U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
DER CREEK RESERVOIR
FAYETTE AND PICKAWAY COUNTIES
OHIO
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 398
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&GPO 697.032
-------
REPORT
ON
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
FAYETTE AND PICWWAY COUNTIES
OHIO
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 398
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE
OHIO NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE., 1975
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Ohio Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 13
VI. Appendices 14
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs..
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)]s clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b}] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
111
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multlvariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency for professional involvement, to the Ohio National Guard
for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to
those Ohio wastewater treatment plant operators who provided
effluent samples and flow data.
Ned Williams, Director, and Tom Birch, Ken Carr, Larry
Dietrick, Ron Havlice, Larry Korecko, Rod Mehlhop, Terry Wheeler,
and John Youger, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, provided
invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the Survey,
reviewed the preliminary reports, and provided critiques most
useful 1n the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General Dana L. Stewart, then the Adjutant General
of Ohio, and Project Officer Lt. Colonel Robert C. Timmons,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Ohio National Guards-
men, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to
the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF OHIO
LAKE NAME
Atwood
Beach City
Berlin
Buckeye
Charles Mill
Deer Creek
Delaware
Dillon
Grand Lake of St. Marys
Grant
Holiday
Hoover
Indian
Loramie
Mosquito Creek
O'Shaughnessy
Pymatuning
Pleasant Hill
Rocky Fork
Shawnee
Tappan
COUNTY
Carroll, Tuscarawas
Stark, Tuscarawas
Mahoning, Portage, Stark
Fairfield, Licking, Perry
Ashland, Richland
Fayette, Pickaway
Delaware
Muskingum
Auglaize, Mercer
Brown
Huron
Delaware
Logan
Auglaize
Trumbull
Delaware
Ashtabula, OH; Crawford, PA
Ashland,
Highland
Greene
Harrison
Franklin
Shelby
OH; Crawford,
Richland
-------
39°SO—
DEER CREEK
RESERVOIR
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject To Inundation
0245
i i i i i i i i
Scale
4M1.
39°«—
83°30'
83°20'
-------
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 3906
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Deer Creek Reservoir is eutrophic.
It ranked ninth in overall trophic quality when the 20 Ohio lakes
sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination of six parameters*.
Nine of the lakes had less median total phosphorus, 17 had less
median dissolved phosphorus, 18 had less median inorganic nitro-
gen, seven had greater mean Secchi disc transparency, but only
one had less mean chlorophyll a_. Marked depression of dissolved
oxygen with depth occurred at station 1 in August and October.
Field limnologists noted algal blooms at all stations during
the spring sampling (April, 1973).
It is reported that suspension of colloidal clay is a problem
in this reservoir (Ketelle and Uttormark, 1971).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate the reservoir was phosphorus
limited at the time the sample was collected (04/28/73). The lake
data indicate phosphorus limitation at the other sampling times
as well.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—During the sampling year, Deer Creek Reser-
voir received a total phosphorus load more than four times that
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as a
eutrophic loading1(see page 12). The actual loading may even
be somewhat higher since conservative estimates were made of
the phosphorus contributions of the two Deer Creek State Park
wastewater treatment plants because of uncertainty as to pop-
ulations served. Also, no assessment was made of the probable
direct phosphorus contributions resulting from the heavy
recreational use of the reservoir.
It is estimated that the known point sources contributed
nearly 37% of the total phosphorus load during the sampling year.
While even complete removal of phosphorus at the point sources
would still leave a loading more than two times the eutrophic
loading, it is likely that a high degree of phosphorus removal
would at least reduce the incidence and severity of nuisance
algal blooms, particularly in view of the rather short mean
hydraulic retention time of the reservoir and the questionable
applicability of Vollenweider's model.
2. Non-point sources—The non-point phosphorus contributions
of the Deer Creek Reservoir tributaries amounted to about 63% of
the total phosphorus load during the sampling year. However, the
phosphorus export rates of the streams were relatively low (see
page 11) and compare well with unimpacted Ohio streams sampled
elsewhere.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
ft
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 5.17 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 5.0 meters.
3. Maximum depth: >10.4 meters.
4. Volume: 25.850 x 10s m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 42 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Deer Creek 613.8 6.1
Duffs Fork 32.4 0.3
Clark Run 16.7 0.2
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 49.3 0.6
Totals 712.2 7.2
2. Outlet -
Deer Creek 717.4** 7.2
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 110.8 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 98.4 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
ft Youger, 1975.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Deer Creek Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1973 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. During
the April and October visits, samples for physical and chemical param-
eters were collected from three stations on the lake and from one or
more depths at each station {see map, page v). Only stations 1 and 2
were sampled in August because of low water levels. During each visit,
a single depth-integrated {4.6 m or near bottom to surface) sample was
composited from the sampled stations for phytoplankton identification
and enumeration; and during the April visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-
integrated sample was composited for algal assays. The maximum depths
sampled were 10.4 meters at station 1, 4.3 meters at station 2, and
1.2 meters at station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/LJ
CNOCTVY (MCROMOI
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (HG/L)
TOT P (HG/L)
OHTHO P (MG/L1
N02*N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/LI
INOHG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CMLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHJ (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 4/28/73)
3 SITES
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR
STORET CODE 3906
DEE« CREEK RESERVOIR
2ND SAMPLING ( 8/ 1/73)
2 SITES
3RD SAMPLING <10/10/731
3 SITES
RANGE
11.1
9.0
440.
7.9
164.
0.094
0.036
3.600
0.070
0.500
3.730
4.500
11.7
0.1
- 13.9
- 10.0
- 530.
8.3
- 204.
- 0.339
- 0.058
- 4.000
- 0.130
- 1.100
- 4.060
- 4.900
- 14.4
0.5
MEAN
13.1
9.3
496.
8.2
191.
0.149
0.04?
3.920
0.086
0.740
4.006
4.660
13.4
0.3
MEDIAN
13.4
9.2
500.
B.3
194.
0.112
0.039
4.000
0.080
0.600
4.070
4.600
14.2
0.4
RANGE
24.4
1.1
463.
7.8
174.
0.035
0.007
2.420
0.070
0.400
a. sio
3.000
8.0
0.9
- 26.9
- 10.2
- 520.
8.8
- 235.
- 0.103
- 0.016
- 2.960
- 0.200
- 0.700
- 3.040
- 3.600
9.9
1.2
MEAN
25.8
6.0
485.
8.3
193.
0.055
0.011
2.717
0.107
0.583
2.623
3.300
8.9
1.1
MEDIAN
23. 9
6.8
460.
8.2
186.
0.046
0.009
2.760
0.09S
0.600
2.905
3.310
8.9
1.1
RANGE
18.8
1.8
426.
7.6
191.
0.047
0.015
0.780
0.060
0.700
0.840
1.690
3.8
0.8
- 22.7
- 11. e
- 468.
6.6
- 226.
- 0.185
- 0.037
- 1.150
- 0.310
- 1.300
- 1.460
- 2.350
- 12.4
1.2
MEAN
20.4
S.6
450.
8.1
203,
0.088
0.027
0.990
0.139
0.986
1.129
1.976
7.0
1.0
MEDIAN
20.3
4.6
444.
8.1
199.
0.067
0.030
1.010
0.080
0.900
1.090
1.880
4.7
0.9
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
04/28/73
08/01/73
10/10/73
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
04/28/73
08/01/73
10/10/73
Dominant
Genera
1. Flagellates
2. Helosira s£.
3. Cryptomonas sp_.
4. Navicula sp.
5. Blue-green filaments
Other genera
Total
1. Flagellates
2. Cyclotella sp.
3. Melosira sp.
4. Euglena sp.
5. Nitzschia sp_.
Other genera
Total
1. Flagellates
2. Microcystis sp.
3. Raphidiopsis sp_.
4. Merismopedia sp_.
5. Centric diatoms
Other genera
Total
Station
Number^
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
03
Algal Units
per ml
5,411
1,915
4,939
2,120
1,552
1,180
1,180
5,484
16^455
Chlorophyll
(yg/1)
14.4
14.2
11.7
9.9
8.0
4.7
12.4
3.8
-------
7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control 0.024 3.732 5.9
0.050 P 0.074 3.732 22.3
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.074 4.732 21.1
1.0 N 0.024 4.732 6.3
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Deer Creek Reservoir was high at the time the sample was
collected. Also, the increased yield when orthophosphorus
was added indicates that the reservoir was phosphorus limited
at that time. Note that the addition of only nitrogen did
not result in a significant increase in yield as compared with
that of the control.
