U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
MNSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No,
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
FAIL RIVER RESERVOIR
MNSAS
EPA REGION VII
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
AND THE
KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD
APRIL, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Kansas Study Reservoirs iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. . Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 10
V. Literature Reviewed 15
VI. Appendices 16
-------
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 eutropliication 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)], 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.
-------
m
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 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 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
X
STATE OF KANSAS
NAME COUNTY
Cedar Bluff Trego
Council Grove 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
-------
M,i|> I IM .ll. ion
K.III.
FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
9 Sewage Treatment Facility
Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject To Inundation
20 Kin.
Scale
10 Mi.
-------
FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 2004
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate Fall River Reservoir is potentially
eutrophic. However, the reservoir becomes quite turbid during
periods of runoff, and primary productivity is intermittently
light-limited (Kring, 1977).
This water body ranked fifth in overall trophic quality
when the 15 Kansas reservoirs sampled in 1974 were compared
using a combination of six parameters*. Six of the reservoirs
had less median total phosphorus, seven had less median dissolved
orthophosphorus, six had less median inorganic nitrogen, four had
less mean chlorophyll ju and 12 had greater mean Secchi disc
transparency.
Survey limnologists did not observe algal concentrations or
aquatic macrophytes but noted the reservoir was quite turbid.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate Fall River Reservoir was
phosphorus limited at the times the samples were taken (04/10/74
and 10/02/74).
The reservoir data also indicate phosphorus limitation at
those times. However, the low Secchi disc transparencies, the low
* See Appendix A.
-------
numbers of phytoplankton (page 7), and the relatively low
chlorophyll £ concentrations indicate productivity was light-
limited at least part of the time.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—The estimated phosphorus contribution
of the City of Eureka amounted to 21.3% of the total load
reaching Fall River Reservoir during the sampling year.
The present phosphorus loading of 1.84 g/m 2/yr is nearly two
times that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as a eutrophic loading (see page 14). However, the mean
hydraulic retention time of the reservoir is a rather short 40
days, and Vol 1 enweider's model may not be applicable (note the
apparent loss of both nitrogen and phosphorus during the sampling
year; page 14).
Even complete removal of phosphorus at the Eureka wastewater
treatment plant would still leave a phosphorus loading of 1.45
g/m2/yr; and in view of the intermittently light-limited primary
productivity in the reservoir, point-source phosphorus control
would not be expected to result in a significant improvement in
the trophic condition of Fall River Reservoir.
2. Non-point sources—Nearly 78% of the total phosphorus
load to the reservoir during the sampling year came from non-point
sources. The Fall River contributed 37.6% of the total; Otter
-------
Creek, 18.8%; and the ungaged tributaries contributed an
estimated 21.3%.
The phosphorus export rates of Fall River and Otter Creek
were 9 and 11 kg/km 2/yr, respectively (see page 13) and compare
well with the rates of three gaged tributaries of nearby Toronto
Reservoir* (mean of 12 kg/km 2/yr).
* Working Paper No. 523.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
T I
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 10.52 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 3.0 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 11.0 meters.
4. Volume: 29.5 x 106 m3.
5. Fourteen-year median hydraulic retention time: 40 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Fall River 795.1 5.41
Otter Creek 334.1 2.40
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 375.4 2.46
Totals 1,504.6 10.27
2. Outlet -
Fall River 1,515.1** 9.26
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 114.5 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 93.5 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
ft 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
Fall River 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
two or more depths at two stations on the reservoir (see map, page v).
During each visit, a single depth-integrated (4.6 m or near bottom to
surface) sample was composited from the stations for phytoplankton
identification and enumeration; and during the first and last visits,
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 3.0 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).
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (O
OISS OXY
CNOCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK .(MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
OKTHO P (MG/D
N02*N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INOftG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UC-/L)
SECCHI (METE»S)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 4/10/74)
2 SITES
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
STOKtT CODE 200^
RANGE
11.2 - 11.9
9.2 - 9.6
295. - 478.
8.1 - 8.2
178. - 1R8.
0.053 - 0.187
0.014 - 0.019
0.410 - 0.480
0.090 - 0.150
0.4QO - 0.800
MEAN
11.7
9.4
373.
8.2
182.
MEDIAN
11.8
9.4
375.
8.2
181.
0.081 0.061
0.016 0.016
0.430 C.420
0.105 0.095
0.533 0.500
0.500 - 0.630 0.535 0.515
0.810 - 1.220 0.963 0.950
4.3 •- 4.6 4.4 4.4
0.3 - 0.3 0.3 0.3
SAMPLING ( 6/24/74)
2 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
24.7 - 25.5 25.1
5.8 - 7.4 6.4
361. - 578. 403.
7.9 - 8.2 8.0
oooooo .0000000000000000000000
oooooo .0000000000000000000000
000000 .0000000000000000000000
oooooo .0000000000000000000000
oooooo _«
25.1
6.2
367.
6.0
oooooo .oaoooooooooooooooooooo
oooooo .0000000000000000000000
oooooo .0000000000000000000000
10.6 - 18.9 14.8 14.8
0.3 - 0.3 0.3 0.3
. 3RD SAMPLING ( 10/ 2/74)
2 SITES
RANGE
16.3 - 17.2
7.8 - 8.2
299. - 309.
7.9 - 8.0
130. - 137.
0.033 - 0.058
0.012 - 0.021
0.430 - 0.450
0.020 - 0.030
0.200 - 0.200
0.450 - 0.470
0.630 - 0.650
2.5 - 5.0
0.3 - 0.3
MEAN
17.0
8.0
304.
8.0
133.
0.045
0.016
0.444
0.023
0.200
0.467
0.644
3.8
0.3
M £ 0 1 A
16.8
3.0
301.
8.0
133.
0.047
0.017
0.450
0.020
0.200
0.470
0.650
3.6
0.3
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampli ng
Date
04/10-11/74
06/24/76
10/02/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Asterionella sj).
Cryptomonas sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Melosira s£.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Other genera
Total
Cryptomonas sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Synedra sp.
Anabaena sp.
Other genera
Total
Chroomonas sp.
Melosira sp.
Closterium sp.
Nitzscnia sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
211
210
158
105
105
106
895
1,202
791
791
63
32
32
2,911
550
220
44
22
22
21
Total
879
-------
8
2. Chlorophyll a -
C.
Sampl i ng
Date
04/10-11/74
06/24/74
10/02/74
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
Chlorophyll a
(ug/i)
4.3
4.6
18.9
10.8
2.5
5.0
Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved,
filtered, and nutrient
spiked -
a. April sample -
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.
1.0 N
b. October
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.
1.0 N
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
<0.005
<0.055
0 N <0.055
<0.005
sample -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.025
0.075
0 N 0.075
0.025
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.440
0.440
1.440
1.440
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.495
0.495
1.495
1.495
Maximum yield
(mg/1 -dry wt.)
0.4
14.0
21.8
0.3
Maximum yield
(mg/1 -dry wt.)
5.5
14.9
30.1
4.8
-------
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicate that the potential primary productivity
of Fall River Reservoir was moderate in April and high in
October. In both assay samples, yields increased when only
phosphorus was added, but no such response occurred when only
nitrogen was added. These results indicate Fall River Reser-
voir was phosphorus limited at the times the samples were
taken.
The reservoir data also indicate phosphorus limitation.
The mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios were 33
to 1 in April and 29 to 1 in October, and phosphorus limitation
would be expected. However, the low Secchi disc transparencies,
the low numbers of phytoplankton, and the relatively low chloro-
phyll ^concentrations indicate primary productivity in the
reservoir was light-limited rather than nutrient-limited at
least part of the time.
-------
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 v), except for the high
runoff months of May and June when two samples were collected at
most of the sites. 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
-determined 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" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the nutrient loads
at .station B-l, in kg/km 2/year, and multiplying by the ZZ area in km2.
The operator of the Eureka wastewater treatment plant provided
'monthly effluent samples but could not provide flow data. Therefore,
nutrient loads were estimated at 1.134 P and 3.401 N/capita/year, and
flows were estimated at 0.3785 m3/capita/day.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal* -
Pop. Mean Flow Receiving
Name Served Treatment (m3/d) Water
Eureka 3,631 tr. filter 1,374.3 Fall River
2. Known industrial - None
* Treatment plant questionnaire.
