U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
CEDAR BUUF RESERVOIR
TREGO COUNTY
KftNSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No, 511
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
CEDAR BLUF ESERVOIR
TREGO COUNTY
KANSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No, 511
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
AND THE
KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
MAY, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Kansas Study Reservoirs iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v, vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics . 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 10
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
ii
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 freshwater 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 [5303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)], clean lakes [§314(a,b)J,
and water quality monitoring [5106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
Ill
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
freshwater lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to auqment 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 Kansas State Department of
Health and Environment for professional involvement, to the Kansas
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of
the Survey, and to those Kansas wastewater treatment plant opera-
tors who voluntarily provided effluent samples and flow data.
The staff of the Kansas Division of Environmental Health pro-
vided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the Survey,
reviewed the preliminary reports, and provided critiques most use-
ful in the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General Edward R. Fry, the Adjutant General of Kansas,
and Project Officer Colonel Albin L. Lundquist, who directed the
volunteer efforts of the Kansas National Guardsmen, are also grate-
fully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY RESERVOIRS
STATE OF KANSAS
NAME COUNTY
Cedar Bluff Trego
Council G~ove Morris
Elk City Montgomery
Fall River Greenwood
John Redmond Coffey, Lyon
Kanopolis Ellsworth
Marion Marion
Melvern Osage
Mil ford Clay, Geary
Norton Norton
Perry Jefferson
Pomona Osage
Toronto Greenwood, Woodson
Tuttle Creek Marshall, Potta-
watomie, Riley
Wilson Russell
-------
<: 1 ! I
'•s \
> / 0
'-v ( ' >
v-o i ) f
/y \ •• -J (
^r\» \ / /
1
"KANSAS |
Map Location
38° 50'—I
tEDAR BLUFF
RESERVOIR
(Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
!.Land Subject to Inundation
0 2 4 6 8 10 Km.
I •• i" ') '
Scale
38°40'—I
100°10'
100°00'
99P50'
99°40'
-------
RESERVOIR
li
S'S
F.G ''-.
Mao Location
CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
® Trib-Jtary Sanolins Site
* Lake Sampling Site
^2'id Subject to Inundat-ioi
0 !0 20 30 40 50 Kr.
6 10 20 30 Mi .
Scale
-------
CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 2001
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate Cedar Bluff Reservoir is mesotrophic.
It ranked first in overall trophic quality when the 15 Kansas
reservoirs sampled in 1974 were compared using a combination
of six parameters*. None of the other reservoirs had less
median total phosphorus, one had less and one had the same
median dissolved orthophosphorus, none had less median inorganic
nitrogen, one had less mean chlorophyll a_, and none had greater
mean Secchi disc transparency. Some depression of dissolved
oxygen (to 50% of saturation) occurred at sampling station 2 in
June.
Survey limnologists did not observe algal concentrations or
aquatic macrophytes and commented on the pleasing appearance of
the reservoir in June.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate Cedar Bluff Reservoir was
phosphorus limited at the time the sample was taken (04/15/74).
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation in April but
nitrogen limitation in October.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—No known municipal or industrial wastewater
See Appendix A.
-------
treatment plants impacted Cedar Bluff Reservoir during the
sampling year. Septic tanks serving shoreline dwellings and
recreational areas contributed an estimated 0.1% of the total
phosphorus load, but a shoreline survey would have to be done
to determine the actual significance of those sources.
The apparent phosphorus loading of 0.17 g/m2/yr is a little
more than that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as an oligotrophic loading (i.e., a mesotrophic loading;
see page 13). However, the level of the reservoir averaged about
4 meters below the conservation pool level during water year 1975
(10/01/74-09/30/75), and the area of the reservoir at that level
is not known (Kring, 1977). Obviously, the area was less than the
26.84 square kilometers indicated on page 4; and, therefore, the
actual areal phosphorus loading during the sampling year (10/74-
09/75) was somewhat greater than 0.17 gm/m2 but probably was still
in the mesotrophic range (i.e., with the phosphorus loading meas-
ured during the sampling year, 4,435 kg, the area at minus 4 meters
would have to be 41% less than that at the conservation pool level
to result in an areal loading just equal to Vollenweider's eutrophic
level of 0.28 g/m2/yr).
