GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING AND PREDICTING EUTROPHICATION STATUS OF
SMALL SOUTHEASTERN PIEDMONT IMPOUNDMENTS
EPA - REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
ATHENS, GA 30605-2720
4
-------
4 \o
i All k>4-
19 21
SUMMARY
Seventeen small impoundment systems located in the
southeastern Piedmont were sampled weekly or biweekly during the
April to October growing season. Impoundments sampled
represented a broad range of eutrophic response. The study was
initiated with the objective of gathering sufficient data for
predicting impoundment eutrophication status and developing
guidelines for the purpose of facilitating regulatory permitting
decisions within the Piedmont of the southeast.
This report contains a risk assessment component and
predictive models. Guidelines were set after utilizing the study
data, expert opinion, and the literature. Two eutrophication
issues were addressed: (1) Nuisance blooms and scums, and (2)
clarity of water. The variable, corrected chlorophyll A, was
chosen to address the first issue because chlorophyll A has
become a common surrogate for estimating phytoplankton biomass.
It was determined that at a mean growing season limit of sl5/*g/L
of chlorophyll A, that very few problems would be incurred with
respect to water supply. For other uses, a mean growing season
chlorophyll A of <25/ig/L is recommended to maintain a minimal
aesthetic environment for viewing pleasure, safe swimming, and
good fishing and boating. Secchi disc transparency was the
variable of choice to address the clarity issue. It was
determined that a mean growing season Secchi disc transparency of
s 1.5 meters would minimize water supply problems. For non-water
supply impoundments, a growing season mean of >1 meter is
considered acceptable for fishing and swimming.
Regression and a version of BATHTUB (CNET.WK1) was used for
predictive purposes. CNET applications are restricted to single-
segment impoundments that are phosphorus limited or co-limited
with nitrogen. Data from nine intensively studied impoundments
and their streams were analyzed via the CNET program. Mean and
median stream total phosphorus concentrations yielded an observed
versus predicted chlorophyll A response error of ± 54% and ±34%,
respectively. The seasonal mean prediction error of Secchi disc
transparency ranged from -35% to +14%.
-i-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the Project Leader, Ron Raschke
of the Environmental Services Division's (ESD) Ecological Support
Branch (ESB). Completion of the project was dependent upon the
cooperation of management and the talents of Regional scientific
and technical personnel. To all of them, the Branch extends its
thank you.
Special thanks are extended to Cindy Stover and the office
staff for typing the report.
Appreciation is extended to David Kamps of the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division, Kathy Stecher of the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC),
Jay Sauber and Mary Jaynes of the North Carolina'Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM) , Hiram Boone and his staff at
the U. S. Soil Conservation Service-Athens and George Lewis of
the University of Georgia for their assistance in providing
information that was helpful in selecting impoundments and
analyzing the data. Of course, access to the impoundments was
crucial, and we thank Nancy Smith of the Athens-Clarke County
Recreation and Parks Department for access to Lake Chapman,
Ronnie Finch of the town of Union Point for access to Union Point
Lake, Ben Hulsey of the city of Commerce for access to Commerce
Lake, the Olgethorpe Lake Association for access to Lake
Olgethorpe, Bruce Roper and Bill Tanner of the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources for access to Lakes1 Brantley, Rutledge, and
High Falls, Arch Smith for access to Rock Eagle Lake, and Dennis
Hammock of the Clayton County Water Authority for access to
Lakes' Blalock and Shamrock.
Assistance in the field was provided by Bob Tilghman, Terri
Phipps, Bobbi Carter, Tom Cavinder, Mark Koenig, Archie Lee, Don
Lawhorn, Candice Halbrook, Phyllis Meyer, Mel Parsons, Bruce
Pruitt, Dave Smith and Russ Todd of the ESB and John Williams of
ESD's Environmental Compliance Branch.
Biological laboratory analyses were conducted by Don Schultz
and Roxanne Jones. Bill McDaniel of the Analytical Support
Branch-ESD and his staff conducted the chemical analyses.
State agencies and contractors who sampled some impoundments
and provided information include the SCDHEC, NCDEM, and the
Research Triangle Institute located in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
-ii-
-------
Study plans and draft report reviews were provided by
Delbert Hicks, Tom Cavinder, Russ Todd, and Archie Lee of the
ESB; Wade Knight of ESD¦s Laboratory Evaluation and Quality
Assurance Section; Mike Carter of ESD's Environmental Compliance
Branch; Mike MgGhee and his staff of Region 41 s Water Management
Division; and W. W. Walker, consultant.
Finally, a special thanks to ESB1s Mark Koenig for providing
the loading analyses and graphs and Mel Parson of ESB for
drawings of depth isopleths and estimates of impoundment volumes.
-iii-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY -i-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -ii-
INTRODUCTION -1-
STUDY AREA -7-
METHODS -9-
DATA ANALYSIS -12-
QUALITY ASSURANCE -16-
IMPOUNDMENT CHARACTERISTICS -17-
ISSUE: NUISANCE BLOOMS AND SCUM -21-
ISSUE: CLARITY OF WATER -29-
REFERENCES -36-
APPENDICES -43-
APPENDIX A -- LIST OF OTHER REGULATORY FACTORS THAT AFFECT
THE PLANNING OF IMPOUNDMENTS
APPENDIX B -- HISTORICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL AND PHYSICAL
INFORMATION
APPENDIX C -- IMPOUNDMENT MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX D -- STREAM MEASUREMENTS
APPENDIX E -- STAGE DISCHARGE CURVES, RAINFALL EVENTS,
FLOWS AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION
APPENDIX F -- C-NET (BATHTUB MODEL) WORKSHEETS
-iv-
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA - Region IV recognizes that surface water impoundments
are necessary for water supply and recreation in the southeastern
Piedmont because groundwater storage is limited. In the 1980's,
the southeastern Piedmont experienced severe droughts creating
water shortages for many areas. A combination of drought years
and expected population growth forced planners to develop
strategies to accommodate projected water needs and recreation.
Strategies included the selection of stream sites for potential
impoundment of up to 3000 acres per site (Georgia, 1987).
Various federal and state environmental protection and
natural resources agencies seek to protect valuable habitat,
biological communities, and aesthetic values associated with
potential sites. Post-impoundment water quality problems,
especially eutrophication - one of the pervasive and world-wide
water quality problems - are priority issues relative to planning
and managing impoundments. By current definition, eutrophication
includes excessive inputs of nutrients, organic matter, and
sediments (Moore, 1987).
In 1989, EPA's Office of Water presented the water quality
status of our nations lakes to Congress (EPA, 1989). Of the
12,413,837 acres assessed, 25% were found to be impaired or
partially impaired and 20% threatened by pollution in terms of
-1-
-------
designated uses being met. States' identified twelve specific
causes of pollution in lakes with impaired uses. Nutrients
(primarily phosphorus) and silt were two significant pollutant
groups. These types of pollutant inputs combine to produce
increased populations of algae and rooted plants and decreased
lake uses. Lakes with these conditions loose much of their
beauty, their attractiveness for recreation, and their usefulness
as water supplies (Cooke et al. , 1986).
Beginning with Sakamoto's (1966) chlorophyll A vs. total
phosphorus relationship and Edmondston's (1970) observations in
the Lake Washington recovery, algal biomass (chlorophyll A) has
been closely associated to phosphorus concentration and
transparency. These three variables are now widely used
conventional indicators of trophic state (Reckhow and Chapra,
1983; Cooke et al. , 1986; EPA, 1988a; Welch, 1989). The
determination that increased phosphorus levels cause increases of
algal biomass (chlorophyll A) and in turn decreased transparency
led many managers to base their approach on controlling
phosphorus concentrations. Besides phosphorus usually being the
limiting nutrient, phosphorus concentrations can be more easily
controlled than elements with gaseous phases in their
biogeochemical cycle such as nitrogen (Cooke et al., 1986).
Therefore, successful efforts to improve lakes were directed
toward reducing the concentration of phosphorus through advanced
waste water treatment, diversion, bans on the sale of phosphorus-
-2-
-------
containing detergents, and non-point best management practices
(Cooke et al., 1986).
A phosphorus model may be used to evaluate management
strategies with regard to a lake phosphorus standard or criterion
(Anon., 1982; NALMS, 1988). Yet phosphorus by itself is not
objectionable. A standard establishing phosphorus as the
decision variable masks the true quality variable of concern
(algal biomass) that lends value or human benefit to the water
body (Reckhow and Chapra, 1983).
Algal biomass determinations are the most useful measurement
of the amount of algae. The biomass measurement most frequently
used is corrected chlorophyll A (EPA, 1988a; Wedepohl, 1990). It
has become a surrogate for estimating phytoplankton biomass
because of its specificity and ease of analysis. The response
factor (chlorophyll A) plays a principal role in determining a
lakes trophic state, therefore a few states have adopted a
chlorophyll A standard or criterion (Anon., 1982; NALMS, 1988;
NALMS, 1992).
Transparency is the other most widely used conventional
indicator of trophic state (Welch, 1989). In fact, it is the
most frequently used variable in limnology and monitoring because
of the ease of measurement (Wedepohl, 1990). Transparency is
based on the transmission of light through water and is related
-3-
-------
in part, to the natural light attenuation of the water being
measured and the amount of organic and inorganic suspended solids
(EPA, 1988a). The assumption is that the greater the
transparencies, the better the water quality of the lake (EPA,
1988a; Ryding and Rast, 1989; Wedepohl, 1990). Low
transparencies impede recreational activities like swimming,
diving, and boating. Likewise, suspended solids can impede the
efficiency of public water supplies (Moore, 1987; EPA, 1989).
Siltation is the process by which particles of soil or rock
are transported by water to a lake and deposited as sediment.
This process and/or faulty impoundment design of slopes and depth
produces shallow conditions that encourage macrophyte growths
that may effect recreational activities, create clogging and
taste and odor problems for municipal water suppliers (Bennett,
1962; Crance, 1979; USDA, 1982; EPA, 1988a; EPA, 1989). Light is
a key limiting factor of macrophyte growths. It is generally
accepted that macrophyte growth cannot proceed where light
intensity is less than 1% of incident light. The stratum of
water receiving 1% or more of incident radiation is termed the
euphotic zone.
The objective of EPA-Region IV in initiating a small
impoundment study was to gather sufficient data for predicting
impoundment eutrophication status and developing guidelines
helpful in assessing potential post-impoundment water quality
issues.
-4-
-------
This document sets forth eutrophic guidelines for the
purpose of facilitating regulatory permitting decisions within
the piedmont physiographic province of the southeastern United
States (EPA- Region IV). These guidelines are intended to help
government authorities and private individuals in evaluating
potential citing effects on water quality and developing
management strategies to assure that environmentally acceptable
impoundments are constructed without incurring untimely
regulatory delays. This document contains a risk assessment
component useful in the decision-making process, and models
useful for predicting water quality responses.
Guidelines apply to impoundments defined as lakes which
encompass an area greater than 10 acres with well defined basins
and shores and lacking pronounced water courses being formed for
the purpose of storage, regulation and control of water by
catchment into depressions, or by the placement of man-made dams
across streams retarding normal stream flow and causing stream
waters to rise and remain beyond normal channel confinements
possibly forming backwaters in pooled areas under normal
conditions (Langbein and Iseri, 1960; Bennett, 1962, Getches,
1990; Kates, 1969; Odum and Odum, 1959; Welch, 1952; Wetzel,
1983; USDA, 1982; North Carolina, 1991).
For each specific guideline developed, the water quality
issue is stated followed by the variable under consideration and
-5-
-------
the limits. A rationale is then presented justifying the
selection of limits followed by a model section that may be
useful in predicting response based on stream data.
-6-
-------
STUDY AREA
The study area encompasses the southeastern physiographic
province known as the Piedmont which is geographically located
between the mountain and coastal plain extending from Alabama
through Georgia, South Carolina, and into North Carolina. The
Piedmont is characterized by rolling hills devoid of natural
lakes. All lakes found in the Piedmont were formed from the
impoundment of surface waters for conservation, water supply,
flood control, recreation, hydro-power, and irrigation purposes.
Impoundments chosen for study were based on the following
considerations: 1) location, 2) acreage, 3) availability of data,
4) accessibility, and 5) perceived trophic condition. The
location of each impoundment is listed in Table 1.
-7-
-------
TABLE 1. IMPOUNDMENT LOCATIONS
IMPOUNDMENT
STATE 1 COUNTY
LONGFTUDE
LATITUDE
Colbert
GA
83"13'32*
34*04*00"
Commerce
GA
83*30'08"
34*16'08"
Chapman
GA
83*22*58"
34*02*21"
Olgethorpe
GA
83*13*^9"
- 33*52*12"
Union Point
GA
Greene
83°02'20"
33°36'18"
GA
84'17*29'
33*28*52"
GA
84*18*05"
33*28*25"
Brantley
GA
Morgan
S3*36'35"
33*48*03"
GA
83-36*09"
33*38*54"
Devin
NC
Granville
78*37*27"
36*17*57"
GA
W0V29'
33*11*12"
NC
7g.49.49-
36*09*03"
GA
83*23*42"
33*24*49"
NC
Wake
78*41*41"
35*41*33*
SC
82*03*19'
35*06*17.5'
SC
82*15'20"
34*58*37.5'
SC
82*35*26'
34*17*22"
-8-
-------
METHODS
All sampling and measurements took place during April -
October of 1989 and 1991 on a weekly or biweekly basis except
where so noted. This seven month study period was selected
because it is the time of maximum recreational use, maximum water
supply use and maximum growth of aquatic plants which affect use.
Information on impoundment sites located in Georgia, South
Carolina, and North Carolina was gathered by direct sampling or
through EPA's 106 and 314 program contracts. Most sampling
stations were located at mid-impoundment along the thalweg.
Depth integrated water samples were collected from the mixing
zone (the depth above a sharp temperature decline, i.e., the
summer epilimnion after a thermocline forms), but at no greater
depth than two meters (6.56 feet) . The only exceptions were Lake
Secession, South Carolina and Lake Wheeler, North Carolina. Lake
Secession was sampled three times during the growing season from
1980 to 1990. Chlorophyll A and nutrient samples were collected
as depth integrated water samples throughout the photic zone of
Lake Wheeler.
Impoundment vertical profiles for dissolved oxygen (DO),
temperature, pH, and conductivity were developed by measuring for
each variable every 0.5 meter (1.6 feet) with calibrated probes.
Secchi disc transparency (SD) was measured to the nearest 0.01
meter (0.03 foot) according to EPA procedures (EPA, 1988a). For
purposes of developing a SD photic zone coefficient, light
-9-
-------
transmission was measured at selected times and sites with a
LiCor 4R-1581 light photometer at two impoundments, phosphorus-
enriched Rock Eagle and non-fertilized Olgethorpe. Phosphorus
exchange between the water-sediment interface was determined with
chambers at Rock Eagle and Oglethorpe according to the Region IV
Ecological Support Branch SOP's (EPA, 1988b).
At stream sites entering impoundments, grab samples were
collected from mid-depth. Water stage was either read from a
tape down at a reference point on a bridge or from a staff gauge
installed at the stream site. Stage-discharge curves were
established using flow and water stage measurements over a wide
range of stream flows. Flows were measured using a wading rod
and a Gurley or Price AA current meter. Stream stage was noted
at the beginning and end of each flow measurement at station
cross sections. Discharge was computed using the mid-section
method outlined in the USDI Water Measurement Manual (1975).
During rainfall event sampling periods, 7-day stage recorders
were set up to provide continuous flow information needed for
calculating stream load to each impoundment. Stream stations
were equipped with automatic sequential samplers set on 6-hour
intervals for the purpose of sampling during high flow events.
The intake lines were suspended for continuous submergence
without stream bottom contact.
-10-
-------
Impoundment water column samples were analyzed for corrected
chlorophyll A, total phosphorus (TP), bioavailable phosphorus
(BP), total nitrogen (TN), total suspended solids (TSS), limiting
nutrient, and alkalinity according to EPA - Region IV SOP's (EPA
1988b; EPA 1990b). Stream samples were analyzed for TP, TN, TSS,
and BP according to EPA - Region IV SOP' s.
-11-
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
The approach to setting water quality limits (guidelines)
can vary from utilizing expert opinion, literature, or actual
data. In determining acceptable limits, all three approaches
were used by EPA - Region IV. Use of data within a risk analysis
setting was emphasized, but expertise and literature were
necessary to formulate limits related to eutrophication problems.
The risk analysis approach is derived from a classification
system developed for South African impoundments (Walmsley, 1984;
Walker, 1985a) and successfully used to estimate impairment in
Minnesota (Heiskary and Walker, 1988; Wilson and Walker, 1989).
This approach expresses impoundment condition based upon the
frequency of extreme, chlorophyll A concentrations (blooms) as
opposed to average or median concentrations. For this study, the
risk or probability analysis was conducted for 19 impoundment
stations by (l) dividing the growing season means for each site
into intervals, (2) computing the frequency of each class (i.e.,
exceedance level greater than or equal to 20/tg/L) , and (3)
plotting the frequency of each class (expressed in %) against the
mean seasonal concentrations. This approach is reasonable
because managers can better evaluate risk. Rather than making
decisions based on a seasonal or yearly mean or maximum, one can
evaluate the degree of exceedance with a given mean
-12-
-------
concentration. This approach was used to determine criteria for
the corrected chlorophyll A and SD variables.
TSS stream concentrations were converted to load per day
based on water level gauge readings and stream discharge curves
for the piedmont streams studied. During one analysis,
impoundment TSS concentrations were corrected for algal content
by calculating algal weight in mg/L based on the assumption that
chlorophyll A represents 1.5% of the algae by weight (APHA,
1989), and then subtracting the derived algae weight in mg/L from
the TSS data. Non-algae SD corrections were made based on the
work of Walker and Kuhner (1979), Classen (1980), Brezonik
(1978), and Walker (1986) by subtracting chlorophyll A from the
reciprocal of SD according to the following equation:
SD0 = l/SDm - bC
where: mean SD0 = transparency depth of
impoundment at zero chlorophyll A
(l/m)
SDm = mean Secchi depth in meters
b = chlorophyll A/Secchi slope(m2/mg)
b = 0.025
C = mean corrected chlorophyll A
concentration (pg/L)
An impoundment with a Secchi depth (SDm) transparency of 1.07
meters, chlorophyll A concentration of l.llug/L (c), and a
chlorophyll A/Secchi slope of 0.025 would have a transparency
free of chlorophyll A of 1.11 meters (SD0) .
