U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE HEFNER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
OKLTO1A
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 590
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE HEFNER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
OKLAHOMA
EPA REGION.VI
WORKING PAPER No, 590
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
AND THE
OKLAHOMA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON LAKE HEFNER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
EPA REGION VI
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Monitoring Branch
Monitoring Applications Laboratory
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Eutrophication Survey Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Working Paper No. 590
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Oklahoma Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 6
IV. Nutrient Loadings 12
V. Literature Reviewed 18
VI. Appendices 19
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicatlon 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, concen-
trations, 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 nonpoint source pollution abatement in lake water-
sheds.
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
watershed 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
L§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.
-------
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and tronhic condition
are being made to advance the rationale and data base for refine-
ment 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 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Oklahoma Department of
Pollution Control for professional involvement, to the Oklahoma
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the
Survey, and to those Oklahoma wastewater treatment plant operators
who provided effluent samples and flow data.
Dr. Denver Talley, Director, Oklahoma Department of Pollution
Control; the staff of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board; and the
staff of the Oklahoma State Department of Health reviewed the pre-
liminary reports and provided critiques most useful in the prepara-
tion of this Working Paper Series.
Major General John Coffey, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Oklahoma, and Project Officers Colonel Curtis W. Milligan and
Major James 0. Haney, Jr., who directed the volunteer efforts of
the Oklahoma National Guardsmen, are also gratefully acknowledged
for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
LAKE NAME
Altus Reservoir
Arbuckle Lake
Lake Elsworth
Lake Eufaula
Fort Cobb Reservoir
Fort Supply Reservoir
Foss Dam Reservoir
Lake Frances
Grand Lake 0' The Cherokees
Lake Hefner
Keystone Reservoir
Oologah Lake
Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir
Lake Thunderbird
Wister Reservoir
COUNTY
Greer, Kiowa
Murray
Caddo, Comanche
Haskell, Mclntosh,
Okmulgee, Pittsburg
Caddo
Woodward
Custer
Adair
Mayes, Delaware, Craig,
Ottowa
Oklahoma
Tulsa, Creek, Osage, Pawnee
Nowata, Rogers
Cherokee, Sequoyah
Cleveland
LeFlore
-------
Okla.
••» *- i
Map Location
LAKE HEFNER
Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
0 1 2 3
<- floodgate
-------
REPORT ON LAKE HEFNER, OKLAHOMA
STORE! NO. 4010
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
On the basis of field observations and Survey data, Lake
Hefner is considered eutrophic, i.e., nutrient rich and highly
productive. Whether such nutrient enrichment is to be consid-
ered beneficial or deleterious is determined by its actual or
potential impact upon designated beneficial water uses of each
lake.
Potential for primary production as indicated by algal
assay control yield was high on both sampling occasions.
Chlorophyll a_ values in the lake ranged from 0.9 yg/1 to 8.6
yg/1 with a mean of 5.7 yg/1. Of the 16 Oklahoma lakes,
(including Lake Texoma) sampled in 1974, 7 had higher median
total phosphorus levels, 6 had higher median inorganic nitrogen
values, and 3 had higher median orthophosphorus levels than
Lake Hefner.
Survey limnologists did not report any problem algal
blooms or macrophyte growths in the lake. However, low Secchi
disc readings (range of 0.8 to 1.2 m) suggest that light may
be limiting primary production in Lake Hefner.
*See Appendix E.
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay data indicate phosphorus was the primary limiting
nutrient in Lake Hefner during spring sampling and nitrogen was
limiting during fall. Mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
(N/P) ratios in the lake data were 8/1 or less on all sampling
occasions, indicating primary limitation by nitrogen.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
There were two municipal point sources (El Reno and
Yukon) known to impact Lake Hefner during the 1974 sampling
year. However, loadings from these plants are not defined in
the lake nutrient budget on pages 13 and 14. Lake Hefner
is a storage reservoir for Oklahoma City and water is pumped
in from the North Canadian River (through Bluff Creek Canal)
when its flow is sufficient for pumping. Input from the sew-
age treatment plants is indirectly received to Lake Hefner via
this pumping, and estimations for actual annual contributions
to the lake from these sources are not available. Plant load-
ings are reflected, however, in the calculated loadings for
Bluff Creek Canal (B-l).