If the loading is not increased significantly, the existing
quality of the reservoir should persist.
-------
2. Non-point sources--Non-point source phosphorus inputs
amounted to 99.9% of the total phosphorus load to Cedar Bluff
Reservoir during the sampling year. The Smokey Hill River con-
tributed 64.3% of the total, and ungaged tributaries contributed
an estimated 24.7%.
The non-point phosphorus export rate of the Smokey Hill River
was 0.2 kg/km2/yr. This rate is very low compared to the rates
of Kansas tributaries sampled elsewhere.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 26.84 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 8.5 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 20.0 meters.
4. Volume: 228.272 x 10s m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 4.3 years (based on outflow),
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Smoky Hill River 13,519.8 2.100
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 775.1 0.600
Totals 14,294.9 2.700
2. Outlet -
Smoky Hill River 14,322.7** 1.700
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 36.3 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 59.7 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
H- At conservation pool level; Kring, 1977.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of reservoir.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Cedar Bluff Reservoir was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each
time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from
a number of depths at two stations on the reservoir (see map, page v).
During each visit, a single depth-integrated (4.6 m to surface) sample
was composited from the stations for phytoplankton identification and
enumeration; and during the first visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-
integrated sample was composited for algal assays. Also each time, a
depth-integrated sample was collected from each of the stations for
chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum depths sampled were 9.1 meters at
station 1 and 10.7 meters at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table (the June nutrient samples were not
properly preserved and were not analyzed).
-------
A.
Or PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL C-rIST ICS FG-i CEOArf -JLUFF
STORE! COOE 2U01
PA^AMETE"
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNOCTVY (MCHOMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK
TOT P (MG/D
ORTHO P
N02»NG3
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG M (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/D
SECCHI (METERS)
1ST SAMPLING ( 4/15/74)
? SITES
2ND SAMPLING ( 6/26/74)
2 SITES
3*0 SAMPLING (10/ 1/74)
2 SITES
RANGE
9.0 -
10.0 -
530. -
116.
0.017
0.003
0.020
0.030
0.500
0.050
0.520
3.6
0.7
-
- 0
- o
- 0
- 0
- 1
- 0
- 1
-
-
9.2
10.2
701.
8.2
134.
.024
.011
.060
.070
.000
.130
.060
12.4
0.7
MEAN
9.1
io.i
635.
8.2
125.
0.019
0.005
0.035
0.036
0.662
0.071
0.697
8.0
0.7
MEDIAN
10. 0
655.
8*2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124.
.018
.004
.030
.030
.700
.060
.73d
8.0
0.7
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
21.1 - 23*4 22.4 22.4
4.2 - 7.8 7.0 7.6
976. - 1029. 1006. 1005.
8.1 - 8.5 8.4 8*4
».»o.. .to.**.*.*.............
V
™ V
».,»« *..*«.«..*»........„... o
U
U
**».*. *....,....*....*..„»..„ o
*.».«. ....«......„**„.*...*.. o
0.6 - 1.5 1.0 1.0
2.3 - 3.6 2.9 2*9
RANGE
15.9 -
8.0 -
960. -
7.8 -
118.
.012
.002
*020
*020
.400
.040
.420
2.9
1.3
-
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
- 0
-
-
16.9
8.6
968.
7.9
121.
.023
.011
.020
.040
.600
.060
.020
4.3
1.7
MEAN
16.6
8.4
965.
7.8
119.
0.015
0.005
0.020
0.025
0*512
0.043
U.532
3.6
1.6
MEDIAN
16.6
8.4
965.
7.8
119.
0.014
0.003
0.020
0.020
0.500
0.040
0.520
3.6
1.6
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
04/15/74
06/26/74
10/01/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Synedra sp.