The reservoir data also indicate phosphorus limitation.
At all sampling times, the mean inorganic nitrogen to ortho-
phosphorus ratios were 42 to 1 or greater.
-------
8
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Ohio National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the high
runoff months of February and April when two samples were collected.
Sampling was begun in May, 1973, and was completed in April, 1974.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the Ohio District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were deter-
mined by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings*. Nutrient loads shown are
those measured minus point-source loads, if any.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("II" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the means of the
nutrient loads, in kg/km2/year, at stations B-l and C-l and multiply-
ing the means by the II area in km2.
The operator of the Mount Sterling wastewater treatment plant
provided monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data. The
operators of London and Deer Creek State Park plants did not parti-
cipate in the Survey, and nutrient loads were estimated at 1.134 kg P
and 3.401 kg N/capita/year.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Name
Pop.
Served
1,536
Mount j.
SterlingT
Londontt 6,815
Deer Creek** 75
State Park (N)
Deer Creek** 50
State Park (SE)
Mean Flow
Treatment
act. sludge 701.9
act. sludge 2,579.5*
act. sludge 28.4*
act. sludge
2. Known industrial - None
18.9*
Receiving
Water
Deer Creek
Oak Run
Deer Creek Res.
Deer Creek Res.
t Maddux, 1973.
tt Birch, 1973.
* Estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
** Birch, 1975.
-------
10
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Deer Creek 15,700 54.8
Duffs Fork 670 2.4
Clark Run 465 1.6
b. Minor tributaries & inmediate
drainage (non-point load) - 1,195 4.2
c. Known municipal STP's -
Mount Sterling 2,645 9.2
London 7,730 27.0
Deer Creek State Park
(combined plants) 140 0.5
d. Septic tanks - Unknown
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - % 0.3
Total 28,635 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Deer Creek 22,850
3. Net annual P accumulation - 5,785 kg.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Deer Creek 609,805 80.7
Duffs Fork 38,325 5.1
Clark Run 18,605 2.5
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 56,620 7.5
c. Known municipal STP's -
Mount Sterling 3,000 0.4
London 23,180 3.1
Deer Creek State Park
(combined plants) 425 <0.1
d. Septic tanks - Unknown
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 5,580 0.7
Total 755,540 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Deer Creek 796,410
3. Net annual N loss - 40,870 kg.
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Deer Creek 26 993
Duffs Fork 21 1 ,183
Clark Run 28 1,114
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
E. Yearly Loadings:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loadings
are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider {Vollenweider
and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his "dangerous" loading is one
at which the receiving water would become eutrophic or remain
eutrophic; his "permissible" loading is that which would result
in the receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligo-
trophic if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic loading would
be considered one between "dangerous" and "permissible".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
grams/m2/yr 5.54 1.12 146.1 loss*
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Deer Creek Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 1.28
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.64
* There was an apparent loss of nitrogen during the sampling year. This
may have been due to nitrogen fixation in the lake, solubilization of
previously sedimented nitrogen, recharge with nitrogen-rich ground water,
unknown and unsampled point sources discharging directly to the lake, or
underestimation of the nitrogen loads from the Deer Creek Park wastewater
treatment plants. Whatever the cause, a similar loss of nitrogen has
occurred at Shagawa Lake, Minnesota, which has been intensively studied
by EPA's National Eutrophication and Lake Restoration Branch (Malueg
et al., 1975).
-------
13
LITERATURE REVIEWED
Birch, Thomas J., 1973. Personal communication (waste sources),
OH Env. Prot. Agency, Columbus.
1975. Personal communication (Deer Creek Park
daily census record). OH Env. Prot. Agency, Columbus.
Ketelle, Martha J., and Paul D. Uttormark, 1971. Problem lakes in
the United States. EPA Water Poll. Contr. Res. Ser., Proj.
#16010 EHR, Washington, DC.
Maddux, Paul E., 1973. Treatment plant questionnaire (Mount Sterling
STP). Mount Sterling.
Malueg, Kenneth W., D. Phillips Larsen, Donald W. Schults, and
Howard T. Mercier; 1975. A six-year water, phosphorus, and
nitrogen budget for Shagawa Lake, Minnesota. Jour. Environ.
Qual., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 236-242.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research. Nat!.
Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
Youger, John, 1975. Personal communication (lake morphometry). OH
Env. Prot. Agency, Columbus.
-------
14
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
RANKED ev INDE* INOS.
SANK. LAKE CODE LAKE
NO
3 3*21
3 392<*
5 3914
6 393<«
7 3S27
a 3^32
9 3906
10 3901
11 3915
12 3907
13 3-J12
U 3^33
15 3930
16 3*05
17 3902
IS 390H
19 3917
20 3931
AT«UOL>
MOSQUITO CHEEK *
PLEASANT HILL LAKE
dcrfLlN RESERVOIR
HOOVER KESE^VOIf*
TAPPAN LAKE
LAKE SAINT HAKYS
HOCKY FOHK LAKE
OEER CfEEK KESERVOJR
BEACH CITY KtSERVOIH
INDIAN LAKE
DELAWARE RESERVOIR
GRANT LAKE
SMArfNEE LAKE
HOLIDAY LAKE
CHAtfLES MILL RESEHVOIH
dUCK£YE LAKt
MILLION RESEKVOIft
LORAMIE LAKE
0«$HAUGNESSt RESERVOIR
429
392
381
297
292
290
277
?6b
263
261
?49
220
216
207
206
178
173
-------
PE»CENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES
0)
13)
121
16)
MEDIAN
INORG N
21 (
76 (
63 (
5 <
16 <
32 (
58 (
26 (
76 (
37 <
100 (
68 (
95 (
d9 (
42 (
53 (
0 <
47 <
11 (
04 (
4)
14)
12)
1)
3)
6)
11)
51
14)
7)
19)
13)
IB)
17)
8)
10)
01
9)
2)
16)
500-
MEAN SEC
11 (
5 (
37 (
63 <
32 <
42 <
16 (
89 (
21 (
0 (
62 (
100 <
26 t
95 (
74 <
62 (
47 (
58 (
53 <
68 (
2)
1)
7)
12)
6)
8)
3)
17)
4)
0)
15)
19)
5)
181
14)
15)
9)
11)
10)
13)
MEAN
CriLORA
84 I
0 <
21 (
95 (
89 I
58 I
32 (
79 <
16 (
5 (
53 (
63 (
11 (
68 (
74 <
26 (
100 (
42 (
37 (
47 (
16)
0)
4)
18)
17)
11)
6)
Ib)
3)
1)
101
12)
2)
13)
14)
b)
19)
8)
7)
9)
MIN DO
82
89
11
63
47
S3
74
32
58
97
82
39
97
39
66
11
26
11
11
11
( 15)
< 17)
( 0)
( 12)
( 91
I 10)
( 14)
( 6)
( 11)
( 18)
1 Ib)
t 7)
< 18)
( 7)
( 13)
< 0)
( 5)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
MEDIAN
OISS 0*THO P
42 (
26 (
58 <
11 (
21 (
5 (
34 (
79 <
53 (
34 <
92 <
66 (
47 f
100 (
92 t
16 I
0 (
66 <
74 <
84 (
8)
5)
11)
2)
4)
1)
6)
Ib)
10)
6)
17)
12)
9)
19)
17)
3)
0)
12)
14)
Ito)
INDEX
MO
277
207
216
290
263
206
261
392
266
178
483
431
297
491
429
220
173
292
249
381
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
3901 BEACH CITY RESERVOIR
3902 BUCKEYE LAKE
3905 CHARLES MILL RESERVOIR
3906 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
3907 DELAWARE RESERVOIR
3906 DILLION RESERVOIR
3912 GRANT LAKE
3914 HOOVER RESERVOIR
3915 INDIAN LAKE
3917 LORAHIE LAKE
3921 MOSQUITO CREEK RESERVOIR
3924 PLEASANT HILL LAKE
3927 LAKE SAINT MARYS
3-928 ATWOOO RESERVOIR
3929 BERLIN RESERVOIR
3930 HOLIDAY LAKE
3931 O'SHAUGNESSY RESERVOIR
3932 ROCKY FORK LAKE
3933 SHArtNEE LAKE
3934 TAPPAN LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.122
0,179
0.127
0.098
0.086
0.163
0.113
0.0<»0
0.120
0.165
0.058
0.036
0.148
0.031
0.042
0.125
0.203
0.067
0.069
0.040
MEDIAN
INO*G N
1.490
0.380
0.465
2.980
2.340
1.590
0.570
1.640
0.380
1.380
0.150
0.455
0.200
0.205
0.900
0.575
3.070
0.790
2.380
0.230
500-
MEAN SEC
489.000
490.000
482.555
470.125
404.111
481.250
486.333
462.750
485.222
494.000
465.333
456.833
484.167
462.000
465.435
465,333
479.333
473.000
474.333
466.111
MEAN
CHLOKA
10.867
186.567
67.144
9.887
10.656
27.400
40.533
13.017
76.855
104.100
36.267
22.850
79.150
16.442
15.496
55.350
5.522
38.022
39.567
37.711
15-
MIN DO
11.600
9.600
15.000
13.900
14.500
14.300
12.200
14.800
14.200
a. 200
11.600
14.700
8.200
14.700
13.600
15.000
14.900
15.000
15.000
15.000
MEDIAN
OISS ORTriO P
O.Olb
0.020
0.011
0.036
0.024
0.037
0.019
0.008
0.012
0.019
O.OOb
0.010
0.014
0.005
0.006
0.034
0.159
0.010
0.009
0.007
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSIONS FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
-4
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
LAKE CODE 3906 OEEW CktLK
TOTAL DPAINAGE AKtA (jf LAKE (SO KM)
FLO* INFORMATION Fur* JnlU
717.'.
1/27/75
AWEAISU
717.4
613. a
16.7
JAN
11. /b
lu.n
O.ji
0.26
O.dtS
TOTAL
SUM OF
Ft.B
1?.91
10.93
QfC?,
u.31
l.uS
DRAINAGE
MAk
16.62
14. u5
O.d2
0.12
1.33
AriEA OF
A^K
13.39
11.33
0.65
0.34
1.08
LAKt =
iUd-C^AINAijt AKEAb =
MAT1
7.99
b.HO
0.37
o.ao
0.62
71 7.4
717.3
JO'M
b.04
4.36
0.21
0. 10
O.J7
bUMM
JUL
3.U3
2.61
0.13
0.07
0.23
rt JV
t\n i
AUG
2. 01
1.76
0.06
0.04
0.14
TOTAL FLO*
TOTAL FLOW
btP
1.61
1.44
0.05
0.03
0.10
IM
oo r =
OCT
1.61
1.44
0.06
0.03
0.10
H6.2
86^2
NOV
3.51
3.06
0.13
0.07
0.24
5
2
oec
6.74
b'.BO
0.2H
0.15
O.S1
MEAN
7.15
6.11
0.33
0.17
0.55
MEAN MONTHLY FLL>*S AND UAILY FLOW5(CMb)
TKIttUTAWr ^ONfH YLArt MEAN FLOW Out
390th A1
l-LOrt DAV
FLO* OAV
FLOn
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
4
10
11
12
1
3
4
7J
73
73
73
73
73
7j
73
7
-------
TRIallTAKY FLOw INFORMATION FOK OrtlO
L/27/75
LAKE CODE 3906
UEfK CREEK
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND OAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAK
3906B1
390bCl
3906Z2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
\2
1
2
3
i*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
a
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
MEAN FLOW OAY
0.48
0.14
0.62
0.28
0.01
0.13
0.37
O.faB
0.48
0.37
0.20
1.10
u.25
0.07
0.31
0.14
O.Ol
U.06
O.IH
0.45
0.24
0.19
0.10
O.S7
0.79
0.25
1.05
0.51
0.23
0.65
1.59
G.82
0.65
0.31
i.8i
5
9
15
11
15
21
10
9
12
12
9
5
5
9
15
11
15
21
10
9
12
12
9
5
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.05
0.13
0.06
U.71
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.42
0.51
0.45
0.34
4.59
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.37
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.27
0.23
0.17
2.35
23
26
23
28
0.15
(J.1B
U.08
0.09
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
LJATc.
. 0 OH3 U 02.0
DttW
oouio
DAfE
FROM
TU
73/04/2*
73/OS/01
73/10/10
JF
OAY FEET
13
13
13
13
13
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
25
?5
35
25
?5
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
2b
'5
25
25
0000
JliOti
0015
0024
0033
oooo
U005
0010
0015
0020
Oo2b"
0330
0000
C015
U02b
0034
ItMH
CtNT
13.
13.
U.
U.
13.
26.
26.
26.
25.
?4.
24.
?4.
20.
20.
19.
IB.
9
y
9
H
a
9
b
j
6
a
7
4
3
0
5
a
UO
HG/L
9
9
s
9
9
!>
1
1
4
3
2
1
.<;
.2
. 1
.2
.5
.7
.7
.1
.6
.4
.2
.0
00u77 OQ09t
Tk^NbP CNUUCT^Y
3LCCH1 FItLD
INCrifcS MiCHUMHO
IB
48
37
bOO
500
500
500
490
463
46J
464
466
510
520
b2u
426
444
470
4BH
lltPftLtS
3
004UO 00410
h>H r ftLK
CACU3
bU
B.o
?b
(•b
?•>
?b
OOOU
OOOb
U01S
U(J24
U03J
JOOO
0015
oUeO
OJ3J
0000
OOlb
1)023
UuJ*>
0
j
j
UG/L
14.4
9.9
4.7
-------
•Vfc.TxIl-.tfAL '.JAlt
OrUU
Ut^Th
(0
73/uh/o1
1 l'-lt
Of
JAY
14 00
14 CO
14 00
In uU
It* 00
lo OK
1? BO
1 t SU
Ut.^ [rl
FLCf
1,b
U j 1 +
UOOO
0 JOS
Ltul 1
U\J u 0
uO it?
J ' j U 1 U
vii'. 1 KH
1 c WH
CE..-.F
i j.i
n. j
t 3.'j
•?o.;j
iifc..-.
?b.e
?1 .Li
ij .-*
yu To ^
UU
Mfi/L
v . j
^.b
1 •, . ^
7.4
^.0
t~i * D
J .j u 7 7
TrfUNiih'
btCCi 1
I^Cntb
16
3fi
-td
*• iELLi
U04U J
MM
bU
o. i u
d. 3j
d. Jj
fi, d-j
d. lu
00410
CACU3
Irtd
OuSlO
NHJ-N
roi AL
MO/L
O.OBO
u.u f J
u.O^J
t>.0/0
J.03U
U.060
u.UrtO
Oubj .0 'j'j
i, .v>-*^
u . U 4 /
j . U to
3?Hi 7
(JuL^^f fL
i.
UG/t
1^.2
'-'.o
li.4
-------
J-J J I iJ.
LJLt "1
J-Jt it/ UrilO
ID DJ.U
Ktt( UL^ln
•j'i I r. ( i " L i't -"1 -(
^ _,/,H/^1 1-4 ,"S (,'j J J
' J/ I'-'/ 1 J In I u i.1 to J
11.1
i: .<
11.
i 7 / J ^^ ^M
i;_b «iC"iU«MO
Jt'^oJ Junli
bU
•l.d j
0 J ft 1 u
irJ-N
0! ML
Nu/L
U. 1 JO
ij . 1 J u
l> .LOU
UUDt'D
TuF I\JLL
N
Mb/L
1.100
1 • 100
UluO
OOOJU
•NUtff.^0 j
'M-iuTAL
MO/L
J.bUO
j.bOu
u. Voo
HUD M
HNOh-^lb
U4Tr(U
Mb/L H1
O.OS*J
0 .Obb
O.Ulb
r N J '
TJ
1 I •'- tji.-' 1 -' ffiJ J-T jl
Fi
7 j/1. •*/!'" i'- -*:1
i-'> '3b
7 .-/ 1 -jf \ v i •• j L1
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STCMtT RETRIEVAL UAIE 75/02/03
39U6A1
39 37 14.0 083 12 46.0
OEt'rt CREEK
J9005 7.b CLAKKSdUKO
0/OE£K CriEEiv RESERVOIR
2^DKT KU dKOG ritLU UAM
llEPALtS 2111204
^ 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/05
73/06/09
73/07/15
73/08/11
73/09/15
73/10/31
73/11/10
7J/12/09
74/01/12
74/02/10
7^/02/23
7W03/09
74/0*t/05
7
-------
RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/03
3906A2
39 39 35.0 OH3 15 46.0
uEEr? CHEEK
39 7.5 Mf STEKLlNb
1/OEtK CREEK HESESV01H
COQK-YnNKEETO*N HO bKUG E OF YANKEETOw
IIE^ALES 2111204
4 UOOO FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/05
73/06/09
73/07/15
73/OB/ll
73/09/15
73/10/21
73/11/10
73/12/09
74/01/1*:
74/02/12
74/02/23
74/03/09
74/04/05
74/04/28
1IME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
09 30
11 20
13 10
18 50
13 45
14 10
14 15
14 00
14 30
13 50
14 00
14 00
00630
NU2&N03
•N-TOTAL
MG/L
3.400
4.300
2.900
1.800
1.200
0.840
1.260
3.200
3.100
3.360
2.000
2.100
1.760
1.800
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.010
1.300
1.640
1.760
1.150
1.100
0.400
0.500
0.800
0.500
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.700
U0610
Nrt3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.027
0.046
0.046
0.176
0.039
0.032
0.020
G.032
0.040
0.020
0.010
0.005K
0.020
0.015
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.030
0.052
0.052
0.088
0.105
0.088
0.108
0.060
0.048
0.040
0.025
0.025
0.020
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.070
0.130
0.165
0.27U
0.1 d(J
0.290
0.135
0.115
0.070
0.070
0.105
0.135
0.050
0.090
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STCMET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/03
3906B1
39 39 20.0 u«3 Ib 16.0
OJFFS FOKK
39 7.b MT STEHLlNG
bT HWY 277 dRDG 4.2 MI S OF MT STEALING
11EHALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/05
73/06/09
73/07/15
73/09/15
73/10/21
73/11/10
73/13/09
74/01/12
74/02/10
74/02/23
74/03/09
74/04/Ob
74/04/28
00630 00625
TIME DLPTn fMO£!NN03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAr FEET
09
11
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
40
30
24
b5
15
?0
15
45
00
10
15
MG/L
"+
4
5
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
.700
.800
.400
.260
.5DU
.980
.200
.700
.bOO
.900
.100
.b20
.510
MG/L
0.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
400
680
940
920
050
600
<*00
500
400
aoo
600
600
HOC
00610 00671 00665
NM3-N PHOS-QIS PHOb-TOT
TOTAL OrtTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
u.
0.