The estimated annual phosphorus loading to Lake Hefner
2
of 0.45 g P/m /yr is greater than Vollenweider's proposed
"eutrophic" level (1975). Although Vollenweider's model may
-------
not be applicable to lakes in which epilimnetic light penetra-
tion is severely restricted by the presence of suspended
solids, actual annual loading to the lake may be higher than
calculated due to runoff from Oklahoma City or unmeasured sew-
age treatment plant influences. Thus, any future nutrient
addition to the lake should be carefully evaluated as to its
potential impact on the trophic state of the lake.
2. Nonpoint sources -
During the sampling year, nonpoint sources (including
precipitation) contributed all of the calculated nutrient
budget to Lake Hefner. The Bluff Creek Canal (pumping some
impacted water from the North Canadian River) contributed
93.7% of the total phosphorus load, and ungaged drainage areas
contributed an estimated 2.4%.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake surface area and mean depth were provided by the Oklahoma
Department of Pollution Control; maximum depth was provided by the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Tributary flow data were provided
by the Oklahoma District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Outlet drainage area includes the lake surface area. Mean hydraulic
retention time was obtained by dividing the lake volume by mean
flow of the outlet. Precipitation values are estimated by methods
as outlined in National Eutrophication Survey (NES) Working Paper
No. 175. A table of metric/English conversions is included as
Appendix A.
A. Lake Morphometry:
2
1. Surface area: 10.12 km .
2. Mean depth: 9.1 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 26.2 meters.
4. Volume: 92.092 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 1,077 days (2.9 yrs).
-------
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area(km2! (m3/sec)
B-l Bluff Creek Canal* 0.0 1.48
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 15.0 0.04
Totals 15.0 1.52
2. Outlet - A-l Lake Hefner
Waterworks* - 25.1 0.99
C- Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 103.7 cm.
2. Mean annual: 81.9 cm.
*A-1 arid B-l are canals which flow according to man's needs.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Hefner 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 three stations on the lake (Station 02 and 03 were
only sampled twice) and from a number of depths at each station
(see map, page v). During each visit, depth-integrated samples
were collected from each station for chlorophyll ^analysis and
phytoplankton identification and enumeration. During the first
and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-integrated samples were compos-
ited for algal assays. Maximum depths sampled were 18.3 meters at
Station 01, 18.6 meters at Station 02, and 4.3 meters at Station
03. For a more detailed explanation of NES methods, see NES Work-
ing Paper No. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in III-A for waters at the surface and at the maxi-
mum depth for each site. Results of the phytoplankton counts and
chlorophyll a^ determinations are included in III-B. Results of the
limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.
-------
4MO OFf.'ICflL CHARACTERISTICS
( 10/P4/74 )
DftOA/cTrp . i <> ^ fi M^ F M F f> T a M
n.-i.cMnrcTfc, ? li.^-ln.9 1 ^ .<*
v/sinrOTH-i**- 1 1 0 . 4 - I < ) • S 1 ^ • w
nissoi >/rr> oiyr-F.-, <*(VL>
0.-i.c v nF_sT-" i o.q- q.n O.H
!i< A < n F B T H oo _ 1 ^ . ft - 9 . «, 3.6
rONOIICTI VITY Ult.'-iOcl
o.-i.s •/ OF.C.TH ? «,<^5.- ftft5. ftftc.
v/'K'IFPT'-'OO 1 ftft-<.-fto9. ft ft Q .
Q € _ \ , t, M TFPTH ? ft . 1 - H.I f) . 1
•,'A» iiFPT1-1-** 1 ".!.- y.l P.I
TOTM. Al_* ft|_ I"T TV <••"". /L)
O.-l.s >•' ri£PTH ?. 134.- life. 135.
V.AV PFPTHSO 1 1?9.- 1?9. 1?Q.
T p T ft |. P ( M fi / L )
O.-l.^ " "iFPTH ? 0.0ft4-0.073 O.OftB
v/\it rjFOTM** 1 0.053-0.053 0.053
pfcjcni V;Fn OCThO P (MG/l_l
O.-l.^ " rsFOfM a 0.0^3-0.063 0.0^3
MM "FPTH'* ' O.'^-O.n^ 0.046
r.-l.= '•' "IFC-T-M P 0.140-0.140 0.140
:.> 1 ii . 1 50-0 . 1^0 0.1^0
AMMOM T A ( wj/L )
o.-l.c -•• HE^TH •> n.?50-o.?ftO O.PCC,
,..tt 0rPTu«o i o.^o-o.P40 O.'i.)
