U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE ANDRUSIA
BELTRAMI COUNTY
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 81
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
irGPO 697.032
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE ANDRUSIA
BELTRAHI COM
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 81
WlTH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
AND THE
MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD
NOVEMBER, 1974
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Minnesota Study Lakes iv, v
Lake and Drainage Area Maps vi, vii
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 9
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
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)J 1 water
quality criteria/standards review [ 5303(c)], clean lakes [ 5314(a,bfl,
and water quality monitoring [ 5106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
1•11
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.
AC KNOWLEDGMENT
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 National
Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey.
Grant J. Merritt, Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, John F. McGuire, Chief, and Joel G. Schilling, Biologist,
of the Section of Surface and Groundwater, Division 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 Chester J. Moeglein, 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 Beltrami, Cass
Clearwater Wright, Stearns
Cokato Wright
Cranberry Crow Wing
Darling Douglas
Elbow St. Louis
Embarass St. Louis
Fall Lake
Forest Washington
Green Kandi,yohi
Gull Cass
Heron Jackson
Leech Cass
Le Homme Dieu Douglas
Lily Blue Earth
Little Grant
Lost St. Louis
-------
V
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Madison Blue Earth
Malmedal Pope
Mashkenode St. Louis
McQuade St. Louis
Minnetonka Hennepin
Minnewaska Pope
Mud Itasca
Nest Kandiyohi
Pelican St. Louis
Pepin Goodhue, Wabasha, MN;
Pierce, Pepin, WI
Rabbit Crow Wing
Sakatah Le Sueur
Shagawa St. Louis
Silver McLeod
Six Mile St. Louis
Spring Washington, Dakota
St. Croix Washington, MN; St. Croix,
Pierce, WI
St. Louis Bay St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI
Superior Bay St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI
Swan Itasca
Trace Todd
Trout Itasca
Wagonga Kandiyohi
Wailmark Chisago
White Bear Washington
Winona Douglas
Wolf Beltrami, Hubbard
Woodcock Kandiyohi
Zumbro Olmstead, Wabasha
-------
94° 40’
940 30’
Lavjnia
Q
27i
WOL
LAKi
27A2C
€7
BEMIDJI, WOLF, ANDRUSIA
& CASS LAKES
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
Map Location
-------
LAKE ANDRUSIA
® Tributary Sampling Site
x Lake Sampling Site
0 1/2 1 Mi
I I
Scale
Map location
‘7 ,
1
-------
LAKE ANDRUSIA
STORET NO. 27C0
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others indicate that Lake
Andrusia is eutrophic. Of the 60 Minnesota lakes sampled in
the fall when essentially all were well—mIxed, 14 had less
mean total phosphorus, 9 had less mean dissolved phosphorus,
and 9 had less mean Inorganic nitrogen. Of the 80 lakes sam-
pled, 46% had less mean chlorophyll a, and 45% had greater
Secchi disc transparency. Marked depression of dissolved
oxygen with depth was observed in July and September of 1972.
Survey limnologists noted a moderate algal bloom in pro-
gress during the October sampling. The records of others
indicate rooted aquatic vegetation is prevalent in the shal-
lows of Lake Andrusia (Lang, et al., 1969).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
A significant loss of inorganic nitrogen occurred in the
algal assay sample from the time of collection to the time
the assay was begun, and the results are not reliable.
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in October.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—-During the sampling year, Lake Andrusia
received a total phosphorus load at a rate more than that proposed
-------
2
by Vollenweider (in press) as dangerous; i.e., a eutrophic rate
(see page 13). Of that load, it is estimated that the Bemidji
wastewater treatment plant indirectly contributed about 48%
(allowing for 12% retention in Wolf Lake; see “Report on Wolf
Lake,” Working Paper No. 136).