-------
12
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Fall River 7,290 37.6
Otter Creek 3,645 18.8
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 4,130 21.3
c. Known municipal STP's -
Eureka 4,120 21.3
d. Septic tanks* - 5 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 185 1.0
Total 19,375 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Fall River 24,695
3. Net annual P loss - 5,320 kg.
* Estimate based on 20 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Fall River 244,460 48.7
Otter Creek 110,110 21.9
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 123,880 24.7
c. Known municipal STP's -
Eureka 12,350 2.4
d. Septic tanks* - 215 <0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 11.355 2.3
Total 502,370 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Fall River 542,230
3. Net annual N loss - 39,860 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km 2/yr
Fall River 9 307
Otter Creek 11 330
* Estimate based on 20 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
14
E. 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
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/m2/yr 1.84 loss* 47.8 loss*
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and 14-year median
hydraulic retention time of Fall River Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 1.0
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.5
* There was an apparent loss of nutrients during the sampling year. This
may have been due to unknown point sources discharging below sampling
station A-2 or directly to the reservoir, solubilization of previously
sedimented nutrients, recharge with nutrient rich ground water, or
(probably) insufficient outlet sampling in relation to the short
hydraulic retention time of the reservoir.
-------
15
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Kring, R. Lynn, 1977. Personal communication (revised morphometry;
primary productivity in reservoir). 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.
-------
16
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 MILFORD 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
0.118
0.056
0.052
0.034
0.079
0.122
0.055
0*040
0.067
0.162
0.023
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.055
0.830
0.590
0.470
1.250
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
9.789
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
MEDL
DISS ORTi
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 3Y 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
15 2014 TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR 139
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF 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
2C06 KANOPOLIS RESERVOIR
2007 MARION RESERVOIR
200ft 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 1
86 (
57 1
14 1
43 1
64 1
79 1
21 <
7 1
50 1
71 1
36 i
0 '
93 <
1 14)
; 4)
: 12)
: a>
; 2)
I 6)
I 9)
1 11)
I 3).
1 1)
; 7>
[ 10)
t 5)
( 0)
t 13)
MEDIAN
TNORG N
100 1
29 (
50 1
57 <
0 <
43 (
64 1
82 1
36 1
93 (
18 (
7 (
71 l
18 '
82 i
: 14)
: 4>
: 7)
: 8)
: o)
: 6)
[ 9)
: ID
; 5)
! 13)
; 2)
i i)
( 10)
I 2)
I 11)
500-
ME'AN SEC
100 <
36 <
7 (
14 (
0 (
29 (
43 (
86 <
79 1
64 (
57 <
50 1
21 1
71 I
93 1
: 14)
: 5)
: i)
: 2)
: o>
: 4)
: 6>
: i2>
: ID
: 9)
: 8>
: 7)
[ 3)
[ 10)
I 13)
MEAN
CHLORA
93 I
43 (
100 <
71 (
50 (
21 1
29 <
0 I
14 <
7 <
86 (
64 <
79 1
36 (
57 1
: 13)
6)
i 14)
: 10)
7)
3)
; 4)
: 0)
: 2)
: i)
; 12)
; 9)
i ii)
: 5)
[ 8)
15-
. WIN DO
57 (
64 (
7 (
79 (
93 (
71 (
86 (
0 (
50 (
100 (
25 (
39 (
39 <
14 (
25 (
8)
9)
1)
11)
13)
10)
12)
0)
7)
14)
3)
5)
5)
2)
3)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
89
29
100
50
7
64
71
79
14
21
43
36
57
0
89
( 12)
( 4)
( 14)
( 7)
( 1)
( 9)
( 10)
( 11)
( 2)
( 3)
( 6)
( 5)
( 8)
( 0)
( 12)
INDEX
NO
539
230
350
328
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
-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
-------
TRIBUTARY FLO* INFORMATION FOR KANSAS
05/03/76
LAKE CODE 2004 FALL RIVER
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKEfSQ KM) 1515.1
SUS-ORAISAGE
TRI80TA3Y AREMSO KM)
JAN
FES
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED
JUN JUL
AUO
OCT
DEC
MEAN
2004A1
2004A2
20d4dl
2004Z2
1515.1
795.1
334.1
385.9
5. 10
3.11
1.13
1.13
5.10
3.4Q
1.25
1.44
11.39
7.36
3.11
3.11
11.33
8.21
3.6P
3.68
14.44
6.21
3.11
4.25
16.14
10.48
3.66
4.25
13.03
6.60
2.52
3.6d
3.96
1.95
3.68
1.47
9.06
4.53
2.24
2.07
8.50
4.53
1.50
