HomeMy Public PortalAboutDraft Long Pond Alum Treatment Report, Feb 13, 2009
TREATMENT SUMMARY
for
Phosphorus Inactivation in Long
Pond
Brewster and Harwich,
Massachusetts
February 2009
Document No. 12283-001C
Prepared for:
The
Towns of
Brewster and
Harwich,
Massachusetts
Prepared by:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ...................................................................................................................................................................1
Target Dose ...................................................................................................................................................................2
Treatment Protocol........................................................................................................................................................4
Treatment Process Review ............................................................................................................................................4
Treatment Monitoring....................................................................................................................................................6
Pre- and Post-Treatment Chemistry...............................................................................................................................7
Pre- and Post-Treatment Biology................................................................................................................................16
Future Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................................20
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................20
Appendix A: Water Quality Data................................................................................................................................22
Appendix B: Plant and Mollusk Data..........................................................................................................................34
Appendix C: Phytoplankton Data................................................................................................................................37
TABLES
Table 1. Planned aluminum doses to Long Pond ..................................................................................................2
Table 2. Summary of pH, conductivity, and alkalinity data for Long Pond.........................................................9
Table 3. Zooplankton of Long Pond ......................................................................................................................19
FIGURES
Figure 1. Long Pond treatment areas......................................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Individual treatment areas in Long Pond...............................................................................................5
Figure 3. Selected temperature-dissolved oxygen profiles for Long Pond........................................................8
Figure 4. Average phosphorus concentration in epilimnetic and hypolimnetic waters on Long Pond.........10
Figure 5. Selected phosphorus profiles for Long Pond.......................................................................................13
Figure 6. Secchi disk transparency in Long Pond...............................................................................................14
Figure 7. Secchi disk transparency in Long Pond since 1998...........................................................................15
Figure 8. Abundance of mussels at survey sites in Long Pond.........................................................................17
Figure 9. Cover by rooted plants at survey sites in Long Pond.........................................................................17
Figure 10. Phytoplankton of Long Pond...............................................................................................................18
AECOM
P.O. Box 506, 11 Phelps Way, Willington, CT 06279-0506
T 860.429.5323 F 860.429.5378 www.aecom.com
Page 1
Background
Long Pond in Brewster and Harwich, MA covers 740 acres with a mean depth of 29 ft and a
maximum depth of about 70 ft. Precipitation and groundwater are the dominant sources of water,
with a smaller amount of runoff from the very sandy watershed. Long Pond is a popular swimming,
boating and fishing destination. It has two major town beach/boat launch facilities, one each in
Brewster and Harwich, plus another less developed beach and boat launch area in Harwich. Both
towns have actively sought to protect the desirable qualities of the pond. Erratic summer algal
blooms and small fishkills raised concern and prompted further study.
Investigations have revealed a lack of oxygen with hydrogen sulfide production and release of
phosphorus from bottom sediments in >30 ft of water. Diffusion and upward mixing of deeper waters
during storms may both contribute to effective internal loading, which is estimated to supply 405
kg/yr (65%) to the upper waters out of a total load of between 606 and 651 kg/yr. The remaining
load is attributed mainly to watershed sources (26%) and precipitation (8%). Available phosphorus
within the sediment ranged from 0.6 to 4.6 g/m2 based on 2000 data for the upper 4 cm of sediment.
More recent data (2006) collected by the Town of Brewster indicates a very similar range of 0.7 to
4.5 g/m2. A summer release of 0.6 g/m2 with only 10% reaching the epilimnion could raise the
phosphorus concentration by more than 0.02 mg/L and support algal blooms.
Anoxia has been a feature of deep water in Long Pond for at least half a century, but excessive
internal recycling of nutrients accumulated over many years seems to be a more recent
phenomenon. It may have taken many decades for the internal load to reach the threshold where it
could supply sufficient phosphorus to cause the observed blooms. The release of previously bound
and sedimented P inputs back into the water column is cause for concern on several grounds:
1. Some algae may be able to access this increased nutrient level by moving between lower
and upper water layers
2. Some of the P accumulated in the bottom waters does pass into surface waters during
summer, fueling algal growth
3. Upon eventual mixing, more of that accumulated P becomes available to algae
4. The long detention time of Long Pond means that seasonal events such as P release from
sediment may have longer term impacts
5. The release of P without a commensurate release of nitrogen will lower N:P ratios and favor
cyanobacteria, the most troublesome of algae
Remedial action aimed at that internal load was chosen to restore desirable conditions in Long
Pond, and protective measures in the watershed are to be implemented to slow down the
accumulation of phosphorus and internal loading in the future. Aluminum treatment was favored
over aeration methods. The primary reason for the choice of alum over aeration was economics,
as an appropriate aeration system would cost at least as much as an alum treatment, but also
requires annual maintenance and operational costs not incurred with the alum treatment.
At issue with aluminum treatments is the potential toxicity of reactive aluminum outside the pH range
of 6-8 standard pH units. Use of unbuffered aluminum sulfate in poorly buffered waters such as
those on Cape Cod can lower the pH and produce transient toxicity immediately during treatment.
Likewise, overbuffering can raise the pH and also produce short-term toxicity. While there is always
some risk of an adverse reaction in any such application, understanding of the key factors allows a
treatment with minimal risk to non-target flora and fauna of Long Pond.
Follow-up sediment testing, dose response evaluation, and fish bioassays allowed determination of
the necessary and most advantageous dose of which aluminum compounds. Treatment was
permitted under the Wetlands Protection Act and the applicator received a License to Apply
Chemicals from the MA DEP. The treatment was planned for late summer and early fall of 2007.
Page 2
Target Dose
The keys to a successful treatment include assessment of necessary dose and choice of chemicals
to achieve that dose while maintaining a near-neutral pH during treatment. Review of the ENSR
2001 report suggested that the actual dose necessary over most of the pond is on the order of 25
g/m2. With the additional testing conducted, plus fish bioassays to determine the most advantageous
ratio of aluminum compounds to achieve a desirable pH, re-evaluation of the dose calculation
facilitates appropriate dose determination (Table 1).
Table 1. Planned aluminum doses to Long Pond
Lake Segment Long West Long Central Long East Total
Mean Available Sediment P (mg/kg DW)24.5 50.0 16.0
Target Depth of Sediment to be Treated (cm)4.0 4.0 4.0
Volume of Sediment to be Treated per m2 (m3)0.040 0.040 0.040
Specific Gravity of Sediment 1.50 1.50 1.50
Mass of Sediment to be Treated (kg/m2)60.0 60.0 60.0
Mass of P to be Treated (g/m2)1.47 3.00 0.96
Target Area (ac)106 251 13
Target Area (m2)427419 1012097 52419
Aluminum sulfate (alum) @ 11.1 lb/gal and 4.4%
aluminum (lb/gal)0.4884 0.4884 0.4884
Sodium aluminate (aluminate) @ 12.1 lb/gal and
10.38% aluminum (lb/gal)1.256 1.256 1.256
Stoich. Ratio (ratio of Al to P in treatment)10 10 10
Ratio of alum to aluminate during treatment
(volumetric)1.8:1 1.8:1 1.8:1
Aluminum Load and Alum + Aluminate volumes
Dose (kg/area)6283 30363 503 37149
Dose (lb/area)13823 66798 1107 81728
Dose (gal alum) @ specs above 11653 56315 933 68901
Dose (gal aluminate) @ specs above 6474 31286 519 38278
Application (gal/ac) for alum 110 224 72
Application (gal/ac) for aluminate 61 125 40
Anticipated days of treatment in area 210 113
The treatment areas are shown in Figure 1.
The planned dose was therefore just under 70,000 gallons of aluminum sulfate and about 38,300
gallons of sodium aluminate. Adjustment of ratios in the field is expected, and nuances of delivery,
loading, and application will usually cause some deviation, but application at a ratio near 1.8:1 (for
aluminum sulfate:sodium aluminate by volume) was planned. This ratio has been found to cause no
toxicity to fish in the lab at the expected concentrations of aluminum at the time of treatment, using
fish species present in Long Pond and actual Long Pond water for the testing. Ratios closer to 2:1
represent the theoretical balance point for pH in lakes with low buffering capacity (i.e., inability to
maintain pH in response to acid inputs), but with a pH of 6.0 to 6.5 in Long Pond, and the potential
for some variability during treatment, the lower ratio of aluminum sulfate to sodium aluminate (which
will cause the pH to rise slightly) was found to be most protective.
Page 3
Figure 1. Long Pond treatment areas.
Page 4
Treatment Protocol
The plan was to apply aluminum sulfate and sodium aluminate at a volumetric ratio of 1.8:1 over
areas 30 ft deep at a total dose of 10 (East Basin) to 15 (West Basin) to 30 (Central Basin) g/m2.
The two chemicals are released simultaneously from a motorized barge through nozzles on a boom
lowered about 10 ft below the water surface. The motor that moves the barge also promotes mixing
of the chemical and the lake water. A fine floc forms in the water, binding some phosphorus then, but
settling to the bottom within hours and inactivating phosphorus in the surficial sediments as the main
goal of the treatment.
Aquatic Control Technology of Sutton, MA performed the treatment. The treatment area within Long
Pond was divided into smaller target areas that could be treated in one to three days (Figure 2), and
the barge traversed a GPS-guided path to deliver as even a dose as possible. The barge had to be
reloaded multiple times per target area, as it carries only about 1000 gallons of aluminum sulfate and
500 gallons of sodium aluminate at a time. Target areas were treated non-sequentially to the extent
possible, avoiding treatment of large contiguous areas on consecutive days.
The main beach for the Town of Harwich was used as the staging area for chemical delivery and
loading of the barge. The East Basin, having only 13 acres of target treatment area and being the
shallowest with the lowest planned dose, was the first area treated. Evaluation of treatment impacts
was conducted over several days following treatment before any other target area was treated.
There was no fish mortality, no mussel mortality, and no unusual water quality variation as a result of
the initial treatment, so treatment of other target areas commenced four days later and ran to
completion, with interruptions as determined by weather, mechnical problems, weekends, or any
other factor determined by the Orders of Conditions issued by both Harwich and Brewster under the
Wetlands Protection Act.