When the phosphorus removal facilities at the Bemidji SIP
become operational (Schilling, 1974), it is calculated that the
total phosphorus load to Lake Andrusia will be reduced by about
44%. This will reduce the loading rate from the existing 36
lbs/acre/yr (4 g/m 2 /yr) to about 20 lbs/acre/yr or about 2.3
g/m 2 /yr.
The new loading rate will still be about 1˝ times greater
than the dangerous or eutrophic rate. However, as with Wolf
Lake, the Lake Andrusia inlet is so near the outlet (see map,
page vii) it is believed that nutrient short—circuiting occurs;
i.e., under most flow conditions, it is probable that much of
the incoming water (with nutrients) flows more or less directly
to the outlet. Therefore, it is concluded that the degree of
phosphorus removal to be instituted at the Bemidji wastewater
treatment plant will result in improvement in the trophic
condition of Lake Andrusia.
-------
2. Non-point sources (see page 13)--The phosphorus exports
in the Lake Andrusia drainage were very similar to those of the
drainages of the other lakes in this upper Mississippi River
chain of lakes. The relatively low exports probably result
from the near-headwaters location of the lakes as well as land-
use practices in this largely-forested area of Minnesota.
In all, it is estimated that non-point sources contributed
about 52% of the total phosphorus load reaching Lake Andrusia
during the sampling year.
-------
4
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 1,510 acres.
2. Mean depth: 26 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 60 feet.
4. Volume: 39,260 acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 47 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name Drainage areatt Mean flowtt
Mississippi River 684.0 mi 2 404.5 cfs
Big Lake outlet 30.6 mi 2 14.6 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage* - 15.0 ml 2.2 cfs
Totals 729.6 mi 2 421.3 cfs
2. Outlet -
Mississippi River 732.0 m1 2 ** 421.3 cfs
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 26.7 inches.
2. Mean annual: 23.8 inches.
t DNR lake survey map (1941); mean depth by random-dot method.
ft Drainage areas are accurate within ±5%; mean daily flows are accurate
within ±10%; and ungaged flows are accurate within ±10 to 25% for
drainage areas greater than 10 mi 2 .
ttt Area adjusted to equal Wolf Lake outlet area.
* Adjusted so sum of subdrainage areas and flows equal outlet.
* Includes area of lake.
See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-------
5
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Andrusia, one of a chain of upper Mississippi River lakes (see
map, page vi), 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 a number of depths
at one station on the lake (see map, page vii). During each visit a single
depth-integrated (15 feet to surface) sample was collected for phytoplankton
identification and enumeration; and during the last visit, a single five-
gallon depth—integrated sample was taken for algal assays. Also each time,
a depth-integrated sample was collected for chlorophyll a analysis. The
maximum depth sampled was 31 feet.
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
(10/21/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 10.1 11.2 11.4 11.9
Conductivity (pmhos) 240 242 242 242
p 11 (units) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3
Alkalinity (mg/i) 136 137 137 139
Total P (mg/i) 0.024 0.031 0.031 0.039
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.010 0.014 0.013 0.018
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.050
Am onia mg/l) 0.060 0.066 0.060 0.080
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 42 54 60 60
-------
7
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
07/11/72 1. Anabaena 768
2. Flagellates 572
3. Microcystis 557
4. Dinobryon 497
5. Oscillatoria 361
Other genera 438
Total 3,193
09/08/72 1 . rlicrocystis 1 ,398
2. Anabaena 470
3. Aphanocapsa 217
4. Flagellates 205
5. Lyngbya 169
Other genera 408
Total 2,867
10/21/72 1. Melosira 2,259
2. Anabaena 452
3. Flagellates 452
4. Scenedesmus 286
5. Dinobryon 271
Other genera 1,174
Total 4,894
-------
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 ( ugh )
07/11/72 01 11.0
09/08/72 01 10.5
10/21/72 01 17.4
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
Between the time the algal assay sample was collected and
and the assay was begun, a 33% loss of inorganic nitrogen occurred.
Therefore, the assay results are not reliable.
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in July (N/P = 17/1)
and September (N/P = 40/1) but nitrogen limitation in October (N/P
= 8/1).