Occasionally, decision-makers will have only minimal
information about a site, such as proposed impoundment acreage,
volume, and loading information, even though a means of
-13-
-------
predicting stream loading and impoundment response is necessary.
EPA does not support the use of any one model and recognizes that
simple models like a negative exponential loss, multiple
regression, or more complicated models may be satisfactory.
One data analysis approach employed in this study for
predictive purposes was the use of the CNET-Reservoir
Eutrophication Modeling Worksheet Version 1.0 and the following
information supplied by W. W. Walker, Jr., Environmental
Engineer, 1127 Lowell Road, Concord, Massachusetts 01742.
CNET.wkl is a Lotus-123 worksheet which implements empirical
models for predicting eutrophication and related water quality
conditions in impoundments. The worksheet is a condensed and
simplified version of BATHTUB, a program developed for the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Walker, 1987). The models of BATHTUB
estimate impoundment eutrophication responses as measured by
phosphorus, chlorophyll A, transparency, organic nitrogen, and
hypolimnetic oxygen depletion, as a function of watershed runoff,
inflow phosphorus concentrations, and impoundment morphometry.
The formulation, calibration, and testing of the models based
upon various impoundment and lake data sets are described in
reports prepared for the Corps of Engineers (Walker, 1981, 1982,
1985c, 1987) . BATHTUB documation (Walker, 1987) summarizes the
relevant equations (Appendix F) and provides general guidance for
using the model and interpreting the output. As distinct from
BATHTUB, CNET.wkl applications are restricted to single-segment
-14-
-------
impoundments in which nitrogen limitation of algal growth is not
important. Optimal models for phosphorus sedimentation and
chlorophyll A are identical to those described in the BATHTUB
documentation (Walker, 1987, pp IV-1 to IV-15) (Appendix F).
To avoid untimely delays, EPA-Region IV recommends that
predictive models acceptable to the state and EPA-Region IV be
approved by said organizations.
Data used for the analyses has been filed on Lotus 123
worksheets and is available upon request.
-15-
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Standard operating procedures of the Region IV Environmental
Service's Division were followed as the principle means of
maintaining appropriate quality assurance and quality control
checks on sample collection, physical measurements, chemical
analyses, data gathering, and processing. Data were subject to
verification and validation. Verification included range checks
and internal consistency checks. Validation consisted of a
review of the data from a data users perspective for consistency
based on known numerical relationships.
-16-
-------
IMPOUNDMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The impoundments and streams selected for this study-
exhibited a broad range of characteristics (Table 2) useful in
developing eutrophication criteria.
The impoundments studied are monomictic (one thermal
turnover in the autumn) . Vertical zonation was -in place by mid-
June and remained until the latter part of September or October
when water turnover occurred. The pH ranged from 4.88 at Lake
Michie to 9.76 at Rock Eagle. With the on-set of temperature
zonation, a DO chemocline began to form at the 1-to 2-meter
depth. Dissolved oxygen was sufficient in at least the upper 1 -
2 meters (3.28 - 6.56 feet). By mid-summer the hypolimnion was
void of oxygen. All of the impoundments were freshwater
(Hutchinson, 1957; Odum and Odum, 1959; Wetzel, 1983). They had
conductivities of <300 umhos/cm @25°C and most of the time <100
umhos. No fish kills or stressed fish were observed or reported
under the above conditions. The impoundments were phosphorus
limited or co-limited with nitrogen.
Trophic conditions for the set of impoundments studied ranged
from a Carlson TSI of 50.2 to 71.6 (Table 2) which encompasses
the classical eutrophication range from mesotrophic to
hypereutrophic (EPA, 1988a). Even though hydraulic residence
times were relatively short, some impoundments like Brantley and
-17-
-------
Shamrock were quite productive. The relatively low mean standing
crops of phytoplankton in relation to the TP concentrations is
not surprising for southeastern piedmont waters where phosphorus
availability commonly is less than 50% and can be as low as 3% of
TP (Raschke and Schultz, 1987).
Light is one of the major factors which controls growth,
especially the extent of macrophyte growth in impoundments.
Because of equipment limitations and the nature of the sampling
schedule, a conversion factor of 2.1 was developed to convert SD
readings to euphotic zone depth (>1% light transmission) via the
following equation:
Euphotic zone depth = (SD) (2.1)
This coefficient is very close to the 2.0 conversion factor
determined for experimental impoundments at Auburn University
(Boyd, 1979). Application of the coefficient to SD data showed
that the euphotic zone could attain a depth of 3.72 meters (12.2
feet).
Limiting nutrient status of impoundments was determined
through chemical analysis and bioassay. The impoundments were
phosphorus or phosphorus/nitrogen co-limited. These limitations
are not unexpected for piedmont waters receiving non-point source
nutrient runoffs and uninfluenced by extensive row crop
-18-
-------
agriculture, intensive animal farming, or waste water treatment
plants effluents.
Internal as well as external sources of phosphorus must be
considered in the determination of predictive modeling strategies
of phytoplankton response. With the relatively high sediment
loading and intensive fertilization in piedmont watersheds, many
small impoundments have high sediment phosphorus levels (Garman
et al., 1986). Impoundments in which the phosphorus is released
from the sediments (internal phosphorus loading) can maintain a
relatively high trophic condition (mesotrophic or eutrophic).
The two Region IV studies of internal phosphorus loading showed
that the loading amounted to 53% and 68% of the total phosphorus
loading to the two impoundments.
-19-
-------
TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS DP SMALL SOUTHEASTER]! PIEDMONT JMPOUHDMEHTS, 1989-1991.
LAKE SIXS
st«te
; tSI
AREA
(HA)
MKAH
DEPTH
(abaters)
MEAH
HRT
(days)
tt
YEARS
MEAH TP
+ SE
(MS/L)
MEAN SD
+ SE
(meters)
MEAN
1 -M1 - A
+ SB
(Jtg/L)
Z2.15
ZZ20
Z>25
J>30
Z>40
Bowen
SC
50.2
648
4.7
111
36
1
30±4
1.78±. 14
7.381.89
8
3
3
3
0
Cunningham
sc
50.9
101
2.7
—
20
1
28±3
1.08±.04
7.94±.87
5
0
0
0
0
Michie
NC
52.6
202
8.2
48.0
12
1
36±2
1.311.11
9.39±1.46
25
0
0
0
0
Oglethorpe
GA
53.2
28
2.3
79.5
25
1
2414
1.61±.10
9.98±1.62
28
8
4
0
0
Wheeler1
NC
53.5
219
3.5
72.0
18
4
33+4
0.71±.06
10.3±1.33
22
6
0
0
0
Chapman
GA
53.9
105
3.3
40.2
26
1
25±5
1.37±.09
10.812.06
38
12
12
4
0
Union Point
GA
54.9
13
0.85
13.9
23
1
28±3
1.05±.07
11.112.30
39
30
13
9
0
Hheeler3
NC
54.9
219
3.5
72.0
28
4
30±3
0.941.08
11.911.39
28
6
6
0
0
Secessions
SC
55.1
356
6.7
44
15
52±13
1.88±.15
12.212.04
40
14
7
0
0
Devin
NC
56.9
51
3.0
—
12
1
4514
1.25±.13
14.613.32
27
18
9
9
9
Colbert
GA
57.4
19
1.9
5.1
26
1
41±9
0.91±.10
15.312.80
38
31
23
19
8
Brantley
GA
61.2
18
1.3
4.7
14
1
36±6
0.561.03
22.618.71
43
21
14
14
14
Blalock
GA
61.3
105
3.2
17.2
14
1
42±4
1.05±.08
22.913.51
64
50
29
21
14
Rutledfte
GA
63.3
115
1.6
24.9
14
1
44±6
0.721.07
27.113.54
79
79
57
43
21
Commerce
GA
63.7
149
1.5
15.2
26
1
8117
0.41±.02
29.313.44
85
65
62
54
35
Shamrock
GA
63.9
28
3.0
2.9
13
1
47+3
0.981.06
29.715.42
77
54
46
38
38
Secession*
SC
63.9
356
6.7
3102
15
5
7619
1.081.13
29.814.53
80
53
47
33
27
High Falls
GA
64.8
243
3.7
15.5
14
1
52±4
0.961.08
32.816.21
79
57
50
43
36
Rock Eagle
GA
71.6
45
1.5
13.7
14
1
54±3*
0.74±.07
65.317.97
100
100
100
93
79
TSI Carlson Trophic State Index Based on Mean Chlorophyll A
HRT Hydraulic Residence Time
N Number of Samples used for Bloom Frequency Analysis
Years Number of years where data available
TP Total Phosphorus
SD Secchi Disc Transparency
ChlA Corrected Chlorophyll A
SE Standard Error for Growing Season Mean
Z> Percent of the Time Corrected Chlorophyll A equal to or greater than the instantaneous measurement
* Hock Eagle impoundment was fertilized with an additional 500 lbs of phosphorus; therefore the resulting corrected chlorophyll A probably
reflects availability of phosphorus
-20-
-------
ISSUE: NUISANCE BLOOMS AND SCUMS
VARIABLE: GROWING SEASON MEAN CORRECTED CHLOROPHYLL A
.GUIDELINE
Non-Support
2:25 fig/L
Support
-sl5/ig/L
Guideline
A mean growing season limit of sl5ug chlorophyll A/L is
recommended for water supply impoundments. At this
concentration, few nuisance algal blooms or scums would be
expected; therefore very few problems associated with filter
clogging and taste and odor would be anticipated. For other uses
a mean growing season chlorophyll A of <25ug/L is recommended to
maintain a minimal aesthetic environment for viewing pleasure,
safe swimming, and good fishing and boating.
Rationale
One common indicator of eutrophication and its impacts is
the variable chlorophyll A (Carlson, 1977: EPA, 1988a; EPA,
1990a). Because of the specificity and ease of the chlorophyll A
analysis, it has become a common surrogate for estimating
phytoplankton biomass. In practice, this pigment is a useful
yardstick for estimating phytoplankton blooms (chlorophyll A
concentrations al5^g/L) and associated water quality problems.
-21-
-------
On the average, 1.5% of algal organic matter (ash-free-dry
weight) is corrected chlorophyll A (APHA, 1989}.
Based on the authors experience in phycology and
limnology/oceanography over the past 3 0 years, generally, when
chlorophyll A ranges from 0 to lO/tg/L, there is no discoloration
of the water and no problems. At a range of 10-15jwg/L, water can
become discolored and algal scums could develop. Between 20-
30jug/L, the water is deeply discolored, scums are more frequent,
and matting of algae can occur. Beyond 30jug/L of chlorophyll A,
discolorations are more intense and mats occur more frequently.
Walker (1985), working on the hypothesis that water use
impacts are more directly related to instantaneous chlorophyll A
concentrations than to seasonal mean values, examined data from
South Africa, U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE), and Vermont Lakes.
Statistical frequency distribution models were calibrated and the
curves generated were found to be similar. Soon thereafter,
Walker collaborated with the State of Minnesota (Heiskary and
Walker, 1988; Wilson and Walker, 1989) using the bloom frequency
approach to successfully estimate percent impairment.
This approach is reasonable because managers can better
evaluate risk. Rather than making decisions based on just an
average or maximum, they can evaluate the degree of bloom
frequency (maxima) in association with a growing season mean
-22-
-------
concentration. A few days of algal scums during the growing
season may be tolerable, but 1-2 days per week of scums may be
undesirable.
The EPA-Region IV population of impoundments show that
percent of occurrence of bloom frequencies {i.e. al5ug
chlorophyll A/L) decreases as bloom frequency increases (Figure
1). Quenching of the bloom frequency curves begins at a mean
chlorophyll A of 30^g/L whereupon the curves converge toward the
100% ordinate. Figure 2 presents an interpolation of Figure 1
data between a seasonal mean of 10 to 30fig chlorophyll A/L. The
following straight line equations were derived for each
exceedance class within the 10-30 ug chlorophyll A/ L limit.
%
al5+.43
= 2.88
(X) ¦
- 12.92
%
a20±.36
= 2.77
(X) ¦
- 25.58
%
a25±.54
= 2.31
(X) ¦
- 24.46
%
a30±4.3
= 1.90
(X) •
- 21.26
%
a40±.15
« 1.18
(X) ¦
- 14.16
Where: X = Mean season corrected chlorophyll A
EPA-Region IV data (Figures 1 and 2)shows that a mixing zone
growing season average of sl5jtig/L of chlorophyll A should
satisfactorily meet multiple uses (Carlson, 1977; Lillie and
Mason, 1983; Burden et al., 1985; Walmsley, 1984; Heiskary and
-23-
-------
Walker, 1988). At a growing season (April - Oct.) average
chlorophyll A of 15/xg/L, one could expect that 30% of the time
chlorophyll A would exceed 15^g/L and 7% of the time it would
exceed 3 0j«g/L. Based on this study and others (Carlson, 1977;
Lillie and Mason, 1983; Walmsey, 1984; Burden et al. 1985;
Heiskary and Walker, 1988), a mixing zone growing season mean of
sl5/ig/L corrected chlorophyll A for impounded piedmont waters
should satisfactorily meet multiple uses. Reduction of organic
material in waters with chlorophyll A concentrations of 15ug/L
would be necessary most of the time to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act standard of O.lmg/L for trihalomethanes
(THM's) in finished drinking water (Arruda and Fromm, 1988).
Based on the work of Walker (1983) and Arruda and Fromm (1988),
15ug/L of chlorophyll A is equivalent to approximately 7mg/L of
total organic carbon (TOC) which converts to approximately 0.2
mg/L of THM's after chlorination. According to Singer (1992),
concentrations of TOC alOmg/L (40-50ug chlorophyll A/L) are
problematic and relatively expensive to reduce, and at
concentrations S25mg/L of TOC, reduction is very difficult and
very expensive. To remain within the THM standard, it is
necessary to maintain waters with standing crops of approximately
4-5ug/L of Chlorophyll A which is equivalent to approximately
4mg/L of TOC (Walker, 1983; Arruda and Fromm, 1988).
-24-
-------
At an average growing season concentration of 25/ig/L, one
could expect that 26% of the time or approximately 2 days per
week (Figures 1 and 2), chlorophyll A would be 230/*g/L, and 59.1%
of the time said waters would be discolored by algal growth
accompanied with a few scums.
North Carolina has put a high priority on nutrient impacts
as evidenced by their annual bloom reports (North Carolina, 1988-
1991) and their numerical chlorophyll A standard for the nutrient
sensitive waters classification (North Carolina, 1991).
Presently, they are reassessing this standard because most warm
waters have a small probability of exceeding 40^g/L (Figure 2) .
An examination of North Carolina's bloom reports (North
Carolina, 1989-1991) revealed no discernable association between
fish kills and chlorophyll A concentrations, but a greater
frequency of fish kills were associated with occurrences at
25^g/L of chlorophyll A. The standard (North Carolina, 1991)
applicable to North Carolina piedmont waters states that
corrected chlorophyll A should not be >40/xg/L as an absolute
upper limit. At a growing season mean of lOjtg/L one would not
expect exceedances ^Ofig/L (Figure 2) , but at mean chlorophyll A
concentrations of 15, 20, 25, and 30Mg/L the percent a40Mg/L
would be 3.5 (0.25 day/week), 9.4 (0.7 day/week), 15.3 (1.1
days/week), and 21.2 (1.5 days/week) of the growing season,
respectively.
-25-
-------
A mean chlorophyll A of <25/ig/L is a generous upper limit
that should minimize water quality problems, and maintain a
minimal aesthetic environment.
CNET.WK1
Prediction of nuisance blooms in piedmont impoundments is
dependent upon phosphorus load, internal impoundment phosphorus
concentration, and phytoplankton response to these available
phosphorus inputs. Necessary predictions of phytoplankton
response is based on loading models. One model that predicts
reasonably well is a simplified phosphorus-limited version
(CNET.WK1) of the U.S. COE's BATHTUB model (Walker, 1986). CNET
is a Lotus 123 worksheet which implements empirical models for
predicting eutrophication and related water quality conditions m
impoundments. It performs a water and nutrient balance m
steady-state, accounting for advective and diffusive transport
and nutrient sedimentation.
Working on the hypothesis that small impoundments are
similar to tributary embayments because they are both impeded by
a dam, earthen or water, respectively, the CNET version of
BATHTUB was used to estimate phytoplankton response.
Data from nine intensively studied impoundments and their
streams were analyzed via the CNET program. Utilizing the
-26-
-------
maximum mean stream concentration of TP, that is, the internal
impoundment plus the surface load, the observed versus the
predicted mean corrected chlorophyll A was ±54% (Figure 3) using
empirical models 2 and 5, a Beta of 0.025, P-decay calibration of
4, and a chlorophyll A calibration of 0.95 (Appendix F). The
error was +34% (Figure 4) when using the median stream TP
concentration and observed median chlorophyll A under the same
conditions except the P-decay calibration was 1.95.
-27-
-------
Figure 1. Percent occurrence of bloom frequencies (i. e. sl5ug chlorophyll A/L) for
southeastern piedmont growing season mean chlorophyll A concentrations.
Figure 2. Predicted percent occurrence of bloom frequencies of chlorophyll A
concentrations as a function of mean chlorophyll A.
Figure 3. CNET version of BATHTUB model comparing observed mean chlorophyll A
and predicted mean chlorophyll A for nine intensively studied Georgia impoundments.
Figure 4. CNET version of BATHTUB model comparing observed median chlorophyll
A and predicted median chlorophyll A for nine intensively studied Georgia
impoundments.
-28-
-------
FIGURE 1. |
Mean Chlorophyll A (ug/L)
-------
FIGURE 2. |
Mean Chlorophyll A (ug/L)
-------
FIGURE 3. |
IMPOUNDMENTS
Seasonal Means (April — Oct.)