2. Cyclotella sp_.
3. Cryptomonas sp.
4. Oocystis sp.
5. Scenedesmus sp.
Total
1. Chroomonas sp.
2. Cryptomonas sp.
3. Carteria sp.
4. Dinobryon sp.
5. Stephanodiscus sjx
Total
1. Chroomonas sp.
2. Dactylococcopsis sp.
3. Cryptomonas sp.
4. Oocystis sp.
5. Scenedesmus sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
312
69
35
35
35
486
437
38
19
19
Jl
532
1,041
337
123
123
123
366
Total
2,113
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
04/15/74
06/26/74
10/01/74
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
.Chlorophyll ai
(ug/D
1.2.4
3.6
1.5
0.6
4.3
2.9
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
Inorganic N Maximum yield,
Cone, (mg/1) (mg/l-dry^ wt.)
0.005
0.055
0.055
0.00.5
0.057
0.057
1.057
1 .057
0.1
1.0
11.5
0.1
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Cedar Bluff Reservoir was low at the time the sample was
taken (04/15/74). The significant increase in yield with the
addition of phosphorus alone and the lack of significant increase
when only nitrogen was added indicate that the reservoir was
phosphorus limited at that time.
-------
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation in
April but nitrogen limitation in October. The mean inor-
ganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios were 14 to 1 in April
and 9 to 1 in October.
-------
10
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Kansas National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page vi), except for the months
of May, June, and July when two samples were collected. Sampling was
begun in October, 1974, and was completed in September, 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the Kansas District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the reservoir.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concen-
trations in Page Creek at station B-l and the mean annual ZZ flow.
No known wastewater treatment plants impacted Cedar Bluffs
Reservoir during the sampling year.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
-------
11
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source y_r total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Smoky Hill River 2,850 64.3
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 1,095 24.7
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 5 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 485 10.9
Total 4,435 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Smoky Hill River 2,090
3. Net annual P accumulation - 2,345 kg.
* Estimate based on 6 shoreline dwellings and 2 campgrounds; see Working
Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source
kg N/
yr
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Smoky Hill River 92,515
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 35,025
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 205
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 30,000
Total 157,745
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Smoky Hill River 73,875
3. Net annual N accumulation - 83,870 kg.
Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr
Smoky Hill River . 0.2
Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Tributary
Page Creek
Mean Total P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.058
% of
total
58.7
22.2
0.1
19.0
100.0
kg N/km2/yr
6.8
Mean Total N
Cone, (mg/1)
1.851
* Estimate based on 6 shoreline dwellings and 2 campgrounds; see Working
Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
F. Yearly Loads:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loadings
are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider
and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his "dangerous" loading is
I
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 oligotrophic if morphometry permitted. A meso-
trophic 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/mVyr 0.17 0.08 5.9 3.1
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Cedar Bluff Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.28
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.14
-------
14
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Kring, R. Lynn, 1977. Personal communication (reservoir morphometry),
KS Dept. of Health & Environment, Topeka.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Natl. Res. Council of Canada Publ. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
15
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2001 CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
2002 COUNCIL GROVE
2003 ELK CITY
2004 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
2005 JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR
2006 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR
2007 MARION RESERVOIR
2008 MELVERN RESERVOIR
2009 MILFORn RESERVOIR
2010 NORTON RESERVOIR
2011 PERRY RESERVOIR
2012 POMONA RESERVOIR
2013 TORONTO RESERVOIR
2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
2015 WILSON RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.017
0.069
0.030
0.053
0.11 8
0.056
0.052
0.034
0.079
0.122
0.055
0.040
0.067
0.162
0.023
MEDIAN
IN03G N
0.055
0.830
0.5.90
Q.470
1.25,0
0.640
0.430
0.265
0.710
0.110
0.970
1.240
0.425
0,970
0.265
500-
MEAN SEC
431.667
485.889
490.400
488.667
492,667
487.000
483.667
459.111
466.333
476.750
478.571
481.333
488.500
470.667
445.222
MEAN
CHLORA
4.217
9.78.9.
3.212
7.683
9.467
16.033
12.400
30.400
18.883
21.360
5.614
8.312
6.583
11.278
8.867
15-
MIN DO
10.800
10.400
14.000
9.200
8.200
10.200
9.000
14.400
12.800
8.000
13.400
13.000
13.000
13.600
13.400
MED It
DISS ORTr
0.004
0.028
0.003
0.016
. 0.066
0.011
0.010
0.007
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.021
0.011
0.067
0.004
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 2001 CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR 539
2 2015 WILSON RESERVOIR 439
3 2007 MARION RESERVOIR 357
4 2003 ELK CITY 350
5 2004 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR 328
6 2008 MELVERN RESERVOIR 326
7 2013 TORONTO RESERVOIR 303
8 2010 NORTON RESERVOIR 292
9 2011 PERRY RESERVOIR 279
10 2006 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR 271
11 2012 POMONA RESERVOIR 267
12 2002 COUNCIL GROVE 230
13 2009 MILFORD RESERVOIR 214
14 2005 JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR 164
IS 2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR 139
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OP LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2001 CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
2002 COUNCIL GROVE
2003 ELK CITY
2004 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
2005 JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR
2006 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR
2007 MARION RESERVOIR
200R MELVERN RESERVOIR
2009 MILFORO RESERVOIR
2010 NORTON RESERVOIR
2011 PERRY RESERVOIR
2012 POMONA RESERVOIR
2013 TORONTO RESERVOIR
2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
2015 WILSON RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
100 <
29 <
86 <
57 i
14 (
43 1
64 (
79 1
21 <
7 1
50 1
71 1
36 I
0 i
93 i
14)
4)
; 12)
: e>
; 2)
: 6)
[ 9)
ID
; 3)
: i)
I 7)
: 10)
: s>
( 0)
[ 13)
MEDIAN
INOSG N
100 (
29 (
50 (
57 (
0 1
43 1
64 1
82 1
36 1
93 1
18 1
7 1
71 i
18 i
62 <
; 14)
: 4)
: 7)
: 8)
: o)
1 6)
t 9)
1 ID
: 5>
[ 13)
[ 2)
t 1)
t 10)
t 2)
I 11)
500-
MEAN SEC
100 (
36 <
7 (
14 <
0 I
29 <
43 <
86 1
79 1
64 1
57 <
50 1
21 <
71 i
93 i
: 14)
: 5)
; i)
: 2)
: o)
: 4)
: 6)
; 12)
: ID
[ 9)
[ 3)
[ 7)
t 3)
t 10)
I 13)
MEAN
CHLOSA
93 (
43 1
100 (
71 <
50 1
21 (
29 (
0 1
14 1
7 1
86 1
64 (
79 I
36 i
57 i
i 13)
! 6)
i 14)
: 10)
: 7)
; 3>
t 4)
[ 0)
t 2)
1 1)
[ 12)
I 9)
t 11)
( 5)
( 8)
15-
MIN DO
57 (
64 <
7 (
79 (
93 (
71 (
86 I
0 (
50 (
100 1
25 1
39 1
39 1
14 i
25 i
8)
: 9)
i)
ID
; 13)
: io>
: 12)
: o)
: 7>
: 14)
: 3)
[ 5)
[ 5)
I 2)
t 3)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
89 (
29 (
100 <
50 (
7 1
64 1
71 <
79 1
14 1
21 (
43 1
36 1
57 i
0 i
89 i
1-2)
4)
14)
: 7)
: i>
: 9)
: 10)
i ID
t 2)
[ 3)
I 6)
I 5)
I 8)
t 0)
I 12)
INDEX
NO
539
230
350
323
164
271
357
326
214
292
279
267
303
139
439
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10"4 = .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
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR KANSAS
05/03/76
LAKE CODE 2001 CEDAR BLUFF
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIbJTARY AREA(SO KM)
2COU1
2001A2
200IZZ
14322.7
13519.3
802.9
JA\
O.lo
0.27
0. 16
FE9
0.27
0.48
0.26
14322.7
M4R
APR
0.40 1.10
1.10 0.71
0.48 0.5u
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
MAY
1.47
3.40
1.03
14322.7
14322.7
NORMALIZED FLO*S(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR
2001A1
2001A2
2001ZZ
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
MEAN FLOW DAY
0.040
0.045
0.059
0.074
0.068
0.079
0.068
0.510
0.368
3.393
2.379
0.850
0.040
0.079
0.011
0.017
0.031
0.051
0.037
1.430
5.862
0.997
1.396
0.025
0.006
0.014
0.003
0.014
0.025
0.008
0.566
0.106
4.531
0.031
O.OC3
0.0
13
9
14
12
8
9
13
10
15
13
14
14
13
9
14
12
8
9
13
10
IS
13
24
13
FLO* DAY
0.020
0.011
0.025
0.028
0.028
0.017
0.011
0.007
0.017
0.013
O.OOtt
0.017
0.065
0.051
0.016
0.011
0.011
0.022
0.130
0.027
1.331
0.340
0.142
25
29
27
25
29
27
0.022
2.83
•J.63
1.42
4.53
1.13
4,dl
2.27
0.68
2.18
1.30
0.54
OCT
0.88
0.45
0. 3<»
0.31
0.21
DEC
0.15
0.25
0.16
MEAN
1.70
2.10
0.60
SUMMARY
TOTAL FLO* IN
TOTAL FLO* OUT
32i25
20.29
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0.006
0.020
0.010
0.059
1.303
0.159
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVE OATE 76/05/03
200101
38 47 00.0 099 43 30.0 4
CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR
20195 KANSAS
11EPALES 2111202
0035 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/15
74/06/26
74/10/01
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/15
74/06/26
74/10/01
TIME 015
1030
1000
1005
1020
5030
jooo
1005
1015
1025
TIME U^TH
OF
DAY
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
f
10
10
10
10
50
55
55
55
55
55
:£T
(900
0005
0015
0030
0000
0000
0005
0014
0015
0025
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
9.2
9.2
9.1
9.0
22.4
22. ^
21.8
21.6
16.9
16.8
16.6
16.5
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.024
0.020
0.018
0.020
00300
DO
MG/L
10.
10.
10.
7.
7.
7.
6.
8.
8.
8.
8.
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
IMCMES MICROMHO
26
0
0
2
8 140
8
6
8
6 66
4
4
2
660
588
655
701
1009
1005
994
991
968
968
965
967
00400 00410 00610 00625
PH T ALK . NH3-N TOT KJEL
CAC03 TOTAL N
SU MG/L MG/L MG/L
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
20
20
20
20
50
50
40
40
90
90
80
80
117 0.070 1.000
116 0.030 0.500
119 0.030 0.500
121 0.030 0.500
121 0.040 0.600
119 0.020K 0.500
120 0.020 0.500
119 0.020 0.500
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
REMNING
PERCENT
12.4
1.5
0.016
0.013
0.014
0.016
4.3
1.0
00630 00671
N02&N03 PHOS-UIS
U-TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MG/L P
0.060
0.020
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.011
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.004
K VALHf MMOWN TO BE
LESS MAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/03
200102
38 47 15.0 099 46 00.0 4
CEOAK BLUFF RESERVOIR
20195 KANSAS
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/04/15 12
12
12
12
74/06/26 14
14
14
14
14
74/10/01 14
14
14
14
35 0000
35 0005
35 0015
35 0035
?0 0000
20 0005
20 0020
20 0030
20 0035
30 0000
30 0005
30 0015
30 0033
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
9.2
9.2
9.1
9.1
23.4
23.4
23.1
22.0
21.1
16.8
16.7
16.4
15.9
11EPALES
2111202
00^1 FEET DEPTH CLASS
00300
DO
MG/L
10.0
10.0
10.2
7.8
7.6
7.4
6.4
4.2
8.4
8.6
8.6
8.0
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
28
90
60
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
530
590
655
699
1029
1029
1020
1001
976
964
964
960
964
00400
PH
SU
8.20
8.20
8.20
8.20
8.50
8.10
8.50
8.20
8.10
7.90
7.80
7.80
7.80
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
126
134
134
133
119
119
118
118
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.030
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.600
0.400
0.500
0.500
00630 00671
N025.N03 PHOS-OIS
N-TOTAL ORTrlO
MG/L P
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.006
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.011
0.006
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/15
74/06/26
74/10/01
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
12 35 0000
12 35 0005
12 35 0015
12 35 0035
14 20 0000
14 30 0000
14 30 0005
14 30 0015
14 30 0016
14 30 0033
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.018
0.019
0.017
0.017
0.012
0.013
0.015
0.023
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
3.6
0.6
2.9
00031
INCOT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
1.0
K VALUE NNOWN TO BE
LLSS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
2001A1
38 47 30.0 099 43 20.0 4
SMOKY HILL RIVER
20 TRtOO CO HWY MAP
0/CEOA* 3LUFF RESEKVUlrt
BANK SAMPLE"NEAR BASE OF DAM
11EP&LE5 2111204
0000 FEET DcPTn CLA5S 00
DATE
"ROM
TO
74/10/13
74/11/09
75/01/12
75/02/08
75/03/09
75/04/13
75/05/10
75/05/25
75/06/15
75/06/29
75/07/13
75/07/27
75/08/14
75/09/14
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
11
13
11
12
11
12
12
11
11
16
14
14
10
12
?0
45
05
10
35
23
00
10
15
30
45
55
10
00
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.016
.012
.008
.480
.008
.005
.005
.005
.015
.005
.005
.015
.005
.015
MG/L
2.
0.
2.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
000
900
800
800
200
450
300
700
750
600
500
400
600
700
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
075
040
040
024
028
025
025
040
030
025
020
090
040
022
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
005K
012
008K
008K
008K
005K
010
010
005
010
005
310
005K
005K
MG/L P
0.015
0.012
0.050
0.015
0.010K
0.020
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.060
0.030
0.060
0.040
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL OATE 76/05/04
DATE TIME DEPTH N02t>N03
FrtOM OF
TO UAY FEET
74/10/13
74/11/09
75/01/12
75/03/09
75/04/13
75/05/10
75/05/25
75/06/15
75/06/29
75/07/13
75/07/27
75/08/24
75/09/13
10 30
14 30
11 45
12 30
13 15
12 45
12 15
12 10
17 25
15 40
15 45
11 05
13 00
2001A2
38 47 30.0 099 38 15.0 4
SMOKY HILL RIVER
20 TriEGO CO HwY MAP
T/CEDAR BLUFF RESEKVOIR
SEC RO 370 3ROG 8 Ml SE OF TREGO CENTER
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
t>N03
OTAL
G/L
0.200
3.272
0.123
0.072
0.095
0.160
0.210
0.075
0.070
0.055
0.140
0.045
0.045
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.000
2.100
1.500
0.700
1.700
1.650
0.650
0.850
0.750
0.450
3.400
0.750
1.100
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.080
0.256
0.044
0.090
0.100
0.105
0.020
0.035
0.025
0.070
0.015
0.045
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTriO
MG/L P
0.005K
0.012
0.032
0.008K
0.005K
o.ooe
0.010
0.015
0.005
0.020
0.005K
0.010
0.025
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.020
0.012
0.080
0.030
0.010
0.030
0.030
0.130
0.080
0.020
0.050
0.030
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/13
74/11/09
75/01/12
75/03/09
75/04/13
75/05/10
75/05/25
75/06/15
75/06/29
75/07/13
75/07/27
09 55
14 00
11 20
12 00
12 45
12 18
11 52
11 35
16 45
15 10
15 15
200161
38 44 15.0 099 46 10.0 4
PAGE CREEK
20 TREGO CO HKY MAP
T/CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR 091192
SEC RO 8ROG 2.4 Ml M OF ST RT 147 JCT
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
1&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.184
0.552
1.010
0.475
0.075
0.005
0.010
0.440
0.310
0.005
0.015
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.200
1.300
1.600
0.800
2.600
1.350
1.750
1.250
0.775
0.550
3.100
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.042
0.075
0.144
0.059
0.050
0.040
0.035
0.065
0.035
0.020
0.330
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.007
0.010
0.008K
0.007
0.005K
0.010
0.005
0.015
0.015
0.005
0.005
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L t3
0.050
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.120
0.110
0.100
0.080
0.040
0.060
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |