0.750
73/3 /11
15
45
t ;. O 1 OK
‘ 49 0
3.044
0.189
0.590
71/0 /1
1
05
0. Ol Or(
6.000
0.034
0.176
0.575
K VALUE F(NOWN TO BE LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
STDPET PETPTEVAL DATE 74/10/30
2702C1 LS2702C1
43 38 30.0 093 16 00.0
PETEk LUND CR
27 15 AL9ERT LEA
1/ALBERT LEA
Co HWY 98 B DG 1 M l w HAYWARD
11E ALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET
DATE
F P OM
TO
7?/ 10/15
72” 1 l/0
7?/ I ?/07
71/03/03
7 1/04/0
73/0S/lq
71/0 5/0 1
7 /07/ 14
71/08/11
71/09/15
00 30
00675
OOb l O
00671
00665
NO? O3
TOT KJEL
NH3-N
PI-iOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
“i—TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
M&/L
‘IG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
rlMc DEPTH
OF
DAY FFFT
09 35
IS 35
11 ?5
16 38
to c
17 35
11 05
13 50
16 00
17 45
DEPTH
- .400
4.340
c . 1’)O
. 100
I c • 000
1 ‘ • 0 ) 0
1 • 000
7.600
• 1 Ut)
7.600
0 •
0. IOUP(
U • lOOK
5.200
I • 100
I • 150
0 • 820
.900
1 • IOu
1 .3 0
0.038
0.075
1.600
0.058
0.0 75
0.102
0.018
i) • 1 70
0.05?
0.115
0.098
0.072
0.860
0.050
0.065
0.100
0 • 128
0.230
0.440
0.154
0.126
0.09’
1.080
0.070
0.155
0 • 1 0
0.250
0 • 390
0.525
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET PET 1EVAL Ut Tt 74/10/ W
270201 LS27 O2rU
43 45 00.0 093 19 30.0
UNNAMEO STPEAH
7.5 ELLENDALE
T/ALF4€:RT LEA LAKE
1)f’ T ROAD X1N E CLARKS G’ OVE
1IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
0rf 3(, i0f 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH r O7 NO3 TOT cJEL NH 3-N PrIOS—DIS PHQSTOT
F OM N—TOTAL TOTAL OPTHO
T ) flAY FEET ‘lG/L ‘ 1C,/L MG/L M(/L P MG/L P
72/1J/Ic 10 1 :1.071 1.S U (). ORR 0.210 0.300
7?/1I/0 16 20 0.05? 0.147 0.147 0.290 1.035
73/07/03 17 O O. OR’) .201 1.R90 0.040 1.930
73/04/OR 10 ?c 0.063 0.160 1.000 1.350
73/o5/lq 16 45 0.026 7.10) 0.021 1.050 1.350
71/06/03 11 35 0.066 1.P9’) 0.0R6 0.620 1.300
73/07/1 17 0 0.3 O 4.R00 1.950 O.07 3 1.300
73/OR/H 17 P- 0.1 . 5.10’ 2.000 0.062 2.600
71/09/l 16 4S 0.610 1.470 0.052 1.000
-------
ST 1PET °EIRIEVA I)ATF 74/IC/lO
270251 AS2702 51 P019418
63 38 30.0 093 21 30.0
ALI EPT LEA
27005 IS ALI ERT LEA
1)/ALIIERT LEA LAKE
AL8ERT LEA LAKE
IIEPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTh
00630 00625 00610 (10671 00665 50051 50053
DATF TIME DF Th -1 NO 5$O3 TOT KJEL Nt-Il—N Pi-IOS—DIS PHOS-TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FR3 i OF 11—TOTAL TOTAL OPTHO RATE FLOW—MGD
To lAY FFET M(,/L HG/L MC./L MG/L P INST MGD MONTHLY
71/01/17 00 00
CPU)— 0.06) p3.000 10.060 6.400 9.775 4.620 3.790
71/01/10 00 00
71/02/0’4 09 30
CPU)— 0.0’O 34.C00 29.400 11.100 I2.000 4 670 3.800
71/02/09 00 30
71/01/05 08 00 0.06) 33.1 ,00 22.000 7.000 P.300 4.640 3.870
71/04/IS uP 10
CPU)— I.6M0 20.400 14.700 5.100 6.200 7.200 5.300
71/06/14 04 10
71/06/10 08 00 0.9)0 I1. 00 2.800 3.500 ‘..2 0 0 7.000 6.200
71/06/111 II 00
CP(T)— 15.00(1 0.100K 0.009 5.900 6.100
71/06/19 I I 00
71/06/77 04 00 0.312 2 ..10O 11.700 6.720 8.200 5.270 5.110
71/07/71 08 00 6.000 19.000 15.P00 7.700 0.600 3.380 4.150
71/00/27 04 00
CPU)— ?4.700 12.100 6.700 9.200 4.330 3.890
73/011/74 04 00
71/09/70 OP 00
CPU)— 1.5- ’O 21.600 15.400 3.160 11.900 4.700 ‘.160
71/09/21 08 00
73/10/09 08 00
CPU)— 2.000 26.000 17.500 2.600 7.700 6.500 4.750
73/10/10 (1 00
71/11/10 0
CPU)— 0.730 45.000 31.000 2.000 12.000 4.600 4.710
71/I1/1 09 00
73/12/00 oo no
0.040 16.000 4.700 2.100 7.500 2.250 3.300
71/I?/Oq OP 00
74/01/0 I? 00
CP(T)— 0.170 ‘0.000 30.000 1?.600 14.800 3.360 3.350
76/01/06 1? 00
IC VALU KNOWN TO PE LESS
THAN INOICATFO
------- |