-------
9
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, from October, 1972,
through September, 1973, the Minnesota National Guard collected monthly
near-surface grab samples from each of the tributary sites indicated
on the map (page vii), except for the high runoff month of April, when
two samples were collected, and the colder months when samples were
omitted because of ice cover.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the year
of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by the
Minnesota 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 loadlngs*. Nutrient loadings for unsampled “minor
tributaries and immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were estimated by
using the mean of the nutrient loads, in lbs/mi 2 /year, in tributaries of
nearby Leech Lake at stations C-i, 0-1 , F-l , G—l , H-l , and J—l and multi-
plying the means by the ZZ area in mi 2 .
There are no known point sources impacting Lake Andrusia directly.
The Bemidji wastewater treatment plant discharges to the Mississippi River
some distance upstream and thence to Wolf Lake. During the sampling year,
Wolf Lake retained 12% of the total phosphorus load and none of the nitro-
gen load. Therefore, in the following loading tables, the nutrient loads
* See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
10
attributed to the indirect point source (Bemidji STP) were estimated on
the basis of the Wolf Lake retention. The loads attributed to the Lake
Andrusia inlet at station COAl are those measured minus the indirect
Bemidji SIP loads.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal (indirect)* -
Pop. Mean Receiving
Name Served Treatment Flow (mgd) Water
Bemidji 11,400 trickling 0.942 Mississippi
filter River
2. Known industrial — None
* See “Report on Wolf Lake”, Working Paper No. 136.
-------
11
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbs P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) —
tlississippi River 26,630 49.2
Big Lake outlet 600 1.1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 420 0.8
c. Known municipal -
Bemidji (indirect) 26,160 48.3
d. Septic tanks* - 80 0.1
e. Known industrial - None -
f. Direct precipitation** - 240 0.5
Total 54,130 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Mississippi River 34,280
3. Net annual P accumulation — 19,850 pounds
* Estimated 77 dwellings and 5 resorts on shoreline; see Working Paper
No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1 . Inputs -
lbs NI % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Mississippi River 628,370 78.9
Big Lake outlet 26,870 3.4
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 18,770 2.4
c. Known municipal -
Bemidji (indirect) 105,010 13.2
d. Septic tanks* - 2,980 0.4
e. Known industrial - None - -
f. Direct precipitation** — 14,550 1.8
Total 796,550 100.0
2. Outputs —
Lake outlet — Mississippi River 703,420
3. Net annual N accumulation — 93,130 pounds
* Estimated 77 dwellings and 5 resorts on shoreline; see Working Paper
No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1
-------
13
D. Mean Annual Non—point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/mi 2 /yr lbs N/rni 2 /yr
Mississippi River 39 919
Big Lake outlet 20 878
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (in press).
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 35.8 13.1 527.5 61.7
grams/rn /yr 4.02 1.47 59.1 6.9
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/rn 2 /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake Andrusia:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 1.50
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.75
-------
14
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1973. Wastewater disposal facilities inventory. MPCA,
Minneapolis.
Hoekstra, Donald J., 1968. Nitrogen and phosphorus analysis of six
Mississippi headwaters lakes. MS, N.S.F. Limnology Inst., Bemidji
St. Coil., Bemidji.
Kahn, Joseph H., Lyle K. Krusemark, and John R. Oakley; 1968. A
partial limnological survey of two Minnesota lakes. MS, N.S.F.
Limnology Inst., Bemidji St. Coil., Bemidji.
Lang, D. E., J. F. McGuire, and K. M. Bishop; 1969. Report on
investigation of water quality of Wolf, Andrusia and Cass lakes.
MPCA, Minneapolis.
Schilling, Joel, 1974. Personal communication (lake map; treatment
requirements at Bemidji). MPCA, Minneapolis.