Treatment Process Review
The final chemical amounts applied at Long Pond were 70,291 gallons of aluminum sulfate and
37,856 gallons of sodium aluminate, yielding a ratio of 1.86:1. This input is very close to that
expected based on Table 1. Doses per treatment area followed the guidance of 10 g/m2 for the East
Basin, 15 g/m2 for the West Basin, and 30 g/m2 for the Central Basin.
Application target areas treated on specific days are shown in Figure 2. The dates of treatment for
each target area are shown. Some Central Basin areas are numbered as an aid to planning the
treatment sequence to avoid treating contiguous areas on consecutive days. The East Basin was
treated first, as planned, then portions of the West Basin and Central Basin were treated in
alternating fashion until the West Basin was completed. Remaining treatment focused on the Central
Basin, where the most aluminum was applied.
Page 5 Figure 2. Individual treatment areas in Long Pond.
Page 6
Deviations from the planned process included:
1. Treatment took a total of 17 days; the minimum expected number of days was 13, and
equipment problems resulted in multiple partial days of treatment. Equipment problems
included mainly failed pumps and barge motors. The treatment team was prepared to
address these, but some possible treatment time was lost as a result.
2. Treatment could not be performed on 3 days due to high wind. Such delays were required by
the Orders of Conditions and expected to occur during the treatment period at some point.
3. Treatment was not performed on one Monday (Columbus Day) due to a planned rowing
regatta and the potential for interference and related safety issues.
4. Aluminum floc drifted into water shallower than 30 ft even with only low wind. As a result,
treatment was shifted into water >35 ft deep in the Central Basin, although some limited drift
into shallower areas still occurred.
5. The bathymetric map was not accurate in a few areas, resulting in adjustment in the area
treated. The total area treated was roughly the same as planned and the total dose was very
close to that expected. The barge operator watched depth closely and adjusted as needed.
6. Two continguous target areas in the Central Basin were treated on consecutive days at the
end of the program. By that time, it was apparent that there was negligible risk of biological
impacts from such treatment.
Treatment Monitoring
Alkalinity measurement during treatment revealed low buffering capacity nearly everywhere and
nearly all the time, as expected for this waterbody. Alkalinity ranged from 2 to 5 mg/L at all stations,
treated or untreated, over the pre-treatment and treatment period, with very little variability observed.
Treatment did not depress alkalinity except at perhaps at the most localized level; sampling right
behind the barge as it applied the aluminum chemicals revealed pH values that suggested higher or
lower alkalinities, but those alkalinities were not directly measured.
The pH of Long Pond is known to range naturally from about 6.0 to 6.6, and measurements in
untreated areas ranged from 6.1 to 6.5 during the treatment period. Measurements taken in
accordance with the approved monitoring program, which included measurements three times per
day in the target area, indicated that treated areas experienced pH values that ranged from 6.1 to
7.0. Assessment of the water as the aluminum compounds were being applied (within 100 ft of the
barge) on the first few days of treatment revealed pH values as low as 5.2 and as high as 8.0, but
only 5 values out of 30 such measurements were <6.0 or >7.0. Thereafter, adjustments were made
to keep the pH between 6.0 and 7.0.
Mixing behind the barge was substantial. Visual assessment of floc formation with the videocamera
indicated that applied aluminum compounds were mixed over a depth of about 20 ft upon
application. This reduces the maximum aluminum concentration that could occur to about 5 mg/L,
the upper bound of what is considered safe even with fluctuating pH. This may have been an
important factor in the complete lack of fish mortality. Adding the maintenance of pH within the range
of 6.0 to 7.0 minimizes the reactive aluminum concentration to non-toxic levels. The noise of the
Page 7
barge tends to scare away fish, so exposure to higher aluminum doses at pH values outside the
desirable range was minimal. There was concern that some fish, especially alewife, might perceive
the floc as a food item, but this was not observed to occur despite extensive surveillance with an
underwater videosystem.
The immediate treatment area was assessed just prior to treatment, during treatment, and
immediately after treatment for pH and alkalinity, and for impacts on fish and mollusks by visual
observation. Observation included the surface by eye and the bottom by remote video camera, and
extended to areas peripheral to and also downwind of the treatment area. One dead fish was
observed on the first day of treatment, and was quite obviously dead prior to the start of treatment.
Fish, including alewife, yellow perch, catfish, and bass, were observed in the treatment area with no
ill effects. Most alewife, however, were observed around the edge of Long Pond, as would be
expected at that time of year. After the one pre-treatment dead fish was observed, no dead fish
were found at any time during treatment or shortly thereafter.
No molluscan deaths appeared attributable to treatment. We observed dead bivalve mollusks
(“mussels”) before treatment in many areas, as might be expected (shells do not deteriorate rapidly
after death). Mollusks are generally found at water depths <25 ft in Long Pond, so overlap with
treatment areas was intended to be minimal, but some drift of floc was observed. Mollusks were not
buried in floc in any area, but mollusks were observed with enough floc around them to potentially
induce temporary closure of shells, which was observed. Inspection of untreated areas revealed
similar portions of close shells, however, so it was not clear that even that situation was a reaction to
treatment.
Pre- and Post-Treatment Chemistry
Water column samples were collected on September 10, 2007, prior to the start of any treatment.
Samples were collected monthly for a year after treatment. Analysis focused on temperature,
dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity, conductivity, total and dissolved phosphorus, and dissolved
aluminum.
Aluminum levels were negligible prior to treatment and returned to levels below the detection limit
shortly after treatment (Appendix A). Ambient levels in late October and November were not higher
than for pre-treatment samples. A reduced detection limit was applied after treatment, and dissolved
aluminum was only detected in 2 of 36 post-treatment samples, and then at low levels not of
ecological or human health concern. In accordance with the Orders of Conditions, no further
sampling for aluminum was required.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles were obtained on each sampling date (Appendix A) and
indicated a typical seasonal pattern. The only direct pre-and post-treatment comparison possible is
September 10, 2007 vs. either August 22 or September 30, 2008, but there are differences due to
date and weather; this is not as direct a comparison as would be preferred. There is no indication of
any major improvement in deep water oxygen from these profiles (Figure 3) in 2007 and 2008.
Page 8 Figure 3. Selected temperature-dissolved oxygen profiles for Long Pond. Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (9/10/07)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (9/10/07)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (8/22/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (8/22/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (9/30/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (9/30/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)
Page 9
Measurements of pH, conductivity and alkalinity indicated no significant changes over time, but an
increase in conductivity and alkalinity and a decrease in pH in deep water during stratification
(Appendix A). A summary of all data (Table 2) does not suggest any major ecological or human
health issue from the variability observed, particularly since the lowest pH values and highest
alkalinity and conductivity levels occur only in the deepest water at a time of low or no oxygen in that
small water layer within Long Pond. The treatment does not appear to have changed water
chemistry over space or time with regard to pH, alkalinity and conductivity.
Table 2. Summary of pH, conductivity, and alkalinity data for Long Pond.
pH (SU)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Alkalinity
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
Alkalinity
(mg/L)
Minimum 5.7 64 1.1 5.9 66 2.0
Mean 6.4 76 4.2 6.5 76 3.9
Maximum 6.8 111 30.0 7.0 110 22.0
LP-1 LP-2
Total and dissolved phosphorus concentrations were the direct target of the treatment, with the
intent to lower these to the point where algal blooms would not be supported. Total phosphorus (TP)
values on the order of 0.020 mg/L will tend to support algal blooms, while concentrations <0.01 mg/L
rarely do. Prior to treatment, on September 10, 2007, TP levels ranged from 0.020 to 0.038 mg/L in
the upper waters (0-12 m during stratification) at LP-1 and 0.015 to 0.028 mg/L over the same depth
range at LP-2; mean values were 0.028 mg/L at LP-1 and 0.023 mg/L at LP-2 (Figure 4, Appendix
A). In the bottom waters (>13 m deep) the concentration at LP-1 averaged 0.133 mg/L and that at
LP-2 was 0.100 mg/L, indication the accumulation of TP in those bottom waters. Dissolved
phosphorus (DP) values mirrored TP levels, but as a subset of TP, were somewhat lower (Appendix
A).
The accumulation of P in deep waters during stratification is related to both settling organic matter
and release from bottom sediments, and some portion moves upward into the water column,
increasing the concentrations in less deep water. The alum treatment was intended to greatly reduce
the releases from bottom sediment, thereby reducing the movement into overlying waters. Only 10 to
40% of the released P is expected to reach the upper waters during the growing season, but that is
till a significant amount. Additionally, as the lake has a retention time on the order of 4 years, the
mixing of the remaining deep water P when stratification breaks down can affect productivity in
following years.
In October 2007, less than a month after treatment, TP concentrations averaged 0.006 mg/L at both
LP-1 and LP-2, with stratification nearly gone for the year. This was as expected for an aluminum
treatment, and experience with spring treatments in other lakes suggested that low P levels would be
Page 10
maintained for months to come. However, fall treatments are less common, and winter monitoring
data for aluminum treatments are very rare, so the pattern that arose after October 2007 was
unexpected. In essence, TP and DP increased gradually between October 2007 and April 2008, with
TP reaching levels similar to those of the upper layer from September 2007 in April and May 2008
(Figure 4, Appendix A). DP levels did not recover to pre-treatment levels, but did increase to more
than half the pre-treatment concentration.
Figure 4. Average phosphorus concentration in epilimnetic and hypolimnetic
waters on Long Pond. (Note that the scale is different for total and dissolved forms)
Average Total Phosphorus Levels at LP-1
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
Sep-
07
Oct-
07
Nov-
07
Dec-
07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
MonthTP (mg/L)Epi mean
Hypo mean
Average Total Phosphorus Levels at LP-2
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
Sep-
07
Oct-
07
Nov-
07
Dec-
07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-08 Aug-
08
Sep-
08
MonthTP (mg/L)Epi mean
Hypo mean
Average Dissolved Phosphorus Levels at LP-1
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
Sep-
07
Oct-
07
Nov-
07
Dec-
07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-08 Aug-
08
Sep-
08
MonthTP (mg/L)Epi mean
Hypo mean
Average Dissolved Phosphorus Levels at LP-2
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
Sep-
07
Oct-
07
Nov-
07
Dec-
07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-08 Aug-
08
Sep-
08
MonthTP (mg/L)Epi mean
Hypo mean
Page 11
At the lower phosphorus levels observed, which are near the detection limit for the method applied,
fluctuations of 0.005 or even 0.010 mg/L are not especially meaningful, but it is quite apparent that P
concentrations were substantially reduced at the time of treatment, but then increased again over the
winter and spring. Explanations are difficult to substantiate, but several have been postulated:
1. Just over half the volume of the lake was treated, so it would not have been surprising to see a
slight rise as the lake completely mixed. Yet the rise was much more gradual than the mixing
and resulted in a concentration similar to the pre-treatment level for TP, which would not be
possible without additional P inputs.