015
062
210
082
100
024
Ob2
036
045
OU5
005K
030
015
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
G
0
0
0
0
.028
.037
.072
.011
.013
.012
.028
.024
.025
.010
.015
.OOb
.005
MG/L P
O.U50
O.Odu
0.190
0.030
0.17b
0.02b
0.045
0.025
0.050
0.045
0.06^
0.005
0.065
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
bTORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/03
39 00.0 083 11 47.u
WON
39 7.5 FIVE POIMTS
T/UEEK CHEEK r^ESEHvOI*
UAwSON-YANKtETOmlN rtU bRDG SE OF YANKEETO
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/05
73/06/09
73/07/15
73/08/11
73/09/15
73/10/21
73/11/10
73/1^/09
74/01/12
74/02/10
74/02/23
74/OJ/09
74/04/05
74/04/28
00630
TIME DEPTH N02*»N03
OF
DAY
09
11
13
18
13
14
14
13
14
13
13
13
FEET
15
15
00
40
35
00
10
57
IS
40
50
40
N-TOTAL
MG/L
4.300
4.4UO
3.200
2.300
0.610
1.300
1.920
2.760
3.300
3.400
2.300
2*5uO
1.700
1.700
00625
TOT KJEL
N
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
b20
150
600
000
480
950
450
400
?00
500
900
350
600
500
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
u.
028
0^4
082
083
046
044
006
024
056
020
005K
U05K
030
025
00671
PhOS-[)IS
00665
PHOb-TOf
ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
024
040
054
069
061
042
060
028
028
020
025
025
045
045
MG/L P
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
.040
.065
.097
.155
.095
.195
.105
.080
.060
.040
.045
.060
.085
.115
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
KtfWIEVAL DATE 7S/02/OJ
3906AA ASJ906AA
34 42 b3.0 Jts3 15 tl.O
VILLAGE. MOUNT
J>*00b /.b MOUNT
T/DtEH
UtEk CREEK
11EPALES
P001S36
21*1204
0000 FEET DEPTH
DATL
FROM
TO
73/08/13
CP(TI-
73/UBV13
73/01*/ 1 7
CP < T 1 -
73/U*/ 1 7
73/1U/15
CP(T)-
73/lu/lb
73/11/19
CP ( T > -
7J/11/19
73/12/10
CP (T I -
73/12/lu
7o/U I/ 1 1
CP(T>-
74/0 I/ 1 1
74/U2/ Ib
CP(T>-
7 A-/ $ '£/ | ^
7**^0 -JX 1 *?
CPITl-
7<*/u3/ Ib
74/05/17
CP(T>-
74/05/17
74/D6/21
CPITI-
74/06/21
74/t> ?/ la
CP n i -
74/1)7/16
74/08/15
CP n j -
7*/yii/15
00630
TIMt DEPTH N021.N03
OF N-TOTAL
UAY FtEl MO/L
OB
16
00
OS
08
16
03
16
oa
16
03
16
Ob
16
03
16
OH
16
Od
16
ub
16
Ud
It.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
s.aoo
5.300
la.boO
7.7UO
10.900
7.400
12.000
6.100
3.700
2.100
7.HOO
2.900
0062b
TOT KJEL
N
9
1
0
4
1
0
1
3
6
3
1
13
.200
.300
.b'OOK
.400
.300
.940
.100
.100
.300
. 100
.500
.000
00610 00671
NHj-N PHOS-DIS
TOTAL OKTHO
M'J/L MG/L p
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.130 5. HOG
.220 b.lUU
.0*7 b.UOU
.0*4 ID.faOO
.030 6.20i>
.ObB 3.100
.20'J 5.700
.400 7.500
.012 9.600
.075 7.300
.ObOK
.IbO 13.500
006(>b 50051 5UOb3
PhOb-fOT FLOd CONDUIT
RATt fLOH-«(JU
HG/L P 1N5T MoO MONTHLt
Ib.
16.
12.
U.
8.
4.
6.
a.
11.
7.
10.
It.
700
tiOO
500
000
300
300
bOO
300
000
MOO
000
000
0.340
0.111
0.160
0.136
0.203
0.250
0.290
0.175
0.175
0.140
0.140
0.110
0.230
O.lao
0.150
(J.1JS
0.1UO
0.260
0.320
0.210
0.160
0.1SU
0.145
0.105
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LE5S THAN INDICATED
------- |