-------
FIGURE 4,
100
N
O 80
60
>-
Q_
o
en
o
o
40
20
0
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
¦¦¦¦
-0
COM BLA
SR BRAN 0L UP
IMPOUNDMENTS
CHAP COL
RE
Seasonal Medians (April — Oct.)
-------
ISSUE: CLARITY OF WATER
VARIABLE: GROWING SEASON MEAN SECCHI DEPTH TRANSPARENCY
GUIDELINE
Non-Support
Support
si meter
al.5 meters
<3.28 feet
a4.92 feet
Guideline
For water supply impoundments, a mean growing season Secchi
disc transparency of al.5 meters is desirable. Minimal clogging
of filters, a low risk of nuisance weed infestations, a very low
risk of fish-kills because of low dissolved oxygen, normal fish
production, and 60-65% safe swimming conditions would be
expected. For non-water supply impoundments, a growing season
mean of >1 meter is acceptable for fishing and some swimming.
Impoundments with growing season mean Secchi disc transparencies
si meter are aesthetically undesirable, offer few swimming
opportunities, and are subject to a greater risk of fish-kills or
lower fish production.
Rational a
Because of the nature of piedmont soils and land-use
Practices, streams of the Piedmont are known for carrying high
suspended solid loads into impoundments which subsequently effect
impoundment quality. Visibility is reduced when solids and
dissolved substances are added to a water body (Boyd, 1979).
-29-
-------
Clarity or transparency of piedmont impoundments is primarily
influenced by incoming sediment loads of suspended and colloidal
solids and internal impoundment phytoplankton blooms. These
constituents in large amounts affect impoundment uses (Sawyer,
1960; EPA 1988a).
The National Academy of Sciences recommends that a Secchi
disc transparency depth of >4 feet be maintained in swimming
_ j ^ oripripps 1973). Swimming and diving
areas (National Academy of Sciences,
+- i -i • *- t-Viai- are clear enough to see submerged
take place in waters that are cieai a
objects. Boating does not require as much clarity, but submerged
objects should be visible at least to the depth permitting safe
navigation (Moore, 1987).
Figure 5 represents the risk assessment approach (Heiskary
and Walker, 1988; Wilson and Walker, 1989) where probability of
exceedance for Secchi disc transparency is determined for 19
impoundment stations. At a growing season mean depth of one
meter (3.28 feet), Secchi depth would be 13*, 72%, and 100% of
the time at s0.5m, slm, =2.0m, respectively. A one meter Secchi
disc transparency translates into a Carlson trophic state index
(TBI) (Carlson, 1977, of 64 which on a sliding scale of 0 to 110
v.-:^ i-n hvr»ereutrophic water. At a mean
is considered eutrophic to hypereutrup
transparency of one meter, unsafe swimming conditions would occur
72% of the time. Thirteen percent of the time conditions of low
_. j muHHv water could become a problem with
dissolved oxygen and muddy wacex
-30-
-------
respect to fish survival and production (Boyd, 1979; Boyd, 1990)
Buck (1956) divided impoundments into three categories: clear
with TSS <25mg/L (SD >0.46 meter); intermediate with TSS 25-100
rog/L (SD 0.46 to 0.08 meter); and muddy impoundments with TSS
>100mg/L (SD <0.08 meter) . The mean harvest of game fish were:
clear impoundments, 162 lbs/ac; intermediate 94 lbs/ac; and muddy
impoundments 301bs/ac. Techniques are available (Boyd, 1979;
EPA, 1988a) to clear muddy waters, however, they are ineffective
if impoundments receive large amounts of muddy runoff after each
rain (Boyd, 1990).
The higher limit of al.5 meters Secchi depth transparency is
a reasonable number for piedmont waters. The 1.5-meter limit is
a safe level for swimming most of the time. One could expect
unsafe swimming conditions 35-40% (Figure 5) of the time
(National Academy of Sciences, 1973) at the 1.5-meter limit. At
the l.5 meter level or greater, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations affecting fish survival are minimal, and on the
average TSS at approximately lOmg/L would be non-determenta1 to
fish production (Buck, 1956; Boyd, 1990). The EPA-Region IV
study of 17 impoundments showed that the mean photic zone (>1%
light transmission) from the surface downward was 2.10 meters
(6.9 feet) ranging from 0.80 meter to 3.72 meters (2.8 feet to
12.2 feet) . At a mean photic zone of 6.9 feet one could expect
that about 34% of the time the photic zone would exceed 6.9 feet
(Figure 5), and 2% of the time it would exceed 10 feet. Only one
-31-
-------
impoundment. Union Point, because of low slopes had weed
infestations that affected water supply taste and odor.
According to Boyd (1990), at a Secchi transparency depth of 1.5
meters, no macrophyte growths were observed in Auburn University
impoundments at the two-meter depth even though the photic zone
extended from the surface down to the three-meter level. With an
edge slope of 2:1 or 3:1 (EPA, 1988a; USDA, 1982) and a growing
season mean Secchi disc depth transparency of al.5 me
highly improbable that conditions would allow for nuisance weed
coverage (>40%) in piedmont impoundments (Aurand, 1982; Edmiston
and Myers, 1984; Personal communication from Joe Joyce,
University of Florida Center for Aquatic Plants).
analvqis and limited modeling,
Upon conducting multivariate analysis an
for use when assessing impacts during
two models are recommended tor use
the planning stage.
-32-
-------
Model # 1
Mean TSSs stream loading, mean TSSj impoundment
concentration, and non-algal Secchi disc transparency (see Data
Analysis Section) were selected as the variables of choice after
conducting a multivariate analysis. It was determined that two
equations would satisfactorily predict the mean non-algal Secchi
depth, if the mean stream TSS load in lbs/day/ was known. The
following equations are based on a data base which included
intensive sampling of 11 impoundments and 16 streams during the
growing season (April-October) (Figures 6 and 7) .
TSSX = 0.0011 (TSSs) + 6.40
SDj = 31.44 (TSSj)"1-31
Where: TSSX = X non-algal impoundment TSS in mg/L
TSSs = X stream TSS in lbs/ft-day
SDX = X impoundment non-algal influenced SD in
meters
ft = X impoundment depth in feet
Model #1 disregards the effects of phytoplankton on
impoundment Secchi disc transparency, whereas the CNET.WK1
program accounts for the non-biological and biological components
affecting clarity.
CNET.WK1
Utilizing the same data set of Model #1 and the CNET
worksheet of the BATHTUB model discussed under the Nuisance Bloom
Section, the observed Secchi transparency was compared to the
-33-
-------
predicted {Figure 8) .
+14%.
The prediction error ranged from -35% to
-34-
-------
Figure 5. Percent Secchi depth frequencies for southeastern
piedmont growing season mean Secchi depth transparency.
Figure 6. Functional relationship of mean stream TSS to mean
impoundment non-algal TSS.
Figure 7. Functional relationship of mean impoundment non-algal
TSS to mean impoundment non-algal influenced Secchi depth
transparency.
Figure 8. Cnet version of BATHTUB model comparing observed
Secchi depth transparency and predicted Secchi depth transparency
for nine intensively studied impoundments.
-35-
-------
FIGURE 5. |
Mean SD (meters)
-------
FIGURE 6. |
STREAM TSS (LBS/FT-DAY)
Thousands
Seasonal Means; April — Oct.
-------
5 10 15 20
NON-ALGAL IMPOUNDMENT
Seasonal M«ona; April — Oct
25 30
(MG/L)
-------
FIGURE 8. |
IMPOUNDMENTS
Seasonal Means (April — Oct.)
-------
REFERENCES
APHA. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater (Seventeenth Edition). American Public Health
Association. 1015 Fifteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Arruda, J- A. an^ C. H. Fromm. 1988. The relationships among
trihalomethane formation potential, organic carbon, and lake
trophic state in eastern Kansas drinking water supply lakes.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Topeka, KN 66620-
7315 .
Aurand, D. 1982. Nuisance Aquatic Plants and Aquatic Plant
Management Programs in The United States. Vol. 2. S.E.
Region. MTR-82w47-02, The MITRE Corp., Metrek Division.
1820 Dolly Madison Blvd., McLean, VA 22102.
Bennett, G. W. 1962. Management of Artificial Lakes and Ponds.
Reinhold Publ. Corp., New York 10020.
Boyd, c. E. 1979. Water Quality in Warmwater Fish Ponds.
Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn
Alabama.
Boyd, C. E. 1990. Water Quality in Ponds for Aquaculture. Auburn
University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn Alabama.
Brezonik, P. L. 1978. Effects of organic color and turbidity on
Secchi disk transparency. J. Fish, Res. Board Can. 35: 1410-
1416.
Buck D. H. 1956. Effects of turbidity on fishing. Trans. N.
Airier. Wildlife Conf. 21:249-261.
Burden, D. G., R. F. Malone, and J. Geaghen. 1985. Development
of a condition index for Louisiana Lakes. _ In: Lake and
Reservoir Management: Practical Applications. Proceedings
4th Annual Conference and International Symposium, October 16-
19, McAffee, N.J. North American Lake Management Society.
One Progress Boulevard, Box 27, Alachua, FL 32615.
-36-
-------
Carlson, R. E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limno.
and Oceanogr. 22 (2) : 361-369.
Classen, J. 1980. OECD Cooperative Program for Monitoring of
Inland Waters - Regional Project - Shallow Lakes and
Reservoirs. Organization for Economic Coop-Develop.
Cooke, G. D., E. B. Welch, S. A. Peterson, P. R. Newroth. 1986.
Lake and Reservoir Restoration. Butterworth Publ., Boston.
Crance, J. H. 1979. Alabama Fish Ponds. Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, 64 Union Street,
Montgomery AL.
Edmiston, H. L. and V. B. Myers. 1984. Florida Lakes
Assessment: Combining Macrophyte, Chlorophyll, Nutrient, and
Public Benefit Parameters into a Meaningful Lake Management
Scheme. Lake and Reservoir Management. EPA 440/5/84-001.
EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Edmondson, W. T. 1970. Phosphorus, nitrogen and algae in Lake
Washington after diversion of sewage. Science 169:690-691.
EPA. 1988a. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual.
EPA 440/5-88-002. EPA Criteria and Standards Division, Non-
point Sources Branch. Washington, D.C. 20460.
EPA. 1988b. Region IV Ecological Support Branch SOP and QA
Manual, Environmental Services Division. EPA-Region IV,
Athens, GA 30613.
EPA. 1989. Report to Congress: Water Quality of the Nations's
Lakes. EPA 440/5-89-003. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch,
Washington D. C. 20460.
EPA. 1990a. Monitoring Lake and Reservoir Restoration.
EPA 440/4-90-007. EPA Office of Water (WH553). Washington,
D.C. 20460.
EPA. 1990b. Region IV Analytical Support Branch SOP and QA
Manual, Environmental Services Division. EPA-Region IV,
Athens, Ga 30605-2720.
Garman, G. D., G. B. Good and L. M. Hinsman. 1986. Phosphorus: A
Summary of Information Regarding Lake Water Quality. Division
of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, 2200 Churchhill Road, Springfield, IL 62706.
Georgia. #1987. Regional Water Supply and Fishing Lake Reports.
-37-
-------
Getches, D. H. 1990. Water Law in a Nutshell. Second pvi-h- •
West Publ. Co., St. Paul, MN. na Edition.
Heiskary, S. A. and w. w. Walker Jr. 1988. Developincr
sr:.":sa for Mimesota iakes- Lake -TieServ.
Hutchinson, G-E. 1957. a Treatise on Limnology. Vol" 1
John Wiley & Sons Inc. ny, ny 10158-0012.
Kates, R. C. 1969. Georgia Water Law. Institute of Govpmn»
Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605. nment,
Langbein, W. B. and K. -p. Iseri. 1960. General Introduction
and Hydrologic Definitions. Manual of Hydrology Pa^t?
General Surface Water Techniques. Geological Survey Wa^er-
Supply aPer 1541-A. Methods and Practices of The Geolocrirai
Survey. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print inn-
Office. Washington, D.C. 20402. minting
Lillie' R* A: J- w- Mason. 1983. Limnological
Characteristics of Wisconsin Lakes. Tech. Bull. 138.
Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI 53707-7921
Moore, M. L. 1987. NALMS Management Guide for Lakes and
Reservoirs. North America Lake Management Society Box on
Alachua, FL 32615-9536. 7'
NALMS. 1988. Water Quality Standards for Lakes. A Survev No-m-h
American Lake Management Society. One Progress Blvd Box on
Alachua, FL 32615-9536. X 27'
NALMS. 1992. Developing Eutrophication Standards for Lakes anri
Reservoirs. North American Lake Management Society One
Progress Blvd., Box 27, Alachua, FL 32615-9536.
Nation Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Enoinppri
1973. Water Quality Criteria, 1972. Superintendent of
2O4O20ntS' U'S" Gove;rnment Printing Office, Washington d c
North Carolina. 1988-1991. Algal Bloom Reports. State o-f 4-u
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
2761ir°eS' D^"v"'"s^on Environmental Management. Raleigh NC
North Carolina. 1991. Administrative Code Section 15A Krran
2B.0211(b3A) . State of North Carolina Department of
-38-
-------
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. Classification and Water Quality-
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina.
Environmental Management Commission. Raleigh, NC 27611.
Odum, E. P. and H. T. Odum. 1959. Fundamentals of Ecology. 2nd
Edition. W. B. Saunders Co. Philadelphia, PA 19106-3399.
Palmstrom, N. S., R. E. Carlson and G. D. Cooke. 1988.
Potential links between eutrophication and the formation of
carcinogens in drinking water. Lake and Reserv. Manage.
4(2):1-16.
Raschke, R. L. and D. A. Schultz. 1987. The use of the algal
growth potential test for data assessment. J. Water Poll.
Cont. Fed. 59 (4) : 222-227.
Reckhow, K. H. and S. C. Chapra. 1983. Engineering Approaches for
Lake Management. Butterworth Publ., Boston.
Ryding, S. and W. Rast. 1989. The Control of Eutrophication of
Lakes and Reservoirs. The Parthenon Publishing Group, Inc.,
Park Ridge, N. J.
Sakamoto, M. 1966. Primary production by phytoplankton
communities in some Japanese lakes and its dependency on lake
depth. Arch. Hydrobiol. 62:1-28.
Sawyer, C. N. I960. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc. New York 10020.
Singer, P. 1992. Personal communication from Dr. Phil Singer,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC.
USDA. 1982. Ponds - Planning, Design, and Construction.
Agricultural Handbook No. 590. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C. 20402.
USDI. 1975. Water Measurement Manual. U.S. Department of The
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
Walker, W. W. Jr. and J. Kuhner. 1979. An Empirical Analysis of
Factors Controlling Eutrophication in Midwestern Impoundments.
Environmental Effects of Hydraulic Engineering Works, E. E.
Driver and W. O. Wunderlich, eds. TVA, Knoxville, TN 37902.
Walker, W. W., Jr. 1981. Empirical Methods for Predicting
Eutrophication in Impoundments - Report 1 Phase I: Data Base
Development, Prepared for Department of the Army, U. S. Army
-39-
-------
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., Technical Report E-81-
9, Environmental Laboratory, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W. W. Jr. 1982. Empirical Methods for Predicting
Eutrophication in Impoundments - Report 2 Phase II: Model
Testing, prepared for Department of the Army, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., Technical Report E-81-
9, Environmental Laboratory, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W. W. Jr. 1983. Significance of eutrophication in water
supply reservoirs. Jour. Amer. Wat. Works Assoc. 75:3 8-42.
Walker, W. W. Jr. 1985a. Statistical basis for mean chlorophyll
A criteria. In: Lake and Reservoir Management: Practical
Applications. Proceedings of 4th Annual Conference and
International Symposium, October 16-19, McAffee, N.J. North
American Lake Management Society. One Progress Boulevard, Box
27, Alachua, FL 32615.
Walker, W. W. Jr. 1985b. Urban nonpoint source impacts on a
surface water supply. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source
Pollution. Proceeding of a National Conference Kansas City,
MO. May 19-22, 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 440/5-85-01. Criteria and Standards Division, Nonpoint
Sources Branch. Washington, D. C. 20460.
Walker, W. W. Jr. 1985c. Empirical Methods for Predicting
Eutrophication in Impoundments - Report 3 Phase II: Model
Refinements, Prepared for Department of the Army, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., Technical Report E-81-
9, Environmental Laboratory, USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Walker, W. W. Jr. 1987. Empirical Methods for Predicting
Eutrophication in Impoundments: Report 4, Phase III:
Applications Manual. Technical Report E-81-9. Prepared by W.
W. Walker, Jr., Environmental Engineer, Concord, Mass., for
the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6299.
Walmsley, R.D. 1984. A chlorophyll A trophic status
classification system for South African impoundments. J.
Environ. Qual. 13:97-104.
Wedepohl, R. E., D. R. Knauer, G. B. Wolbert, H. Olem, P. J.
Garrison, and K. Kepford. 1990. Monitoring Lake and Reservoir
Restoration. EPA 440/4-90-007. Prepared by the North American
Lake Management Society for the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington D. C.
-40-
-------
i ch E B 1989. Alternative criteria for Defining Lake Quality
Vjelcn o. _ Proceedings of a National
for Recreat states1 Lake Management Programs, N.E.
Sfifo?BC|l°aSn^o™?SfiSeS4oS w. Madison St., sSite 200,
Chicago, Illinois 60606.
welch, p. s. 1952. Limnology. McGraw Hill Book Co. New York
10020.
rtT1 c B and w. W. Walker Jr. 1989. Development of lake
W assessment methods based upon the aquatxc ecoregxon concept.
Lake and Reserv. Manage. 5(2): iw
i -d r 1983 Limnology. Second Edition. Saunders
Wet?&ege ^""philaT^, PA 19106-3399.
-41-
-------
APPENDICES
-42-
-------
-------
APPENDIX
A
-------
List of Other Regulatory Factors That Affect The Planning of
Impoundments.
Loss of historic and cultural artifacts
Loss of protected natural areas
Loss of wilderness areas
Loss of proposed wilderness areas
Loss of designated wild life management areas
Loss of national lakeshore recreation areas
Loss of wild and scenic river designation
Loss of designated recreational river reach
Loss of critical habitat for endangered species
Loss of proposed habitat for endangered or threatened species
Loss of areas of lakes identified as critical habit
Loss of spawning areas critical for the maintenance of a fish or
shellfish species
Loss of feeding areas critical for the maintenance of a fish or
shellfish species
Loss of designated wilderness area
Loss of a monument
Loss of a national park
Loss of a preserve
Loss of a wildlife refuge
Loss of wetlands
Potential leachate from landfill
Hazardous waste site as potential source of leachate
Sewage lines on lake bottom or along shore
Highways or railway lines over or next to impoundments
Direct input of industrial, municipal or stormwater waste
Stream segments not attaining water quality standards
Pish kill history in feeder stream/s
Poor fish health history in feeder streams
Dam outfall at the bottom
Less than maintain 7Q10 flow
-------
>
"0
t)
m
25
a
><
-------
APPENDIX
B
-------
TABLE B-l
LAKE SITE: COLBERT
LAKE FILLED: 1978
COUNTY: MADISON GA
UPSTREAM BRUSH CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM BIGER CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION COL-IO LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SUFACE AREA: 47.0 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 14.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 6.1 FT.
VOLUME: 289 AC.-FT. .
INFLOW: BRUSH CREEK (26.76 CFS)
INFLOW: BIGER CREEK (29-35 CFS)
OUTFLOW: BIGER CREEK
DRAINAGE AREA: 29.77 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
14' 50"
14' 25.5"
13' 32"
LATITUDE:34 04' 25"
LATITUDE:34 03' 13"
LATITUDE:34 04' 00"
LAKE SITE: COMMERCE
LAKE FILLED: 1978
COUNTY: BANKS GA
UPSTREAM GROVE RIVER STATION:
LAKE STATION COM-6 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 368 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 13.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 4.8 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 17 8 0 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: GROVE RIVER (58.92 CFS)
OUTFLOW: GROVE RIVER
DRAINAGE AREA: 19.10 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83 31' 32"
LONGITUDE:83 30' 08"
LATITUDE:34
LATITUDE:34
16'
16'
18"
08"
LAKE SITE: CHAPMAN
LAKE FILLED: 1978
COUNTY: CLARKE, MADISON, JACKSON GA
UPSTREAM LI'L $ANDY CRE£k STATION:
UPSTREAM SANDY CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION SC-2 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 260 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 21.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 10.8 FT. „
MEAN VOLUME: 2791 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: LITTLE SANDY CREEK fl0.66 CFS)
INFLOW: SANDY CREEK (59.39 CFS)
OUTFLOW: SANDY CREEK
DRAINAGE AREA: 45.38 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
22'
23'
22'
50.6" LATITUDE:34
20.6" LATITUDE:34
58.1" LATITUDE:34
04' 15.5"
04' 15.5"
02' 20.6"
-------
LAKE SITE: OLGETHORPE
LAKE FILLED: 1971
COUNTY: OLGETHORPE GA
UPSTREAM GOULDING CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION OL-13 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 68.1 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 28.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 7.4 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 504 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: GOULDING CREEK (3.33 CFS)
OUTFLOW: GOULDING CREEK
DRAINAGE AREA: 3.46 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83 13' 19.5"
LONGITUDE:83 13' 49.2"
LATITUDE:33 52' 27.8"
LATITUDE:33 52' 12"
LAKE SITE: UNION POINT
LAKE FILLED: 1967
COUNTY: GREENE GA
UPSTREAM SHERRILLS CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION UP-16 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 32.7 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 14.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 2.8 FT.
VOLUME: 93.0 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: SHERRILLS CREEK (3.38 CFS)
OUTFLOW: SHERRILLS CREEK '
DRAINAGE AREA: 2.61 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
02'
02'
58"
20"
LATITUDE:33 36'
LATITUDE:33 36'
18"
18"
LAKE SITE: BLALOCK
LAKE FILLED: 1989
COUNTY: CLAYTON GA
UPSTREAM BLALOCK CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM PATES CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION BL-5 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 260 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 23.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 10.5 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 2731 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: BLALOCK CREEK, PATES CREEK (3 0.17 CFS)
OUTFLOW: PATES CREEK '
DRAINAGE AREA: 5.73 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:84 17' 46"
LONGITUDE:84 17' 41"
LONGITUDE:84 17' 29"
LATITUDE:33 28' 20"
LATITUDE:33 28' 50"
LATITUDE:33 28' 52"
-------
LAKE SITE: BRANTLEY
LAKE FILLED: -1932
COUNTY: MORGAN GA
UPSTREAM HARD LABOR CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION LB-2 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 44.9 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 13.1 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 4.3 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 193 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: HARD LABOR CREEK (32.35 CFS)
OUTFLOW: HARD LABOR CREEK (31.58 CFS)
DRAINAGE AREA: 19.10 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83 33' 61"
LONGITUDE:83 36' 35"
LATITUDE:33 39' 54"
LATITUDE:33 40' 03"
LAKE SITE: HIGH FALLS
LAKE FILLED: 1902
COUNTY: MONROE GA
UPSTREAM BUCK CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM TOWALIGA RIVER STATION:
LAKE STATION HF-4 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 600 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 24.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 12.1 FT.
, MEAN VOLUME: 7.289 AC.-FEET
INFLOW: TOWALIGA RIVER \176.90 CFS)
INFLOW: BUCK CREEK (59.44 CFS) '
INFLOW: BRUSHY CREEK ? '
OUTFLOW: TOWALIGA RIVER
DRAINAGE AREA: 110.6 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:84
LONGITUDE:84
LONGITUDE:84
04'
03 '
01'
48"
40"
29"
LATITUDE:33 11' 03"
LATITUDE:33 14' 50"
LATITUDE:33 11' 12"
LAKE SITE: ROCK EAGLE
LAKE FILLED: 1938
COUNTY: PUTNAM GA
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION RE-2 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 110 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 23.
MEAN DEPTH: 5.0 FT
MEAN VOLUME: 552 AC.-FT.
INFLOW: : MULTIPLE TRIBUTARIES (5.08 CFS)
OUTFLOW: LITTLE GRADY CREEK
DRAINAGE: 1.96 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
LONGITUDE:83
23'
23'
23'
23'
23'
26"
57"
03"
04"
42"
LATITUDE:33
LATITUDE:33
LATITUDE:33
LATITUDE:33
LATITUDE:33
25'
25'
25'
25'
24'
30"
22"
12"
15"
49"
-------
LAKE SITE: RUTLEDGE
LAKE FILLED: 1932
COUNTY: MORGAN GA
UPSTREAM HARD LABOR CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM ROCKY CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION RL-5 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 285 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 13.1 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 5.2 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 1496 AC.-FT. %
INFLOW: HARD LABOR CREEK (31.58 CFS)
INFLOW: ROCKY CREEK (6.02 CFS)
OUTFLOW: HARD LABOR CREEK
DRAINAGE AREA: 19.2 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:83 36' 07
LONGITUDE:83 37' 03
LONGITUDE:83 36' 09"
LATITUDE:33 39' 51"
LATITUDE:33 40' 02"
LATITUDE:33 38' 54"
LAKE SITE: SHAMROCK
LAKE FILLED: 1955
COUNTY: CLAYTON GA
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
UPSTREAM NO NAME CREEK STATION:
LAKE STATION SR-2 LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 68.0 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 23.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 10.0 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 680 AC.-FT. v
INFLOW: NO NAME CREEK(S) (49.01 CFS)
OUTFLOW: BLALOCK CREEK
DRAINAGE AREA: 5.62 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:84
LONGITUDE:84
LONGITUDE:84
LONGITUDE:84
LONGITUDE:84
18'
18'
18'
18'
18'
53»
32
17
00
05"
LATITU
LATITU
LATITU
LATITU
IDE:33
IDE: 33
IDE:33
JDE:33
LATITUDE:33
29'
29'
29'
29'
28'
03"
02"
03"
01"
25"
LAKE SITE: DEVIN
LAKE FILLED: 1953
COUNTY: GRANVILLE NC
INCOMING STREAM: HACHERS RUN
OUTGOING STREAM: HACHERS RUN
LAKE LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY: _
SURFACE AREA: 125 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 30.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 10.0 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 1300 AC.-FT.
DRAINAGE AREA: 1.1 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:78 37' 27"
LATITUDE:36 17' 57"
-------
LAKE SITE: MICHIE DRAINAGE AREA: 170.0 SQ. MI.
LAKE FILLED: 1926
COUNTY: DURHAM NC
INCOMING STREAMS: FLAT, DIAL, DRY, ROCKY
OUTGOING STREAM: FLAT
LAKE LOCATION: LONGITUDE:78 49' 49" LATITUDE:36 04'03"
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 500 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 75.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 27.0 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 11,068 AC.-FT.
LAKE SITE: WHEELER DRAINAGE AREA: 35.8 SQ. MI.
LAKE FILLED: 1956
COUNTY: WAKE NC
INCOMING STREAMS: INCOMING STREAMS: SWIFT, DUTCHMANS BRANCH
OUTGOING STREAM: SWIFT
LAKE LOCATION: LONGITUDE:78 41 Ml" LATITUDE:35 41' 33"
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 540 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 30.7 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 11.6;FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 6161 AC.-FT.
LAKE SITE: BOWEN DRAINAGE AREA: 82.1 SQ. MI.
LAKE FILLED: 1961
COUNTY: SPARTENBURG
INCOMING STREAM: SOUTH PACOLET
OUTGOING STREAM: SOUTH PACOLET
LAKE LOCATION: LONGITUDE:82 03' 19" LATITUDE:35 06' 17.5"
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 1599 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 41.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 15.4 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 24547 AC.-FT.
-------
LAKE SITE: CUNNINGHAM
LAKE FILLED: 1955
COUNTY: GREENVILLE SC
INCOMING STREAMS: SOUTH TYGER
OUTGOING STREAM: SOUTH TYGER
LAKE LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 250 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 19.0 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 8.9 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 2200 AC.-FT.
LAKE SITE: SECESSION
LAKE FILLED: 1941
COUNTY: ABBEVILLE, ANDERSON
INCOMING STREAM: ROCKY
OUTGOING STREAM: ROCKY
LAKE LOCATION:
GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCE: PIEDMONT
LAKE MORPHOMETRY:
SURFACE AREA: 879 AC.
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 91.9 FT.
MEAN DEPTH: 22 FT.
MEAN VOLUME: 19358 AC.-FT.
DRAINAGE AREA: 47.9 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:82 15' 20" LATITUDE:34 58' 37.5"
DRAINAGE AREA: 139 SQ. MI.
LONGITUDE:82 35' 26" LATITUDE:34 17' 22"
-------
>
I
"7
b
;<
(¦J
-------
APPENDIX
C
-------
table C-1
UNION
COLBERT
COMMERCE
CHAPMAN OLGETHORPE
POINT
0.13
0.14
0.24
0.21
0.23
0.13
0.22
0.73
1.10
0.64
0.28
0.28
0.81
1.14
0.72
0.49
0.28
0.95
1.19
0.73
0.62
0.29
0.95
1.23
0.76
Oi.63
0.29
1.08
1.24
0.82
0.69
0.30
1.09
1.24
0.83
0.71
0.35
1.16
1.28
0.92
0.75
0.35
1.18
1.38
0.93
0.76
0.36
1.19
1.39
1.00
0.78
0.36
1.27
1.41
1.00
0.78
0.42
1.30
1.42
1.05
0.86
0.43
1.46
1.45
1.05
0.89
0.44
1.54
1.59
1.08
0.92
0.44
1.61
1.67
1.10
0.94
0.45
1.61
1.78
1.11
0.96
0.46
1.64
1.78
1.12
1.02
0.47
1.65
1.85
1.24
1.03
0.49
1.68
1.92
1.29
1.04
0.50
1.70
1.93
1.36
1.06
0.50
1.76
2.12
1.42
1.07
0.50
1.76
2.14
1.44
1.28
0.52
1.86
2.17
1.55
1.42
0.52
1.95
2.22
1.93
1.46
0.60
1.98
2.45
2.86
0.61
2.54
SECCHt DEPTH TRANSPARENCY
-------
UNION
COLBERT
COMMERCE
CHAPMAN OLGETHORPE POINT
BLALOCK
SHAMROCK
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.80
2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.80
10.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.80
11.87
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.24
16.02
0.20
15.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.83
18.02
3.81
16.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.42
18.69
4.01
18.70
0.00
5.10
0.00
19.42
24.03
6.68
18.70
0.00
5.30
0.00
22.70
26.70
6.70
18.70
0.00
7.10
0.10
22.70
42.72
7.12
22.70
2.67
8.00
8.00
24.03
47.80
8.90
28.60
6.70
8.00
8.00
25.37
50.38
9.70
29.70
8.90
8.50
8.30
32.04
53.40
10.70
30.80
9.40
8.80
9.70
48.06
64.08
12.70
30.90
9.70
8.90
13.40
50.73
14.10
31.83
11.40
9.40
15.40
14.20
35.90
14.60
10.70
16.00
16.00
36.40
16.70
11.60
21.30
17.70
40.00
17.00
13.80
21.30
21.40
40.05
17.30
17.00
21.60
23.70
42.46
17.80
17.80
23.72
26.70
43.30
18.40
18.70
27.10
30.50
44.50
18.70
19.10
30.00
31.00
47.51
19.30
19.10
31.40
38.10
53.40
26.70
23.70
43.50
53.40
27.80
28.80
51.40
62.60
37.40
IfltJLC U-C
CHLOROPHYLL A (UG/L)
RUTLEDGE BRANTLEY
6.00
6.70
13.35
20.02
21.36
23.36
25.98
29.37
30.42
32.04
34.10
42.72
45.39
48.55
0.00
1.90
5.34
5.34
7.60
7.80
9.35
10.55
15.71
17.36
18.32
23.73
82.77
110.83
ROCK
EAGLE
28.51
31.30
34.00
42.70
46.73
55.63
61.41
66.75
67.59
75.25
77.43
88.11
101.46
136.22
HIGH
FALLS
6.20
13.99
14.69
16.02
16.02
17.00
23.69
26.70
35.60
42.72
46.15
48.06
62.30
90.28
SECCESSION WHEELER MICHIE DEV1N BOUEN CUNNINGHAM
3.40
5.90
6.10
6.30
7.00
9.60
11.60
13.20
13.90
14.90
15.70
15.80
16.60
16.80
17.90
18.00
19.70
22.10
22.30
22.80
26.90
27.80
28.80
36.10
46.00
50.30
62.10
63.20
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
11.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
13.00
13.00
14.00
16.00
16.00
17.00
17.00
18.00
18.00
26.00
27.00
2.14
3.38
6.33
6.40
6.69
7.73
9.03
10.08
11.09
15.21
16.63
18.00
5.76
7.48
9.41
9.44
10.30
11.04
11.07
11.80
16.60
22.98
44.69
2.25
2.49
3.00
3.10
3.49
3.89
4.09
4.27
4.55
4.59
4.62
4.77
4.78
5.00
5.14
5.23
5.90
6.02
6.05
6.18
6.44
6.58
6.66
6.73
7.57
7.67
7.95
8.26
9.17
9.41
9.75
9.83
9.94
10.50
17.01
17.94
32.34
1.71
2.50
3.10
3.24
4.55
5.07
6.20
7.03
7.60
7.95
8.30
8.49
9.05
9.77
10.24
10.87
11.15
12.44
12.54
16.96
-------
TABLE C-3
LAKE COLBERT COMMERCE CHAPMAN OLGETHORPE POINT
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0;02
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
O.OB
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.04
o.oa
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.14
0.17
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.11
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (MG/L)
BLALOCK
SHAMROCK
RUTLEDGE
BRANTLEY
EAGLE
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.07
0.08
HIGH
FALLS
SECCESS10N
WHEELER
MICHIE
DEVIN
BOUEN
CUNNINGI
S-°?
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.11
0.04
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.12
0.06
0.02
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.07
0.03
0.13
0.04
0.13
0.05
0.14
0.05
0.20
0.06
0.06
-------
UNI Off
LAKE COLBERT COMMERCE CHAPMAN OLGETHOfiPE POINT BLALOCK SHAMROCK
2*S£ bU 2"27 °-27 0.34 1.63 1.34
2-11 2'22 2-32 °-32 °*37 1-54 1.28
2'iX 2*1? 0-35 0.34 0.40 1.10 0.59
0.30 0.60 0.36 0.34 0.44 0.94 0.76
0.32 "
0.34
0.37
0.39
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.48
0.53
0.54
0.63
0.66
0.69
0.72
0.81
1.27
1.75
0.27
0.27
0.34
0.59
0.32
0.32
0.37
0.59
0.35
0.34
0.40
0.60
0.36
0.34
0.44
0.62
0.42
0.37
0.50
0.64
0.43
0.37
0.52
0.76
0.44
0.40
0.53
0.77
0.45
0.41
0.54
0.77
0.45
0.42
0.56
0.77
0.46
0.42
0.56
0.80
0.48
0.44
0.57
0.81
0.48
0.48
0.58
0.82
0.49
0.50
0.63
0.85
0.51
0.51
0.64
0.86
0.54
0.51
0.67
0.94
0.57
0.53
0.74
0.99
0.61
0.54
0.75
1.02
0.62
0.54
0.88
1.11
0.63
0.57
1.40
1.26
0.68
0.74
TABLE C-4
TOTAL NITROGEN (MG/L)
RUTLEDGE
BRANTLEY
ROCK
EAGLE
HIGH
FALLS
0.59
0.54
0.55
0.82
0.72
0.80
0.60
0.72
1.36
0.55
0.55
0.78
MICHIE
DEVIN
BOUEN
CUNNINGHAM
0.39
0.11
0.24
0.31
0.39
0.17
0.25
0.32
s-k
8-17
0.26
0.35
0.40
0.57
0.27
0.36
0.41
0.60
0.27
0.36
0.42
0.63
0.27
0.36
0.47
0.65
0.28
0.37
0.48
0.71
0.28
0.38
0.61
0.71
0.29
0.39
0.67
0.78
0.29
0.39
0.89
0.85
0.31
0.43
0.31
0.43
0.33
0.44
0.33
0.45
0.34
0.46
0.34
0.46
0.34
0.46
0.35
0.47
0.35
0.48
0.36
0.49
0.36
0.62
0.37
0.69
0.37
4.30
0.38
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.80
-------
UN tOW
COLBERT COMMERCE CHAPMAN OLGETHORPE POINT BLALOCK
*¦§8 M 1:IS 3:83 1:3 |:8
1;I§ 8:8 l:lo If » s|
H8 !':8 2:?? 1:13 t:$ f:88
IS 8* II 1 1:1
|;§§ |g:§§ |:|o |:og 6.00 |.og
5 I I i* f| *8
II 11:88 m £ M
9:00 22:50 5.00 4.00 7.00 u.uu
9.00 24.00 5.00 4.00 7.00 15.uu
950 25i00 6:60 4:00 9.00
loloo 25.00 6.00 4.25 9.50
10.00 26.00 6.00 4.35 10.00
M It'oo sioo do lo:oo
12.00 35.00 9.00 5.00 10.00
tt:8 8:8 M 1$ '•$
8:8 £88 8:8 £§ &8
58.00 160.00 39.00
TABLE C-5
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L)
SHAMROCK RUTLEDGE BRANTLEY
2.00
4.00
4.00
5.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
6.50
8.00
9.00
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
16.00
20.00
20.00
30.00
7.00
8.50
8.50
9.00
9.00
11.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
16.00
16.00
20.00
21.00
36.00
ROCK
EAGLE
4.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
9.70
10.00
11.00
13.00
HIGH
FALLS
4.80
5.00
5.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
10.00
10.00
13.00
17.00
MICHtE OEVIN BOWEN CUNNINGHAM
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
B.OO
9.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
13.00
18.00
0.00
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.40
1.50
1.50
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.60
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
4.50
5.60
5.60
6.80
6.80
0.40
0.50
0.50
1.60
1.80
2.00
l:4§
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
6.80
8.40
-------
>
"0
"V
m
z
o
-------
APPENDIX
D
-------
TABLE D-1
FLOW (CFS)
LAKE COLBERT
STREAM BIGER BRUSH
11.36
15.63
71.94
43.19
8.39
32.13
49.32
15.63
15.63
3.63
2.69
0.20
22.64
3.63
0.16
237.13
24.86
5.81
0.45
3.63
5.81
1.10
7.05
9.83
2.69
73.86
98.73
40.67
25.83
31.83
27.92
11.14
17.30
0.06
16.76
9.71
2.49
6.85
1.49
8.64
4.60
37.79
257.64
55.74
24.20
1.01
1.99
0.53
2.49
1.01
4.06
77.08
94.31
COMMERCE
GROVE
31.29
42.04
60.66
58.07
34.21
66.68
50.64
30.35
28.50
20.86
24.97
20.86
374.62
55.54
36.22
2.00
31.29
35.21
20.86
18.56
13.03
13.67
13.67
15.00
14.33
178.98
298.65
CHAPMAN
L. SANDY SANDY
1.34
1.65
1.65
1.20
1.82
11.02
4.73
4.43
4.14
5.37
3.86
4.73
55.91
2.20
44.51
5.70
2.40
0.67
0.85
0.53
0.47
0.53
0.53
0.53
31.08
85.30
21.31
48.11
50.39
44.43
23.23
28.48
22.26
22.50
17.36
13.25
19.49
13.25
38.23
35.64
15.40
257.77
57.58
25.25
7.36
10.75
6.29
13.51
5.45
5.23
5.99
131.30
663.65
OLGETHORPE
GOULDING
1.23
1.94
2.78
2.63
1.57
1.94
8.17
3.78
1.45
1.94
0.09
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.94
2.34
1.69
1.13
1.57
1.13
2.63
1.13
0.39
0.68
45.11
UNION POINT
SHERRILLS
10.17
10.24
10.50
10.11
10.01
10.11
10.81
10.06
9.94
10.11
9.40
9.90
9.30
9.30
10.18
9.90
9.90
9.30
10.00
10.01
10.00
10.01
10.16
10.36
HIGH FALLS
TOWALIGA BUCK
264.85
148.50
480.87
402.66
273.27
62.36
192.23
186.76
168.95
70.02
107.58
63.62
18.58
36.37
176.90
20.94
56.00
287.52
61.64
23.31
38.68
12.27
47.16
45.21
54.59
42.19
52.95
53.72
35.93
BRANTLEY
BLALOCK
ROCK EAGLE
RUTLEDGE
SHAMROCK
HARD LABOR
PATES
BLALOCK
NO NAME
HARD LABOR
ROCK
NO NAME
43.96
25.53
47.57
2.46
43.96
9.07
47.57
46.99
32.28
33.62
1.23
46.99
7.49
33.62
43.96
166.43
57.80
6.15
43.96
10.76
57.80
32.53
44.02
36.18
3.94
32.53
8.27
36.18
24.75
31.58
47.02
2.46
24.75
6.40
47.02
41.00
5.97
46.03
0.05
41.00
4.15
46.03
43.96
38.00
85.00
0.44
43.96
7.49
85.00
29.86
48.72
45.88
0.24
29.86
5.71
45.88
13.47
13.39
59.71
1.23
13.47
4.74
59.71
22.32
0.32
51.68
0.33
22.32
3.13
51.68
29.86
1.22
61.31
0.44
29.86
3.88
33.62
15.54
13.39
30.00
52.03
22.32
5.38
61.31
0.25
50.78
0.08
15.54
4.15
30.00
1.22
0.00
3.61
50.78
-------
TABLE D-2
COLBERT COMMERCE CHAPMAN
BIGER
BRUSH
GROVE
L. SANDY
SANDY
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.12
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.10
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.13
0.11
0.18
0.27
0.20
0.23
0.13
0.23
0.35
0.21
0.23
0.14
0.40
0.26
0.31
0.24
0.56
0.33
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (MG/l)
OLGETHORPE
UNION POINT
HIGH
FALLS
GOULDING
SHERRILLS
TOWALIGA
BUCK
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.16
0.05
0.19
0.37
BLAL0CK R0CK EAGLE RUTLEDGE SHAMROCK
HARO LABOR PATES BLALOCK MO NAME HARD LABOR ROCK NO NAME
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.02 6161 0 04
0.02 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.15
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.25
0.07
0.21
0.06
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.03
0.03 0.04
0.02 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04
0.03 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05
0.03 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.03 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.03 0.13 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.04 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.07
0.04 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.10
0.04 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0 11
0.04 0.25 0.07 0.21 0.06 0.05 0.26
0-05 o.08 0.06
-------
TABLE D-3
COLBERT
COMMERI
BIGER
BRUSH
GROVE
1.84
6.57
5.06
7.75
6.86
19.62
4.65
4.51
12.52
2.26
1.80
12.91
6.92
4.66
143.79
29.23
0.04
46.41
5.05
9.93
19.63
2.53
2.09
7.68
0.39
0.27
10.12
0.29
0.00
6.73
0.02
0.00
2.25
6.10
1.86
1130.94
0.98
0.74
53.89
0.03
4.07
21.48
396.04
333.14
0.86
10.72
30.03
11.81
1.57
5.22
15.19
0.05
0.14
5.62
2.54
0.21
5.00
1.25
0.09
2.11
0.30
0.54
2.95
1.52
0.22
2.21
2.12
0.87
2.43
0.58
53.99
2.32
91.52
71.14
221.92
122.35
289.80
CHAPMAN
OLGETHORPE
, SANDY
SANDY
GOULDING
0.29
2.87
0.33
0.27
8.15
0.30
0.39
7.19
0.43
0.49
3.76
0.25
20.80
9.21
0.31
1.27
24.00
8.37
0.45
6.06
1.02
1.45
0.00
0.16
0.42
4.20
0.21
1.27
0.00
0.02
81.37
41.22
0.00
0.71
15.37
0.01
43.19
3.32
0.01
2.15
458.56
0.01
0.78
34.14
0.15
0.11
14.98
0.50
0.18
0.79
0.18
0.09
2.32
0.12
0.18
0.68
0.25
0.14
2.19
0.12
0.09
0.59
0.43
0.14
0.56
0.18
23.46
0.97
0.04
78.17
148.64
0.11
930.19
89.99
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (LBS./DAY)
UNION POINT
HIGH
FALLS
SHERRILLS
TOWALIGA
BUCK
0.68
57.08
2.26
2.09
16.00
6.04
1.25
207.26
124.00
0.53
130.16
6.65
1.46
73.61
3.77
7.69
0.00
0.00
0.77
72.50
2.65
0.31
40.25
5.08
0.42
27.31
7.31
0.12
11.32
5.89
0.43
17.39
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
1.39
3.92
0.00
0.29
0.72
0.01
0.52
0.53
0.52
0.71
1.12
1.18
BRANTLEY BLALOCK ROCK EAGLE RUTLEDGE SHAMROCK
HARD LABOR PATES BLALOCK NO NAME HARD LABOR ROCK NO NAME
1.95 10.25
1.21 9.06
1.78 15.57
1.38 50.68
0.45 10.13
2.02 27.28
1.54 32.06
0.77 12.36
0.51 16.08
0.84 8.35
0.58 7.25
0.67 6.61
0.39 16.16
10.94
7.11
13.75
15.39
0.40
7.10
10.13
22.61
10.87
0.27
7.10
7.11
224.17
9.35
1.33
5.26
5.26
28.46
7.80
0.64
4.00
0.00
18.72
7.60
0.53
13.25
8.84
3.22
9.93
0.01
7.11
7.11
30.71
32.08
0.09
3.22
0.00
44.62
9.89
0.04
2.18
1.45
7.94
12.88
0.27
3.61
3.22
0.14
8.36
0.09
3.22
0.52
9.92
0.12
2.40
7.94
4.85
58.87
1.67
0.18
16.42
0.01
0.66
0.00
-------
TABLE D-4
LAKE
COLBERT
COMMERl
STREAM
B1GER
BRUSH
GROVE
0.34
0.26
0.78
0.49
0.43
0.37
0.51
0.48
0.42
0.53
0.50
0.44
0.60
0.54
0.47
0.60
0.55
0.47
0.61
0.55
0.53
0.61
0.55
0.70
0.65
0.57
0.70
0.73
0.63
0.78
0.74
0.66
0.84
0.75
0.67
0.84
0.76
0.70
0.85
0.77
0.71
0.90
0.81
0.72
0.91
0.92
0.77
1.13
1.07
0.80
1.41
1.49
0.86
1.42
1.96
1.06
1.89
2.04
1.41
3.43
CHAPMAN
OLGETHORPE
SANDY
SANDY
GOULDINO
0.55
0.46
0.48
0.62
0.49
0.50
0.64
0.51
0.53
0.70
0.51
0.57
0.71
0.51
0.58
0.74
0.57
0.59
0.76
0.59
0.59
0.83
0.61
0.60
0.85
0.70
0.64
0.88
0.76
0.65
1.15
0.80
0.65
1.19
0.82
0.66
1.25
0.86
0.68
1.33
0.93
0.69
1.33
0.94
0.71
1.53
1.01
0.72
1.53
1.13
0.76
1.94
1.25
0.76
1.39
0.99
1.96
1.28
TOTAL NITROGEN (HG/L)
UNION POINT
HIGH FALLS
SHERRILLS
TOWALIGA BUCK
0.26
0.41 0.47
0.27
0.53 0.40
0.27
0.48 0.51
0.31
0.31
0.35
0.39
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.46
0.52
0.57
0.65
0.69
0.92
BRANTLEY BLALOCK ROCK EAGLE RUTLEDGE SHAMROCK
HARD LABOR PATES BLALOCK NO NAME HARD LABOR ROCK NO NAME
0.77
0.65
0.71
0.76
1.84
2.12
2.14
1.84
1.31
1.24
0.73
0.80
0.30
0.34
0.31
0.23
0.77
0.79
0.77
0.72
0.56
0.65
0.65
0.69
0.89
0.98
0.99
1.06
-------
TABLE 0-5
TOTAL NITROGEN (LBS./OAr)
SX!» cSctL. simr "SUSP "™. Iog!;S,"L" J"""' "?»«... '«»»«
TOUALIGA BUCK HARD LABOR PATES BLALOCK NO NAME HARD LABOR ROCK NO NAME
328.03 141.89 182.37 253.07 335.94 3.98 182.36 22 60 271 67
552'S • 1^-73 368*70 2n-U 225 170.59 26.23 305.18
278.22 115.99 55.15 438.16 334.50 0.73 86.58 14.42 407 57
12.06 0.00 0.55 179.32
BtGER
BRUSH
GROVE
L. SANDY
44.68
146.80
79.29
6.00
236.44
132.03
255.07
5.52
79.12
64.68
131.49
9.91
27.12
28.81
167.83
8.65
112.51
58.74
1233.02
115.28
199.28
0.28
0.00
18.87
44.63
63.22
137.43
27.88
63.99
37.68
81.43
21.98
14.47
10.74
158.57
13.31
8.83
20.30
114.41
18.10
0.55
2.09
49.48
400.84
73.18
26.52
3816.91
13.64
15.84
13.63
425.17
319.15
0.80
111.97
220.66
11.02
2504.01
1957.22
9.07
3.65
33.51
86.05
132.87
3.91
39.90
7.60
70.04
1.56
4.54
7.25
34.64
199.39
25.94
10.93
29.92
592.89
618.75
868.38
IAPMAN
OLGETHORPE
UNION POINT
SANDY
GOULDING
SHERRILLS
70.07
4.39
7.06
154.83
9.01
19.88
122.16
6.81
6.45
73.89
5.49
9.17
122.84
5.95
9.57
149.98
43.60
44.21
61.85
10.19
5.18
54.28
5.56
10.10
106.13
6.16
8.94
36.43
0.30
1.04
177.23
0.00
5.61
157.53
0.17
0.23
93.79
0.20
15.95
2723.58
0.47
6.18
126.61
3.49
4.68
40.55
6.54
4.51
33.51
6.42
7.86
983.84
7.52
1.25
311.31
-------
TABLE D-6
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (HG/L)
LAKE COLBERT COMMERCE CHAPMAN OLGETHORPE UNION POINT
STREAM BIGER BRUSH CROVE L. SANDY SANDY GOULDING SHERRILLS
1.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.50
6.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
10.00
10.00
12.50
16.00
18.00
24.00
78.00
COLBERT
COMMERCE
CHAPMAN
OLGETHORPE
BIGER
BRUSH
GROVE
L. SANDY
SANDY
GOULDING
7.50
10.00
3.00
4.00
4.50
2.00
8.20
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.50
4.00
8.50
10.00
5.00
5.50
7.50
5.00
8.50
11.00
6.00
6.00
7.50
5.00
9.00
11.00
10.00
6.00
8.80
5.50
9.20
12.00
10.00
8.00
9.00
5.50
10.00
12.00
10.00
9.00
12.00
5.80
10.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
13.00
7.00
10.00
13.00
11.00
10.00
18.00
8.20
11.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
18.00
9.00
12.00
14.00
15.00
11.00
18.00
9.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
12.00
21.00
10.00
13.00
14.00
21.00
12.00
21.00
11.00
14.00
15.00
28.00
14.00
22.00
12.00
16.00
15.00
29.00
14.00
27.00
13.00
19.00
16.00
30.00
16.00
29.00
14.00
20.00
16.00
31.00
17.00
47.00
14.00
24.00
24.00
36.50
18.00
50.00
19.00
31.00
33.00
39.00
20.00
50.00
20.00
32.00
33.00
42.00
25.00
81.00
24.00
43.00
34.00
62.00
83.00
82.00
24.00
56.00
44.00
92.00
92.00
130.00
28.00
160.00
50.00
180.00
130.00
140.00
28.00
220.00
88.00
190.00
210.00
170.00
29.00
400.00
92.00
270.00
180.00
130.00
200.00
640.00
300.00
480.00
HIGH
FALLS
BRANTLEY
BLALOCK
ROCK EAGLE
RUTLEOGE
SHAMROCK
TOWALIGA
BUCK
HARD LABOR
PATES
BLALOCK
NO NAME
HARD LABOR
ROCK
NO NAME
2.00
0.00
3.20
10.50
2.00
2.40
3.50
5.00
3.20
3.40
2.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
2.40
5.00
6.00
6.50
4.40
2.60
5.00
14.00
6.00
3.20
5.50
8.00
8.00
4.50
3.60
7.20
16.00
6.00
3.20
7.00
8.00
8.50
6.80
4.00
8.80
17.00
6.50
3.80
8.00
8.50
9.00
8.00
4.80
10.00
20.00
7.00
4.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.00
6.40
11.00
21.00
7.00
4.40
10.00
10.00
9.60
8.50
9.50
11.50
22.00
8.00
4.40
11.00
10.00
10.00
22.00
11.00
12.00
22.00
8.00
4.50
12.00
10.00
11.00
22.00
11.00
16.00
26.00
B.OO
6.00
13.00
12.00
13.00
22.00
14.00
16.00
27.00
12.00
6.50
14.00
14.00
23.00
23.00
17.00
18.50
44.00
14.00
8.80
16.00
16.00
24.00
24.00
54.00
20.00
59.00
16.00
9.00
21.00
17.00
34.00
34.00
24.00
130.00
20.00
280.00
23.00
18.00
44.00
-------
LAKE
STREAM
COLBERT
8IGER BRUSH
612.08
3294.68
2559.86
1401.25
3288.80
14879.73
2020.87
1178.84
176.03
188.IB
12.93
234.71
8.64
5760.05
626.37
24.11
312.95
1002.20
48.39
284.96
449i99
133.18
63666.46
2410.17
1714.65
2106.02
960.34
3076.63
14.14
2980.34
1779.37
174.50
553.71
120.55
511.78
346.92
2443.05
15014.07
3129.10
70.41
128.47
45.51
187.92
64.99
218.68
36543.88
46746.71
1687.03
3597.19
3756.82
3872.91
33072.30
16925.55
6380.80
4609.37
1124.58
4172.67
1799.33
12575.42
5662.96
2051.60
4723.69
6928.16
1124.58
1000.57
1053.51
737.04
368.52
465.19
386.24
260512.56
289795.78
CHAPMAN
OLGETHORPE
L. SANDY
SANDY
GOUID1NG
72.28
2067.76
73.21
106.88
1493.93
123.10
110.08
4311.55
78.07
177.01
2254.17
46.45
12478.59
7677.55
146.10
407.96
15597.93
5724.97
133.83
3517.21
285.38
404.92
2527.31
187.86
207.96
928.49
104.36
280.47
4938.50
13.01
3616.63
1499.87
0.00
130.49
35033.53
3.45
31195.24
9605.73
7.70
768.08
1743.02
3.94
259.28
416875.21
96.21
14.35
25451.54
252.49
63.95
11027.58
81.79
17.04
356.90
30.51
20.42
1274.41
236.50
15.62
406.88
42.72
14.20
546.34
127.75
25.55
132.33
30.51
15415.24
211.38
8.49
38167.26
283.96
7.34
99091.49
116739.63
643977.69
TABLE D-7
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (LBS./OAY)
UNION POINT
SHERR1LLS
91.13
313.B5
124.80
220.53
374.41
3748.24
172.79
139.88
145.60
56.75
28.76
3.08
2.31
369.92
35.95
100.67
0.51
52.01
52.93
43.34
52.93
224.48
294.99
HIGH FALIS
TOWALIBA BUCK
BRANTLEY BLALOCK ROCK EAGLE RUTLE06E
HARD LABOR PATES BLALOCK NO NAME HARD LABOR ROCK
11415.54
17601.36
88085.05
52065.84
32390.27
2855.69
22784.85
23142.07
7282.10
2565.37
2550.35
1542.39
200.t9
666.30
1580.39
1207.55
83699.08
4652.11
2136.24
1334.52
727.61
2415.22
2680.93
1412.58
591.35
0.00
579.20
697.30
2605.25
4050.64
3789.45
1752.60
960.08
4086.52
2842.09
1850.06
638.63
362.86
3861.00
0.00
0.00
3025.88
3826.09
116568.59
6403,43
4424.03
546.97
9008.89
15486.66
1514.99
24.14
85.22
1442.81
21.55
69.02
1666.88
2174.89
6231.85
975.21
1774.35
3970.27
3665.79
1484.00
1931.33
2228.80
2313.60
323.45
3832.48
59.64
39.76
215.37
191.05
58.32
1.19
9.48
4.14
58.32
6.76
5.69
78489.29
1.03
0.00
2842.00
3315.66
1928.01
1733.36
4638.76
2368.41
1447.85
362.86
661.39
1286.98
420.79
586.13
390.93
322.83
757.01
482.47
223.78
726.36
307.63
306.45
143.39
125.42
289.86
111.79
175.12
SHAMROCK
NO NAME
2050.32
1992.46
4048.27
6576.69
2431.94
8431.76
10532.84
2101.07
3216.96
2505.90
1177.36
2972.65
3879.10
875.47
-------
I
tn
-------
APPENDIX
E
-------
RAINFALL DATA
LAKES OGLETHORPE and COLBERT
STUDY PERIOD
I I I
1 ME (DAYS)
MY 11-26,1989
-------
1.T«'
i.tO'
-%,+m
t .so
i.i®
i.oo<
1 200
RAINFALL EN/ENT
GOULDING CREEK
lake oglethorreh, georg
•70
A
.a. /
' »
' \
\
; \
/ \
f x x ' V ' ^
v \ \ / / v \ -
M. -
LEGEND
F"LOW
NH3
N02-N03
TKN
2400 1 ZOO 2400
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1 989
LAKI
RAINFALL EVENT
GOULDING CREEK
OGLETHORPE, GEORGIA
LEOENO
FLOW
1 200
2400 1 200 2400
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1989
LAKE
RAI N FALL EVENT
GOULDING GREEK
OGLETHORPE, GEORGIA
IT
s;
1-44
1.11
1-OI
• ' 1 ^
••1.7
- >1.«
LEGEND
FLOW
TOO
1 200
24QO 1200 2400
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1989
-------
RAI N
BRUSM
COLBERT,
EVENT
CREEK
GEORGIA
s —
LEGEND
FLOW
NMJ
N02-N03
_ TKN
1 200
2400 1 200
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1 989
2400
RAINFALL EVENT
BRUSH CREEK
COLBERT, GEORGIA
- >.1M
- -^>ma
n.
- -.OTS
I
¦ - >o«o
- ».oao
S
- >«01S
LEOEND
___ PLOW
1 ZOO
2400 1 200
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1989
2400
RAIN
BRUSM
COLBERT,
EVENT
CREEK
GEORGIA
LEOEND
PLOW
-roc
— m.
1 200
2400 1 SOO 2400
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1989
-------
RAINFALL EVENT
biger creek
COLBERT, GEORGIA
LEOENO
f"l_ow
. NH3
N02-N03
TKN
1 200
a*oo i aoo
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24,1&89
3400 .
RAINFALL EVENT
BIGER GREEK
COLBERT, GEORGIA
legend
fl_OW
T-f*
1 aoo
2400 1200
TIME (HOURS)
MAY 22-24. 1 8fl8
2400
RAINFALL EVENT
BIGER CREEK
COLBERT, GEORGIA
LEGEND
FLOW
TOG
i aoo
2400 iaoo
TIME (HOURS)
24QO
-------
1.4
RAINFALL DATA
SANDY CREEK LAKE
1.2
tn
LlJ 1
X
o
0.8
z:
o
h-
< 0.6
Q_
O
LlJ
C£
Q_
0.4
0.2
0
STUDY PERIOD
TIME
JUNE 14—JULY 10/1989
-------
RA1 IN FALL EVENT
SAM DY CREEK
ATHENS .GEORGIA
+ .1S
-o
LEGEND
FLOW
1 OOO
1OOO 1OOO 1OOO
TIME (HOURS)
JULY S-10.1SS9
1 OOO
NH3
N02-N03
TKN
RAINFALL EVENT
LITTLE SANDY OR
ATHENS. GEORGIA
K
L£OCND
FLOW
1OOO 1OOO 1OOO 1OOO
TIME (HOURS)
JULY 6-10.1980
1 OOO
RAINFALL EVENT
LITTLE SANDY CREEK
ATHENS, GEORGIA
/\ "
i *
M.
LEGEND
FLOW
TOG
1OOO 1OOO 1OOO 1OOO
TIME (HOURS)
JULY S- 1 O.I QSO
1 OOO
-------
RAINFALL EVENT
SANDY G REEK
ATHENS.GEORGIA
LEGEND
FLOW
NH3
- N02-N03
TKISI
1 ooo
1 OOO 1 OOO 1 ooo
TIME (HOUKS)
JULY e-10,1089
1 ooo
RAINFALL EVENT
SAN DV CREEK
ATH ENS .GEORGIA
LEOEND
FLOW
1 OOO
1 OOO 1 OOO 1 OOO
TIME (HOURS)
july e-io.iaas
1 OOO
RAINFALL EVENT
SAN DY CREEK
ATH ENS, GEORGIA
LEGEND
FLOW
XOC
1 OOO
1 OOO 1 OOO 1 OOO
TIME (HOURS)
JULY 8-10.1880
1 OOO
-------
RAINFALL DATA
COMMERCE LAKE
STUDY
TIME (DAYS)
JUNE 14—JULY 10,1989
-------
-------
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
SHERRILLS CREEK
STAGE (FEET)
-------
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
GOULDING CREEK
STAGE (FEET)
-------
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
GROVE RIVER
STAGE (FEET)
-------
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
BIGER CREEK
STAGE (FEET)
-------
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
BRUSH CREEK
Y = 68,012 - 5.789X + 123.2X
i.6
23.8
T
24
24.2
STAGE (FEET)
24.4
24.6
24.8
-------
(/)
Lt-
O
130
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
LITTLE SANDY CREEK
1.6 1.8
STAGE (FEET)
-------
STAGE DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP
SANDY CREEK
STAGE (FEET)
-------
RUNOFF EVENTS AT BLALOCK LAKE
STATION BL-3 (BLALOCK CREEK) HYDROGRAPH
CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
60 80 100
TIME(HOURS)
STAGE FLOW
4/4-10/91
-------
RUNOFF EVENTS AT BLALOCK LAKE
STATION PC-4 (PATES CREEK) HYDROGRAPH
CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA
100
TIME(HOURS)
STAGE FLOW
140
120
100
(f)
¦ ¦
80
LL_
O
60
J
o
_l
40
Li-
20
0
200
4/4-10/91
-------
2.5
CD
P 1.5
LU
O
z
o
o
0.5
0
WATER QUALITY COMPARISONS I
BLALOCK LAKE INFLOW |
BASE FLOW vs. RUNOFF
a
Z"
1 ST RAIN EVENT 2ND RAIN EVENT BASE FLOW
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
g/| NMG/L Q N LB/DAY ¦ PMG/L ~ P LB/DAY
2,000
1,500 <
Q
CD
1,000 0
z
Q
500 O
0
4/3-11/91
-------
0
o
I-
LLl
O
z
o
o
WATER QUALITY COMPARISONS I
SHAMROCK LAKE INFLOW I
BASE FLOW vs. RUNOFF |
7"
A
1 ST RAIN EVENT 3RD RAIN EVENT
2ND RAIN EVENT BASE FLOW
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
g/j NMG/L E2 N LB/DAY ¦ PMG/L ~ P LB/DAY
700
600 >.
<
500 Q
m
400 -l
CD
300 Z
Q
200 <
O
100 -1
0
4/3-11/91
-------
RUNOFF EVENTS AT HIGH FALLS LAKE
STATION T-1 (TOWALIGA RIVER) HYDROGRAPH
JACKSON, GEORGIA
4.5
TIME(HOURS)
500
STAGE FLOW
4/4-10/91
-------
0.8
O 0.7
fj 0.6
Q 0.5
^ 0.4
Z 0.3
111
O 0.2
Z
O 0.1
o
0
7
WATER QUALITY COMPARISONS I
HIGH FALLS LAKE INFLOW I
BASE FLOW vs. RUNOFF |
* FOR TOWALIGA RIVER INFLOW ONLY
1 ST RAIN EVENT 2ND RAIN EVENT BASE FLOW
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
^ NMG/L E2 N LB/DAY ¦ PMG/L ~ P LB/DAY
3,000
2,500
<
2,000 Q.
CQ
_l
1,500 0
Z
1,000 Q
o
500 -1
J 0
4/3-11/91
-------
RUNOFF EVENTS AT ROCK EAGLE LAKE
STATION RE-A (UNNAMED TRIB) HYDROGRAPH
EATONTON, GEORGIA
LU
LU
O
<
CO
7.2
0
24 48 72 96 120
TIME(HOURS)
STAGE FLOW
- 2.5
- 2
CO
l_L_
O
o
1.5
144 168 192
4/3-11/91
-------
WATER QUALITY COMPARISONS
ROCK EAGLE LAKE INFLOW
BASE FLOW vs. RUNOFF
1st RAIN EVENT 2ND RAIN EVENT BASE FLOW
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
8
>-
<
6
a
QQ
I
4
1
o
z
Q
?
<
o
o
^ N mg/l 0 N lb/day B P mg/l Q P lb/day
-------
RUNOFF EVENTS AT LAKE BRANTLEY
STATION LB— 1 (HARD LABOR CREEK) HYDROGRAPH
RUTLEDGE, GA
7.22
7.2
7.18
Ld
W 7.16
7.14
LlJ
9 7.12
1 I 1
i
A
/ \
/A\ COMF
' /\ v
~u>
—i
1 1
/ / \ s 1
1 \ ^ ~
// \\
'/ \ X
\ N
\ \ •-
\ V
\ s
"\ J , I
V \
1 1
50 100
TIME (HOURS)
150
STAGE
FLOW
FLOW
140
130
120 CO
Ll_
110 ^
100
90
80
O
70
200
4/3-11/91
-------
1ST RAIN EVENT 2ND RAIN EVENT BASE FLOW
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
23 N MG/L ~ N LB/DAY ¦ P MG/L ~ P LB/DAY
500
400 <
300
200
CD
O
Q
<
100 o
0
4/3-11/91
-------
RUNOFF EVENTS AT LAKE RUTLEDGE
STATION LB-3 (HARD LABOR CREEK) HYDROGRAPH
RUTLEDGE, GA
7.22
7.2
7.18
U
^ 7.16
Li_
^ 7.14
LJ
O 7.12
<
00 7.1
7.08
7.06
0
;\
—
, K \
. J \ \
-
1/ U
if 1*
II \ *
11 \ *
COMPOSITE
: i 1
•I V*
if \ *
1 \ :
/s
/ \
/' \ COMP
/ /\ \
7 \
/ \ \ ""
I \ I
DSITE V
,f f \ \ I—
1 \N
- i / \ ^
I \
\ \ -
¦* ^ f j \ \ _ i
\ \
V. \
-----J
\
i i
-
50 100
TIME (HOURS)
150
STAGE
FLOW
FLOW
140
130
120 CO
LL_
1 10 P.
100
90
80
O
70
200
4/3-11/91
-------
RUNOFF EVENT AT LAKE RUTLEDGE
ROCKY CREEK HYDROGRAPH
RUTLEDGE, GEORGIA
M
11
11
^ ^ 'I
' COMPOSITE
^ I
100 150
TIME (HOURS)
STAGE FLOW
25
- 20
00
15 b
10 Q
Ll.
0
200
4/3-11/91
-------
RAIN EVENT BASE FLOW
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
N MG/L ~ N LB/DAY ¦ P MG/L ~ P LB/DAY
4/9-10/91 RUNOFF EVENT
600
500 <;
Q
400
300
OQ
O
200 ^
<
100
0
o
-------
a
x
-n
-------
APPENDIX
F
-------
PART IV: BATHTUB - MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
BATHTUB is designed to facilitate application of empirical eutrophica-
tion models to morphometrically complex reservoirs. The program performs
water and nutrient balance calculations in a steady-state, spatially segmented
hydraulic network which accounts for advective transport, diffusive transport,
and nutrient sedimentation. Eutrophication-related water quality conditions
(expressed in terms of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll-a, trans-
parency, organic nitrogen, nonortho-phosphorus, and hypolimnetic oxygen deple-
tion rate) are predicted using empirical relationships previously developed
and tested for reservoir applications (Walker 1985). To provide regional per-
spectives on reservoir water quality, controlling factors, and model perfor-
mance, BATHTUB can also be configured for simultaneous application to
collections or networks of reservoirs. As described in Part I, applications
of the program would normally follow use of the FLUX program for reducing
tributary monitoring data and use of the PROFILE program for reducing pool
monitoring data, although use of the data reduction programs is optional if
independent estimates of tributary loadings and/or average pool water quality
conditions are used.
The functions of the program can be broadly classified as diagnostic or
predictive. Typical applications would include:
a. Diagnostic.
(1) Formulation of water and nutrient balances, including identifi-
cation and ranking of potential error sources.
(2) BanUng of trophic state indicators in relation to user-defined
reservoir groups and/or the CE reservoir data base.
(3) Identification of factors controlling algal production.
b. Predictive.
(1) Assessing impacts of changes in water and/or nutrient loadings.
(2) Assessing impacts of changes in mean pool level or morphometry.
(3) Estimating nutrient loadings consistent with given water qual-
ity management objectives.
The program operates in a batch mode (noninteractive) and generates output in
various formats, as appropriate for specific applications. Predicted confi-
dence limits can be calculated for each output variable using a first—order
error analysis scheme which incorporates effects of uncertainty in model input
IV-1
-------
values (e.g., tributary flows and loadings, reservoir morphometry, monitored
water quality) and inherent model errors.
Input formats and output listings are described at the end of this Part,
The following sections review underlying theory, input data specifications,
output formats, and suggested application procedures.
THEORY
Introduction
A flow diagram for BATHTUB calculations is given in Figure IV-1. The
model core consists of the following procedures:
a. Water balance.
b. Nutrient balance.
£. Eutrophication response.
Using a first-order error analysis procedure (Walker 1982), the model core is
executed repeatedly in order to estimate output sensitivity to each input
variable and submodel and to develop variance estimates and confidence limits
for each output variable. The remainder of the program consists of output
routines designed for various purposes.
Control pathways for predicting nutrient levels and eutrophication
response in a given model segment are illustrated in Figure IV-2. Predictions
are based upon a network of models which has been empirically calibrated and
tested for reservoir applications (Walker 1985). Model features are docu-
mented as follows: symbol definitions (Table IV-1), model options
(Table IV-2), guidance for selecting model options (Table IV-3), supplementary
response models (Table IV-4), error statistics (Table IV-5), and diagnostic
variables and interpretations (Table IV-6).
As listed in Table IV-2, several options are provided f®r modeling
nutrient sedimentation, chlorophyll-a, and transparency. In each case,
Models 1 and 2 are the most general (and most accurate) formulations, based
upon model testing results. Alternative models are included to permit sensi-
tivity analyses and application of the program under various data constraints
(see Table IV-3). Table IV-4 specifies submodels for predicting supplementary
response variables (organic nitrogen, particulate phosphorus, principal
IV-2
-------
INPUT
1. READ KEY DATA FILE
2. READ CASE DATA FILE
3. PRINT INPUT CONDITIONS
MODEL CORE
1.
CALCULATE WATER BALANCE
2.
CALCULATE COMPONENT BALANCES;
• CONSERVATIVE TRACER
• PHOSPHORUS
• NITROGEN
3.
CALCULATE WATER QUALITY RESPONSES;
• CHLOROPHYLL-a
• SECCHI
• ORGANIC N
• PARTICULATE P
• OXYGEN DEPLETION
ERROR ANALYSIS
1. ALTER INPUT OR MODEL ERROR TERM
2. ACCUMULATE OUTPUT SENSITIVITIES
3. EXECUTE MODEL CORE
4. CALCULATE OUTPUT VARIANCES
OUTPUT
1. PRINT SEGMENT HYDRAULICS AND DISPERSION
2. PRINT GROSS WATER AND COMPONENT BALANCES
3. PRINT BALANCES BY SEGMENT
4. PRINT OBSERVED VS. PREDICTED STATISTICS
5. PRINT DIAGNOSTICS AND RANKINGS
6. PRINT SPATIAL PROFILE TABLES
7. PLOT OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONFIDENCE LIMITS
END
Figure IV-1. Schematic of BATHTUB
calculations
IV-3
-------
HYPOUMNETIC O
Figure IV-2. Control pathways in empirical eutrophication models
developed for CE reservoir applications
-------
Table IV-1
Symbol Definitions
a = Nonalgal Turbidity (1/m) - 1/S - 0.025 B
2
As = Surface Area of Segment (km )
Ac = Cross-Sectional Area of Segment (km*m)
A1 «* Intercept of Phosphorus Sedimentation Term
A2 = Exponent of Phosphorus Sedimentation Term
B1 = Intercept of Nitrogen Sedimentation Term
B2 = Exponent of Nitrogen Sedimentation Term
3
B = Chlorophyll-a Concentration (mg/m )
Bm = Reservoir Area-Weighted Mean Chlorophyll-a Concentration
(mg/m )
Bp = Phosphorus-Potential Chlorophyll-a Concentration (mg/m )
Bx - Nutrient-Potential Chlorophyll-a Concentration (mg/m )
CB = Calibration Factor for Chlorophyll-a (segment-specific)
CD = Calibration Factor for Dispersion (segment-specific)
CN = Calibration Factor for N Decay Rate (segment-specific)
CO « Calibration Factor for Oxygen Depletion (segment-specific)
CP ¦ Calibration Factor for P Decay Rate (segment-specific)
CS - Calibration Factor for Secchi Depth (segment-specific)
2
D ¦ Dispersion Rate (km /yr)
2
Dn = Numeric Dispersion Rate (km /yr)
3
E » Diffusive Exchange Rate between Adjacent Segments (hm /yr)
Fs = Summer Flushing Rate - (Inflow-Evaporation)/Volume (yr-1)
Fin — Tributary Inorganic N Load/Tributary Total N Load
Fot = Tributary Ortho—P Load/Tributary Total P Load
FD = Dispersion Calibration Factor (applied to all segments)
= Kinetic Factor Used in Chlorophyll-a Model
3
HODv = Near-Dam Hypolimnetic Oxygen Depletion Rate (mg/m -day)
m Segment Length (km)
3
MODv « Near-Dam Metalimnetic Oxygen Depletion Rate (mg/m -day)
(Continued)
IV-5
-------
Table IV-1 (Concluded)
Q
N = Total Nitrogen Concentration (mg/m )
Ni = Inflow Total N Concentration (mg/m^)
3
Nin = Inflow Inorganic N Concentration (mg/m )
•s
Nia « Inflow Available N Concentration (mg/m )
3
Ninorg = Inorganic Nitrogen Concentration (mg/m )
3
Norg = Organic Nitrogen Concentration (mg/m )
p
es
3
Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/m )
Pi
ss
Inflow Total P Concentration (mg/m^)
Pio
=
3
Inflow Ortho-P Concentration (mg/m )
Pia
ss
3
Inflow Available P Concentration (mg/m )
Portho
ss
3
Ortho-Phosphorus Concentration (mg/m )
PC-1
s
First Principal Component of Response Measurements
PC-2
-
Second Principal Component of Response Measurements
Q
Segment Total Outflow (hm /yr)
Qs
-
Surface Overflow Rate (m/yr)
S
=
Secchi Depth (m)
T
ss
Hydraulic Residence Time (years)
U
=
Mean Advective Velocity (km/yr)
V
B
3
Total Volume (hm )
W
SS
Mean Segment Width (km)
Wp
SS
Total Phosphorus Loading (kg/yr)
Wn
-
Total Nitrogen Loading (kg/yr)
Xpn
m
Composite Nutrient Concentration (mg/m )
Z
as
Mean Total Depth (m)
Zx
-
Maximum Total Depth (m)
Zh
as
Mean Hypolimnetic Depth of Entire Reservoir (m)
Zmix
as
Mean Depth of Mixed Layer (m)
IV-6
-------
Table IV-2
BATHTUB Model Options
OPTION 1 - Conservative Substance Balance
Model 0: Do Not Compute (Set Predicted = Observed)
Model 1: Compute Mass Balances
OPTION 2 - Phosphorus Sedimentation
3 A2
Unit P Sedimentation Rate (mg/m -yr) = CP A1 P
Solution for Mixed Segment:
Second-Order (A2 =2) n ,
P - [-1 + (1 + 4 CP A1 Pi T)u,J]/(2 CP A1 T)
First-Order (A2 =1)
P = Pi/(1 + CP A1 T)
Model A1 A2
0 - Do Not Compute (Set Predicted
¦ Observed) — -
1 - Second-Order, Available P 0.17 Qs/(Qs + 13.3) 2
Qs - MAX(Z/T,4)
Inflow Available P = 0.33 Pi + 1.93 Pio
2 — Second—Order Decay Rate Function 0.056 Fot Qs/
(Qs + 13.3)
3 - Second-Order 0.10 2
0 59
4 - Canfield and Bachman (1981) 0.11 (Wp/V) 1
5 - Vollenweider (1976)
6 - Simple First-Order
T-°.s t
1 1
7 - First-Order Settling */z 1
(Continued)
Note: For purposes of computing effective rate coefficients (Al), Qs,
Wp, Fot, T, and V are evaluated separately for each segment group
based upon external loadings and segment hydraulics.
(Sheet 1 of 5)
IV-7
-------
TABLE F-1
RESERVOIR EUTROPHICATION MODELING WORKSHEET
FLAPNET1: MEDIAN STREAM P & CHL SMALL SOUTHEASTERN IMPOUNDMENTS, GROWING SEASON, 1989-1991
nnl mii n «m • i«» »»¦ • —-
UNITS
VARIABLE
PROBLEM TITLE
CASE LABELS
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS...
Drainage Area km2
Precipitation m/yr
Evaporation m/yr
Unit Runoff m/yr
Stream Total P Cone. ppb
Stream Ortho P Cone. ppb
Atmospheric Total P Load kg/km2-yr
Atmospheric Ortho P Load kg/km2-yr
POINT SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS...
Flow hn3/yr
Total P Cone ppb
Ortho P Cone ppb
RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS...
Surface Area km2
Mean Depth m
Non-Algal Turbidity 1/m
Mean Depth of Mixed Layer m
Mean Depth of Hypollmnion m
Observed Phosphorus ppb
Observed Chl-a ppb
Observed Secchi meters
MODEL PARAMETERS...
BATHTUB Total P Model Number (1-8)
BATHTUB Total P Model Name
BATHTUB Chl-a Model Nunber (2,4,5)
BATHTUB Chl-a Model Name
Beta 3 1/S vs. C Slope m2/mg
P Decay Calibration (normally =1)
Chlorophyll-a Calib (normally ¦ 1)
Chla Temporal Coef. of Var.
Chla Nuisance Criterion ppb
COL
FLAP
COL
COM
COM
CHAP OL
CHAP
OL
UP
UP
WATER BALANCE...
Precipitation Flow
NonPolnt Flow
Point Flow
Total Inflow
Evaporation
Outflow
hniS/yr
hm3/yr
hmJ/yr
hm3/yr
hm5/yr
hm3/yr
77.1
49.47
117.53
1.22
1.04
1.22
1.0$
1:8
0.65
1.07
0.53
40
70
45
9.9
17.4
11.2
30
30
30
15
15
15
0.19
2
0.79
1.16
h1.!
10.7
0.91
1.79
1.6
1.85
1.15
0.1
78.1
30.8
0.41
1.05
3.5
0.51
1.96
0.62
25
9.4
1.37
8.96
1.22
1.04
0.33
30
7.4
30
15
0.28
2.4
0.47
1.69
0.43
23.8
8.6
1.49
6.76
1.22
1.04
0.45
40
9.9
30
15
FALL
FALL
286.4
1.22
1.04
0.7
25
6.2
30
15
BRAN
BRAN
BLA
BLA
ROCK RUT
ROCK
RUT
SHAM
SHAM
0.13
0.9
0.73
1.07
0.46
28
8.15
1.05
2.43
4
0.38
1.41
0.36
52.1
24.84
0.96
49.5
I :8
0.6
30
7.4
30
15
0.18
1.3
1.34
1.41
0.36
36.4
10.55
0.56
14.8
1:8
4.9
75
18.6
30
15
1.05
V
0.45
1.41
0.36
42.5
22.7
1.05
5.1 49.7 14.6
1.22
1.04
3.6
370
54.8
30
15
0.44
1.6
0.05
1.41
0.36
53.6
66.75
0.74
1.22
1.04
0.7
35
8.7
30
15
1.15
1.6
0.85
1.41
0.36
44.3
29.37
0.72
1.22
1.04
3.1
50
12.4
30
15
0.28
3.3
0.42
1.41
0.36
47.1
21.36
0.98
DECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUNC
5
JONES
0.025
1 .95
0.95
1.06
25
0.23
50.12
0.00
50.35
0.20
50.15
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
1.2
25
2.18
52.93
0.00
55.12
1.86
53.26
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
0.51
25
1.28
62.29
0.00
63.57
1.09
62.48
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
°-8
0.34
2.96
0.00
3.30
0.29
3.01
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
1.1
25
0.16
3.04
0.00
3.20
0.14
3.07
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
0.57
25
2.96
200.48
20§.'?4
2.53
200.92
5
JONES
0.025
i .95
0.95
0.86
25
0.22
29.70
0.00
29.92
0.19
29.73
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
0.86
25
1.28
72.52
0.00
73.80
1.09
72.71
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
0.86
25
0.54
18.36
0.00
18.90
0.46
18.44
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
°it
1.40
34.79
0.00
36.19
1.20
35.00
5
JONES
0.025
1.95
0.95
0.86
25
0.34
45.26
0.00
45.60
0.29
45.31
-------
TABLE F-2
eutrophicatiom modeling worksheet
MEAN STR£AM P * CHL SHALL SOUmASTER^IHPOUNOHEHTS, GROgiNGJEASOM,J?89-19?1
VARIABLE
PROBLEM TITLE
CASE LABELS
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS...
Drainage Area
Precipitation
Evaporation
Unit Runoff
Stream Total P Cone.
Stream Ortho P Cone.
Atmospheric Total P Load
Atmospheric Ortho P Load
UNITS
COL
FLAP
COL
CON
COM
km2
m/yr
m/yr
m/yr
jcjj/km2-yr
kg/km2-yr
POINT SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS...
RSi p ck £S«"
Ortho P Cone ppb
RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS...
Surface Area km?
Mean Depth £
Non-Algal Turbidity 1/m
Mean Depth of Nixed Layer m
Mean Depth of Hypolimnfon m
Observed Phosphorus ppb
Observed Chl-a ppb
Observed Secchi meters
MODEL PARAMETERS...
BATHTUB Total P Model Number (1-8)
BATHTUB Total P Model Name
BATHTUB Chl-a Model Number (2,4,5)
BATHTUB Chl-a Model Name
Beta = 1/S vs. C.Slope m2/mg
P DecayCalibration (normally *1)
Chlorophyll-a Calib (normally si)
Chia Temporal Coef. of Var.
Chla Nuisance Criterion ppb
77.1
1.22
1.04
0.65
104
21.4
30
15
0.19
2
0.79
1.16
0.18
36.2
15.3
0.91
49.47
1.22
1.04
1.07
176
36.3
30
15
CHAP OL
117.53
1.22
1.04
0.53
zl2l
30
15
1.79
{.6
1.85
1.15
0.1
78.1
29.3
0.41
1.05
3.5
0.51
1.96
0.62
25
10.8
1.37
8.96
1.22
1.04
0.33
80
16.5
30
15
0.28
2.4
0.47
1.69
0.43
23.8
10
1.49
UP FALL BRAN BLA ROCK RUT SHAM
up FALL BRAN BLA ROCK RUT SHAM
6.76
1.22
1.04
0.45
64
13.2
30
15
0.13
0.9
0.73
I.07
0.46
28
II.1
1.05
286.4
1.22
1.04
0.7
40
8.2
30
15
2.43
4
0.38
1.41
0.36
52.1
32.8
0.96
49.5
1.22
1.04
0.6
48
9.9
30
15
0.18
1.3
1.34
1.41
0.36
36.4
22.6
0.56
14.8
1.22
1.04
4.9
128
26.4
30
15
1.05
3.4
0.45
1.41
0.36
42.5
22.9
1.05
5.1
1.22
1.04
3.6
370
54.8
30
15
0.44
1.6
0.05
1.41
0.36
53.6
65.2
0.74
49.7
1.22
1.04
0.7
80
16.5
30
15
1.15
1.6
0.85
1.41
0.36
44.3
27.1
0.72
14.6
1.22
1.04
3.1
80
16.5
30
15
0.28
3.3
0.42
1.41
0.36
47.1
29.8
0.98
DECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY FUDECAY fudecay fudecay fudecay FUNC
JONES '—- -¦¦¦-- - -- 5
0.025
4
0.95
0.57
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
1.06
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
i.2
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.51
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.44
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
1.1
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.86
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.86
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.86
25
5
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.86
25
JONES
0.025
4
0.95
0.86
25
-------
VARIABLE UNITS
AVAILABLE P BALANCE...
Precipitation Load
NonPoint Load
Point Load
Total Load
Sedimentation
Outflow
PREDICTION SUMMARY...
P Retention Coefficient
Mean Phosphorus
Mean Chlorophyll»a
Algal Nuisance Frequency
Mean Secchi Depth
Hypol. Oxygen Depletion A
Hypol. Oxygen Depletion V
Organic Nitrogen
Non Ortho Phosphorus
Chi-a x Secchi
PC-1
PC-2
Carlson TSI P
Carlson TSI Chl-a
Carlson TSI Secchi
OBSERVED / PREDICTED RATIOS...
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Secchi
OBSERVED / PREDICTED T-STAT1STICS...
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll-a
Secchi
COL
COM
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
Ppb
s*
meters
mg/mZ-d
mg/m3-d
Ppb
PPb ,
mg/m2
6
2005
0
2010
206
1805
54
3705
0
3759
1519
2240
CHAP OL
32
2803
0
2835
1058
1777
UP
FALL
BRAN
BLA
0.102
36.0
14.4
14.7
0.87
910.5
5058.4
544.6
40.2
12.5
2.60
0.87
55.9
56.8
62.0
1.01
0.74
1.05
0.404
42.1
18.1
19.2
0.43
1020.3
10202.5
708.3
71.9
J-*
2.99
0.70
58.1
59.0
72.0
1.86
1.70
0.94
0.02
-1.09
0.17
2.28
1.96
-0.21
8
89
0
97
42
56
0.373
28.4
10.2
2.2
1.31
766.8
1236.7
428.1
26.2
13.3
2.29
0.90
52.5
53.4
56.1
0.88
0.92
1.05
-0.47
-0.30
0.17
0.428
18.5
5.4
0.0
1.65
559.9
1302.0
316.5
16.7
9.0
1.94
0.80
46.3
47.2
52.8
1.29
1.58
0.90
0.93
1.68
-0.38
4
122
0
126
31
95
0.244
31.0
11.6
10.5
0.98
815.9
1773.6
475.5
33.8
11.3
2.46
0.84
53.7
54.6
60.3
0.90
0.71
1.07
-0.37
-1.29
0.25
73
5012
0
5085
m
5
891
0
896
73
823
32
5439
0
5471
2375
3095
ROCK RUT
13
6793
0
6806
4772
2034
SHAM
18.4
Ui
0.50
3.74
5.48
-2.56
IM
0.89
1.01
0.26
-0.44
1.00
1.23
0.96
-0.01
0.77
-0.17
40
-2.66
-0.37
1.25
35
1218
0
1252
358
894
0.701
110.3
73-9
Z9-7
0.53
2062.9
5730.2
12U
38.9
3.62
1.18
72.0
72.8
69.2
0.49
^.90
0.286
25.5
8.7
4.9
0.94
709.1
1969.7
1?:8
8.2
2.36
0.74
50.9
51.9
61.0
1.73
3.36
0.77
8
2263
0
2271
544
1727
0.240
38.1
15.7
16.5
1.23
949.6
2637.8
545.6
33.7
ft?
1.01
56.7
57.6
57.0
1.24
1.36
0.80
2.03 0.78
4.47 1.14
-0.97 -0.84
-------
VARIABLE
RESPONSE CALCULATIONS...
Reservotr Volune
Residence Time
Overflow Rate
Total P Availability Factor
Ortho P Availability Factor
Inflow Ortho P/Total P
Inflow P Cone
P Reaction Rate - Hods 1 & 8
P Reaction Rate - Model 2
P Reaction Rate - Model 3
1-Rp Model 1 - Avail P
UNITS
hm3
yrs
m/yr
Pf*
Decay Rate
2nd Order Fixed
Canfield & Bachman
Vottenweider 1976
First Order Decay
First Order Setting
2nd Order Tp Only
PPb
4
5
PPb
i-Rp Model 2
1-Rp Model 3
1-Rp Model 4
1-Rp Model 5
1-Rp Model 6
1-Rp Model 7
1-Rp Model 8
1-Rp - Used
Reservoir P Cone
jjP
cKla vs. P, Turb, Flushing
Chla vs. P Linear
Chia vs. P 1.46
Chla Used
ml - Nuisance Freq Calc.
z
V
w
X
VARIABLE
ORTHO P LOADS...
Precipitation
NonPoint
Point
Total
TOTAL P LOADS...
Precipitation
NonPoint
Point
Total
COL
0.38
0.0076
263.9
1
0
0.249
40.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
.919
.898
.947
0.796
0.855
0.985
0.993
0.919
0.898
36.0
0.863
27.8
9.8
9.6
14.4
14.4
0.
0.
0.
1.0sl
0.230
0.741
0.147
COM
2.864
0.0538
29.8
1
0
0.252
70.6
?:?