2. New phosphorus inputs from the watershed, atmosphere, or groundwater might have raised the
P concentration over the winter. With the change of just half the volume from an average of
about 0.026 mg/L to 0.006 mg/L, that is a reduction of 276 kg of P. The annual contribution from
all external sources (precipitation, runoff and inseepage) is estimated at a maximum of 240 kg.
No external source can explain the rising concentration, which even if all inputs were converted
into aqueous P, amounts to at least 318 kg.
3. Incoming alewife may have raised the P level. There does appear to be a spike in P in April and
May, but most alewife activity is in May, and the earlier increases in P could not be accounted for
in this manner. Additionally, alewife runs have reportedly not been so large as to bring that much
P into the lake in recent years.
4. Release of sediment P from untreated areas could contribute to the P content of the pond. There
is undoubtedly some available P in the untreated portion of the lake, which is about half the area.
However, this half of the area is shallow and the bottom is almost all sand and cobble; stored P
would be minimal and high oxygen levels would restrict release of iron-bound P. Some
contribution is possible, but not nearly enough to achieve pre-treatment P levels.
5. There may have been a “rebound” effect in which unbound sediment P was released in response
to low P concentrations in overlying water. This is a complex chemical effect not known to
routinely occur, particularly since the sediment P is supposed to be bound by aluminum.
However, the dose was based on loosely sorbed and iron-bound P, not any portion of the
organic P, some of which might be available. This is a cutting edge topic of debate in the
scientific literature, and coupled with a lack of data for overwinter P levels following aluminum
treatments, there is considerable uncertainty here. If, however, there was a major release of P
over the 6 to 7 months following treatment from organic sources, this P apparently was gradually
inactivated (either by aluminum or by conversion to truly unavailable organic matter), as lower P
levels were encountered in summer of 2008 and no appreciable deep water accumulation was
noted after July.
None of these explanations is particularly satisfying, but the possible release of sediment P that had
been organically bound might account for the observed effect, having raised P to about what it was
before the treatment. The input of at least 317 kg is within the estimated annual net internal load of
405 kg. Contributions for all the other mechanisms listed above might exist, and together they could
have raised the P concentration as observed. The bigger question revolves around whether or not
this was a one time occurrence in response to treatment or an annual process.
Page 12
Either way, the use of available P by algae results in incorporation into particles that sink, and some
portion of the P becomes unavailable over time (refractory organic matter). Some of the P is
released by decay, incorporated into new algae, which either sink or are eaten by zooplankton that
eventually die, many consumed by fish; again some portion of the P becomes unavailable. Without
replenishment from the sediment, where most reserves are now bound in aluminum or refractory
organic compounds, the P level in Long Pond should decline to a level supported by new inputs.
That level is much lower than the pre-treatment level, based on the nutrient budget work performed
to date.
Over the summer of 2008 the results of the aluminum treatment more closely approximated initial
expectations (Figure 5, Appendix A). There was some apparent build-up of deep water P in July,
after stratification in late June, although this was only observed at the deepest point at LP-2 and
could be an anomaly. TP values averaged 0.010 mg/L in Long Pond, with values declining rather
that increasing over the summer. The absence of internal releases of available sediment P during
the summer is apparent in the data and led to improved clarity.
Water clarity, while not the direct target of the treatment, was the real goal of the project. Data for
each station are presented in Figure 6, while a comparison of post-treatment data with data from
1998-2007 is provided in Figure 7. Data from the last ten years of volunteer monitoring indicated
summer Secchi disk transparency (SDT) values lower than the desired 4 ft visibility on occasion and
average values <10 ft. The SDT just before treatment was just under 11 ft, at the clear end of the
September range for the last decade. SDT increased slightly in October and at one of the two
monitoring stations in November, then decreased over the winter. Spring values were not identical in
the two main basins of the lake, such that SDT continued to decrease through April at LP-2, but was
slightly better in March and April in LP-1 than it had been over the winter; values were still <10 ft,
however. In May, clarity increased in both basins and the increase continued through August. There
was a slight depression of SDT in September, but SDT increased again by the start of October.
Within the context of the larger data base from the last 10 years, water clarity has not been
measured over the winter months, so there is no basis for comparison. The water was as clear as it
had been in a decade in September, just before treatment, and remained near the clear end of the
historic range through December. However, the clearest end of that range is only 10 to 12 feet, and
much greater clarity would have been expected from a spring aluminum treatment if internal loading
was the primary P source. We have no overwinter comparative data, and only one April value, which
was close to what was observed in 2008 after treatment. The May 2008 SDT value was in the
clearer half of the historic range, at an average of 13.3 ft, but is not especially clear. From June
through the start of October, 2008 SDT values were the highest observed in over a decade. The
peak occurred in August, with a value in excess of 19 ft, about what was expected of the treatment.
There was a dip in September, just like in virtually all previous monitoring years, but SDT remained
higher than previously observed and 3 ft higher than in 2007 just before treatment. SDT rose again
at the start of October, to about 16 ft, a time when mixing yielded extra P in most years and
depressed clarity. Monitoring ceased at this point, the regulatory obligation having been met.
Page 13
Figure 5. Selected phosphorus profiles for Long Pond.
Long Pond LP-1 Total Phosphorus Levels
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Depth (m)9/10/07
10/25/07
7/16/08
8/22/08
9/30/08
Long Pond LP-2 Total Phosphorus Levels
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Depth (m)9/10/07
10/25/07
7/16/08
8/22/08
9/30/08
Page 14 Figure 6. Secchi disk transparency in Long Pond. Figure 6a. Long Pond Secchi Disk Transparencies LP-102468101214161820Sept, 07Oct, 07Nov, 07Dec, 07Jan, 08Mar, 08April, 08May, 08June, 08July, 08Aug, 08Sept, 08Oct, 08Depth (ft)Figure 6b. Long Pond Secchi Disk Transparencies LP-202468101214161820Sept, 07Oct, 07Nov, 07Dec, 07Jan, 08Mar, 08April, 08May, 08June, 08July, 08Aug, 08Sept, 08Oct, 08Depth (ft)
Page 15 Figure 7. Secchi disk transparency in Long Pond since 1998. SDT Pre-treatment Average SDT vs. Post-treatment024681012141618202224JJJJJJJJJJJJMonthSDT (ft)Mean and Range for 1998-2006 data2007 data 2008 dataTreatment (2007)Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Page 16
Pre- and Post-Treatment Biology
A survey of mussel density was conducted in August prior to treatment and one year after treatment,
with mussels quantified as absent, trace (1 per viewing field), sparse (2-4 per field), moderate (5-10
per field) or dense (>10 per field). No dense populations were found, based on survey areas of about
100 m2. The results indicated no significant change in mollusk abundance or distribution (Figure 8,
Appendix B) between August of 2007 and August of 2008, based on observations at 121 locations.
Rooted plants were monitored at the same time and locations as mussels, in August of 2007 and
2008. Eight species of vascular plants were observed, plus green and blue-green algal mats and the
macroalga Nitella. Based on five cover categories (absent, 1=1-25%, 2=26-50%, 3=51-75%, and
4=76-100%), there was no apparent difference between the pre- and post-treatment cover data
(Figure 9, Appendix B). The same species were encountered each year, with Najas flexilis, Nitella
flexilis, and Potamogeton pusillus var. tenuissimus most frequent.
Phytoplankton were of definite interest in this evaluation, being the algae that most influence water
clarity in Long Pond. In the 1990s and early in this decade, blooms of cyanophytes (blue-green
algae, or more properly cyanobacteria) greatly depressed water clarity in Long Pond. The results of
monitoring and focused investigation determined that the key process was internal phosphorus
loading, especially during dry weather. Wet weather tended to force iron-rich groundwater into the
pond, which inactivated available P and limited its abundance. Hence the relatively wetter summers
since 2003 have fostered fewer blooms and higher water clarity. The treatment sought not so much
to reduce algal abundance as to shift it away from cyanobacteria, which thrive at higher P levels.
Phytoplankton in September 2008, prior to the treatment, was dominated by cyanobacteria in terms
of numbers of cells, and those cells are small, imparting more turbidity (and lowering clarity more)
than larger cells at the same mass. After treatment cyanobacteria were much reduced, and while
they regained dominance the following summer, the biomass was lower (Figure 10). Cell count
approached 27,000/mL in September 2007, but exceeded 10,000 cells/mL only once after that,
barely, in August 2008, when cyanobacteria were again dominant. However, there was a shift in
types of cyanobacteria, with only one of four previously common types observed after treatment.
In terms of biomass, the September 2007 samples were a fairly even mix of cyanobacteria, diatoms, golden
algae and dinoflagellates, at 1500 ug/L, a moderate value (Figure 10). Severe blooms often exceed 10,000
ug/L, while great clarity is associated with values <500 ug/L. Cyanobacteria were never again a significant
fraction of the phytoplankton biomass. This is not surprising for winter or spring samples, which are often
dominated by diatoms and golden algae as observed in Long Pond, and those algae are considered valuable
parts of the food web. Yet the lack of significant cyanobacterial biomass in summer 2008 suggests that the
treatment lowered the P concentration sufficiently to achieve control over algal biomass in general and
specifically over cyanobacteria.
Page 17
Figure 8. Abundance of mussels at survey sites in Long Pond.
Pre- (August 2007) and Post- (August 2008)
Treatment Mussel Survey Results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2007 2008
DateNumber of Sites with Listed DensityModerate mussels
Sparse mussels
Trace mussels
No mussels
Figure 9. Cover by rooted plants at survey sites in Long Pond.
Pre- (August 2007) and Post- (August 2008)
Treatment Plant Survey Results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2007 2008
DateNumber of Sites with Listed Cover RatingCover = 4
Cover = 3
Cover = 2
Cover = 1
No Plants
Page 18
Figure 10. Phytoplankton of Long Pond.
Figure 10A. Long Pond Phytoplankton Density
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Sep-
07
Oct-
07
Nov-
07
Dec-
07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
DateDensity (Cells/mL)PYRRHOPHYTA
EUGLENOPHYTA
CYANOPHYTA
CHRYSOPHYTA
CHLOROPHYTA
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Figure 10B. Long Pond Phytoplankton Biomass
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Sep-
07
Oct-
07
Nov-
07
Dec-
07
Jan-
08
Feb-
08
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
DateBiomass (ug/L)PYRRHOPHYTA
EUGLENOPHYTA
CYANOPHYTA
CHRYSOPHYTA
CHLOROPHYTA
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Page 19
Biomass values were still moderate, but included mainly species of algae that are consumed in the
food web more readily than cyanobacteria and impart less turbidity to the water. These results
represent only one year of information, but indicate very favorable results of the treatment if they
continue; clarity has been improved, but desirable algae have not been eliminated or even
substantially depressed.
Zooplantkon are also of substantial interest, as they consume algae and are an intermediate link in
the food web. However, Long Pond hosts an annual run of sea-run alewife and has a potentially
large population of juvenile alewife for the summer (or longer if the water level is too low for them to
exit at the outlet). Alewife can minimize zooplankton populations by their density and feeding mode,
which involves filtering the water column and straining out particles larger than about 0.3 mm. Ponds
dominated by alewife have few large zooplankton, and often few zooplankton at all.
Long Pond exhibits a classic alewife-impacted zooplankton population both before and after the
treatment (Table 3). Biomass <100 ug/L provides limited grazing; Long Pond zooplankton average
<2 ug/L. Mean size <0.5 mm indicates few large grazers that can control algal density; Long Pond
zooplankton average <0.4 mm in length. A variety of types are present, none is particularly
dominant, but none are abundant. In essence, there is no phytoplankton control by zooplankton, so
algal biomass will be as large as nutrient levels allow. Controlling P is essential to preventing algal
blooms in Long Pond.
Table 3. Zooplankton of Long Pond
LP-1 LP-2 LP-1 LP-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS 9/10/07 9/14/07 8/22/08 8/22/08
DENSITY (#/L)
PROTOZOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ROTIFERA 0.8 0.8 1.5 2.2
COPEPODA 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
CLADOCERA 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.3
OTHER ZOOPLANKTON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL ZOOPLANKTON 1.4 1.1 2.2 3.7
BIOMASS (ug/L)
PROTOZOA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ROTIFERA 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.7
COPEPODA 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4
CLADOCERA 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.7
OTHER ZOOPLANKTON 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL ZOOPLANKTON 1.5 1.0 2.2 2.8
TAXONOMIC RICHNESS
PROTOZOA 0000
ROTIFERA 4434
COPEPODA 3223
CLADOCERA 2223
OTHER ZOOPLANKTON 0000
TOTAL ZOOPLANKTON 98710
S-W DIVERSITY INDEX 0.89 0.81 0.60 0.77
EVENNESS INDEX 0.94 0.90 0.70 0.77
MEAN LENGTH (mm): ALL FORMS 0.26 0.23 0.29 0.25
MEAN LENGTH: CRUSTACEANS 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.37
Page 20
Future Monitoring
These results have indicated very favorable results of the treatment for the summer following
treatment. There is no reason to believe that adverse impacts from the treatment on fish,
invertebrates or plants would occur beyond the timeframe of this project, but the level and longevity
of the improved phosphorus level, phytoplankton composition, and water clarity should be tracked.
Also, some improvement in deep water oxygen levels remains to be seen. To that end, the following
recommendations are offered:
1. Sample LP-1 and LP-2 monthly from April into October, with a sample collected at the surface
and near the bottom for total and dissolved phosphorus.
2. At each station in each month, obtain a surface sample of phytoplankton for analysis and
measure Secchi disk transparency.
3. At each station in each month, generate a temperature –dissolved oxygen profile.
4. Convene the interested parties in each town to further a watershed management plan to protect
the investment made in Long Pond through the treatment.
There is an active volunteer monitoring group that could most likely handle the field portion of this
program. AECOM would be happy to assist in any way, but it is most cost-effective to have the
volunteer monitors conduct this program. Some professional assistance may be needed to develop
the watershed management plan, and this was required in the Orders of Conditions for the project,
but there are people in both towns who comprehend the need and have an understanding of the
available techniques.
Conclusion
The treatment of Long Pond with aluminum compounds for the inactivation of phosphorus was
successfully conducted in September and October of 2007. Approximately 370 acres were treated
with aluminum sulfate (70,291 gallons) and sodium aluminate (37,856 gallons) on 17 days over a 28
day period. The ratio of alum to aluminate was 1.86:1, close to the targeted ratio. Doses were
approximately 10 g/m2 in the East Basin, 15 g/m2 in the West Basin, and 30 g/m2 in the Central
Basin, as planned. Alkalinity was low but largely unaffected by treatment. The pH was maintained
between 6.0 and 7.0 in all compliance samples, although additional samples collected to reveal the
instantaneous extremes near the application point did yield a few values outside that range. No
mortality of fish or mollusks was observed, despite extensive monitoring. Post-treatment assessment
of water quality at multiple depths at two stations revealed a distinct decline in both total and
dissolved phosphorus and no aluminum levels above pre-treatment values for two months after
treatment.
Beginning in November 2007, phosphorus levels began to rise and water clarity declined. Late winter
and spring phosphorus levels were similar to pre-treatment levels and spring water clarity was within
the historic range observed in the pond, suggesting no distinct benefit from the treatment. Multiple
possible explanations exist, but none is completely consistent with all data, and there is a minimal
Page 21
track record for fall treatments and winter monitoring, so we have little context within which to
evaluate this treatment for that time period. Several mechanisms may have combined to limit winter-
spring control of phosphorus and improved clarity. However, beginning in May and progressing
through August, water clarity increased dramatically, exceeding all measured values for the last
decade. There was a decrease in clarity in September, consistent with historic trends, but an
increase at the start of October, after which monitoring ceased. Water clarity during summer 2008
was the highest observed in over a decade.
Biologically, the treatment has had no measurable negative impact on any valued biota. Plant and
mollusk communities are very similar between August 2007 and August 2008, and no dead fish were
found during treatment, despite extensive surveys. There was no appreciable change in
zooplankton, but this community is minimal in Long Pond as a consequence of abundant alewife.
The change in phytoplankton is very encouraging; cyanobacteria that were responsible for past
blooms were abundant in September 2007, but have been minimal in biomass since then. Other
algal groups more useful in the food web and less likely to cause problem blooms remain at
moderate abundance. The treatment appears to have properly targeted problem algae without
disrupting the food web. However, these conclusions are based on only one year of post-treatment
data. Continued intensive monitoring does not appear necessary, but sampling of the two stations at
the is warranted on a monthly basis beginning in April and running to October, with a focus on
phosphorus, clarity, oxygen and phytoplankton.
Page 22
Appendix A: Water Quality Data
Page 23
Table A.1. Dissolved aluminum at LP-1.
LP-1 values
Depth (m) 9/10/2007 10/25/2007 11/15/2007
0 <0.050 0.010 <0.010
2 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
4 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
6 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
8 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
10 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
12 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
14 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
16 <0.050 0.011 <0.010
18 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
Duplicate None None <0.010
Depth of Dup.(m) N/A N/A 6
Aluminum (mg/L)
Table A.2. Dissolved aluminum at LP-2.
LP-2 values
Depth (m) 9/10/2007 10/25/2007 11/15/2007
0 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
2 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
4 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
6 <0.050 0.011 <0.010
8 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
10 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
12 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
14 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010
Duplicate None <0.010 None
Depth of Dup.(m) N/A 2 N/A
Aluminum (mg/L)
Page 24
Table A.3. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Pre Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
9/10/2007 9/10/2007
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 23.0 8.7 6.2 72 1.1 0 23.0 8.7 6.3 76 3.6
2 23.1 8.7 6.3 74 6.6 2 23.0 8.7 6.4 78 5.0
4 23.1 8.5 6.4 79 3.0 4 23.0 8.7 6.4 77 4.8
6 22.9 8.0 6.4 77 2.5 6 23.0 8.6 6.4 76 5.2
8 22.8 7.9 6.4 77 4.4 8 22.9 8.6 6.3 76 8.5
10 22.5 7.3 6.4 76 4.4 10 22.7 7.8 6.3 77 3.8
11 22.2 6.8 11 22.4 7.2
12 17.0 1.0 6.1 77 6.0 12 20.7 2.3 6.1 76 3.8
13 13.3 0.8 13 13.5 0.8
14 12.3 0.7 6.3 91 20.2 14 12.6 0.8 6.3 110 20.0
16 11.0 0.7 6.3 96 16.0
18 10.6 0.6 6.8 108 30.0
Table A.4. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
10/25/2007 10/25/2007
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 17.5 97 9.3 6.4 80 3 0 17.3 102 9.8 6.4 79 4
2 17.5 96 9.2 6.4 78 4 2 17.3 102 9.8 6.5 79 3
4 17.5 101 9.6 6.5 78 3 4 17.3 102 9.8 6.6 82 4
6 17.5 99 9.5 6.5 78 3 6 17.3 103 9.9 6.5 83 5
8 17.5 100 9.6 6.4 76 3 8 17.3 103 9.9 6.5 80 4
10 17.5 101 9.6 6.4 79 3 10 17.2 103 9.9 6.5 80 4
12 17.5 101 9.7 6.4 78 3 12 17.2 104 10.0 6.5 80 2
14 17.5 102 9.7 6.4 79 3 13 17.1 106 10.2 -- -- --
16 17.4 102 9.8 6.5 80 3 14 17.0 50 7.2 6.8 78 4
17 15.3 15 1.6 -- -- --
18 15.6 14 1.4 6.3 80 5
19 14.8 14 1.4 -- -- --
Table A.5. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
11/15/2007 11/15/2007
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 11.1 98 10.7 6.4 78 3 0 11.2 99 10.8 6.5 79 4
2 11.1 97 10.7 6.6 77 3 2 11.1 98 10.8 6.4 77 3
4 11.0 97 10.7 6.4 77 3 4 11.0 98 10.8 6.4 78 3
6 11.0 98 10.7 6.6 78 3 6 11.0 98 10.8 6.6 79 3
8 11.0 98 10.8 6.5 79 3 8 11.0 99 10.9 6.5 77 3
10 11.0 98 10.8 6.5 79 3 10 11.0 100 11.0 6.5 78 4
12 11.0 99 10.9 6.5 78 3 12 11.0 101 11.1 6.4 77 3
13 11.3 98 10.7 -- -- -- 14 11.4 98 10.7 6.4 78 2
14 11.5 9 0.9 6.4 77 3
15 11.5 7 0.8 -- -- --
16 11.5 6 0.7 6.6 76 3
18 11.2 6 0.6 6.5 78 4
Page 25
Table A.6. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
12/13/2007 12/13/2007
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 4.4 101 13.1 6.4 69 2 0 4.4 105 13.6 6.4 73 3
2 4.5 102 13.2 6.3 64 2 2 4.5 105 13.6 6.4 72 3
4 4.4 106 13.8 6.4 65 3 4 4.5 105 13.6 6.4 72 3
6 4.4 106 13.7 6.4 71 2 6 4.5 105 13.6 6.3 72 3
8 4.4 106 13.7 6.4 70 2 8 4.5 105 13.6 6.4 73 3
10 4.4 106 13.7 6.4 65 3 10 4.5 106 13.6 6.4 72 3
12 4.4 106 13.8 6.4 66 2 12 4.5 106 13.7 6.5 73 3
14 4.5 105 13.6 6.4 67 2 14 4.5 106 13.7 6.4 74 3
16 4.5 106 13.7 6.5 69 2
17 4.5 105 13.6 -- -- --
18 4.5 106 13.7 6.4 68 3
19 4.5 105 13.6 -- -- --
Table A.7. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
1/23/2008 1/23/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 2.3 106 14.6 6.4 72 3 0 2.5 118 16.0 6.5 71 2
2 2.3 106 14.6 6.6 72 2 2 2.5 118 16.0 6.4 72 2
4 2.3 118 16.3 6.5 72 3 4 2.5 118 16.1 6.5 72 2
6 2.3 116 15.8 6.5 72 3 6 2.5 118 16.2 6.5 72 3
8 2.3 115 15.8 6.6 72 2 8 2.5 119 16.2 6.4 72 2
10 2.3 116 15.9 6.5 71 3 10 2.5 119 16.3 6.5 73 2
12 2.3 115 15.8 6.5 71 3 12 2.5 120 16.4 6.5 66 2
14 2.3 117 16.0 6.5 71 3 13 2.6 120 16.3 -- -- --
16 2.3 116 16.0 6.5 71 3 14 2.7 117 16.2 6.5 73 2
18 2.3 117 16.5 6.5 71 3
Table A.8. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
3/11/2008 3/11/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 4.5 100 13.0 6.4 72 3 0 4.4 127 16.4 6.4 69 4
2 4.5 103 13.3 6.4 73 3 2 4.5 128 16.5 6.4 72 4
4 4.5 125 16.1 6.4 72 3 4 4.5 129 16.8 6.4 73 3
6 4.5 129 16.7 6.4 73 3 6 4.5 130 16.9 6.5 74 3
8 4.5 129 16.7 6.5 74 3 8 4.4 130 16.8 6.5 75 4
10 4.5 128 16.6 6.4 72 3 10 4.4 129 16.7 6.4 74 3
12 4.5 129 16.7 6.4 73 4 12 4.4 128 16.7 6.5 75 3
14 4.5 128 16.5 6.5 74 3 14 4.4 128 16.6 6.5 75 3
16 4.5 128 16.5 6.4 74 3
17 4.5 126 16.3 -- -- --
18 4.5 127 16.4 6.5 73 4
Page 26
Table A.9. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
4/15/2008 4/15/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 8.6 111 12.9 6.5 73 3 0 8.6 128 15.0 6.5 75 4
2 8.6 111 13.0 6.5 76 4 2 8.6 129 15.1 6.5 75 4
4 8.5 112 13.2 6.5 75 4 4 8.5 131 15.3 6.5 74 3
6 8.4 123 14.5 6.6 76 3 6 8.5 132 15.5 6.5 75 3
8 8 125 14.7 6.6 76 3 8 8.4 132 15.5 6.6 74 4
10 7.7 122 14.5 6.5 76 4 10 7.9 132 15.7 6.5 75 4
12 7.4 119 14.3 6.5 76 3 12 7.6 129 15.5 6.5 75 3
14 7.3 118 14.2 6.6 76 4 14 7.4 126 15.2 6.5 75 4
16 7.3 118 14.2 6.6 75 3
18 7.1 25 3.1 6.5 75 3
Table A.10. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
5/14/2008 5/14/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 12.2 109 11.7 6.5 75 3 0 12.2 114 12.2 6.5 78 4
2 12.2 109 11.7 6.7 77 3 2 12.2 113 12.2 6.5 77 3
4 12.1 110 11.8 6.4 77 3 4 12.1 114 12.2 6.5 78 3
6 12.1 111 11.9 6.5 75 3 6 12.1 115 12.3 6.5 77 4
8 12.1 111 11.9 6.4 77 3 8 12.1 115 12.3 6.6 78 3
10 12.1 111 12.0 6.4 77 3 10 12.1 115 12.3 6.5 76 3
12 12.1 112 12.1 6.5 77 3 12 11.9 116 12.5 6.6 77 4
14 12.1 112 12.0 6.5 78 3 14 11.9 115 12.4 6.5 77 3
16 12.1 112 12.0 6.5 77 4
17 11.5 6 0.7 6.5 78 3
18 11.7 4 0.5 6.5 78 3
Table A.11. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
6/18/2008 6/18/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 22.0 103 9.0 6.5 74 4 0 22.0 137 12.0 6.6 79 4
2 22.0 106 9.3 6.5 78 3 2 22.0 138 12.0 6.5 78 4
4 22.0 111 9.7 6.5 78 5 4 21.9 140 12.3 6.5 80 4
6 22.0 114 10.1 6.5 77 4 6 18.8 148 13.7 6.5 80 4
8 19.1 123 11.5 6.5 74 4 8 17.3 131 12.5 6.5 78 4
10 17.7 121 11.5 6.2 75 4 10 16.4 106 10.3 6.5 78 4
12 16.2 104 10.0 6.2 76 4 12 15.5 68 6.7 6.5 77 4
14 15.6 69 6.7 6.0 78 4 14 14.4 11 1.2 6.0 78 6
16 14.9 57 5.7 6.0 77 4
17 13.9 7 0.9 -- -- --
18 13.9 7 0.7 5.8 78 4
Page 27
Table A.12. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
7/16/2008 7/16/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 26.4 105 8.5 6.7 4 0 26.3 147 12.0 7.0 3
2 26.4 111 8.9 6.8 3 2 26.2 150 12.1 7.0 4
4 26.0 120 9.7 6.8 4 4 26.0 151 12.2 6.8 3
6 25.8 121 9.9 6.8 4 6 25.8 151 12.4 6.9 4
8 22.9 126 10.8 6.8 3 8 23.6 143 12.1 6.9 3
10 17.1 63 6.0 6.2 4 10 17.5 79 7.6 6.0 4
12 16.0 24 2.4 6.1 4 12 15.7 20 2.0 6.0 4
14 15.0 19 1.8 5.7 5 14 14.3 18 1.8 6.5 22
16 14.3 17 1.8 5.9 7
18 14.4 17 1.8 6.0 10
Table A.13. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
8//22/08 8/22/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 24.6 97 8.1 6.6 70 3 0 24.1 101 8.5 6.6 72 2
2 24.4 97 8.1 6.6 70 3 2 24.1 101 8.5 6.6 72 2
4 24.3 96 8.1 6.6 70 3 4 24.0 100 8.5 6.6 71 2
6 24.2 95 8.0 6.6 70 3 6 24.0 100 8.4 6.6 71 3
8 24.1 94 7.9 6.5 70 3 8 23.9 99 8.4 6.5 71 2
10 22.2 56 5.0 6.5 70 3 10 23.7 97 8.8 6.6 71 3
12 16.3 16 1.5 6.0 70 4 11 20.5 29 2.7
14 14.9 13 1.3 5.9 70 8 12 15.9 25 2.2 6.0 69 5
16 14.1 13 1.3 5.9 73 12 14 14.4 15 1.6 5.9 77 12
18 13.4 13 1.4 6.2 80 15
Table A.14. Long Pond Water Quality Profiles- Post Treatment Monitoring
LP-1 LP-2
9/30/2008 9/30/2008
Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L)
pH
(SU)
Cond
(uS/cm) Alk (mg/L) Depth (m)
Temp
(°C)
DO (%
sat.)
DO
(mg/L) pH (SU)
Cond
(uS/cm)
Alk
(mg/L)
0 19.7 100 9.1 6.6 76 3 0 19.7 102 9.3 6.4 79 3
2 19.7 100 9.1 6.6 79 3 2 19.7 102 9.3 6.4 78 3
4 19.7 100 9.1 6.5 79 3 4 19.7 102 9.3 6.5 78 3
6 19.6 98 9.0 6.4 79 3 6 19.7 102 9.3 6.4 78 3
8 19.6 97 8.9 6.4 79 3 8 19.7 99 9.1 6.4 77 3
10 19.5 91 8.4 6.5 78 3 10 19.5 91 8.3 6.3 78 3
12 19.4 86 7.9 6.5 78 2 12 19.3 79 7.3 6.1 79 3
14 19.2 79 7.2 6.1 79 3 14 18.9 52 4.9 6.3 79 3
16 15.7 16 1.6 6.1 78 3
18 13.1 14 1.4 6.4 111 28
Page 28 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (10/25/07)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (11/15/07)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (10/25/07)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (11/15/07)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (9/10/07)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (9/10/07)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Figure A.1. T-DO Profiles
Page 29 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (12/13/07)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (12/13/07)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (1/23/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (1/23/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (3/11/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (3/11/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Figure A.2. T-DO Profiles
Page 30 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (4/15/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (4/15/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (5/14/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (5/14/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (6/18/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (6/18/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Figure A.3. T-DO Profiles
Page 31 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (7/16/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (7/16/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (8/22/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (8/22/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-1 (9/30/08)024681012141618200 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profile LP-2 (9/30/08)024681012140 5 10 15 20 25Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)Water Depth (m)Temp (°C)DO (mg/L)Figure A.4. T-DO Profiles
Page 32 Table A.15. Long Pond Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Levels at LP-1Depth (m) 9/10/2007 10/25/2007 11/15/2007 12/13/2007 1/23/2008 3/11/2008 4/15/2008 5/14/2008 6/18/2008 7/16/2008 8/22/2008 9/30/20080 0.033 0.002 0.016 0.015 0.008 0.010 0.019 0.030 0.023 0.007 0.011 0.0082 0.023 0.003 0.021 0.013 0.011 0.009 0.014 0.029 0.018 0.009 0.013 0.0104 0.033 0.004 0.021 0.020 0.015 0.008 0.016 0.027 0.016 0.008 0.010 0.0086 0.038 0.002 0.015 0.016 0.014 0.013 0.020 0.031 0.018 0.007 0.015 0.0108 0.020 0.002 0.015 0.026 0.014 0.013 0.017 0.030 0.016 0.007 0.014 0.00810 0.028 0.010 0.014 0.018 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.030 0.019 0.010 0.011 0.00712 0.023 0.003 0.014 0.020 0.014 0.013 0.019 0.027 0.020 0.009 0.015 0.01014 0.065 0.010 0.009 0.023 0.015 0.011 0.016 0.031 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.00716 0.109 0.023 0.015 0.023 0.015 0.014 0.019 0.027 0.020 0.009 0.016 0.00518 0.225 0.002 0.023 0.024 0.013 0.014 0.020 0.026 0.019 0.014 0.018 0.007Duplicate None None 0.008 0.028 None None None 0.030 None None None NoneDepth of Dup.(m) N/A N/A 6 8 N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A N/ATable A.16. Long Pond Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L) Levels at LP-1Depth (m) 9/10/2007 10/25/2007 11/15/2007 12/13/2007 1/23/2008 3/11/2008 4/15/2008 5/14/2008 6/18/2008 7/16/2008 8/22/2008 9/30/20080 0.023 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.008 0.005 0.009 0.010 0.006 0.009 0.0052 0.023 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.009 0.0034 0.030 0.003 0.001 0.006 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.010 0.013 0.004 0.008 0.0026 0.025 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.004 0.010 0.0038 0.018 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.008 0.013 0.001 0.011 0.011 0.004 0.009 0.00310 0.013 0.010 0.001 0.006 0.008 0.013 0.007 0.013 0.011 0.006 0.008 0.00512 <0.010 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.013 0.001 0.013 0.013 0.006 0.011 0.00714 0.015 0.002 0.001 0.009 0.009 0.011 0.003 0.014 0.013 0.008 0.011 0.00216 0.026 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.005 0.014 0.010 0.006 0.014 0.00518 0.065 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.005 0.013 0.010 0.008 0.015 0.005Duplicate None None 0.005 0.006 None None None 0.013 None None None NoneDepth of Dup.(m) N/A N/A 6 8 N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 33 Table A.17. Long Pond Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Levels at LP-2Depth (m) 9/10/2007 10/25/2007 11/15/2007 12/13/2007 1/23/2008 3/11/2008 4/15/2008 5/14/2008 6/18/2008 7/16/2008 8/22/2008 9/30/20080 0.028 0.003 0.014 0.016 0.009 0.014 0.029 0.031 0.020 0.017 0.003 0.0032 0.025 0.018 0.013 0.018 0.008 0.013 0.029 0.031 0.020 0.018 0.005 0.0034 0.025 0.002 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.011 0.030 0.029 0.023 0.018 0.004 0.0076 0.020 0.005 0.019 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.031 0.029 0.018 0.014 0.004 0.0058 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.027 0.026 0.015 0.018 0.003 0.00310 0.023 0.002 0.009 0.023 0.014 0.013 0.036 0.027 0.020 0.020 0.003 0.00312 0.028 0.003 0.010 0.019 0.014 0.014 0.031 0.027 0.022 0.016 0.008 0.00214 0.100 0.002 0.009 0.019 0.014 0.014 0.029 0.029 0.023 0.059 0.013 0.007Duplicate None0.023None None 0.014 0.013 0.029 None 0.020 0.016 None NoneDepth of Dup.(m) N/A2N/A N/A 4 4 2 N/A 6 6 N/A N/ABlank(Distilled) None None None None 0.015 0.004 0.033 0.026 0.002 0.002 None NoneBlank (DI water)None None None None None None None 0.027 None None None NoneTable A.18. Long Pond Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L) Levels at LP-2Depth (m) 9/10/2007 10/25/2007 11/15/2007 12/13/2007 1/23/2008 3/11/2008 4/15/2008 5/14/2008 6/18/2008 7/16/2008 8/22/2008 9/30/20080 0.018 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.011 0.010 0.014 0.001 0.0032 0.023 0.020 0.005 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.014 0.005 0.0024 0.028 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.016 0.001 0.0036 0.020 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.011 0.005 0.0058 0.015 0.013 0.001 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.007 0.011 0.007 0.013 0.001 0.00310 0.023 0.001 0.001 0.010 0.009 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.010 0.016 0.001 0.00312 0.018 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.012 0.003 0.00214 0.025 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.005 0.013 0.008 0.024 0.005 0.005Duplicate None 0.023 None None 0.009 0.009 0.004 None 0.007 0.013 None NoneDepth of Dup.(m) N/A 2 N/A N/A 4 4 2 N/A 6 6 N/A N/ABlank(Distilled) None None None None 0.010 0.002 0.007 0.010 0.001 0.001 None 0.005Blank (DI water) None None None None None None None 0.011 None None None None
Page 34
Appendix B: Plant and Mollusk Data
0
1
2
3
4
Bg
Ec
Ea
Fg
Ld
Nf
Ni
Ppt
Prob
Sg
Va
S
C
G
M
N
T
S
M
D
Plant Cover or Biovolume
Sediment
Mussels
None
Plant Species
76-100%
51-75%
26-50%
1-25%
Filamentous green algae
Eleocharis acicularis
Elodea canadensis
Blue-green algal mats
Potamogeton pusillus var. tenuissimus
Nitella sp
Najas flexilis
Lobelia dortmanna
Sand
Vallisneria americana
Sagitaria graminea
Potamogeton robbinsii
>10/field
5-10/field
2-4/field
1/field
None
Muck
Gravel
Cobble
Page 35
Transect Depth (ft) Substrate
8/24/2007 8/21/2008 8/24/2007 8/21/2008 8/24/2007 8/21/2008 8/24/2007 8/21/2008
A 0-5 C/S/G N T 1 2 1 1 Ec, Ea Ppt, Ea, Prob, Sg, Va, Nf
5-10 S/G/M N S 4 4 1 1 Nf, Ea, Sg, Va Nf, Ea, Sg
10-15 S S S 0 1 0 1 Nf
15-20 S S S 1 1 1 1 Nf Nf
20-25 S S S 0 0 0 0
25-30 S T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
35-40 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
B 0-5 S N S 1 1 1 1 Ea Ea, Va
5-10 S S S 1 1 1 1 Nf, Va, Ppt Nf, Ni, Ppt
10-15 S S S 4 3 1 1 Nf, Va, Ppt Nf, Ni, Ppt
15-20 S S T 0 1 0 1 Nf
20-25 S T T 0 1 0 1 Nf
25-30 S T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S N N 0 0 0 0
35-40 S N N 0 0 0 0
C0-5STT1111Ec, Ld Ld
5-10 C/S N T 0 1 0 1 Va, Sg, Ld
10-15 S S S 1 1 1 1 Va, Ld Va, Nf
15-20 S S T 0 0 0 0
20-25 S S S 0 0 0 0
25-30 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
30-35 M/S N N 1 1 1 1 Bg Bg
35-40 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
D0-5C/SNT0000
5-10 S N T 4 3 1 1 Nf Nf
10-15 S M M 4 4 1 1 Nf, Ppt Nf
15-20 S S S 0 1 0 1 Nf
20-25 S S T 1 1 1 1 Nf Nf
25-30 S/M T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
35-40 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
E0-5C/SNN0000
5-10 C/S N N 3 2 1 1 Ea, Ppt, Nf, Va Ea, Ppt, Nf
10-15 S M M 0 0 0 0
15-20 S M M 0 0 0 0
20-25 S M M 0 0 0 0
25-30 S/M T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
35-40 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
F0-5S/CNN0101 Ea
5-10 S M M 1 1 1 1 Nf Nf, Va, Ea
10-15 S T T 1 3 1 1 Ec Nf, Ppt
15-20 S M M 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni
20-25 S S S 0 0 0 0
25-30 S/M T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
35-40 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
G0-5S/CNN0000
5-10 S/C N N 1 2 1 1 Nf Nf, Va, Sg, Ld, Ea
10-15 S S S 1 3 1 1 Nf, Ps Nf, Ps
15-20 S M M 0 1 0 1 Nf
20-25 S/C M M 1 1 1 1 Nf Nf
25-30 S/C S S 1 1 1 1 Nf Nf
30-35 S/C T T 0 0 0 0
35-40 S/C/M N N 0 0 0 0
H0-5SNN0101
5-10 S S T 3 1 1 1 Ea Ea, Sg
10-15 S N S 4 1 1 1 Nf, Ld, Ea Ppt
15-20 S T S 1 1 1 1 Nf Ppt
20-25 S/M S T 1 1 1 1 Nf Nf, Ni
25-30 S/M T N 1 0 1 0 Ni Nf, Ni
30-35 S/M N N 1 0 1 0 Bg Ni
35-40 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
Mussels Plant Cover Plant Biovolume Plant Species
Page 36
Transect Depth (ft) Substrate
8/24/2007 8/21/2008 8/24/2007 8/21/2008 8/24/2007 8/21/2008 8/24/2007 8/21/2008
I 0-5 C/S N T 2 2 1 1 Ea Ea
5-10 S N M 4 2 1 1 Ld, Nf, Ea, Ppt Ld, Nf, Ea, Ppt, Ni
10-15 S N N 4 4 1 1 Nf, Ppt Ni, Nf, Ld, Ppt
15-20 S T N 3 4 1 1 Ni Ni
20-25 S S N 1 4 1 1 Bg Ni
25-30 M/S N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
30-35 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
35-40
J 0-5 S N N 4 0 1 0 Ea, Va
5-10 S S S 1 1 1 1 Ld, Sg, Ea, Va Ld, Nf, Ea, Ppt, Ni
10-15 S/M S T 1 0 1 0 Ni
15-20 S/M M M 0 1 0 1 Ni
20-25 S/M T S 0 1 0 1 Ppt, Ni
25-30
30-35
35-40
K 0-5 S/C N N 3 3 1 1 Ea, Ld Ea, Ppt, Ld
5-10 S T T 3 3 1 1 Ea Ea, Ppt, Sg
10-15 S S M 0 1 0 1 Va
15-20 S S M 1 2 1 1 Ni Ni, Ppt
20-25 S T S 0 1 0 1 Ni
25-30 S/M N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
30-35
35-40
L0-5C/SNT0101 Ea
5-10 C/S S T 3 1 1 1 Nf, Ea Nf, Ea, Ppt
10-15 S T S 1 1 1 1 Ppt Ppt
15-20 S T S 1 1 1 1 Ppt Ppt
20-25 S T S 0 0 0 0
25-30 S T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M/C N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
35-40 M/S/C N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
M 0-5 C/S N N 1 1 1 1 Ea Ea
5-10 C/S T T 3 1 1 1 Va, Nf, Ec Ea, Ppt, Va
10-15 C/S S S 0 1 0 1 Ppt, Va, Ni
15-20 C/S S S 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni
20-25 S S S 0 0 0 0
25-30 S T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M/G N N 0 0 0 0
35-40 S/M/G N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
N 0-5 C/S N S 3 1 1 1 Ea, Sg Ea, Va, Sg
5-10 C/S T S 3 1 1 1 Va, Ea, Sg Va, Ea, Sg
10-15 S T T 1 1 1 1 Ni, Va Ni, Va
15-20 S T T 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni
20-25 S T T 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni
25-30 S T T 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
35-40 M/S N N 0 0 0 0
O0-5SST2010Fg Ea, Va
5-10 S S T 1 1 1 1 Ea, Nf, Va, Sg Bg
10-15 S S T 1 1 1 1 Ni Bg
15-20 S T T 1 1 1 1 Ni Bg
20-25 S T T 0 1 0 1 Bg
25-30 S N N 0 0 0 0
30-35 S/M N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
35-40 S/M N N 0 0 0 0
P 0-5 C/S/G N T 0 1 0 1 Ea, Va, Ppt
5-10 S S T 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni, Ppt, Va
10-15 S S T 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni, Ppt
15-20 S S T 1 1 1 1 Ni Ni
20-25 S S T 1 1 1 1 Fg Ni
25-30 S T T 0 1 0 1 Ni
30-35 S/M N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
35-40 S/M N N 1 0 1 0 Bg
Mussels Plant Cover Plant Biovolume Plant Species
Page 37
Appendix C: Phytoplankton Data
Page 38 LONG POND PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITY (CELLS/ML) 131212121212121212121212TAXON 09/10/07 09/13/07 10/25/07 10/25/07 11/12/07 11/12/07 12/13/07 12/13/07 01/23/08 01/23/08 03/11/08 03/11/08 04/15/08 04/15/08 05/11/08 05/11/08 06/18/08 06/18/08 07/16/08 07/16/08 08/22/08 08/22/08 09/30/08 09/30/08BACILLARIOPHYTACentric DiatomsAulacoseira100 108 189 72 432 272 60 60 0 0 56 56 120 24 68 70 0 0 20 0 0 0 90 140Cyclotella0000000000000120000000000Stephanodiscus0001888015000140000000000010Urosolenia0180008002821141415000003044361300Araphid Pennate DiatomsAsterionella170 153 45 18 0 16 132 270 1848 1813 4060 2800 6330 4608 170 105 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 40Synedra0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 287 112 98 90 84 17 7 0 0 0 0 36 78 75 60Tabellaria370 189 45 54 0 24 24 135 112 133 462 322 2145 2400 255 154 285 187 80 231 252 130 495 180Monoraphid Pennate DiatomsAchnanthidium/related taxa0000000000000000000110000Biraphid Pennate DiatomsCymbella/related taxa0000000000000000000018000Gomphonema/related taxa0000001200000000000000000Gyrosigma000080000000000000000000Navicula/related taxa0000000000000007000000010Nitzschia40 54 18 9 0 0 0 30 7 7 28 28 30 144 0 7 19 34 10 11 36 39 15 10CHLOROPHYTAFlagellated ChlorophytesCoccoid/Colonial ChlorophytesAnkistrodesmus0 0 36 18 304 168 48 75 56 42 56 56 90 48 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 15 10Chlorococcum0 0 36 18 80 24 84 75 112 133 140 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Closteriopsis0000000000001504800000036131510Dictyosphaerium1201080000000000000000000000Elakatothrix0000240000000000000000131510Franceia10000000000000000000000150Golenkinia090000000000000000000000Oocystis03600000000006000000000000Scenedesmus40 36 36 36 64 160 24 120 112 56 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 34 20 22 0 0 30 0Schroederia00000060600000000000000000Tetraedron0000000000014000000000000Treubaria30000000000000000000018000Filamentous ChlorophytesDesmidsCosmarium10900000000000120000000000Mougeotia/Debarya0000000000000000000018263020Staurodesmus0090801215141400000000000000CHRYSOPHYTAFlagellated Classic ChrysophytesChrysococcus0 0 0 0 0 0 360 675 84 56 224 168 375 180 0 0 114 68 0 0 0 0 0 0Chrysosphaerella25017136810000000003600000036136020Dinobryon110 72 1512 783 88 104 204 120 70 217 238 252 300 204 0 0 266 680 110 132 144 208 240 130Mallomonas109000000000000000000006020Non-Motile Classic ChrysophytesHaptophytesTribophytes/EustigmatophytesCentritractus10 9 9 9 24 8 0 30 21 7 14 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 13 15 0RaphidophytesCRYPTOPHYTACYANOPHYTAUnicellular and Colonial FormsAphanocapsa0000000000000000000072026000Gomphosphaeria0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 570 510 1200 1980 3240 780 0 0Filamentous Nitrogen FixersAnabaena6000000000000000005130000000Aphanizomenon1800 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Filamentous Non-Nitrogen FixersPlanktolyngbya30000 12060 1620 1620 960 640 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 660 6840 7540 600 200Pseudanabaena3300 2700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0EUGLENOPHYTATrachelomonas 1099988120070140000000018131520PYRRHOPHYTAPeridinium0 36 36 63 32 8 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 17 70 33 18 26 45 40
Page 39 LONG POND PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITY (CELLS/ML) 13121212121212121212121209/10/07 09/13/07 10/25/07 10/25/07 11/12/07 11/12/07 12/13/07 12/13/07 01/23/08 01/23/08 03/11/08 03/11/08 04/15/08 04/15/08 05/11/08 05/11/08 06/18/08 06/18/08 07/16/08 07/16/08 08/22/08 08/22/08 09/30/08 09/30/08DENSITY (CELLS/ML) SUMMARYBACILLARIOPHYTA 680 522 297 171 448 328 228 510 2163 2261 4732 3332 8730 7272 510 350 304 221 150 297 378 260 675 450 Centric Diatoms100 126 189 90 440 288 60 75 28 21 70 84 135 36 68 70 0 0 50 44 36 13 90 150 Araphid Pennate Diatoms540 342 90 72 0 40 156 405 2128 2233 4634 3220 8565 7092 442 266 285 187 90 231 288 208 570 280 Monoraphid Pennate Diatoms0000000000000000000110000 Biraphid Pennate Diatoms405418 9 8 01230 7 7282830144 0141934101154391520CHLOROPHYTA 210 198 117 72 480 352 228 345 294 245 196 112 300 108 68 0 0 34 30 33 72 52 120 50 Flagellated Chlorophytes000000000000000000000000 Coccoid/Colonial Chlorophytes200 189 108 72 472 352 216 330 280 231 196 112 300 96 68 0 0 34 30 33 54 26 90 30 Filamentous Chlorophytes000000000000000000000000 Desmids1099080121514140001200000018263020CHRYSOPHYTA 380 261 1557 873 112 112 564 825 175 280 476 448 675 420 0 0 380 748 110 132 198 234 375 170 Flagellated Classic Chrysophytes370 252 1548 864 88 104 564 795 154 273 462 420 675 420 0 0 380 748 110 132 180 221 360 170 Non-Motile Classic Chrysophytes000000000000000000000000 Haptophytes000000000000000000000000 Tribophytes/Eustigmatophytes10 9 9 9 24 8 0 30 21 7 14 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 13 15 0 Raphidophytes000000000000000000000000CRYPTOPHYTA 000000000000000000000000CYANOPHYTA 35700 15390 1620 1620 960 640 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1083 510 1500 2640 10800 8580 600 200 Unicellular and Colonial Forms0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 570 510 1200 1980 3960 1040 0 0 Filamentous Nitrogen Fixers2400 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Filamentous Non-Nitrogen Fixers33300 14760 1620 1620 960 640 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 660 6840 7540 600 200EUGLENOPHYTA 1099988120070140000000018131520PYRRHOPHYTA 0 36 36 63 32 8 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 17 70 33 18 26 45 40TOTAL 36980 16416 3636 2808 2040 1448 1056 2280 2632 2793 5404 3906 9705 7800 578 350 1786 1530 1860 3135 11484 9165 1830 930CELL DIVERSITY 0.34 0.43 0.56 0.55 0.69 0.73 0.88 0.89 0.54 0.58 0.44 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.58 0.56 0.68 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.49 0.33 0.86 0.99CELL EVENNESS 0.27 0.33 0.49 0.48 0.62 0.66 0.79 0.77 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.83 0.71 0.81 0.69 0.52 0.50 0.41 0.28 0.70 0.80NUMBER OF TAXABACILLARIOPHYTA 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 7 6 6 4 6 2 2 5 4 5 4 4 7 Centric Diatoms121223121123221100211112 Araphid Pennate Diatoms222202223333333311212223 Monoraphid Pennate Diatoms000000000000000000010000 Biraphid Pennate Diatoms111110111111110211112112CHLOROPHYTA 554353554423331001223364 Flagellated Chlorophytes000000000000000000000000 Coccoid/Colonial Chlorophytes443343443323321001222253 Filamentous Chlorophytes000000000000000000000000 Desmids111010111100010000001111CHRYSOPHYTA 443322233333230022113343 Flagellated Classic Chrysophytes332211222222230022112233 Non-Motile Classic Chrysophytes000000000000000000000000 Haptophytes000000000000000000000000 Tribophytes/Eustigmatophytes111111011111000000001110 Raphidophytes000000000000000000000000CRYPTOPHYTA 000000000000000000000000CYANOPHYTA 441111010000000021223311 Unicellular and Colonial Forms010000000000000011112200 Filamentous Nitrogen Fixers210000000000000010000000 Filamentous Non-Nitrogen Fixers221111010000000000111111EUGLENOPHYTA 111111100101000000001111PYRRHOPHYTA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1TOTAL 1820141413131314121311141112 5 6 7 7111016151717
Page 40 PHYTOPLANKTON BIOMASS (UG/L) 131212121212121212121212TAXON 09/10/07 09/13/07 10/25/07 10/25/07 11/12/07 11/12/07 12/13/07 12/13/07 01/23/08 01/23/08 03/11/08 03/11/08 04/15/08 04/15/08 05/11/08 05/11/08 06/18/08 06/18/08 07/16/08 07/16/08 08/22/08 08/22/08 09/30/08 09/30/08BACILLARIOPHYTACentric DiatomsAulacoseira30.0 32.4 56.7 21.6 129.6 81.6 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 16.8 36.0 7.2 20.4 21.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 42.0Cyclotella0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Stephanodiscus0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0Urosolenia0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 33.6 25.2 16.8 16.8 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 52.8 43.2 15.6 0.0 0.0Araphid Pennate DiatomsAsterionella34.0 30.6 9.0 3.6 0.0 3.2 26.4 54.0 369.6 362.6 812.0 560.0 1266.0 921.6 34.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0Synedra0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 134.4 229.6 89.6 78.4 72.0 67.2 13.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.8 62.4 60.0 48.0Tabellaria296.0 151.2 36.0 43.2 0.0 19.2 19.2 108.0 89.6 106.4 369.6 257.6 1716.0 1920.0 204.0 123.2 228.0 149.6 64.0 184.8 201.6 104.0 396.0 144.0Monoraphid Pennate DiatomsAchnanthidium/related taxa0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Biraphid Pennate DiatomsCymbella/related taxa0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gomphonema/related taxa0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gyrosigma0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Navicula/related taxa0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0Nitzschia32.0 43.2 14.4 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 5.6 5.6 22.4 22.4 24.0 115.2 0.0 5.6 15.2 27.2 8.0 8.8 28.8 31.2 12.0 8.0CHLOROPHYTAFlagellated ChlorophytesCoccoid/Colonial ChlorophytesAnkistrodesmus0.0 0.0 3.6 1.8 30.4 16.8 4.8 7.5 5.6 4.2 5.6 5.6 9.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0Chlorococcum0.0 0.0 3.6 1.8 8.0 2.4 8.4 7.5 11.2 13.3 14.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Closteriopsis0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 6.5 7.5 5.0Dictyosphaerium12.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Elakatothrix0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.5 1.0Franceia1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0Golenkinia0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Oocystis0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Scenedesmus4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 6.4 16.0 2.4 12.0 11.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0Schroederia0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Tetraedron0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Treubaria6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0Filamentous ChlorophytesDesmidsCosmarium8.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Mougeotia/Debarya0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 26.0 30.0 20.0Staurodesmus0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 4.8 0.0 7.2 9.0 8.4 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0CHRYSOPHYTAFlagellated Classic ChrysophytesChrysococcus0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 67.5 8.4 5.6 22.4 16.8 37.5 18.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Chrysosphaerella100.0 68.4 14.4 32.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 5.2 24.0 8.0Dinobryon330.0 216.0 4536.0 2349.0 264.0 312.0 612.0 360.0 210.0 651.0 714.0 756.0 900.0 612.0 0.0 0.0 798.0 2040.0 330.0 396.0 432.0 624.0 720.0 390.0Mallomonas5.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 10.0Non-Motile Classic ChrysophytesHaptophytesTribophytes/EustigmatophytesCentritractus1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.6 1.2 0.0 4.5 3.2 1.1 2.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.0 2.3 0.0RaphidophytesCRYPTOPHYTACYANOPHYTAUnicellular and Colonial FormsAphanocapsa0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 2.6 0.0 0.0Gomphosphaeria0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.1 12.0 19.8 32.4 7.8 0.0 0.0Filamentous Nitrogen FixersAnabaena120.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Aphanizomenon234.0 35.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Filamentous Non-Nitrogen FixersPlanktolyngbya300.0 120.6 16.2 16.2 9.6 6.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.6 68.4 75.4 6.0 2.0Pseudanabaena33.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0EUGLENOPHYTATrachelomonas 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 13.0 15.0 20.0PYRRHOPHYTAPeridinium0.0 847.8 461.7 132.3 67.2 16.8 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 855.0 35.7 1434.0 69.3 37.8 54.6 94.5 84.0
Page 41 PHYTOPLANKTON BIOMASS (UG/L) 13121212121212121212121209/10/07 09/13/07 10/25/07 10/25/07 11/12/07 11/12/07 12/13/07 12/13/07 01/23/08 01/23/08 03/11/08 03/11/08 04/15/08 04/15/08 05/11/08 05/11/08 06/18/08 06/18/08 07/16/08 07/16/08 08/22/08 08/22/08 09/30/08 09/30/08BIOMASS (UG/ML) SUMMARYBACILLARIOPHYTA 392.0 279.0 116.1 77.4 156.0 114.4 75.6 205.5 632.8 729.4 1327.2 953.4 3132.0 3032.4 272.0 179.9 243.2 176.8 116.0 247.5 320.4 213.2 495.0 256.0 Centric Diatoms30.0 54.0 56.7 23.4 130.4 92.0 18.0 19.5 33.6 25.2 33.6 35.0 54.0 8.4 20.4 21.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 52.8 43.2 15.6 27.0 43.0 Araphid Pennate Diatoms330.0 181.8 45.0 46.8 0.0 22.4 45.6 162.0 593.6 698.6 1271.2 896.0 3054.0 2908.8 251.6 149.8 228.0 149.6 66.0 184.8 230.4 166.4 456.0 200.0 Monoraphid Pennate Diatoms0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Biraphid Pennate Diatoms32.0 43.2 14.4 7.2 25.6 0.0 12.0 24.0 5.6 5.6 22.4 22.4 24.0 115.2 0.0 9.1 15.2 27.2 8.0 8.8 46.8 31.2 12.0 13.0CHLOROPHYTA 31.0 37.8 16.2 7.2 52.0 35.2 172.8 186.0 36.4 31.5 19.6 18.2 108.0 38.4 6.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.0 3.3 39.6 33.8 45.0 27.0 Flagellated Chlorophytes0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coccoid/Colonial Chlorophytes23.0 30.6 10.8 7.2 47.2 35.2 165.6 177.0 28.0 23.1 19.6 18.2 108.0 28.8 6.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.0 3.3 21.6 7.8 15.0 7.0 Filamentous Chlorophytes0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Desmids8.0 7.2 5.4 0.0 4.8 0.0 7.2 9.0 8.4 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 26.0 30.0 20.0CHRYSOPHYTA 436.5 290.3 4551.8 2382.8 267.6 313.2 648.0 432.0 221.6 657.7 738.5 777.0 937.5 644.4 0.0 0.0 809.4 2046.8 330.0 396.0 449.1 631.2 776.3 408.0 Flagellated Classic Chrysophytes435.0 288.9 4550.4 2381.4 264.0 312.0 648.0 427.5 218.4 656.6 736.4 772.8 937.5 644.4 0.0 0.0 809.4 2046.8 330.0 396.0 446.4 629.2 774.0 408.0 Non-Motile Classic Chrysophytes0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Haptophytes0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tribophytes/Eustigmatophytes1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.6 1.2 0.0 4.5 3.2 1.1 2.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.0 2.3 0.0 Raphidophytes0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0CRYPTOPHYTA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0CYANOPHYTA 687.0 186.3 16.2 16.2 9.6 6.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.3 5.1 15.0 26.4 108.0 85.8 6.0 2.0 Unicellular and Colonial Forms0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.1 12.0 19.8 39.6 10.4 0.0 0.0 Filamentous Nitrogen Fixers354.0 35.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Filamentous Non-Nitrogen Fixers333.0 147.6 16.2 16.2 9.6 6.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.6 68.4 75.4 6.0 2.0EUGLENOPHYTA 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 13.0 15.0 20.0PYRRHOPHYTA 0.0 847.8 461.7 132.3 67.2 16.8 50.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 855.0 35.7 1434.0 69.3 37.8 54.6 94.5 84.0TOTAL 1556.5 1650.2 5171.0 2624.9 560.4 494.0 958.8 829.5 890.8 1425.6 2085.3 1762.6 4177.5 3715.2 278.8 179.9 2015.9 2267.8 1898.0 742.5 972.9 1031.6 1431.8 797.0BIOMASS DIVERSITY 0.91 0.78 0.22 0.22 0.69 0.58 0.58 0.77 0.71 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.60 0.56 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.19 0.35 0.57 0.82 0.65 0.65 0.74BIOMASS EVENNESS 0.73 0.60 0.19 0.20 0.62 0.52 0.52 0.67 0.65 0.57 0.59 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.57 0.59 0.62 0.22 0.34 0.57 0.68 0.55 0.53 0.60