K JKL '' ^Hl. ^J ( MH /L 1
f.-l.^vOFPT-i ' '1.710-0. MO (1 0.7 co
^-/vy I-)CU>TM 1 O.ftOO-O.ftOO O.ftOf)
CFf.THl OI^C ( ••FTc'-'S)
1 0 . •'— 0 . n -0 . "
» „ = N0 nF SftMpLF'
*f» MC>1MHM UtPTM SA'
««« c = wo. OF <;MF.'
(MFTF«^) ^J* OAN^F *^FOTAN
0.0— 1.5 ft 1ft. 5— 1ft. 7 1ft. ft
1.5- 1.5 ft A. 4- M.4 «.4
1ft. P- 1ft. H 3 7.8- S.ft H.4
0.0- 1 .5 ft 79ft.- 814. Rl?.
!*.«_ ,ft.H ^ POO.- H)2. R09.
0.0- 1.5 6 rt.l- «.3 8.2
1ft. P- 1 ft. H "> P.I- «.3 P.?
0.0- l.S ft 13«.- 146. 143.
1ft. P- 1ft. K 3 14?.- 143. 14?.
0.0- 1.5 ft 0.0=14-0.06? 0.054
1ft. 8- 1ft. 8 3 0.058-0.068 0.066
0.0- 1.5 ft 0.034-0.055 0.040
1ft. 8- lft.8 3 0.0.34-0.046 0.045
0.0- 1.5 ft O.?10-0.?20 O.?10
1 * . 8 - 16. " 3 0.210-0.210 0.210
0.0- 1.5 (-. 0.030-0.040 0.040
1ft. P- 1ft. P I 0.030-0.070 0.050
0.0- l.H ft 0.400-0.700 0.500
16. P- 1ft. H 3 0.400-0.500 0.500
^ 0.0- 1.1 O.Q
"WI.F.O AT EACr -IT£
^ SAMPLED O1^! T^Ie OATF
DEPTH
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 1ft. ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- iH.ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 18. ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 18. ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 18. ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- lrt.6
0.0- 1.5
4.3- IP. ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 1H. 6
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 18. ft
0.0- 1.5
4.3- 18.6
N * ^ A N ft F
4 ? 3.5- ?4 . o
v 7.*- o.n
? 6.0- 7.8
4 863.- 8P5.
? P56 . - 8ft3.
4 8.5- P. ft
? b.ft- P. 7
4 1 31 .- 141.
? 131.- 130.
4 0.047-0.040
? 0. (147-0. OftO
4 0.0?9-0.n33
? 0.034-0. n.37
4 o.lftO-o.pao
*> 0.180-0.180
4 O.(i4()-n.o«0
? 0.0-<0-n. i o"
4 O.bOO-O.woO
? 0 .600-0 . 500
y 1.1- i . ?
= ?
7.h
ft.-*
874.
OftO.
rt.h
«.ft
140.
135.
0.04*
0.053
0.032
0.035
0.170
0.180
0.05S
o.ooo
0 . ft 0 0
0.500
1.1
MAX
DFDTH
0.0- 1 .ft
3.7- 15.5
1 .s-
3.7-
o.n-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
0.0-
3.7-
l.S
15.5
1.5
15.5
l.b
15.5
l.S
15.5
l.b
15.5
1 .5
15.5
1.5
15.5
1.5
15.5
l.b
15.5
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/29/74
06/11/74
10/24/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cyclotella
Oocystis
Chroomonas
Cryptomonas
Nitzschia
Other genera
Total
Chroomonas
Microcystis
Anabaena
Oocystis
Microcystis
Other genera
Total
Chroomonas
Coelosphaerium
Stephanodiscus
Dactylococcopsis
Tetrastrum
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
74
55
18
18
18
183
507
362
181
181
72
219
1,522
556
75
68
31
25
102
857
-------
2. Chlorophyll
Sampling Station Chlorophyll
Date Number (pg/1)
03/29/74 01 0.9
02
03
06/11/74 01
02 8.6
03 6.6
10/24/74 01 6.4
02 5.4
03 6.1
-------
10
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum Yield
Spike(mg/1) Conc.(mg/l) Conc.(mg/l) (mg/l-dry wt.)
a. 03/29/74
Control 0.020 0.292 5.0
0.05 P 0.070 0.292 12.2
0.05 P + 1.0 N 0.070 1.292 29.1
1.00 N 0.020 1.292 5.2
b. 10/24/74
Control 0.026 0.139 3.0
0.05 P 0.076 0.139 3.1
0.05 P + 1.0 N 0.076 1.139 20.0
1.00 N 0.026 1.139 7.3
-------
11
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity was
high in Lake Hefner during both spring and fall sampling. It is
anticipated that the control yield would have been substantially
higher were it not for significant nutrient losses occurring
between the time of sample collection and assay. The nutrient
loss changed the relative proportions of inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus resulting in assay results of questionable utility,
at best.
In the spring sample, the addition of phosphorus alone pro-
duced a significant increase in yield over that of the control,
indicating phosphorus limitation. The addition of nitrogen alone
did not result in any increase in yield over that of the control.
In the autumn assay, the addition of nitrogen alone resulted in
a significant increase in yield, indicating nitrogen limitation at
that time. The maximum increases in yield over that of the control
were achieved with the simultaneous addition of both nutrients.
Mean N/P ratios in the lake data were 8/1 or less on all
sampling occasions, suggesting primary limitation by nitrogen (a
mean N/P ratio of 14/1 or greater generally reflects phosphorus
limitation).
-------
12
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Oklahoma
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 April and May when generally two
samples were collected. Sampling was begun in November 1974, and
completed in August 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for
the year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were pro-
vided by the Oklahoma District Office of the USGS for the tribu-
tary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
determined by using a modification of a USGS computer program for
calculating stream loadings. Nutrient loads indicated for tribu-
taries are those measured minus known point source loads, if any.
Nutrient loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and
immediate drainage" ("II" of USGS) were estimated by using the
mean annual concentrations in Unnamed Creek at Station C-l and
mean annual II flow.
-------
A. Waste Sources:
1 . Known municipal
Name
El Renot
Yukon
'1"
Pop.*
Served
14,510
7,000
Treatment*
Trickling
filter
Stabilization
pond
Mean Flow
(m3/d x 103)
5.492**
2.650**
Receiving
Hater
North Canadian
River
North Canadian
River
2. Known industrial - None
*U.S.EPA, 1971. ^
**Estimated at 0.3785 m /capita/day.
flake Hefner is a storage reservoir for Oklahoma City and water is
pumped in from the North Canadian River when its flow is sufficient
for pumping. Thus, input from sewage treatment plants is indirectly
received to Lake Hefner via this pumping.
-------
14
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
B-l Bluff Creek Canal 4,250 93.7
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 110 2.4
c. Known municipal STP's* -
El Reno ?
Yukon ?
d. Septic tanks - None
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 175 3.9
Totals 4,535 100.0
2. Output - A-l Lake Hefner
Waterworks - 950
3. Net annual P accumulation - 3,535
*See footnote t, page 12.
**Estimated (See NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
15
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
B-l Bluff Creek Canal 49,025 79.8
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 1,520 2.5
c. Known municipal STP's* -
El Reno ?
Yukon ?
d. Septic tanks - None
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 10.925 17.7
Totals 61,470 100.0
2. Output - A-l Lake Hefner
Waterworks - 54,640
3. Net annual N accumulation - 6,830
*See footnote t, page 12.
**Estimated (See Working Paper No. 175).
-------
16
D. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P Mean Total
Tributary (mg/1) (mg/1)
C-l Unnamed Creek 0.089 1.205
D-l Chisholm Creek 0.073 6.320
-------
17
E. Yearly Loadings:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus annual load-
ing is compared to the relationship proposed by Vollenweider (1975).
Essentially, his "eutrophic" loading is that at which the receiving
waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic; his "oligotrophic"
loading is that which would result in the receiving water remain-
ing oligotrophic or becoming oligotrophic if morphometry permitted.
A "mesotrophic" loading would be considered one between "eutrophic"
and "oligotrophic".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to water
bodies with very short retention times or in which light penetra-
tion is severely restricted from high concentrations of suspended
solids in the surface waters.
Total Yearly
Phosphorus Loading
(g/m2/yr)
Estimated loading for Lake Hefner 0.45
Vollenweider's "eutrophic" loading 0.34
Vollenweider's "oligotrophic" loading 0.17
-------
18
V. LITERATURE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. "Inventory of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities" EPA Publication No. OWP-1, Volume 6.
Office of Media Programs, Office of Water Programs, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophica-
tion Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175. National
Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Pacific
Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-Output Models With Special
Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology.
Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 37:53-84.
-------
19
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.62H = miles
Meters x 3.281 - feet
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/squaro mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY KLO« INFORMATION FOR OM..AHCMA
03/2.=>/77
LA*E CODE 4010
TOTAL. DRAINAGE A*E4 OF LAKLtSQ
4010A1
4010al
4010ZZ
SUB-DRAINAGE
25.1
0.0
25.1
NORMALIZED FLOwS(CMS)
JAN FE3
0.91 O.P9
1.13 1.19
0.017 0.023
MAR
1.12
1.39
0.028
4PH
0,79
1.39
0,040
MAf
1.12
1.42
0.147
JUN
0.99
1,78
0.0d2
1
2
0.
JUL
.30
.18
0»*ft
AUb
1.22
2.10
0.017
StP
0.82
1.56
0.048
OCT
1.12
1.36
0.048
NOV
0.74
1.13
0.017
DEC
0.82
1.13
0.017
MEAN
0.99
1.4*
0.0<45
SUMMARY
\REA OF LAKE =
^AGE AREAS =
25.1
25.1
TOTAL FLOW
TOTAL FLO*
IN =
OUT =
18.
11.
29
d<*
NOTE «** Al <; Bl ARt CANALS-FLOwS AT MAN'S NEEOS.
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLuwS(CMS)
TRldUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY
4010A1
FLOW DAY
FLOW
40JOB1
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
74 i
74 «
75 <
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74 (
75 (
75
75 i
75 (
75
75
75
75 ;
75 (
75 (
J.623
J.850
'.878
.133
.133
.181
,3o 3
,07*
,359
.133
.218
.189
.274
J.003
!.006
J.028
>.QG8
J.001
1.274
.331
.8
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INF'CH'-'.A F ION t-'Orf OKLA-iOKA 03/25/77
LAKE CODE <*r»lO nEFxiER
HO'JTi-LV FLOf.'S AND OAILY FLOrtS(CMS)
,'^ONTH YtAK MEAN FLOW DAY rLO* OAT rLOW DAY FLOW
11
12
1
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
74
74
75
7S
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7b
\.?«f>
n.l.?7
0.2^1
0.311
0.235
0.1 59
0.566
0.311
0.31 1
0.201
0.096
0.074
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
OME 77/03/24
/TYPA/AMBNT/LVKr"
DATE
FPOM
TO
TIME OEPTi
OF
DAY FEET
74/03/39 17 OS 0000
17 CS OOO'j
17 05 0015
17 OS 0030
17 05 0055
74/10/24 09 10 0000
09 10 00 OS
09 10 0015
09 10 0030
09 10 0045
09 10 0060
00010
CENT
10.9
1C. 9
1C. 9
10.9
10.4
16. 6
16.6
16.6
16.5
16.4
16.1
00300
DO
MG/L
4.8
10.0
10.0
9.6
P. 4
8,4
8.6
8.4
H.2
7.8
CD077
TrtuNSP
SECCHI
INCHES
30
36
00094
CiiouCTvr
FIFLO
MICKUMHO
665
665
666
666
664
796
610
t<08
807
805
*00
35 34 14.0 097 35 33.0 3
LA!\t rIEFNtK
40134 IMLAnGMA
100792
00400
su
8. 10
8.10
8.10
8.10
6.10
8.10
8.10
d.15
8.10
8.10
•8.10
ES 0<+001002
FEET Ot
00410
T ALrv
CAC03
MG/L
134
136
135
133
129
138
139
140
139
142
143
FT~ CLASS
00610
NHJ-IM
TOTAL
MG/L
0.260
0.250
0.260
0.260
0.240
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.070
00
Q062S
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0,800
0.700
0.700
0.800
0.600
0.700
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.500
0.500
00630
N02sfn03
,N|- TOTAL
MG/L
0.140
0.140
0.150
0.140
0.150
0.220
0.210
0.210
0.220
0.210
0.210
00071
pnOs-jIS
G^ThO
MG/L P
0.063
0.063
0.055
0.055
0.046
0.03<*
0.036
0.041
0.035
0.035
0,045
-------
blORET RETRIEVAL uATE
4U1001
35 34 14.0 097 35 33.0 3
"010V
100792
04001002
FEET Ut^Tn CLASS 00
UC665 32217 00031
DATE TIMF DEeTH °HOS-TDT CnLPPHvL INCOT LT
F^OM OF A ^t'-'N.'!NG
TO JAY FEET MO/L f JG/L PERCENT
74/03/29 17 05 0000 D.073
17 05 0005 u.06"
17 05 OOlb O.OS6
17 OS 0030 0.055
17 05 005S o.053
74/10/2'* 03 10 0000 C.061
09 10 000 b c.OS^
09 10 0015 O.OS9
0^ 10 0030 0.0f>0
0^ 10 0045 ''.06?
09 10 J060 J.Obc
.9
-------
STjRET PET*iFv4L OATF 77/03/24
401002
35 34 40.0 097 36 21.0 3
HEFNER LAKE
<*0109
11EPALES 751204 0*001002
005b FEE1 DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE TIME DEPTH
FkOM OF
TO OAY FEET
7^/06/11 09 « 0000
09 55 0005
09 55 0015
i>9 ^5 0020
09 55 0030
09 55 0051
74/10/24 10 00 0000
10 00 0005
10 00 OOlb
10 00 0040
10 00 0061
00010
WAf ER
Ttw
CENT
00300
DO
MG/L
?4.8
24.8
24.3
23.6
23.-
16.7
16.5
16. <•
16.3
16.3
8.0
8.0
7.5
7.4
6.0
d.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
6.4
0-*>077
TrUNor O
SECCHI FIELD
INCHEb MI
43
42
94
TVY
MHO
«85
885
886
880
863
«S6
814
813
811
809
809
004CO
PH
su
B.5n
8.60
8*70
8.70
8.60
H.6U
8.20
8.20
8.20
8.15
8.20
00410
T SL*
CAC03
MG/L
141
139
141
139
140
139
l<+4
144
143
143
142
00610
Nn3-N
TOTAL
Mb/L
0.050
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.080
0.100
0*030
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.050
00625
ToT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
0.600
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.500
0.400
0.400
0*500
0.500
00530
N02<»iMU3
iN-ToTAL
MG/L
0.160
0.160
0.190
0*180
0.180
0. 160
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
00t>71
PnOS-uIS
OHTriU
MG/L P
0.031
0*029
0.034
0»032
0.033
O.U J7
0.045
0.03b
0.036
0*035
0.034
-------
bTOREl RETRIEVAL JATE 77/C3/24
401002
35 34 40.0 037 36 21.0 3
DtFNE« LAKE
4010^ OM.A-10M4
/TYPA/AMBNT/LAKt"
11EPALES 751204 04001002
0056 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
03665 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH PhOS-TOT CHLRPHYu
FkOM OF A
TO OAY FEET MG/L P UG/L
74/0'i/ll 0>i S5 0000 C.0^9 ft.6
09 SS OOOb O.OH?
OS S5 0015 0.052
09 5S 0020 0.048
09 S5 0030 ti.047
i)^ SS 0051 0.060
74/10/24 10 00 0000 0.057 5.4
10 00 0005 0.054
10 00 0015 0.056
10 00 0040 C.057
10 00 0061 0.066
COC31
INCOT LT
REMMNG
PERCENT
-------
STOtfET
DATE 77/03/^4
401003
35 34 48.0 097 35 10.0 3
ritFNtrt LAKE
"4U109
11EPALES 751204 04001002
OOlb FEET UEPTr* CLASS 00
DATE
FPGM
TO
74/06/1 1
74/10/24(
TI-'.E OEPTn
OF
DAY FEET
10 ~»C OOOC
ID 30 0005
10 30 0012
(09 SO 0000
!U9 =0 0005
09 60 0014
G0010
*ATEK
Tc.;-^JEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.500
o.'soo
0.600
0.400
0.400
00630
N02^NOj
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.180
0.280
0.180
0.210
0.210
0.210
00b71
PHOS-uIS
ORTnO
MG/L P
0.033
0.033
0.034
0.055
0.053
0.046
00665
DATE TI"(F DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
74/06/11 10 30 0000
10 10 0005
10 30 0012
74/10/24 09 50 0000
09 50 0005
09 50 0014
0.048
C.049
0.047
C.062
C.059
0.058
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
6.6
6.1
INCUT LT
HEMN1NG
PERCENT
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STOREI' HETRIFVAL OATC 77/03/2'f
4010A1
35 33 OS.O 097 37 ^0.0
LAKE HEFNER
<»0 7.5
(J/LAKE HEF.-MEN 100793
0.1 Mf N OF JCT N HEFNER RL)" 6. hEFNEK DAM
11EPALES 04001004
'0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FHOM
TO
74/11/02
74/12/19
75/03/30
75/04/13
75/04/15
75/04/2?