Vollenweider, Richard A., (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
A. Hydrol.
-------
15
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
T918(ITAPY FLOW 1NFI) MAT1ON FOP MINNESOTA
10/30/74
LA(’ COW ‘7CO
ttsjo .?tSIA LA F
TOTAL F A!NADE APEA OF LAFcE
NOTE *** tP7 C0C1I D1
737.00
TOTAL DWATNA6E A EA OF LAISt =
SlIM jF SU1—i)PAINAGE APEAS =
ME N MoNTHLY LUWS AND liAILY FLO’ S
TQIPUTAPY M ONTH YEAS
‘ jEAN FLOW 1 AY
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY FLOW
SIJW—02A!NA(,F
NORNALIZEO
FLOWS
TiIH:1TA- Y
A f A
JAha
F ’-
MAP
A ’P
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MEAN
?7C AI
691.03
748.07
192.6?
933.90
9 5W.??
715.0?
380.37
?18.SM
286.01
268.49
214.02
199.43
404.32
?7C0r31
10.’,0
1.7’.
2.47
N.9P
16.30
39.40
2H.90
15.20
f3.’3
14.00
8.72
5.91
6.06
14.60
?7C OCI
737•flc
2W1.Oo
?04.’’)
?4t .00
P37.00
1054.00
7r4’ .0O
417.00
240.00
313.00
295.00
181.00
212.00
421.25
270377
7.76
I.. ?
o.ci
l. ’)
.3S
7.46
3.47
1.58
4.84
1.73
1.07
1.46
3.50
SUMMARY
732.00
TOTAL
FLOW
IN
5065.38
711.36
TOTAL
FLOW
OUT
5048.00
?7CO A I
10
7 ’
756.00
14
33 4.00
11
‘
210.00
5
210.00
17
7?
311.00
I’
102.00
1
71
? 43.”0
?u
246.00
2
7
?l4. 0
1
21’..00
1
71
6? .ci)
17
l9M,.30
4
73
?63.uO
I
?S8.00
N
73
?7M.’ 0
19
207.00
5
73
‘I4.00
7
71
1 S.r,o
9
16 5.0)
73
-‘05.00
11
0 .0fl
9
7 3
303.00
16
351.00
2700-4 1
10
II
j2
1
?
3
4
5
6
7
-4
9
7?
7?
7?
71
74
(3
73
71
77
71
7
73
7.9
.59
9.11
4.11
2.’-’.
16.10
I’.(—O
1?.10
10.”)
7. 7
1C. ’0
11.70
16
5
10
20
l
17
1
IN
II
16
1l.00
5.60
N.W0
3.60
2.60
49.00
13.00
11.00
.74
10.60
13.60
14 224.00
14 12.00
-------
T’ 1c3IJTAQi FLON II.FO MAT1ON FO ) PIINNESOTA
10/30/74
LA(E COPE 27C(
AJul (i .JA LA’c
IEAN APNT-4LY FLOw P’’) t 1LY FL OWS
t TI- L1iA-)Y ‘-4OI JT YE 3.?
iEA’ FLOW I)I Y
F104 DAY
FLOW DAY FLOW
77C0C1
II
7’
13.40
1’.
H.0O
Ii
7)
.1B
S
9.40
I?
7
17.10
1 )
12.00
I
7’
2 q7•j 0
7Q
250.00
73
2IP. 3
IF
2lr .00
‘
73
f’77. 0
17
20?C.O0
4
71
?70. ’O
1
2 f’.O0
6
7
19
240.00
6
73
210.00
7
71
?05.OC
f
I- 2.00
1
n
oo. o
ii
?oo.oo
Q
74
300.00
JA
44M.00
27C0/Z
10
II
I’
I
7
1
5
f
7
4
7
77
73
71
73
73
73
7’
71
7
fl
I.(I
7.20
1.12
0.’1
4.17
3.16
3.DB
?•)1
1.10
IL.
6
10
20
1”
17
1
1
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
cTO ?Er L)FTI7TFVAI DATE 74/j.J/3fl
27C00 I
47 28 00.0 094 3Y 00.0
ANDRUSIA LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
1 IEPALES
4
2111202
0027 FEET DEPTH
j
, ‘ ) 7l
(‘Q 4
0 04 ’) O
00410
Pi-iOS—TOT
PHOS—DIS
1\Tc
c C)
r is -’
C41)’JCTV
P u- i
T
ALK
NO? NO3
Ni-43—N
T • °
St ’Cp-iI
FIFLI)
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
P
C iT
AC/L
INC-lcS
M1CI ?OMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
4?
OATF TI; : OE’T-’
FPO OF
TO OA’ FFcT
7?/07/II 10 00 0000
10 (‘0 u00
10 00 0015
10 00 00”)
1-i 00 0027
72 / 0 4/ 0 q 10 ?0 000’)
10 ‘0 000g.
1P 70 fl ”1
29 ‘ )t 71
10 2’) 9031
7?/I0/?I Is on o’ n
15 90 0004
15 90 0015
15 ‘ ) ‘ ( ‘0’S
1’ no 0030
D TF TIMF f) ( ’T-1
FQO’ OF
TO ) Y FI T
72/ 37/I l 10 00 O100
7?Iu /O” 10 2’) ‘ ‘ 0
77/10/71 i 0’) 0O’ )
“ ..
1.4
700
0.008
19.3
-).0
110
7.90
170
0.040
0.050
0.007
1 ’ .7
320
7.50
170
0.040
0.050
0.007
11.2
“.
0
145
765
7.20
8.30
178
140
0.040
0.060
0.110
0.130
0.026
0.019
0.010
‘ .?
265
0.30
137
0.060
0.120
0.022
0.010
17 .’- l
7.2
265
0.20
135
0.040
0.140
0.021
0.017
17. ”
- ‘.f
26 5
7.80
137
0.050
0.220
0.010
1) .4
.3
60
141)
?4?
7.00
0.30
183
136
0.080
0.040
1.480
0.060
0.024
0.028
0.010
0.016
11.0
?42
8.20
137
0.040
0.060
0.018
6 ’)
11.4
240
8.20
136
0.040
0.060
5.-)
ii . ”
74?
8.20
139
0.040
0.070
0.031
0.013
6.’-
10.1
242
8.?C
130
0.050
0.080
1’ 7
CHL Pri L
‘
11.)J
17. •J
J VALUE rcNO N TO 4E i’i FR O”
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STOP’ET FTPTEVAi C)t TI 7i,/ 1/ ‘)
?7Cfl’ iI L,27C0’-41
47 9 1)(j.() 0 4 39 50.0
-iI(; LK/LK ANPPUSIA CONNECTION
CO #4, SHEET #1
r’LAKE ANDRUSIA
CO HWY 12 - OG
1 IEPALES
4
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
‘0 ’2
‘ (Th10
00671
0 )665
P T
7 T 1
) T
4tT ‘i .NO3
T )t I c JEL
Nr13—N
PHOS1)IS
PHOS—TOT
F )M
flF
j—T TrL
‘
TUT 4
o r-io
TO
DAY
F T
‘1(,/L
A(,/L
M /L
Mc /L P
M&/L
72/10/1’.
1700
.0’-3
0.710
1.0 ’0
0. 00 5K
0.0?0
7?/1I/0-
ii
5
• .-0
i .030
0.00 5 K
0.u17
72/12/10
1’)
0
01
1 •qq
0.120
0.016
o.0?
71/01/20
tO
?0
r
1.15.
0.005i
0.010
71/01/1
0
23
•‘.0- •
. .1’+?
0.00 5K
0.010
71/0’ ./01
1”
15
).A
(.1 6P
0.005K
0.O1S
71/04/I ’ .
0Q
5
u.0’.,
u.-’3j
0.(’16
0.006
0.315
73/0S/1’
It,
15
u.3!jK
(.713
1.013
0.007
O.OęO
71/’) /0’
10
10
“.011
C. - )O
u.027
0.005K
0.010
71/07/fl
II
15
.0l)<
J.’ 0’
).030
0.012
0.035
7 /jM/I}
0
0
.“ 17
j.’- .- u
J.ul3i
3.00
0.0 15
71/0 /I
10
2 ’
01ic
1 . 1 ”
0.00e
0.037
K VALUE ‘cNJOWN TO HE LESS
THAN Is1DTCATEI )
-------
— T T V U ) J (‘ / 11/ 1 4
?/COA1
‘ .7 ‘ 3 ).0 1’ 4 40 30.0
iS’NSI FI IV
CU 4e S - E T 1
U/.H)LF LAP
Cu HWY H nc, •7 M I UPST’ MLK AND USIA
)1 P LES 21I1 O4
4 0000 FEET f)EPTH
0 f71
T TI — r T ) I
-------
sT ’Ft FT - ’r AL “At- I -./i ‘ ‘‘-.
?7C OCI 271ED1
47 ?h 30.0 0 4 3 i 30.u
L’< . NOP JS1L /C SS LAKE CONNECTION
CO ‘+. SHEET 1
O/LA ct A ’ n)WUSJA
CO H Y 33 H- DG 3.5 M I N OF CASS LAKE
I1FPALES flh1204
0000 FEET DEPTH
flC.,7 1 (I0 D
‘lAit r’ c )TTh 1 I )r_L I l ) 1 ) [ S I hOS TOT
i I 1)II-L
T ’) F T l,/L “/L ‘ “/L
7?/l0/1 I? 0 1 .j ” ‘.t.ftc j. J1U
77/11/0 ii 1’ ..C ’- ? 0.’,?A 0.03!
7?/ I ?/ I u 11 1 ‘ I. ( ‘ • . • 01 0 • 0 11
71/UI/? ) 11 i• ’--’ .1?’ O.0J 0.050
7 ’1/C7/H) 17 0 ‘.‘ (.042 0.06
7 1/01/l 37 ‘ .1 7 ’ ‘.‘ J ‘.‘74 G.f ’34
7 / ’ ’.f0I H) Ic . 1 ’) c.- ‘.jŘ 0.0 5k
7 3/ 0 4/i ’ . ) .‘ I’. ) .5 ‘1.001 0.uSU
73/ i5/l 10 H) ‘. 1 ‘‘ S c’ . ’-’ ‘.u. k’ ). O O SK 0.035
71/0 ’/0 H) “ ;.“I “ “ . . ‘r9 ls.00 ’<
71/j710 ’ 10 ) .i 12 0.007 0.030
7 /t ’) ’ /1I : ‘lC ‘ •0I ” 1. 0.00 0.050
71/0 /H ’ I 1 . .0I ’’ 1.J ’ ,..J?. J.0 14
c V LUF tcNO N TO * L S
F-IAN !“DICt.TEO
-------
ST )PtT -
-------
7 ./O)/O... l j 1 )
C ( H —
7’./I) 7 i’)L ) (In
?7A2 5 1 TF?74251 P011490
L,7 ? 30.0 ()qi 50 00.0
‘-j M It)J I
27 CO 4 SHEET I
T/WOLF LAKE
iISSISSI’ ’Pj RIvFR
I 1 TPALES
4
ST 1? T RET?JFvAl )A1 - ‘f11/I4
I)A t
F
ITAF FPT—’
r
)AY i 1
0 -
— I ( ) I (I L
(,Q - 2,
r,r r’JEL
N
4 ( / L
0( ’} 0
‘4H 3—N
TOT AL
O0 ,71
P -i Os —015
O’ I HO
MC/L p
17. )1, 17. n0
50051
P 1- sOS—TOT FLOw
PAT
? INST M6U
2141204
0000 FEET r)EPTH
50053
CONDUIT
FLOW-MGD
IONTHLY
0.932
12.50J 0. 50
------- |