2.04
7.t>5
3.96
1.67
1.25
4.81
2.29
0.96
1.10
9.26
b.41
2.40
2.46
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND OAlUY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLO« DAY
200«*A1
1515.1
1515.1
DAY
TOTAL FLO* IN
TOTAL FLOW OUT
123.06
111.00
FLOW DAY
FLOW
2004A2
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
2.532
50.546
14.980
11.412
32.904
24.183
17.670
11.695
39.927
1.756
0.379
0.371
3.030
21.011
7.419
8.580
15.688
16.650
7.504
6.173
17.217
1.184
0.912
0.278
13
10
14
12
16
30
20
11
12
13
17
22
13
21
13
11
8
8
13
2
12
13
9
14
2.152
27.184
28.600
11.836
0.255
5.239
9.628
5.097 26
0.431 22
1.416
0.396
0.363
1.388
4.955
15.291
11.213
16.565
9.061
7.079
4.814 19
18.689 26
0.623 25
0.340
0.283
1.699
90.614
3.398
5.380
0.396
29
6.513
-------
T0I3UTABY FLO*' INFORMATION FOR KANSA.S
05/03/76
LA
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/03
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/04/10 15 00 0000
15 00 0005
15 00 0015
15 00 0025
74/06/24 12 55 0000
12 55 0005
12 55 0015
12 55 0025
12 55 0030
74/10/02 13 00 0000
13 00 0005
13 00 0015
13 00 0025
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
11.9
11.9
11.8
11.2
25.5
25.5
24.9
24.7
24.7
16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8
200401
37 38 50.0 096 03 40.0 3
FALL RIVER RESERVOIR
20073 KANSAS
100391
HEPALES 2111202
0034 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
94
. ~
9t
. o
9.2
7.4
5.8
6.0
7.0
5 a
. o
a 2
o. c
8n
• w
7 ft
r • O
8.0
12 375
375
478
418
12 361
363
366
364
367
12 299
299
301
301
00400 00410
PH T ALK
CAC03
SU MG/L
8.20
8.20
8.10
8.20
8.20
8.10
8.00
8.00
7.90
7.96
7.97
7.96
7.93
178
178
181
180
131
131
133
130
00610 00625 00630 00671
NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS-DIS
TOTAL N N-TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
0.090
0.090
0.110
0.150
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200
0.410
0.420
0.440
0.480
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.012
0.021
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/10
74/06/24
74/10/02
00665 32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
OF A REMNING
DAY FEET MG/L
15
15
15
15
12
13
13
13
13
00
00
00
00
55
00
00
00
00
0000
0005
0015
0025
0000
0000
0005
0015
0025
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
P
058
062
066
187
049
038
033
058
UG/L PERCENT
4.3
18.9
2.5
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL RATE 76/05/03
200*02
37 39 45.0 096 04 10.0 3
FALL rtlVEH RESERVOIR
20073 KANSAS
100391
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/11
74/06/24
74/10/02
DATE
FROM
TO
74/04/11
74/06/24
74/10/02
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 05 0000
10 05 0005
13 25 0000
13 25 0005
13 25 0010
13 20 0000
13 20 0005
13 20 0010
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 05 0000
10 05 0005
13 25 0000
13 20 0000
13 20 0002
13 20 0005
13 20 0010
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
11.8
11. 8
25.3
25.1
25.1
17.2
17.2
17.2
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.061
0.053
0.040
0.047
0.048
00300
DO
MG/L
9.4
6.4
6.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
4.6
10.8
5.0
11EP4LES 2111202
0010 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00077 00094 00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
TRANSP CNOUCTVY PH T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS-DIS
SECCHI FIELD CAC03 TOTAL N N-TOTAL ORTHO
INCHES MICROMHO SU MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
10
10
12
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
1.0
295 8.20
295 8.10
578 8.00
386
441 7.90
309 7.96
309 8.01
309 8.02
188 0.100 0.800 0.420 0.019
187 0.090 0.400 0.410 0.014
137 0.030 0.200K 0.440 0.014
135 0.020K 0.200K 0.430 0.017
135 0.030 0.200K 0.440 0.015
K VALUE KNOWN TO 3E
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE
DATE TIME DEPTH N02
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/13
74/11/10
74/12/14
75/01/12
75/02/16
75/03/30
75/04/20
75/05/11
75/05/26
75/06/12
75/06/22
75/07/13
75/08/17
75/09/22
16 15
14 35
13 45
13 10
13 30
13 30
12 30
13 00
14 00
16 30
14 00
13 00
14 00
13 30
2004A1
37 33 34.0 096 03 33.0 4
FALL RIVE*
20 15 SEVERY
0/FALL RIVER RESERVOIR 100391
SEC RO BRDG .3 Ml DrtNSTRM OF FALL R I V OM
11EPALES 211120**
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
1C*. JO
!W,;
'CT1;_
iC-/-_
C.~i
C-. I 'if
0 . 320
o.aei
0.3*,0
0.-.QG
0.110
O.M=
0.145
0.23C
0.43C
0.
-------
SrORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/10/13
74/11/21
74/12/13
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/03/08
75/04/13
75/05/02
75/05/19
75/06/28
75/07/13
75/08/09
75/09/14
13 40
09 50
14 15
14 00
13 20
09 30
11 45
16 35
13 30
11 10
10 45
15 40
10 10
2004A2
37 47 07.0 096 13 52.0 4
TALL RIVER
20 GREENWOOD CO MAP
T/FALL RIVEK tfESEKVOIR
KS H«r 99 6RDG 5 MI N OF CLIMAX
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
'&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.630
0.528
0.184
0.168
0.280
0.304
0.250
0.375
0.580
0.460
0.490
0.410
0.315
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.000
0.800
0.900
0.800
0.900
1.300
1.100
0.300
0.500
3.300
0.350
1.250
0.800
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.045
0.030
0.020
0.248
0.032
0.024
0.050
0.025
0.030
1.050
0.020
0.025
0.015
00671
PHOS-DIS
OP.THO
MG/L P
0.135
0.040
0.010
0.010
0.020
0.016
0.025
0.035
0.055
0.030
0.050
0.090
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.193
0.050
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.100
0.230
0.060
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/0**
2004B1
37 42 30.0 096 13 30.0 4
OTTER CREEK
20 15 SEVER*
T/FALL RIVER RESERVOIR 100391
KS H*Y 99 BRDG .5 Ml S OF CLIMAX
11EPALES 211120'*
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/10/13
74/11/21
74/ 12/13
75/01/11
75/02/08
75/03/08
75/04/13
75/05/02
75/05/19
75/05/29
75/06/12
75/06/28
75/07/13
75/07/20
75/07/25
75/09/14
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
14
09
14
13
13
09
11
16
13
15
16
11
10
15
11
10
15
35
00
40
50
00
30
25
50
50
20
00
30
00
00
00
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
176
520
304
264
270
352
330
290
490
300
240
510
530
360
400
630
MG/L
i.
i.
i.
0.
0.
i.
i.
0.
1.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
200
300
400
500
500
050
450
125
900
100
700
650
400
450
300
800
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.
0.
0.
025
035
025
040
016
016
030
025
040
125
350
040
020
035
015
040
MG/L
0.
G.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
010
010
012
024
008K
005
005
010
015
015
005
005
025
005
100
MG/L f
0.040
0.010
0.070
0.020
0.024
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.040
0.090
0.140
0.050
0.030
0.060
0.040
0.180
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/05/04
200<»AA TF2004AA P003631
3? 49 00.0 096 18 30.0 4
EUREKA
20 GREENWOOD COUNTY
T/FALL RIVER RES 100391
FALL RIVER
HEPALES 3141204
0000 FEET OEPTn CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/07/39
75/08/05
75/08/12
75/08/19
75/08/36
75/09/02
75/09/10
75/09/23
75/09/30
75/10/14
75/10/21
75/11/04
00630
TIME DEPTH N02&N03
OF N-TOTAL
DAY FEET
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
MG/L
12
19
21
20
15
13
15
16
16
13
15
16
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.800
.000
.800
.800
.200
.700
.000
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
4.
3.
3.
3.
8.
5.
7.
9.
10.
7.
9.
9.
600
500
600
200
700
500
600
900
000
400
300
100
00610 00671
NH3-N PHOS-DIS
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
c.
050K
125
044
000
830
360
375
150
100
790
680
MG/L P
10.500
12.000
12.600
9.500
13.500
12.600
12.000
14.500
14.000
14.000
00665 50051 50053
PMOS-TOT FLOW CONDUIT
RATE FLOW-MGD
MG/L
10.
12.
14.
11.
12.
10.
13.
13.
14.
14.
14.
15.
P INST MGD MONTHLY
500
000
000 0.300 0.300
800
500
500
500
000
500
500
500
300
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |