Appendix A P8 Model Documentation Combined_Draft...Appendix A: P8 Model Documentation A-2 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 2.3 Calibration The P8 model was calibrated to match runoff

Draft

Appendix A

P8 Model Documentation

Draft

Six Mile Creek Diagnostic Study March 2013 Appendix A: P8 Model Documentation

A-1

1 Introduction

Phosphorus loading due to direct runoff from the Six Mile Creek watersheds was estimated using P8, the Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds (Walker 2007, Version 3.2) within urban settings and a Unit Area Loading (UAL) model for rural or agricultural settings. P8 models simulate the build-up and wash off of stormwater pollutants using mass and water balance calculations through a user defined drainage system. The key components of P8 models are watersheds, devices, particles and water quality components. The rainfall and snowmelt causing runoff is generated by hourly precipitation and daily air temperature files. The UAL model uses landuse classifications and assigned loading rates for each of these classifications. This document provides an overview on the model setup and calibration results.

2 Model Development

The key P8 input parameters are watershed area, total impervious fraction, weighted SCS curve number and device information. The P8 model inputs for watershed area and pond volumes were taken from the XP-SWMM water budget model created by Wenck for this study.

2.1 Climate Data

The XP-SWMM model requires hourly precipitation and daily temperature values. Meteorological data used for calibration was from the National Weather Service Chaska station #211465 for Calendar Years 2009 through 2010.

2.1 Curve Number and Impervious Fraction

The impervious fraction of each P8 watershed was determined using Metropolitan Council 2010 generalized landuse with each landuse having an assigned impervious fraction. The final impervious fraction was calculated by an area-weighted method. The SCS Curve Number for each subwatershed was determined by overlying the associated landuses with the hydrologic soil type. The area of each landuse with its assigned cover type and soil classification within each watershed was determined in GIS and the curve number was assigned based on Soil Conservation District TR-55 designations. Finally, a composite Curve Number was calculated for each subwatershed. Land uses and their assigned impervious percentages and curve numbers are provided in Table 1.

Table A.1: Generalized Landuse classifications with associated impervious fraction and curve number.

Curve Number AREA IMP% A B C D

Agricultural 0.05 49 69 79 84 Airport 0.30 68 79 86 89

Farmstead 0.10 49 69 79 84 Golf Course 0.10 39 61 74 80

Industrial and Utility 0.50 68 79 86 89

Draft


A-2

2.3 Calibration

The P8 model was calibrated to match runoff volumes from the XP-SWMM model for the 2010 annual year at the same calibration points used in the water budget model analysis. To calibrate the runoff volumes, the impervious fraction and weighted curve number for each of the subwatersheds were adjusted.

3 Results and Discussion

Figures A.1 – A.9 show the calibration graphs for each calibration location. P8 was more accurate at predicting snowmelt then XPSWMM which resulted in March volumes being inconsistent between the two models at most of the sites.

After the P8 model was calibrated to the XP-SWMM runoff volumes, the model was used to determine direct loading from the subwatersheds. Due to P8s limited capabilities of dealing with agricultural land, the P8 model was combined with a UAL model to determine the appropriate phosphorus loading for each of the direct subwatersheds. The UAL model utilizes NASS landuse and assigns a loading rate (TP lbs/acre) to each land use category (Report Table 2.1). These values are based on literature reviews for land uses in Minnesota (Reckhow et al. 1980). The direct watershed loads in the UAL model were then calculated by the area weighted method.

The P8 model was updated to match MCWD 2010 monitored water quality data or UAL concentrations by adjusted the pervious and impervious scale factors in the P8 model. Table A.2 shows the concentration determined for each of the direct subwatersheds and the scale factors used to achieve the concentration.

Institutional 0.32 39 61 74 80 Major Highway 0.50 49 69 79 84

Mixed Use Commercial 0.67 49 69 79 84 Mixed Use Industrial 0.50 68 79 86 89

Mixed Use Residential 0.60 39 61 74 80 Multifamily 0.60 39 61 74 80

Office 0.32 39 61 74 80 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 0.10 39 61 74 80

Railway 0.20 68 79 86 89 Retail and Other Commercial 0.67 49 69 79 84

Single Family Attached 0.30 39 61 74 80 Single Family Detached 0.20 39 61 74 80

Undeveloped 0.05 39 61 74 80 Water 1.00 85 85 85 85

Draft


A-3

Table A.2: Phosphorus loading calibration notes.

Name Calibration Note Concentration ug/L

Pervious Scale Factor

Impervious Scale Factor

SMC-1 Leave as is in P8 37.0 0.2 0.1 SMC-2 Leave as is in P8 120.0 0.45 0.4 SMC-3 56 58.9 0.5 0.4 SMC-4 62 64.4 0.3 0.2 SMC-5 298 306.0 1.25 1 SMC-6 75 67.5 0.1 1 SMC-7 48 49.0 0.17 0.17 SMC-8 113 112.8 0.52 0.5 SMC-9 293 293.7 0.85 1 SMC-10 Leave as is in P8 293.0 1 1 SMC-11 811 807.9 5 1 SMC-12 Leave as is in P8 49.8 0.3 0.3 SMC-13 Leave as is in P8 86.7 0.85 0.7 SMC-14 111 111.5 0.45 0.37 SMC-15 1123 1122.0 6.22 1 SMC-16 29.27 32.0 0.6 0.28 SMC-17 72.69 71.5 1.7 1 SMC-18 32.45 32.0 0.16 0.1 SMC-19 113.7 113.7 0.95 1 SMC-20 54.42 54.4 0.58 0.5 SMC-21 19.14 19.1 0.1 0.05 SMC-22 42.97 44.0 0.15 0.155 SMC-23 15.21 15.2 0.1 0.195 SMC-24 20.57 20.6 0.138 0.06 SMC-25 1584 1582.1 11 1.5 SMC-26 36 35.1 0.26 0.3 SMC-27 35 32.0 0.155 0.1 SMC-28 47.57 45.1 0.275 0.5 SMC-29 31.1 32.0 0.16 0.1 SMC-30 14.81 10.8 0.23 0.13 SMC-31 19.42 19.8 0.069 0.07 SMC-32 91 89.0 0.4 0.3 SMC-33 P8 underpredicts due to wetlands 256.4 1 1 SMC-34 P8 underpredicts due to wetlands 266.4 1.2 1 SMC-35 Leave as is in P8 228.0 1.2 1 SMC-36 Leave as is in P8 325.0 1.25 1 SMC-37 19.24 19.5 0.1 0.06 SMC-38 FWM 153 152.8 1.48 1 SMC-39 FWM 153 153.4 2.35 1 SMC-40 FWM 153 153.5 0.65 1 SMC-41 FWM 153 155.0 1.6 1 SMC-42 FWM 153 153.5 1.55 1 SMC-43 FWM 153 158.9 2.2 1 SMC-44 FWM 200 199.3 0.84 1

Draft


A-4

Name Calibration Note Concentration ug/L

Pervious Scale Factor

Impervious Scale Factor

SMC-45 FWM 200 200.3 2.9 1 SMC-46 FWM 200 208.6 1.4 1 SMC-47 FWM 200 205.0 0.7 0.7 SMC-48 35.5 37.1 0.42 0.2 SMC-49 FWM 700 700.7 3.8 3.6 SMC-50 FWM 700 699.2 5.3 5.2 SMC-51 FWM 700 698.5 2.8 2.4 SMC-52 FWM 700 699.1 7 6.9 SMC-53 FWM 700 700.5 4 3.8 SMC-54 FWM 700 701.3 1.3 1.36 SMC-55 FWM 700 698.3 6.25 6.2 SMC-56 FWM 700 702.7 4.3 4.2 SMC-57 FWM 700 700.7 2 2 SMC-58 FWM 700 702.9 2.4 2.4 SMC-59 FWM 700 699.9 3.9 3.9 SMC-60 FWM 700 699.9 6.5 6.5 SMC-61 FWM 700 696.0 1.2 1.1 SMC-62 Leave as is in P8 113.5 1 1 SMC-63 Leave as is in P8 113.4 1 1 SMC-64 Leave as is in P8 143.0 1 1 SMC-65 Leave as is in P8 188.1 1 1 SMC-66 Leave as is in P8 144.5 1 1

Figure A.1: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S006-149 (Pierson Lake outlet).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S006-149 XPSWMM P8

Draft


A-5

Figure A.2: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S004-377 (Marsh Lake outlet).

Figure A.3: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S004-361 (Marsh Lake outlet).

0

50

100

150

200

250


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S004-377 XPSWMM P8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S004-361 XPSWMM P8

Draft


A-6

Figure A.4: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S004-361 (East Auburn Lake outlet).

Figure A.5: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S004-376 (West Auburn Lake outlet).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S003-755 XPSWMM P8

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S004-376 XPSWMM P8

Draft


A-7

Figure A.6: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S005-567 (Turbid Lake outlet).

Figure A.7: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S002-754 (North Lunsten Lake outlet).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S005-567 XPSWMM P8

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S002-754 XPSWMM P8

Draft


A-8

Figure A.8: Monthly flow volumes for XPSWMM and P8 for S003-752 (Mud Lake outlet).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Volu

me

(ac-

ft)

S003-752 XPSWMM P8

Draft

Appendix B

XP-SWMM Model Documentation

Draft

Six Mile Creek Diagnostic Study March 2013 Appendix B: XP-SWMM Model Documentation

B-1

1 Introduction Emmons and Oliver Resources, Inc. developed a base model for Six Mile Creek for their hydrologic and hydraulic modeling study in 2003 as the base model. Wenck started with the EOR model and updated several parameters to improve outlet structure information, use up to date bathymetry for storage nodes, time of concentrations, impervious fractions, and basin infiltration capacity based on the most current datasets available. The model developed was calibrated to run annual water budget simulations. Lake elevation data from the DNR and instantaneous stream flow data from the MCWD to calibrate the water budget model. 2 Model Development 2.1 Climate Data

The XP-SWMM model requires hourly precipitation and daily temperature values. Meteorological data used for calibration was from the National Weather Service Chaska station #211465 for Calendar Years 2009 through 2010.

2.2 Infiltration

The Green-Ampt method was used to simulate runoff in the XP-SWMM model. The inputs associated with the Green-Ampt method include saturated hydraulic conductivity, initial soil moisture, and capillary suction. The three parameters listed in Table B.1 were used to calculate an area weighted average for each subwatershed.

Table B.1 Green Ampt Method parameters. (Rawls, 1983) Soil Texture Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (in/hr) Initial Soil Moisture

Capillary Suction (in)

Sand 4.74 0.024 1.93 Sandy Loam 0.43 0.085 4.33 Silt Loam 0.26 0.136 6.69 Loam 0.13 0.116 3.50 Sandy Clay Loam 0.06 0.136 8.66 Clay Loam 0.04 0.187 8.27 Clay 0.01 0.265 12.6

2.3 Subwatershed width

Subwatershed width is defined in XP-SWMM as the physical width of overland flow. The subcatchment width is a key calibration parameter, one of the few that can significantly alter the hydrograph shape, rather than just runoff volume. A good estimate for the width for non-rectilinear subwatersheds is the area divided by the average path length of overland flow. Average slope, impervious fraction, and average path length were determined using GIS. The impervious fraction was updated using 2012 Metropolitan Council generalized landuse and adjusted to account for wetlands and open water in the

Draft


B-2

watersheds. Each subwatershed impervious fraction was developed using an area weighted value from the values listed in B.2.

Table B.2: Generalized Landuse classifications with associated impervious fraction and curve number.

2.4 Bathymetry

Lake volumes (Marsh, Carl Krey, North and South Lunsten, and Mud) were updated in the model based on bathymetry data collected during vegetation surveys performed in 2012 by Wenck Associates.

2.5 Lake Evaporation

The XP-SWMM model was also updated to account for lake evaporation in the subwatersheds of Pierson, Marsh, Wassermann, Carl Krey, Steiger, Stone, Zumbra, Sunny, East and West Auburn, Turbid, North and South Lunsten, Parley, and Mud. The monthly lake evaporation values used were converted from pan evaporations taken from the Minnesota Hydrology Guide (NRCS) by using a pan coefficient of 0.74.

3 Calibration Approach The XP-SWMM model was calibrated to 2010 DNR lake levels and 2010 MCWD instantaneous flow values by adjusting the impervious fraction, subwatershed width and Green Ampt parameters (saturated hydraulic conductivity, initial soil moisture, and capillary suction). The lake levels that had

AREA IMP% Agricultural 0.05

Airport 0.30 Farmstead 0.10 Golf Course 0.10

Industrial and Utility 0.50 Institutional 0.32

Major Highway 0.50 Mixed Use Commercial 0.67

Mixed Use Industrial 0.50 Mixed Use Residential 0.60

Multifamily 0.60 Office 0.32

Park, Recreational, or Preserve 0.10 Railway 0.20

Retail and Other Commercial 0.67 Single Family Attached 0.30 Single Family Detached 0.20

Undeveloped 0.05

Draft


B-3

2010 data available for calibration were Pierson, Wasserman, Church, Kelser’s Pond, Stone, Zumbra, Turbid and Parley. The stream sites that had instantaneous flow readings in 2010 were located at the outlets of Pierson, Marsh, West Auburn, Turbid and Mud Lakes along with the inlet to East Auburn Lake. There was no continuous flow data available in the Six Mile Creek watershed so instantaneous values were used to match base flow and ensure that model prediction for storm flows were in the correct range of measured values. Difficulties that arose in the calibration process were the instability of the downstream boundary condition on Halstead Bay and the presence of beaver dams at some of the outlet structure of storage areas. The instability of the boundary conditions made it difficult to calibrate the model from Parley Lake to Halstead Bay due to the backwater conditions. Beaver dams were suspected at Church Lake and possibly Turbid Lake. 4 Results and Discussion See Figures B.1 – B.16 for DNR lake level and MCWD instantaneous stream flow calibration graphs. The graphs are in order from upstream to downstream in Six Mile Creek and its tributaries. The XP-SWMM model was more accurate at predicting lake outflow then lake levels for Wassermann and Turbid as indicated in Figures B.4 – B.5. and B.13 – B.14. It should be noted that the XP-SWMM model performed poorly when predicting snow melt runoff in the Six Mile Creek watershed as indicated by the stream flow graphs.

Draft


B-4

Figure B.1: Pierson Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

Figure B.2: Stream site S006-149 (Pierson Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

961.6

961.8

962

962.2

962.4

962.6

962.8

963

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Pierson Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S006-149, Pierson Lake Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-5

Figure B.3: Stream site S004-377 (Marsh Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

Figure B.4: Wassermann Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S004-377, Marsh Lake Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

944.6

944.7

944.8

944.9

945

945.1

945.2

945.3

945.4

945.5

945.6

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Wassermann Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-6

Figure B.5: Stream site S004-361 (Wassermann Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

Figure B.6: Church Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data. Possible beaver dam present at outlet.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S004-361, Wassermann Lake Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

947.5

948

948.5

949

949.5

950

950.5

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Church Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-7

Figure B.7: Kelser’s Pond levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

Figure B.8: Stone Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

957.4

957.6

957.8

958

958.2

958.4

958.6

958.8

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Kelser's Pond Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

946

946.5

947

947.5

948

948.5

949

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Stone Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-8

Figure B.9: Zumbra Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

Figure B.10: Stream site S003-755 (East Auburn inlet in the south) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

940.6

940.8

941

941.2

941.4

941.6

941.8

942

942.2

942.4

942.6

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Zumbra Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S003-755, East Auburn Inlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-9

Figure B.11: Stream site S004-376 (West Auburn Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

Figure B.12: Stream site S002-754 (North Lunsten Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S004-376, West Auburn Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S002-754, North Lunsten Lake Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-10

Figure B.13: Turbid Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

Figure B.14: Stream site S005-567 (Turbid Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

968.8

969

969.2

969.4

969.6

969.8

970

970.2

970.4

970.6

970.8

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Turbid Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S005-567, Turbid Lake Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft


B-11

Figure B.15: Parley Lake levels. Model was calibrated to 2010 DNR data.

Figure B.16: Stream site S003-752 (Mud Lake outlet) instantaneous flow values. Model was calibrated to 2010 MCWD monitored data.

928.6

928.8

929

929.2

929.4

929.6

929.8

930

930.2

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Lake

Lev

el (f

t)

Parley Lake Level Monitored Data XPSWMM

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1/1/2010 3/2/2010 5/1/2010 6/30/2010 8/29/2010 10/28/2010 12/27/2010

Flow

(cfs

)

S003-752, Mud Lake Outlet Monitored Data XPSWMM

Draft

Appendix C

Internal Phosphorus Release Study

Draft

Internal Phosphorus Loading and Sediment Phosphorus Fractionation Analysis for

East Auburn, Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Turbid, and Wasserman Lakes, Minnesota

15 August, 2012

William F. James University of Wisconsin - Stout Sustainability Sciences Institute Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751

1

Draft

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this investigation were to determine rates of phosphorus (P) release

from sediments under laboratory-controlled oxic (i.e., aerobic) and anoxic (i.e.,

anaerobic) conditions and to quantify biologically-labile (i.e., subject to recycling) and

refractory (i.e., biologically inert and subject to burial) P fractions for sediments collected

in East Auburn, Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid, and Wasserman Lakes, Minnesota.

APPROACH

Laboratory-derived rates of P release from sediment under oxic and anoxic conditions:

Replicate sediment cores were collected by Wenck Associates from stations located in

East Auburn, Upper and Lower Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid, and the shallow

littoral and deep basin of Wasserman Lake in late June-early July, 2012, for

determination of rates of P release from sediment under oxic and anoxic conditions

(Table 1). All cores were drained of overlying water and the upper 10 cm of sediment

was transferred intact to a smaller acrylic core liner (6.5-cm dia and 20-cm ht) using a

core remover tool. Surface water collected from the lake was filtered through a glass fiber

filter (Gelman A-E), with 300 mL then siphoned onto the sediment contained in the small

acrylic core liner without causing sediment resuspension. Sediment incubation systems

consisted of the upper 10-cm of sediment and filtered overlying water contained in

acrylic core liners that were sealed with rubber stoppers. They were placed in a darkened

environmental chamber and incubated at a constant temperature (20 to 25 oC). The

oxidation-reduction environment in the overlying water was controlled by gently

bubbling air (oxic) or nitrogen (anoxic) through an air stone placed just above the

sediment surface in each system. Bubbling action insured complete mixing of the water

column but did not disrupt the sediment. Anoxic conditions were verified using a

dissolved oxygen electrode.

2

Draft

Water samples for soluble reactive P were collected from the center of each system

using an acid-washed syringe and filtered through a 0.45 µm membrane syringe filter

(Nalge). The water volume removed from each system during sampling was replaced by

addition of filtered lake water preadjusted to the proper oxidation-reduction condition.

These volumes were accurately measured for determination of dilution effects. Soluble

reactive P was measured colorimetrically using the ascorbic acid method (APHA 2005).

Rates of P release from the sediment (mg m-2 d-1) were calculated as the linear change in

mass in the overlying water divided by time (days) and the area (m2) of the incubation

core liner. Regression analysis was used to estimate rates over the linear portion of the

data.

Sediment chemistry: The upper 10 cm of an additional core collected from each lake was

sectioned for analysis of moisture content (%), sediment density (g/mL), loss on ignition

(i.e., organic matter content, %), loosely-bound P, iron-bound P, aluminum-bound P,

calcium-bound P, labile and refractory organic P, total P, total iron (Fe), total manganese

(Mn), and total calcium (Ca; all expressed at mg/g). A known volume of sediment was

dried at 105 oC for determination of moisture content and sediment density and burned at

500 oC for determination of loss-on-ignition organic matter content (Håkanson and

Jansson 2002). Additional sediment was dried to a constant weight, ground, and digested

for analysis of total P, Fe, Mn and Ca using standard methods (Plumb 1980; APHA

2005).

Phosphorus fractionation was conducted according to Hieltjes and Lijklema (1980),

Psenner and Puckso (1988), and Nürnberg (1988) for the determination of ammonium-

chloride-extractable P (loosely-bound P), bicarbonate-dithionite-extractable P (i.e., iron-

bound P), sodium hydroxide-extractable P (i.e., aluminum-bound P), and hydrochloric

acid-extractable P (i.e., calcium-bound P). A subsample of the sodium hydroxide extract

was digested with potassium persulfate to determine nonreactive sodium hydroxide-

extractable P (Psenner and Puckso 1988). Labile organic P was calculated as the

difference between reactive and nonreactive sodium hydroxide-extractable P. Refractory

3

Draft

organic P was estimated as the difference between total P and the sum of the other

fractions.

The loosely-bound and iron-bound P fractions are readily mobilized at the sediment-

water interface as a result of anaerobic conditions that result in desorption of P from

sediment and diffusion into the overlying water column (Mortimer 1971, Boström 1984,

Nürnberg 1988). The sum of the loosely-bound and iron-bound P fractions are referred to

as redox-sensitive P (i.e., the P fraction that is active in P release under anaerobic and

reducing conditions). In addition, labile organic P can be converted to soluble P via

bacterial mineralization (Jensen and Andersen 1992) or hydrolysis of bacterial

polyphosphates to soluble phosphate under anaerobic conditions (Gächter et al. 1988;

Gächter and Meyer 1993; Hupfer et al. 1995). The sum of redox-sensitive P and labile

organic P are collectively referred to a biologically-labile P. This fraction is generally

active in recycling pathways that result in exchanges of phosphate from the sediment to

the overlying water column and potential assimilation by algae. In contrast, aluminum-

bound, calcium-bound, and refractory organic P fractions are more chemically inert and

subject to burial rather than recycling.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Rates of Phosphorus Release from Sediment

With the exception of Marsh Lake sediments, P mass and concentration increased in

the overlying water column of sediment systems maintained under anoxic conditions

(Figures 1-3). Rates of P mass and concentration increase were linear over the first 4 days

of incubation for East Auburn, Upper Lunsten, and Turbid Lake sediment. The mean P

concentration maximum at the end of the incubation period was also highest for these

lakes at 0.421 mg/L (± 0.021 SE), 1.365 mg/L (± 0.113), and 0.810 mg/L (± 0.038 SE),

respectively. Other lake sediments (Lower Lunsten, Mud, Stone, and Wasserman Lakes)

exhibited more modest increases in P mass and concentration over time under anoxic

conditions. Mean P concentrations at the end of the incubation period were 0.210 mg/L

4

Draft

(± 0.069 SE) for Mud Lake, 0.177 mg/L (±0.024 SE) for Stone Lake, and 0.310 mg/L (±

0.079 SE) for Wasserman Lake sediments. In contrast, P release from sediments collected

from Marsh Lake was minimal and P concentrations in the overlying water were near

detection limits at 0.005 mg/L (± 0.002 SE).

Overall, mean rates of P release from sediment under anoxic conditions varied

between near zero mg m-2 d-1 and 14.4 mg m-2 d-1 for the lake complex (Table 2). Upper

Lunsten lake sediments exhibited the highest mean anoxic P release rate at 14.4 mg m-2 d-

1 (± 0.08 SE) while sediment collected from Lower Lunsten exhibited a much lower

mean rate of 2.2 mg m-2 d-1 (± 0.5 SE). Mean anoxic P release rates for Upper Lunsten

sediment also fell above the 25% quartile for lakes in Minnesota (n = 50; Figure 4).

Turbid and East Auburn Lake sediment also had relatively high anoxic P release rates at

9.3 mg m-2 d-1 (± 0.4 SE) and 7.0 mg m-2 d-1 (± 0.4 SE), respectively, that fell near the

median or within the upper 25% quartile compared to other lakes in the regional area

(Figure 4). Lower Lunsten, Mud, Stone, and Wasserman Lake sediments exhibited more

moderate mean rates of P release under anoxic conditions (Table 2) that fell within or

below the lower 25% quartile for Minnesota Lakes (Figure 5). Rates of P release from

Marsh Lake sediment under anoxic conditions was undetectable (Table 2).

Increases in P mass and concentration were lower in the overlying water column of

sediment incubation systems under oxic conditions, compared to anoxic P release rates

(Figures 5 and 6). The mean rate of oxic P release was negligible for Marsh Lake

sediment (Table 2). In contrast, sediment collected from Upper Lunsten Lake exhibited a

relatively high mean oxic P release rate of 6.0 mg m-2 d-1 (± 1.2 SE; Table 2), which

represented the highest rate compared to other lakes in Minnesota (Figure 7). Reasons for

this pattern are unknown; however, oxic P release rates of this magnitude represent an

important internal P recycling source to the lake. Oxic P release rates were also relatively

high for Mud and Wasserman Lake sediments, falling above the upper 25% quartile for

Minnesota Lakes (Figure 7). These patterns suggested that sediments can be an important

source of internal P loading even under oxygenated (aerobic) conditions for many lakes

in the Six Mile Creek region of the MCWD.

5

Draft

Sediment Textural and Chemical Characteristics

Sediments from all lake stations generally exhibited high moisture content and low

bulk density, indicating fined-grained flocculent sediment (Table 3). In particular,

sediment collected in the shallow, littoral region of Wasserman Lake exhibited a

relatively high moisture content and low bulk density, suggesting fine-grained sediment

particle retention in this region of the lake. Shallow depths and shoreline regions of lakes

are often subjected to erosional forces (i.e., wave and sieche activity) that result in

sediment resuspension and focusing to deeper basins and particle sorting that results in

low moisture content (i.e., < 50%) sediments composed of coarse silt and sands

(Håkanson and Jansson 2002). Sediment textural patterns for the shallow region of

Wasserman Lake suggested that aquatic macrophytes were playing a role in bothe

reducing sediment erosion and stabilizing the sedimentary environment. Organic matter

content was relatively high for all lake stations, ranging between 25 and 67% (Table 3).

Concentrations greater that ~ 30% fell above the upper 25% quartile for lakes in

Minnesota (Figure 8).

Overall, biologically-labile (i.e., subject to recycling back to the overlying water

column; loosely-bound P, iron-bound P, and labile organic P) P accounted for at least

34% or more of the sediment total P concentration (Range = 34.7% to 69.4%; Table 4;

Figures 9 and 10), suggesting the potential for internal P recycling from sediments. Iron-

bound P concentrations, which have been positively correlated with rates of P release

from sediment under anoxic conditions (Nürnberg 1988), accounted for 14% to 65% of

the biologically-available P. Marsh and Mud Lakes exhibited the lowest iron-bound P

concentrations while East Auburn and Upper Lunsten Lake sediments had the greatest

concentrations of the lake cluster (Table 2). Iron-bound P (expressed on a mg P/g fresh

sediment mass basis; Nürnberg 1988) was also linearly related to the mean anoxic P

release rate (Figure 11; mean anoxic P release rate = 0.281· iron-bound P – 0.111; r2 =

0.86), suggesting that the iron-bound P concentration was an important factor in anoxic P

release and that higher concentrations translated into greater anoxic P release. Labile

6

Draft

organic P, which can be recycled to the water column as a result of bacterial metabolic

processes, also represented a significant portion of the biologically-labile P pool for all

lake sediments (range = 35% to 65%; Figures 9 and 10). In contrast, the loosely-bound P

fraction was relatively low for all lake sediments and generally accounted for less than

20% of the biologically-labile P.

Loosely-bound P concentrations for lakes in the Six Mile Creek area fell within the

range observed for other lakes in Minnesota (Figure 12). Concentrations of iron-bound

for these lakes varied widely and spanned both the upper and lower 25% quartile for

lakes in Minnesota. Similar to organic matter content, labile organic P concentrations fell

within or above the upper 25% quartile when compared to other Minnesota Lake

sediments (Figure 12).

Biologically-refractory P (i.e., aluminum-bound, calcium-bound, and refractory

organic P), more inert and subject to burial rather than recycling, accounted for ~ 30% to

65% of the sediment total P for all lake stations (Table 4; Figures 9 and 10). Aluminum-

bound and calcium-bound P fractions tended to co-dominate the biologically-refractory P

pool for East Auburn and Lower Lunsten stations while refractory organic P accounted

for the majority of this pool for sediment collected in Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid, and the

deep basin of Wasserman Lake. Overall, aluminum-bound P and refractory organic P

concentrations were low relative to concentrations measured in a variety of Minnesota

Lakes (Figure13=2). In contrast, calcium-bound P concentration varied over the entire

range compared to lakes in Minnesota. For instance, sediment calcium-bound P in Lower

Lunsten fell above the upper 25% quartile while concentrations in Marsh and Mud Lake

sediments were much lower and fell below the lower 25% quartile (Figure 12). Other

lake sediments (East Auburn, Upper Lunsten, Stone, Turbid, and the deep basin and

shallow region of Wasserman Lake) exhibited calcium-bound P concentrations that fell

near the median for lakes in Minnesota (Figure 12).

Total P was highest for sediment collected in the deep basin of Wasserman Lake,

Stone Lake, and East Auburn Lake, with concentrations that were greater than 1 mg/g

7

Draft

(Table 4 and Figure 12). Marsh and Mud Lakes exhibited the lowest sediment total P

concentrations. In addition, the total P concentration was much lower in the shallow

littoral region versus the deep basin of Wasserman Lake (Table 4). Overall, total P

concentrations were modest for sediments collected in the Six-Mile Lakes region

compared to other lakes in Minnesota (Figure 12), as concentrations generally fell below

the 25% quartile.

Total sediment Mn and Ca concentrations for lakes in the Six-Mile region of the

MCWD generally fell within the range observed for other lakes in Minnesota (Table 5

and Figure 13). However, sediment total iron concentrations were very low and fell well

below the lower 25% quartile (Table 5 and Figure 13). With the exception of Marsh Lake

sediments, the Fe:P ratio was low relative to other lakes in Minnesota (Figure 14),

ranging between 2.4 and 5.7. Ratios greater than 10 have been associated with regulation

of P release from sediments under oxic (aerobic) conditions (Jensen et al. 1992). Higher

binding efficiency for P at higher relative concentrations of Fe are suggested explanations

for patterns reported by Jensen et al. Oxic P release rates were negligible for Marsh Lake

and sediments exhibited an Fe:P ratio of 10.1, a pattern that could be attributed to the

Jensen et al. model. In contrast, lower Fe:P ratios coincided with some P release under

oxic conditions for the other lake sediments in the Six-Mile Creek region. This pattern

might be related to lower Fe binding efficiency for P at low Fe:P ratios (i.e., < 10).

REFERENCES

APHA (American Public Health Association). 2005. Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21th ed. American Public Health Association,

American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation.

Boström B. 1984. Potential mobility of phosphorus in different types of lake sediments.

Int. Revue. Ges. Hydrobiol. 69:457-474.

8

Draft

Gächter R., Meyer JS, Mares A. 1988. Contribution of bacteria to release and fixation of

phosphorus in lake sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33:1542-1558.

Gächter R, Meyer JS. 1993. The role of microorganisms in mobilization and fixation of

phosphorus in sediments. Hydrobiologia 253:103-121.

Håkanson L, Jansson M. 2002. Principles of lake sedimentology. The Blackburn Press,

Caldwell, NJ USA.

Hjieltjes AH, Lijklema L. 1980. Fractionation of inorganic phosphorus in calcareous

sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 8: 130-132.

Hupfer M, Gächter R., Giovanoli R. 1995. Transformation of phosphorus species in

settling seston and during early sediment diagenesis. Aquat. Sci. 57:305-324.

Jensen HS, Kristensen P, Jeppesen E, Skytthe A. 1992. Iron:phosphorus ratio in surface

sediment as an indicator of phosphate release from aerobic sediments in shallow lakes.

Hydrobiol. 235/236:731-743.

Mortimer CH. 1971. Chemical exchanges between sediments and water in the Great

Lakes – Speculations on probable regulatory mechanisms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 16:387-

404.

Nürnberg GK. 1988. Prediction of phosphorus release rates from total and reductant-

soluble phosphorus in anoxic lake sediments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:453-462.

9

Draft

10

Plumb RH. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water

samples. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Psenner R, Puckso R. 1988. Phosphorus fractionation: Advantages and limits of the

method for the study of sediment P origins and interactions. Arch. Hydrobiol. Biel. Erg.

Limnol. 30:43-59.

Draft

Lake Basin Oxic Anoxic

East Auburn Central X

Upper Lunsten Central X X

Lower Lunsten Central X X

Marsh Central X X

Mud Central X X

Stone Central X

Turbid Central X

Wasserman Shallow X

Deep X

Table 1. Redox (i.e., oxic and/or anoxic) conditions used for determination of rates of phosphorus release from sediment for various stations.

Redox Condition

11

Draft

12

Station Oxic Anoxic Loosely-bound P Iron-bound P Iron-bound P Labile organic P Aluminum-bound P Calcium-bound P Refractory organic P

(mg m-2 d-1) (mg m-2 d-1) (mg/g DW) (mg/g DW) (ug/g FW) (mg/g DW) (mg/g DW) (mg/g DW) (mg/g DW)

East Auburn 7.0 (0.4) 0.069 0.467 36 0.176 0.132 0.134 0.048Upper Lunsten 6.0 (1.2) 14.4 (0.8) 0.076 0.298 41 0.263 0.117 0.114 0.034Lower Lunsten 0.3 (<0.1) 2.2 (0.5) 0.029 0.092 6 0.226 0.129 0.22 0.200

0.200

Marsh <0.1 <0.1 0.022 0.053 4 0.14 0.059 0.057 0.289Mud 0.9 (0.1) 2.0 (0.5) 0.105 0.065 5 0.273 0.112 0.067 0.235

Stone 3.5 (0.5) 0.033 0.247 10 0.343 0.122 0.117 0.267Turbid 9.3 (0.4) 0.098 0.287 35 0.165 0.094 0.118

Shallow Wasserman 0.5 (<0.1) 0.048 0.153 17 0.136 0.063 0.155 0.146Deep Wasserman 3.7 (1.2) 0.132 0.236 16 0.275 0.134 0.147 0.475

Refractory PRedox-sensitive and biologically labile PDiffusive P flux

able 2. Mean (1 standard error in parentheses; n=3) rates of phosphorus (P) release and concentrations of biologically labile and refractory P for sediments collected in East Auburn, Upper and Lower Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid, and Wasserman Lakes. DW = dry mass, FW = fresh mass.T

Draft

Moisture Content Bulk Density Sediment Density Loss-on-ignition

(%) (g/cm3) (g/cm3) (%)

East Auburn 92.3 1.029 0.080 41.0

Upper Lunsten 86.3 1.067 0.172 25.2

Lower Lunsten 93.9 1.018 0.063 52.5

Marsh 91.7 1.017 0.106 66.9

Mud 92.4 1.022 0.082 54.8

Stone 95.9 1.014 0.044 47.1

Turbid 87.9 1.058 0.154 25.9

Shallow Wasserman 88.9 1.050 0.117 30.3

Deep Wasserman 93.3 1.029 0.081 32.5

Table 3. Textural characteristics for sediments collected in East Auburn, Upper and Lower Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid and Wasserman Lakes.

Station

13

Draft

Total P(mg/g DW) (mg/g DW) (% total P) (mg/g DW) (% total P) (mg/g DW) (% total P)

East Auburn 1.026 0.536 52.2% 0.712 69.4% 0.314 30.6%

Upper Lunsten 0.902 0.374 41.5% 0.637 70.6% 0.265 29.4%

Lower Lunsten 0.896 13.5% 38.7% 0.549 61.3%

0.962 40.0% 57.2% 0.412 42.8%

0.121 0.347

Marsh 0.620 0.075 12.1% 0.215 34.7% 0.405 65.3%

Mud 0.857 0.170 19.8% 0.443 51.7% 0.414 48.3%

Stone 1.129 0.280 24.8% 0.623 55.2% 0.506 44.8%

Turbid 0.385 0.550

Shallow Wasserman 0.701 0.201 28.7% 0.337 48.1% 0.364 51.9%

Deep Wasserman 1.399 0.368 26.3% 0.643 46.0% 0.756 54.0%

StationRedox P Bio-labile P Refractory P

Table 4. Concentrations of sediment total phosphorus (P), redox-sensitive P (Redox P; the sum of the loosely-bound and iron-bound P fraction), biologically-labile P (Bio-labile P; the sum of redox-P and labile organic P), and refractory P (the sum of the aluminum-bound, calcium-bound, and refractory organic P fractions) for sediments collected in East Auburn, Upper and Lower Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid, and Wasserman Lakes. DW = dry mass.

14

DraftTotal Fe Total Mn Total Ca Fe:P

(mg/g DW) (mg/g DW) (mg/g DW)

East Auburn 4.043 1.266 24.685 3.9

Upper Lunsten 3.482 0.861 60.253 3.9

Lower Lunsten

Marsh 6.282 0.414 18.793 10.1

Mud 4.04 0.875 33.393 4.7

Stone 3.839 1.337 38.406 3.4

Turbid

Shallow Wasserman 3.992 1.227 38.668 5.7

Deep Wasserman 3.412 2.029 60.917 2.4

Station

Table 5. Concentrations of sediment total iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and calcium (Ca) and the Fe:P ratio for sediments collected in East Auburn, Upper and Lower Lunsten, Marsh, Mud, Stone, Turbid, and Wasserman Lakes. DW = dry mass.

15

Draft

Upper LunstenAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

Upper LunstenAnoxic P Release Rate

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Lower LunstenAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0 5 10 15 20

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

Lower Lunsten Anoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 5 10 15 20

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

East AuburnAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

East AuburnAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Figure 1. Changes in soluble reactive phosphorus mass (upper panel) and concentration (lower panel) in the overlying water column under anoxic conditions versus time for sediment cores collected in East Auburn and Upper and Lower Lunsten Lake.

16

Draft

MarshAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

MarshAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

MudAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

StoneAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

MudAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

StoneAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Figure 2. Changes in soluble reactive phosphorus mass (upper panel) and concentration (lower panel) in the overlying water column under anoxic conditions versus time for sediment cores collected in Marsh, Mud, and Stone Lake.

17

Draft

WassermanAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

Wasserman Anoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

TurbidAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

DaysPh

osph

orus

(mg)

TurbidAnoxic P Release Rate

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Figure 3. Changes in soluble reactive phosphorus mass (upper panel) and concentration (lower panel) in the overlying water column under anoxic conditions versus time for sediment cores collected in Turbid and the deep basin of Wasserman Lake.

18

Draft

Marsh

Rat

e (m

g/m

2d)

Anoxic P Release Rate

-10

0

10

20

30

40

U Lunsten

Turbid

E Auburn L Lunsten & Mud

Stone &Wasserman

maximum

minimum

median

upper quartile (25% cutoff above the median)

lower quartile (25% cutoff below the median)

outliers

Figure 4. Box and whisker plot comparing the anoxic phosphorus (P) release rate measured for lakes in the Six-Mile Creek region (red lines) with statistical ranges (n=50) for lakes in the State of Minnesota.

19

Draft

Upper LunstenOxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

Upper LunstenOxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Lower LunstenOxic P Release Rate

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

Lower LunstenOxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Figure 5. Changes in soluble reactive phosphorus mass (upper panel) and concentration (lower panel) in the overlying water column under oxic conditions versus time for sediment cores collected in Upper and Lower Lunsten Lake.

20

Draft

MarshOxic P Release Rate

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

MudOxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

WassermanOxic P Release Rate

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g)

MarshOxic P Release Rate

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

MudOxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

WassermanOxic P Release Rate

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Days

Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Figure 6. Changes in soluble reactive phosphorus mass (upper panel) and concentration (lower panel) in the overlying water column under oxic conditions versus time for sediment cores collected in Marsh, Mud, and the shallow, littoral region of Wasserman Lake.

21

Draft

0

2

4

6

Rat

e (m

g/m

2d)

Oxic P Release Rate

Marsh

U Lunsten

Mud

WassermanL Lunsten

Figure 7. Box and whisker plot comparing the oxic phosphorus (P) release rate measured for lakes in the Six-Mile Creek region (red lines) with statistical ranges (n=50) for lakes in the State of Minnesota.

22

Draft

Figure 8. Box and whisker plot comparing loss-on-ignition organic matter content for lakes in the Six-Mile Creek region (red lines) with statistical ranges (n=50) for lakes in the State of Minnesota.

0

20

40

60

80

Marsh

U Lunsten

Mud

Wasserman (deep)

L Lunsten

Con

cent

ratio

n (%

)

Organic Matter Content

Stone

East Auburn

Wasserman (shallow)

Marsh

23

Draft

East Auburn Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.069, 7%

Iron-bound P, 0.467, 45%

Labile organic P, 0.176, 17%

Aluminum-bound P,

0.132, 13%

Calcium-bound P,

0.134, 13%

Refractory organic P, 0.048, 5%

Upper Lunsten Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.076, 8%



Aluminum-bound P,

0.117, 13%

Calcium-bound P,

0.114, 13%

Refractory organic P, 0.034, 4%

Marsh Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.022, 4%



Aluminum-bound P,

0.059, 10%Calcium-bound P,

0.057, 9%

Refractory organic P,

0.289, 46%

Mud Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.105, 12%



Aluminum-bound P,

0.112, 13%

Calcium-bound P,

0.067, 8%


0.235, 27%

Stone Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.033, 3%Iron-bound P, 0.247, 22%


Aluminum-bound P,

0.122, 11%

Calcium-bound P,

0.117, 10%


0.267, 24%

Turbid Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.098, 10%



Aluminum-bound P,

0.094, 10%

Calcium-bound P,

0.118, 12%


0.200, 21%

Shallow Wasserman Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.048, 7%


Labile organic P, 0.136, 19%Aluminum-

bound P, 0.063, 9%

Calcium-bound P,

0.155, 22%


0.146, 21%

Deep Wasserman Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.132, 9%



Aluminum-bound P,

0.134, 10%

Calcium-bound P,

0.147, 11%


0.475, 33%

Lower Lunsten Lake

Loosely-bound P,

0.029, 3%



Aluminum-bound P,

0.129, 14%

Calcium-bound P,

0.220, 25%


0.200, 22%

Figure 9. Total phosphorus (P) composition for sediment collected at various lake stations. Loosely-bound, iron-bound, and labile organic P are biologically reactive (i.e., subject to recycling) while aluminum-bound, calcium-bound, and refractory organic P are more inert to transformation (i.e., subject to burial). Values next to each label represent concentration (mg·g-1) and percent total P, respectively.

24

Draft

0

0.5

1

1.5

East A

uburn

Upper

Luns

ten

Lower

Luns

tenMars

hMud

Stone

Turbid

Shallo

w Was

serm

an

Deep W

asse

rman

Lake

Sed

imen

t Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

g D

W)

Refractory organic P

Calcium-bound P

Aluminum-bound P

Labile organic P

Iron-bound P

Loosely-bound P

Figure 10. Comparison of total phosphorus (P) and biologically-labile (loosely-bound, iron-bound, and labile organic P and biologically refractory (aluminum-bound, calcium-bound, and refractory organic P) concentrations.

25

Draft

26

Figure 11. Relationships between iron-bound phosphorus (P; mg g-1 fresh sediment mass) and rates of P release from sediments under anoxic conditions. Regression line and 95% confidence intervals from Nürnberg (1988) are shown for comparison.

0

5

10

15

0 10 20 30 40 50

Redox-P (mg/g FW)

P R

elea

se R

ate

(mg

m-2

d-1

)

Upper Lunsten

Turbid

East Auburn

WassermanStone

Lower Lunsten

Mud

Marsh

Draft

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

Con

cent

ratio

n (%

)

Loos

ely-bo

und P

Iron-b

ound

P

Labil

e Orga

nic P

Aluminu

m-boun

d P

Calcium

-boun

d P

Refrac

tory o

rganic

P

Total P

Sediment Phosphorus Fraction

Figure 12. Box and whisker plots comparing various sediment phosphorus (P) fractions measured for lakes in the Six-Mile Creek region (red lines) with statistical ranges (n=50) for lakes in the State of Minnesota. Loosely-bound, iron-bound, and labile organic P are biologically-labile (i.e., subject to recycling) and aluminum-bound, calcium-bound, and refractory organic P are more are more inert to transformation (i.e., subject to burial). Please note the logarithmic scale.

27

Draft

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/g)

Total Ir

on

Total M

n

Total C

alcium

Sediment Metals Figure 13. Box and whisker plots comparing various metal concentrations measured for lakes in the Six-Mile Creek region (red lines) with statistical ranges (n=50) for lakes in the State of Minnesota. Please note the logarithmic scale.

28

Draft

0

10

20

30

40

50R

atio

Fe:P

Figure 14. Box and whisker plots comparing the sediment iron:phosphors (Fe:P) ratio measured for lakes in the Six-Mile Creek region (red lines) with statistical ranges (n=50) for lakes in the State of Minnesota.

29

Draft

Appendix D

BATHTUB Model Documentation

Draft

Average Loading Summary for Wassermann

Drainage Area Runoff Depth Discharge

Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load

Name [km2] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Wassermann 3.5 0.24 0.852 306 1.0 260.5

2 SMC-3 0.4 0.08 0.031 58.9 1.0 1.8

3 SMC-4 1.0 0.25 0.245 64.4 1.0 15.7

4

5

Summation 5 1 1 278.1

Name Area [km2] # of Systems Failure [%] Load / System [kg/km

2] [kg/yr]

1 Wassermann 3.55 13 0.25 2.8 1.1 4.1

2 SMC-3 0.4 25% 1.3

3 SMC-4 1.0 25% 1.3

4

5

Summation 5 4.1

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Marsh 1.12 33.5 1.0 37.48

2

3

Summation 1.12 33.5 37

Lake Area Precipitation Evaporation Net Inflow

Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.67 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 17.8

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0

Anoxic Factor Release Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[days] [mg/m2-day] [--] [kg/yr]

0.67 122 Oxic 0.5 1.0 41

0.67 52.4 Anoxic 3.7 1.0 129

Summation 170

2.24 507

NOTES1 Loading calibration factor used to account for special circumstances such as wetland systems, fertilizer use, or animal waste,

among others, that might apply to specific loading sources.

[km2]

Net Discharge [106 m

3/yr] = Net Load [kg/yr] =

0.67

Internal

Lake Area

Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

Average-year total P deposition =

Wet-year total P deposition =

(Barr Engineering 2004)

Name

Atmosphere

Dry-year total P deposition =

Failing Septic Systems

Inflow from Upstream Lakes

Water Budgets Phosphorus Loading

Inflow from Drainage Areas

Draft

Average Lake Response Modeling for WassermannModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION

as f(W,Q,V) from Canfield & Bachmann (1981)

CP = 1.01 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]

W (total P load = inflow + atm.) = 507 [kg/yr]

Q (lake outflow) = 2.2 [106 m

3/yr]

V (modeled lake volume) = 2.1 [106 m

3]

T = V/Q = 0.93 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 226 [µg/l]

Model Predicted In-Lake [TP] 78.2 [ug/l]

Observed In-Lake [TP] 78.2 [ug/l]

×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for Wassermann


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Wassermann 3.5 0.24 0.852 77 0.3 65.6

2 SMC-3 0.4 0.08 0.031 25.2 0.4 0.8

3 SMC-4 1.0 0.25 0.245 17.8 0.3 4.4

4

5



2] [kg/yr]

1 Wassermann 3.55 13 0.00 2.8 0.0 0.0

2 SMC-3 0.4 0

3 SMC-4 1.0 0

4

5

Summation 5 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Marsh 1.12 33.5 1.0 37.48

2

3



Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.67 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 17.8

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.67 122 Oxic 0.5 1.0 40

0.67 52.4 Anoxic 1.0 1.0 35

Summation 75

2.24 201

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

0.67

Internal

Loading calibration factor used to account for special circumstances such as wetland systems, fertilizer use, or animal waste, among

others, that might apply to specific loading sources.

Lake Area

[km2]



Draft

Standard Lake Response Modeling for WassermannModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.01 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.93 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 89 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Average Loading Summary for Church


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Church 0.4 0.34 0.150 294 1.0 44.1

2 SMC-8 0.5 0.27 0.141 112.3 1.0 15.9

3 #VALUE! 1.0

4 #VALUE! 1.0

5 1.0

Summation #VALUE! 1 0 59.9


2] [kg/yr]

1 Church 0.44 2 0.25 2.8 3.1 1.4

2 SMC-8 0.5 25% 2.8

3

4

5

Summation 1 1.4

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 - 1.0

2 - 1.0

3 - 1.0

Summation 0.00 - 0


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.06 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 1.7

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.06 Oxic 1.0

0.06 20.7 Anoxic 5.0 1.0 7

Summation 7

0.29 70

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]



[km2]



0.06

Internal

Lake Area

Draft

Average Lake Response Modeling for ChurchModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.00 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.88 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 240 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for Church


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Church 0.4 0.34 0.150 84 0.3 12.6

2 SMC-8 0.5 0.27 0.141 67.4 0.6 9.5

3 1.0

4 1.0

5 1.0



2] [kg/yr]

1 Church 0.44 0 0.25 2.8 0.0 0.0

2 SMC-8 0.5 25% 2.8

3

4

5

Summation 1 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 - 1.0

2 - 1.0

3 - 1.0

Summation 0.00 - 0


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.06 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 1.7

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.06 Oxic 1.0

0.06 20.7 Anoxic 1.0 1.0 1

Summation 1

0.29 25

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

0.06

Internal



Lake Area

[km2]



Draft

Standard Lake Response Modeling for ChurchModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.00 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.88 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 87 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Average Loading Summary for Stone


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Stone 2.8 0.22 0.605 32 1.0 19.3

2 SMC-16 0.2 0.13 0.022 40.0 1.0 0.9

3 SMC-17 0.2 0.25 0.046 71.5 1.0 3.3

4

5



2] [kg/yr]

1 Stone 2.8

2 SMC-16 0.2

3 SMC-17 0.2

4

5

Summation 3 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 - 1.0

2 - 1.0

3 - 1.0

Summation 0.00 - 0


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.40 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 10.8

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.40 Oxic 1.0

0.40 41.9 Anoxic 3.5 1.0 59

Summation 59

0.67 93

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

Loading calibration factor used to account for special circumstances such as wetland systems, fertilizer use, or animal waste,


[km2]



0.40

Internal

Lake Area

Draft

Average Lake Response Modeling for StoneModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.03 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 1.85 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 138 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for Stone


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Stone 2.8 0.22 0.605 32 1.0 19.3

2 SMC-16 0.2 0.13 0.022 40.0 1.0 0.9

3 SMC-17 0.2 0.25 0.046 71.5 1.0 3.3

4

5



2] [kg/yr]

1 Stone 2.8

2 SMC-16 0.2

3 SMC-17 0.2

4

5

Summation 3 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 - 1.0

2 - 1.0

3 - 1.0

Summation 0.00 - 0


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.40 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 10.8

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.40 Oxic 1.0

0.40 41.9 Anoxic 3.0 1.0 50

Summation 50

0.67 84

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

0.40

Internal



Lake Area

[km2]



Draft

Standard Lake Response Modeling for StoneModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.03 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 1.85 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 125 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Average Loading Summary for East Auburn


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 East Auburn 0.9 0.33 0.284 32 1.0 9.2

2 SMC-26 0.3 0.24 0.067 35.1 1.0 2.4

3 SMC-15 0.6 0.19 0.110 1122.0 1.0 123.1

4 SMC-25 0.5 0.25 0.118 1582.1 1.0 187.4

5 SMC-11 1.4 0.25 0.352 807.9 1.0 284.3

Summation 4 0.26 1 606.4


2] [kg/yr]

1 East Auburn 0.87 3 0.25 2.8 2.4 2.1

2 SMC-26 0.3 25% 2.8

3 SMC-15 0.6 25% 2.8

4 SMC-25 0.5 25% 2.8

5 SMC-11 1.4 1 25% 2.8 0.5 0.7

Summation 4 2.8

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Carl Krey 0.28 28.5 1.0 7.86

2 Church 0.31 94.5 1.0 29.20

3 Kelzer 0.02 35.0 1.0 0.72

4 Stieger 0.91 38.6 1.0 34.98

6 Wassermann 2.28 72.2 1.0 164.85

5 Sunny 1.41 50.0 1.0 70.65

Summation 5.21 53.1 308


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.60 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 16.0

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.60 Oxic 1.0

0.60 44.4 Anoxic 7.0 0.1 19

Summation 19

6.14 952

NOTES





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

[km2]



0.60

Internal

Lake Area

Draft

1

Average Lake Response Modeling for East AuburnModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 2.29 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.36 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 155 [µg/l]





×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for East Auburn


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 East Auburn 0.9 0.33 0.284 32 1.0 9.2

2 SMC-26 0.3 0.24 0.067 35.1 1.0 2.4

3 SMC-15 0.6 0.19 0.110 740.5 0.7 81.3

4 SMC-25 0.5 0.25 0.118 791.1 0.5 93.7

5 SMC-11 1.4 0.25 0.352 751.3 0.9 264.4

Summation 4 0.26 1 450.9


2] [kg/yr]

1 East Auburn 0.87 3 0.00 2.8 0.0 0.0

2 SMC-26 0.3 2.8

3 SMC-15 0.6 2.8

4 SMC-25 0.5 2.8

5 SMC-11 1.4 2.8

Summation 4 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Carl Krey 0.28 28.5 1.0 7.86

2 Church 0.31 40.0 0.4 12.35

3 Kelzer 0.02 35.0 1.0 0.72

4 Stieger 0.91 38.6 1.0 34.98

6 Wassermann 2.28 40.0 0.6 91.28

5 Sunny 1.41 50.0 1.0 70.65

Summation 5.21 38.7 218


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.60 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 16.0

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.60 Oxic 1.0

0.60 44.4 Anoxic 7.0 0.1 19

Summation 19

6.14 703

NOTES

Lake Area

[km2]



[km2]

0.60

Internal


Groundwater

Lake Area




Name

Atmosphere





Draft

1

Standard Lake Response Modeling for East AuburnModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 2.29 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.36 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 115 [µg/l]





×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Average Loading Summary for Turbid


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Turbid 2.2 0.21 0.454 89 1.0 40.4

2 1.0

3 1.0

4 1.0

5 1.0



2] [kg/yr]

1 Turbid 2.157217283 10 0.25 2.8 3.2 6.9

2

3

4

5

Summation 2 6.9

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 - 1.0

2 - 1.0

3 - 1.0

Summation 0.00 - 0


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.16 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 4.3

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.16 Oxic 1.0

0.16 40.9 Anoxic 9.3 1.0 61

Summation 61

0.45 113

NOTES1 Loading calibration factor used to account for special circumstances such as wetland systems, fertilizer use, or animal waste, among


[km2]



0.16

Internal

Lake Area

Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]




Name

Atmosphere






Draft

Average Lake Response Modeling for TurbidModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.26 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 1.13 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 249 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for Turbid


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Turbid 2.2 0.21 0.454 77 0.9 34.8

2

3

4

5



2] [kg/yr]

1 Turbid 2.157217283 10 0.25 2.8 0.0 0.0

2

3

4

5

Summation 2 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 - 1.0

2 - 1.0

3 - 1.0

Summation 0.00 - 0


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.16 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 4.3

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.16 Oxic 1.0

0.16 40.9 Anoxic 2.1 1.0 14

Summation 14

0.45 53

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

0.16

Internal



Lake Area

[km2]



Draft

Standard Lake Response Modeling for TurbidModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 1.26 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 1.13 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 117 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Average Loading Summary for South Lunsten


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 South Lunsten 1.0 0.31 0.296 325 1.0 95.9

2 SMC-34 1.0 0.27 0.278 266.4 1.0 74.1

3 SMC-35 0.5 0.05 0.027 228.0 1.0 6.1

4 1.0

5 #VALUE! 1.0

Summation #VALUE! 0.6 0.6 176.1


2] [kg/yr]

1 South Lunsten 1.0

2 SMC-34 1.0 2 25% 3 1.4 1.4

3 SMC-35 0.5 3 25% 2.8 4.2 2.1

4

5

Summation 2 3.4

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Turbid 0.53 71.0 1.0 37.95

2

3



Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.31 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 8.4

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.31 122 Oxic 6.0 1.0 229

0.31 82.1 Anoxic 14.4 1.0 369

Summation 598

1.13 824

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]



[km2]



0.31

Internal

Lake Area

Draft

Average Lake Response Modeling for South LunstenModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 0.47 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.29 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 726 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for South Lunsten


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 South Lunsten 1.0 0.31 0.296 29 0.1 8.6

2 SMC-34 1.0 0.27 0.278 76.4 0.3 21.2

3 SMC-35 0.5 0.05 0.027 43.3 0.2 1.2

4 1.0

5 #VALUE! 1.0

Summation #VALUE! 1 1 31.0


2] [kg/yr]

1 South Lunsten 1.0

2 SMC-34 1.0 5 25% 3 0.0 0.0

3 SMC-35 0.5

4

5

Summation 2 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Turbid 0.53 60.0 0.8 32.07

2

3



Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.31 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 8.4

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.31 122 Oxic 0.3 1.0 10

0.31 82.1 Anoxic 0.3 1.0 6

Summation 16

1.13 87

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

0.31

Internal



Lake Area

[km2]



Draft

Standard Lake Response Modeling for South LunstenModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 0.47 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.29 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 77 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Average Loading Summary for Mud


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Mud 1.7 0.31 0.523 696 1.0 364.0

2 SMC-60 6.9 0.13 0.900 699.9 1.0 629.9

3 SMC-52 1.2 0.10 0.120 699.1 1.0 84.1

4 0.0

5

Summation 10 1 2 1,078.0


2] [kg/yr]

1 Mud 1.710322929 2 0 6.1 0.8 1.4

2 SMC-60 6.9 2.8

3 SMC-52 1.2 2.8

4

5

Summation 10 1.4

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Parley 8.62 87.3 1.0 752.43

2

3

Summation 8.62 87.3 752


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.58 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 15.6

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.58 122 Oxic 0.9 1.0 64

0.58 66.4 Anoxic 2.0 1.0 77

Summation 141

10.17 1,989

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]



[km2]



0.58

Internal

Lake Area

Draft

Average Lake Response Modeling for MudModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 0.17 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]

W (total P load = inflow + atm.) = 1,989 [kg/yr]


3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.06 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 196 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Standard Loading Summary for Mud


Phosphorus

Concentration

Loading

Calibration

Factor (CF)1

Load


6 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Mud 1.7 0.31 0.523 35 0.1 18.2

2 SMC-60 6.9 0.13 0.900 35.0 0.1 31.5

3 SMC-52 1.2 0.10 0.120 35.0 0.1 4.2

4 0.0

5



2] [kg/yr]

1 Mud 1.710322929 0 0 6.1 0.0 0.0

2 SMC-60 6.9 2.8

3 SMC-52 1.2 2.8

4

5

Summation 10 0.0

Discharge

Estimated P

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

1 Parley 8.62 60.0 0.7 517.39

2

3

Summation 8.62 60.0 517


Aerial Loading

Rate

Calibration

Factor Load

[km2] [m/yr] [m/yr] [10

6 m

3/yr] [kg/km

2-yr] [--] [kg/yr]

0.58 0.78 0.78 0.00 26.80 1.0 15.6

24.9

26.8

29.0

Groundwater

Flux Net Inflow

Phosphorus

Concentration

Calibration

Factor Load

[m/yr] [106 m

3/yr] [ug/L] [--] [kg/yr]

0.0 0.00 0 1.0 0


Calibration

Factor Load


0.58 122 Oxic 0.4 1.0 28

0.58 66.4 Anoxic 0.5 1.0 18

Summation 47

10.17 634

NOTES1





Name

Atmosphere





Groundwater

Lake Area

[km2]

0.58

Internal



Lake Area

[km2]



Draft

Standard Lake Response Modeling for MudModeled Parameter Equation Parameters Value [Units]TOTAL IN-LAKE PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION


CP = 0.17 [--]

CCB = 0.162 [--]

b = 0.458 [--]



3/yr]


3]

T = V/Q = 0.06 [yr]

Pi = W/Q = 62 [µg/l]



×

××+

=

TV

WCC

PP

b

P

CBP

i

1

Draft

Appendix E

Water Quality Data Summary

Draft

Six Mile Creek Diagnostic Study March 2013 Appendix E: Water Quality Data Summary

E-1

Table E.1: Average summer values for stream monitoring sites. Only years with ≥ four samples are summarized. Station ID Years Summer TP Summer OP Summer TSS N µg/L N µg/L N mg/L S002-754 2000 - - 10 22 10 234

2001 11 84 12 26 13 7

2002 23 71 22 12 24 6

2003 10 61 10 16 14 4

2004 7 70 21 25 21 7

2005 13 182 22 27 22 11

2006 8 98 11 38 22 4

2007 11 250 14 31 22 21

2008 16 54 19 12 22 2

2009 8 83 10 12 10 3

2010 19 95 19 27 19 4

2011 19 54 19 15 20 5

2012 10 59 10 8 5 5

S003-752 2000 6 250 6 78 6 26

2001 18 204 18 16 19 15

2002 20 167 20 22 23 28

2003 - - - - - -

2005 22 184 22 13 39 25

2006 13 267 13 29 28 34

2007 18 244 18 25 34 38

2008 22 159 22 16 37 28

2009 20 190 20 10 33 24

2010 21 180 21 13 43 23

2011 22 120 22 7 42 20

2012 15 191 15 25 8 30

S003-753 2001 20 192 20 10 20 212

2002 - - - - - -

2003 17 180 14 53 16 69

2004 14 178 14 17 13 88

2005 22 152 22 23 22 57

S003-754 2005 21 345 21 35 21 44 S003-755 2005 22 1934 22 35 22 718

2007 16 200 16 31 22 18

2008 20 225 20 41 22 20

2009 18 218 18 63 18 11

2010 20 167 20 61 20 7

2011 19 311 19 32 21 38

2012 16 133 16 46 7 4

Draft


E-2

Station ID Years Summer TP Summer OP Summer TSS N µg/L N µg/L N mg/L S004-361 2006 13 71 13 6 14 7

2007 11 104 11 18 13 7

2008 17 172 17 37 20 15

2009 11 112 11 12 12 3

2010 17 96 17 23 19 8

2011 22 96 22 5 22 12

2012 19 77 18 3 9 14

S004-375 2006 8 192 8 51 4 20 S004-376 2006 16 55 16 6 16 5

2007 14 65 14 8 21 8

2008 22 35 22 6 22 7

2009 18 88 18 16 18 9

2010 21 37 21 5 21 4

2011 21 45 21 7 21 8

2012 16 26 16 3 9 3

S004-377 2006 17 93 17 26 8 8

2007 14 67 14 20 6 4

2008 22 59 22 17 12 6

2009 8 70 8 24 4 2

2010 17 63 17 15 7 5

2011 21 110 21 12 10 62

2012 16 79 16 27 - -

S004-426 2006 5 239 5 175 - - S004-427 2006 8 178 8 78 4 9 S005-567 2009 15 284 15 198 15 21

2010 20 197 20 142 20 7

2011 17 121 17 66 18 12

2012 10 143 10 81 5 6

S006-149 2010 21 35 21 5 21 8

2011 17 35 17 5 17 22

2012 10 36 10 5 5 9

Draft


E-3

Table E.2 Average summer values for lake monitoring sites. Only years with ≥ four samples are summarized. Station ID Years Summer TP Summer OP Summer Chl-a Summer Secchi N µg/L N µg/L N µg/L N m Pierson Lake 2002 8 22 - - 7 13 8 2.0

2003 8 20 - - 8 12 - -

2005 8 44 - - 8 14 8 2.0

2006 7 31 - - 7 10 7 1.5

2007 7 30 - - 7 6 7 2.4

2008 9 21 - - 9 12 9 2.7

2009 9 32 - - 9 5 8 2.7

2010 9 21 - - 9 7 9 3.0

2011 8 18 - - 8 6 8 2.7

Marsh Lake 2010 4 24 - - 4 4 4 1.1

2011 4 35 - - 4 5 4 0.8

2012 8 38 - - 7 11 8 0.9

Wassermann Lake

2000 8 85 8 11 8 68 8 0.6 2001 7 85 7 11 7 73 7 0.6

2002 8 52 - - 7 22 8 1.0

2003 7 81 - - 7 38 - -

2004 8 92 8 9 8 40 8 0.9

2005 8 84 8 8 8 62 8 0.7

2006 7 69 7 7 7 50 7 0.8

2007 7 80 7 7 7 64 7 0.6

2008 10 62 10 8 10 56 10 1.3

2009 8 93 8 10 8 55 8 0.7

2010 9 76 9 5 9 58 9 0.8

2011 8 80 8 5 8 42 8 0.9

Carl Krey 2008 4 21 - - 4 7 4 2.5

2012 4 36 - - 4 9 5 2.6

Church 2008 4 77 - - 4 17 4 2.7

2012 4 74 - - 4 18 4 1.3

Kelser's Pond

2009 4 37 11 12 4 24 4 1.4 2010 5 43 17 23 5 27 5 1.4

2011 4 37 22 5 4 20 4 1.3

2012 4 35 18 3 4 14 4 1.8

Draft


E-4

Station ID Years Summer TP Summer OP Summer Chl-a Summer Secchi N µg/L N µg/L N µg/L N m Steiger Lake 2000 8 43 - - 7 10 8 1.8

2001 - - - - - - - -

2002 6 34 - - 7 11 7 2.2

2003 9 40 8 4 9 20 9 1.5

2004 - - - - - - - -

2005 8 39 - - 8 20 8 2.1

2006 8 45 - - 8 16 8 1.6

2007 - - - - - - - -

2008 9 40 - - 9 15 9 1.5

2009 - - - - - - - -

2010 9 37 9 8 9 10 9 2.2

2011 9 35 9 10 9 9 9 2.7

2012 4 29 4 11 4 16 5 1.8

Stone Lake 2000 8 72 - - 7 24 8 1.7

2002 5 65 4 12 6 31 6 1.4

2007 9 43 - - 9 26 9 1.4

2008 9 39 - - 9 17 9 1.8

2010 9 31 9 6 9 8 9 2.6

2011 9 27 9 8 9 7 9 3.0

2012 8 23 8 7 8 4 8 3.5

Zumbra Lake 2000 8 27 - - 7 4 8 2.8 2001 7 34 - - 7 12 7 1.9

2002 8 23 - - 8 14 8 2.1

2003 9 26 8 4 9 14 9 2.2

2004 8 27 - - 8 10 8 3.1

2005 8 27 8 9 8 11 8 2.6

2006 8 25 7 6 8 11 8 2.2

2007 9 40 - - 9 11 9 2.2

2008 9 25 - - 9 8 9 2.6

2009 9 28 7 4 9 4 9 3.1

2010 9 26 9 6 9 7 9 3.5

2011 9 22 9 6 9 7 9 3.7

2012 4 22 4 4 4 5 4 4.2

East Auburn Lake

2008 4 61

4 56 4 1.5 2010 4 41

4 33 4 1.0

2012 4 50

4 38 4 0.9

Draft


E-5

Station ID Years Summer TP Summer OP Summer Chl-a Summer Secchi N µg/L N µg/L N µg/L N m West Auburn Lake

2002 6 40 4 2 7 15 7 1.8 2003 9 32 8 6 9 12 9 2.3

2004 8 33 - - 8 16 8 2.4

2005 8 33 - - 8 18 8 1.6

2006 8 29 8 5 8 12 8 2.8

2007 9 33 - - 9 8 9 2.3

2008 9 25 - - 9 6 9 3.1

2009 9 36 7 2 9 5 9 2.9

2010 9 29 9 7 9 7 9 2.4

2011 9 35 9 10 9 15 9 2.6

2012 4 23 4 7 4 11 4 2.6

North Lunsten

2008 4 29 - - 4 7 4 2.0 2011 4 60 - - 4 15 4 1.5

2012 7 50 7 3 7 12 6 1.3 Turbid Lake 2008 4 77 - - 4 39 4 1.2

2011 4 53 - - 4 31 4 1.7

2012 4 69 - - 4 44 4 1.1

South Lunsten

2012 7 445 - - 7 197 7 0.3

Parley Lake 2000 8 90 - - 8 65 8 0.8

2001 7 106 - - 7 85 7 0.7

2002 8 83 - - 8 51 8 0.9

2003 11 88 - - 11 77 - -

2005 8 147 - - 8 69 8 0.7

2006 7 100 - - 7 101 7 0.6

2007 7 119 - - 7 119 7 0.4

2008 9 79 - - 9 49 9 1.0

2009 9 63 - - 9 51 9 0.6

2010 9 72 - - 9 69 9 0.7

2011 8 80 - - 8 77 8 0.7

Mud Lake 2008 4 167 - - 4 94 4 0.5

2012 8 213 - - 10 153 8 0.3

Draft


E-6

Pierson Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-7

Pierson Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom Samples)

Draft


E-8

Marsh Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-9

Wassermann Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-10

Wassermann Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom Samples)

Draft


E-11

Carl Krey Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Church Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface samples) Time Series

Draft


E-12

Kelser’s Pond Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-13

Steiger Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

4/27/11 5/17/11 6/6/11 6/26/11 7/16/11 8/5/11 8/25/11 9/14/11

Conc

entr

atio

n (u

g/L)

TP Ortho-P

Steiger Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom Samples)

Draft


E-15

Zumbra Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series, cont.

Draft


E-16

Zumbra Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom Samples)

Draft


E-17

East Auburn Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-18

West Auburn Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-19

West Auburn Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series, cont.

West Auburn Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom

Draft


E-20

North Lunsten Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-21

South Lunsten Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-22

Turbid Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-23

Parley Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft


E-24

Parley Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series, cont.

Draft


E-25

Parley Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom Samples)

Draft


E-26

Parley Lake Total and Ortho Phosphorus (Bottom Samples), cont.

Draft


E-27

Mud Lake Total Phosphorus (Surface Samples) Time Series

Draft

Appendix F

Fish Data Summary

Draft

Six Mile Creek Diagnostic Study March 2013 Appendix F: Fish Data Summary

F-1

Draft


F-2

Draft


F-3

Draft


F-4

Draft


F-5

Draft


F-6

Draft


F-7

Draft


F-8

Draft


F-9

Draft

Appendix G

Vegetation Data Summary

Draft

G-1

Six Mile Creek Diagnostic Study March 2013 Appendix G: Vegetation Data Summary Table G.1: Vegetation Abundance Table

Lake Pierson Marsh Wassermann Carl Krey Zumbra Steiger Auburn N. Lunsten S. Lunsten Parley Mud

Survey Year 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2010 2011 2012 2012 2011 2012

White Waterlily 24 23 16 28 28 39 39 46 Bushy Pondweed 77 44

Canada Waterweed 11 42 17 3 26 Claspingleaf

Pondweed 2 5 Common Bladderwort 2

Coontail 2 84 20 84 64 59 90 98 3 12 59 Curlyleaf Pondweed 3 2 10 Flatstem Pondweed 11 65 41 9 4

Floatingleaf Pondweed 1 12

Illinois Pondweed 2 20 Largeleaf Pondweed 7 14

Leafy Pondweed 13 1 Longleaf Pondweed 14

Eurasian Water Milfoil 56 30 16 65 75 28 Northern Water Milfoil 2 4

Muskgrass 13 2 4 Narrowleaf Pondweed 1 14 5 4 9

Sago Pondweed 1 51 2 1 5 4 28 Small Pondweed 1 Stonewort Group 7

Slender Naiad 17 3 3 5 11 Watermoss 1 14 White-stem Pondweed 10 1

Wild Celery 1 3 Yellow Waterlily 17 6

Note: Values are % abundance

Documents

Appendix A P8 Model Documentation Combined_Draft...Appendix A: P8 Model Documentation A-2 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 2.3 Calibration The P8 model was calibrated to match runoff