0.7
0.642
0.596
0.669
0.556
0.689
0.905
0.938
0.642
0.596
42.1
0.308
34.4
16.4
11.2
18.1
18.1
2.2
0.870
0.273
0.775
0.192
CHAP
3.675
0.0588
59.5
1
0
0,251
45.4
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.673
0.627
0.726
0.611
0.679
0.897
0.968
0.673
0.627
28.4
0.512
20.1
12.0
7.6
10.2
10.2
2.0^
0.053
0.599
0.022
OL
UP
0.672
0.2235
10.7
1
0
0.270
32.3
1:3
M
0.607
0.572
0.560
0.526
0.520
0.696
0.846
0.607
0.572
18.5
0.353
11.1
8.3
4.9
5.4
5.4
3.685
0.000
0.449
0.000
0.117
0.0382
23.6
1
0
0,255
41.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.792
0.756
0.803
0.665
0.724
0.931
0.924
0.792
0.756
31.0
0.321
22.6
14.7
8.2
11.6
11.6
. 1.8
1.251
0.182
0.706
0.105
UNITS
COL
COM
CHAP OL
UP
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
3
497
0
500
27
919
0
946
16
695
0
711
22
26
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
„ 6
2005
0
2010
54
3705
0
3759
„ 32
2803
0
2835
8
89
0
97
FALL
9.72
0.0484
82.7
1
0
0.252
25.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.785
0.746
0.834
0.706
0.700
0.914
0.977
0.785
0.746
18.9
8.5
5.0
5.6
5.6
1.6
2.907
0.006
0.508
0.002
FALL
BRAN
0.234
0.0079
165.2
1
0
0.248
30.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.936
0.918
0.958
0.820
0.853
0.985
0.988
0.936
0.918
27.7
1.020
19.4
5.2
7.4
9.8
9.8
1.^7
0.126
0.665
0.065
BLA
3.57
0.0491
69.2
1
0
0.249
75.2
1.0
oi
0.613
0.566
0.673
0.556
0.698
0.913
0.973
w
42.6
0.389
34.9
21.1
11.3
18.4
18.4
0.?87
0.293
0.793
0.216
BRAN
BLA
ROCK
0.704
0.0382
41.9
1
0
0,149
369.1
3.5
7.8
2.7
0.408
0.299
0.448
0.352
0.724
0.931
0.956
0.408
0.299
110.3
0.423
128.8
50.7
29.3
73.9
73.9
3.9
-0.830
0.283
0.784
0.203
ROCK
RUT
1.84
0.0526
30.4
1
0
0.255
35.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.754
0.714
0.778
0.654
0.691
0.907
0.940
0.754
0.714
25.5
0.381
17.4
10.7
6.8
8.7
8.7
1.8
1.653
0.102
0.645
0.049
SHAM
0.924
0.0204
161.8
1
0
0.249
50.1
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.800
0.760
0.854
0.695
0.782
0.962
0.988
0.800
0.760
38.1
0.558
30.0
16.3
10.1
15.7
15.7
2.4
0.974
0.248
0.755
0.165
RUT
SHAM
2
30
0
32
4
122
0
126
36
1243
0
1279
73
5012
0
5085
3
220
0
222
5
891
0
896
. 16 7
1349 1006
0 0
1365 1013
17
302
0
319
4
561
0
565
32
5439
0
5471
13
6793
0
6806
35 8
1218 2263
0 0
1252 2271
-------
VARIABLE
RESPONSE CALCULATIONS...
Reservoir Volume
Residence Time
Overflow Rate
Total P Availability Factor
Ortho P Availability Factor
Inflow Ortho P/Total P
Inflow P Cone
P Reaction Rate - Nods 1 ft 8
P Reaction Rate - Model 2
P Reaction Rate - Model 3
UNITS
hm3
yrs
m/yr
PPb
Avail P
Decay Rate
2nd Order Fixed
Canfield & Bachman
Vollenweider 1976
First Order Decay
First Order Setting
2nd Order Tp Only
PPb
|pb
4
5
Pf*>
1-Rp Model 1
1-Rp Model 2
1-Rp Model 3
1-Rp Model 4
1-Rp Model 5
1-Rp Model 6
1-Rp Model 7
1-Rp Model 8
1-Rp - Used
Reservoir P Cone
BP
cRla vs. P, Turb, Flushing
Chla vs. P Linear
Chla vs. P 1.46
Chla Used
ml - Nuisance Freq Calc.
z
v
w
X
VARIABLE
ORTHO P LOAOS...
Precipitation
NonPoint
Point
Total
TOTAL P LOADS...
Precipitation
NonPoint
Point
Total
UNITS
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
kg/yr
COL
0.38
0.0076
263.9
1
0
0.249
40.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.919
0.898
0.947
0.796
0.855
0.985
0.993
0.919
0.898
36.0
0.863
27.8
9.8
9.6
14.4
14.4
l.osl
0.230
0.741
0.147
COL
COM
2.864
0.0538
29.8
1
0
0.252
70.2
?:?
0.7
0.642
0.596
0.669
0.556
0.689
0.905
0.938
0.642
0.596
42.1
0.308
34.4
16.4
11.2
18.1
18.1
2.2
0.870
0.273
0.775
0.192
COM
3
497
0
500
CHAP
3.675
0.0588
59.5
1
0
0.251
45.4
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.673
0.627
0.726
0.611
0.679
0.897
0.968
0.673
0.627
28.4
0.512
20.1
12.0
7.6
10.2
10.2
2,2
2.0*1
0.053
0.599
0.022
OL
UP
0.672
0.2235
10.7
1
0
0.270
32.3
1.1
]S
0.607
0.572
0.560
0.526
0.520
0.696
0.846
0.607
0.572
18.5
0.353
11.1
8.3
4.9
5.4
5.4
1.6
3.685
0.000
0.449
0.000
0.117
0.0382
23.6
1
0
0,255
41.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.792
0.756
0.803
0.665
o.'wt
0.924
0.792
0.756
31.0
0.321
22.6
14.7
8.2
11.6
11.6
1.kl
0.182
0.706
0.105
FALL
9.72
0.0484
82.7
1
0
0.252
25.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.7&5
0.746
0.834
0.706
0.700
0.914
0.977
0.785
0.746
18.9
8.5
5.0
5.6
5.6
1.6
2.907
0.006
0.508
0.002
BRAN
0.234
0.0079
?65.2
1
0
0.248
30.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.936
0.918
0.958
0.820
0.853
0.985
0.988
0.936
0.918
27.7
1.020
19.4
5.2
7.4
9.8
9.8
1.5$
0.126
0.665
0.065
BLA
3.57
0
°75*2
u
0.7
0.613
0.566
0.673
0.556
0.698
0.913
0.973
m
42.6
0.389
34.9
21.1
11.3
18.4
18.4
2.5
0.787
0.293
0.793
0.216
27
919
0
946
CHAP OL
16
695
0
711
UP
FALL BRAN BLA
ROCK
0.704
0.0382
41.9
1
0
0.149
369.1
3.5
7.8
2.7
0.408
0.299
0.448
0.352
0.724
0.931
0.956
0.408
0.299
110.3
0.423
128.8
50.7
29.3
73.9
73.9
3.9
-0.830
0.283
0.784
0.203
ROCK
6 54
2005 3705
0 0
2010 3759
32
2803
0
2835
4
22
0
26
8
89
0
97
2
36
3
30
1243
220
0
0
0
32
1279
222
4
73
5
122
5012
891
0
0
0
126
5085
896
32
5439
0
5471
RUT
1.84
0.0526
30.4
1
0
0.255
35.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.754
0.714
0.778
0.654
0.691
0.907
0.940
0.754
0.714
25.5
0.381
17.4
10.7
6.8
8.7
8.7
1.8
1.653
0.102
0.645
0.049
SHAM
0.924
0.0204
161.8
1
0
0.249
50.1
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.800
0.760
0.854
0.695
0.782
0.962
0.988
0.800
0.760
38.1
0.558
30.0
16.3
10.1
15.7
15.7
2.4
0.974
0.248
0.755
0.165
RUT
SHAM
. 16 7
1349 1006
0 0
1365 1013
17
302
0
319
4
561
0
565
13
6793
0
6806
35 8
1218 2263
0 0
1252 2271
-------
VARIABLE
UNITS
COL
COM
CHAP
WATBR BALANCE...
Precipitation Flow
hm3/yr
0.23
2.18
1.28
NonPoint Flow
hm3/yr
50.12
52.93
62.29
Point Flow
hm3/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Inflow
hm3/yr
50.35
55.12
63.57
Evaporation
ho3/yr
0.20
1.86
1.09
Outflow
ho3/yr
50.15
53.26
62.48
AVAILABLE P BALANCE...
Precipitation Load
kg/yr
6
54
32
NonPoint Load
kg/yr
5212
9316
7973
Point Load
kg/yr
0
O
0
Total Load
kg/yr
5218
9370
8005
Sedlnentation
kg/yr
1812
6444
5446
Outflow
kg/yr
3406
2926
2559
PREDICTION SUMMARY...
P Retention Coefficient
-
0.347
0.688
0.680
Mean Phosphorus
ppb
67.9
54.9
41.0
Mean Chlorophyll-a
ppb
36.4
26.7
17.4
Algal Nuisance Frequency
«
43.0
29.3
16.7
Mean Secchl Depth
meters
0.59
0.40
1.06
Hypol. Oxygen Depletion A
mg/m2-d
1447.6
1240.1
1000.6
Bypol. Oxygen Depletion V
mg/mS-d
8042.1
12401.1
1613.9
Organic Nitrogen
ppb
1045.9
905.1
591.7
Non Ortho Phosphorus
ppb
79.4
87.3
38.9
Chl-a x secchl
ng/m2
21.4
10.6
18.4
PC-1
-
3.20
3.20
2.61
PC-2
-
1.01
0.78
0.99
Carlson TBI P
65.0
62.0
57.7
Carlson TSI Chl-a
65.9
62.8
58.6
Carlson TSI Secohi
67.6
73.3
59.2
OBSERVED / PREDICTED RATIOS.
..
Phosphorus
0.53
1.42
0.61
Chlorophyll-a
0.42
1.10
0.62
Secahl
1.55
1.03
1.29
UP
FAIL BRAN BLA ROCK RUT SHAM
0.34 0.16
2.96 3.04
0.00 0.00
3.30 3.20
0.29 0.14
3.01 3.07
8 4
237 195
0 0
245 199
174 93
71 105
0.710 0.470
23.6 34.3
7.8 13.4
0.2 13.3
1.50 0.94
669.9 879.9
1558.0 1912.8
370.0 518.4
20.9 37.1
11.7 12.6
2.12 2.54
0.87 0.87
49.8 55.2
50.8 56.1
54.1 60.9
1.01 0.82
1.28 0.83
0.99 1.12
2.96 0.22
200.48 29.70
0.00 0.00
203.44 29.92
2.53 0.19
200.92 29.73
73 5
8019 1426
0 0
8092 1431
3905 324
4187 1107
0.483 0.227
20.8 37.2
6.5 15.1
0.4 15.5
1.84 0.58
611.1 933.2
1697.6 2592.2
333.5 602.6
16.4 54.6
12.0 8.8
1.97 2.79
0.89 0.74
48.0 56.3
48.9 57.3
51.2 67.8
2.50 0.98
5.06 1.49
0.52 0.96
1.28 0.54
72.52 18.36
0.00 0.00
73.80 18.90
1.09 0.46
72.71 18.44
32 13
9283 6793
0 0
9314 6806
6147 5308
3167 1498
0.660 0.780
43.6 81.2
19.0 47.3
22.7 62.2
1.08 0.81
1046.7 1649.9
2907.4 4583.1
624.5 1238.3
40.4 81.2
20.6 38.4
2.65 3.22
1.02 1.19
58.6 67.6
59.5 68.4
58.9 63.0
0.98 0.66
1.20 1.38
0.97 0.91
1.40 0.34
34.79 45.26
0.00 0.00
36.19 45.60
1.20 0.29
35.00 45.31
35 8
2783 3621
0 0
2818 3629
1615 1692
1202 1937
0.573 0.466
34.4 42.8
13.5 18.5
12.5 21.8
0.84 1.13
880.3 1032.7
2445.2 2868.5
527.7 610.7
40.0 38.8
11.3 21.0
2.58 2.62
0.84 1.03
55.2 58.3
56.1 59.2
62.5 58.2
1.29 1.10
2.01 1.61
0.85 0.87
-------
VARIABLE
UNITS
COL
COM
CHAP
OBSERVED / PREDICTED X-6TAZISIIC8...
Phosphorus
-2.32
1.29
-1.82
Chlorophyll-a
-3.19
0.34
-1.75
Secohl
1.60
0.12
0.95
RESPONSE CALCULATIONS...
Reservoir Volume
hm3
0.38
2.864
3.675
Residence Time
yrs
0.0076
0.0538
0.0588
Overflow Rate
m/yr
263.9
29.8
59.5
Total P Availability Factor
1
1
1
Ortho P Availability Factor
0
0
0
Inflow Ortho P/Total P
0.206
0.208
0.207
Inflow P Cono
ppb
104.0
175.9
128.1
P Reaction Rate - Mods 1 £ 8
0.5
4.4
4.2
P Reaction Rate - Model 2
0.8
7.1
6.7
P Reaction Rate - Model 3
0.3
3.8
3.0
1-Rp Model 1 - Avail P
0.729
0.375
0.384
1-Rp Model 2 - Decay Rate
0.653
0.312
0.320
1-Rp Model 3 - 2nd Order Fixed
0.799
0.399
0.434
1-Rp Model 4 - Canfield G Bachman
0.521
0.263
0.293
1-Rp Model 5 - Vollenwelder
1976
0.742
0.519
0.508
1-Rp Model 6 - First Order Decay
0.971
0.823
0.610
1-Rp Model 7 - First Order Setting
0.985
0.881
0.937
1-Rp Model 8 - 2nd order Tp Only
0.729
0.375
0.384
1-Rp - Used
0.653
0.312
0.320
Reservoir P Cono
ppb
67.9
54.9
41.0
Op
0.863
0.308
0.512
Bp
ppb
66.3
49.6
33.1
Chla vs. P, Turb, Flushing
2
15.4
21.7
17.5
Chla vs. P Linear
4
18.1
14.6
10.9
Chla vb. P 1.46
5
36.4
26.7
17.4
Chla Used
ppb
36.4
26.7
17.4
ml - Nuisance Freq Calc.
3.0
2.6
2.7
z
0.176
0.545
0.968
V
0.393
0.344
0.250
w
0.945
0.846
0.756
X
0.430
0.293
0.167
OL UP FALL BRAN Bit ROCK RUT SHAM
0.03 -0.75
0.92 -0.70
-0.03 0.41
0.672 0.117
0.2235 0.0382
10.7 23.6
1 1
0 0
0.216 0.212
81.5 64.8
5.5 1.1
8.4 1.7
7.3 1.0
0.344 0.606
0.290 0.530
0.308 0.620
0.239 0.425
0.346 0.561
0.528 0.868
0.729 0.855
0.344 0.606
0.290 0.530
23.6 34.3
0.353 0.321
15.6 26.0
11.2 16.6
6.3 9.1
7.8 13.4
7.8 13.4
2.0 2.0
2.870 1.114
0.006 0.214
0.512 0.730
0.002 0.133
3.37 -0.08
5.97 1.48
-2.40 -0.14
9.72 0.234
0.0484 0.0079
82.7 165.2
1 1
0 0
0.209 0.207
40.3 48.1
1.1 0.2
1.8 0.4
0.8 0.2
0.595 0.834
0.517 0.773
0.660 0.882
0.471 0.628
0.532 0.738
0.838 0.969
0.954 0.976
0.595 0.834
0.517 0.773
20.8 37.2
0.390 1.020
13.1 29.1
9.6 6.7
5.5 9.9
6.5 15.1
6.5 15.1
1.7 2.3
2.653 1.015
0.012 0.238
0.531 0.748
0.004 0.155
-0.09 -1,53
0.68 1.18
-0.11 -0.34
3.57 0.704
0.0491 0.0382
69.2 41.9
1 1
0 0
0.207 0.149
128.1 369.1
3.6 7.3
5.7 16.1
2.5 5.6
0.407 0.308
0.340 0.220
0.462 0.342
0.309 0.210
0.530 0.561
0.836 0.868
0.945 0.913
0.407 0.308
0.340 0.220
43.6 81.2
0.389 0.423
36.1 84.7
21.6 41.6
11.6 21.6
19.0 47.3
19.0 47.3
2.6 3.5
0.748 -0.310
0.302 0.380
0.801 0.906
0.227 0.378
0.94 0.36
2.58 1.75
-0.58 -0.53
1.84 0.924
0.0526 0.0204
30.4 161.8
1 1
0 0
0.210 0.207
80.5 80.1
2.0 1.0
3.1 1.6
1.7 0.7
0.500 0.614
0.427 0.534
0.528 0.689
0.363 0.458
0.522 0.636
0.826 0.925
0.684 0.976
0.500 0.614
0.427 0.534
34.4 42.8
0.381 0.558
26.1 35.2
15.0 18.2
9.1 11.4
13.5 18.5
13.5 18.5
2.2 2.5
1.151 0.779
0.206 0.294
0.723 0.794
0.125 0.218
-------
VARIABL8
UNITS
COL
COM
CHAP OL
UP
FALL
BRAN
BLA
ROCK
RUT
SHAM
ORTHO P LOADS. . .
Precipitation
kg/yr
3
27
16
4
2
36
3
16
7
17
4
NonPolnt
kg/yr
1073
1919
1643
49
40
1652
294
1912
1006
573
746
Point
kg/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
kg/yr
1076
1946
1658
53
42
1688
296
1928
1013
591
750
TOTAL P LOADS...
Precipitation
kg/yr
6
54
32
8
4
73
5
32
13
35
8
NonPolnt
kg/yr
5212
9316
7973
237
195
8019
1426
9283
6793
2783
3621
Point
kg/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
kg/yr
5216
9370
8005
245
199
8092
1431
9314
6806
2818
3629
* U.S. GOVBBMKOTT PRIHTIWG OFVICB 1993-736-277
-------
------- |