75/04/30
75/05/02
75/08/25
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02'sN03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TuTAL N
OAY FEET MG/L MG/L
i/9
13
13
14
15
14
10
08
14
00
3C
00
00
00
CO
00
00
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.384
.125
.030
.060
.055
.030
.050
.055
2.
1.
6.
1.
i.
2.
1.
3.
1.
000
900
750
150
450
200
050
100
000
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N Pi-iOS-DIS PUDS-TOT
TOTAL OWTHO
MG/L MG/L P MG/L P
C.
0.
C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o'.
290
040
025
040
045
09?
050
250
C25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.005
.005K.
.005K
.015
.020
.020
.020
.005
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.040
0.050
K, VALUE KNOWN TO tiE
LESS THAN
-------
STOk'ET RETRIEVAL DATE ?7/03/?'-<
/TYPA/ANdNT/STREAM
4010dl
35 33 04.0 097 37 £0
dLUFF CREEK CAMAL
•+0 7.5 h
T/LAKE HEFNER
bhfDG ON HrfY
11EPALES
0 4
100792
3 3.3 Ml NE OKLA CITY LIMITS
04001004
oooo FEET DEPT^ CLASS oo
DATE
FROM
TO
74/12/19
75/01/23
75/02/25
75/03/30
75/C4/13
75/04/30
75/05/02
75/05/09
75/08/25
TIME DEPTH
OF
OAY FEET
13 50
13 30
14 30
13 ?0
13 45
12 45
11 30
15 10
14 00
00630
N02&N03
\'- TOTAL
MG/L
1.060
3.5b2
0.352
3.270
C . 0 1 5
0.020
0.090
0.050
0.015
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
4.^00
l.?00
2.400
0.950
1.050
l.^OO
0.300
1.250
0.750
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.115
0.056
0.056
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.240
0.025
0.345
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTriO
MG/L P
0.115
0.085
o.ooe
0.060
0.020
0.010
0.010
0.025
0.105
00665
PnOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.160
0.150
0.040
0.130
0.06U
0.090
0.02U
0.160
0.260
-------
bTOfiET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/03/24
/TYPA/AMoNT/STPF.AM
4010C1
35 32 35.0 097 35 50.0 4
UNNAMED CrtEEK
HO 7.5 fl*ITTON
I/LAKE HEFNER 100792
LGHT UTY KD ciRDG 200 YHDS E OF FIPE ST
11EPALES 04001004
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/12/19
75/01/23
75/02/25
75/03/30
75/04/13
75/04/30
75/05/09
75/C8/25
TIME OtlPTf
OF
OAY FEET
14
13
14
13
13
14
14
fn
40
30
40
00
15
00
00630 00625
1 i*0
-------
STDRET
E. 7iY03/24
40101D
35 35 15.0 097 32 45.0 4
CHISrtOLM CHEEK
40 7.5 rfrtlTTu.N
T/LAKE HEFNER 100792
STREET XING 0.5 Ml S Of LHIVE- IN-T-.EATWE
11EPALES 04001004
0000 f-EET DEPTM CLASS 00
DATE
Ff
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
-------
LAKE DATA TO RE USEO IH. RANKINGS
LAKE
CGUE LAKE NAME
4001 ALfUS
40U? AU^UCXL? LAKE
4003 LAKE t'LLSWQPTh
4004 LAKE E'UF/UILA
400b FORT COHS
4006 FGrfT SUPPLY RESERVOIR
4007 FOSS OA" RESEPVOI*
40()« LAKE FRANCES
400^ Gu*NO LAKE 0' TrtE CHEROK
4010 LAKE HEFNER
4011 KEYSTONE HESFRVOIR
4012 OOLOGAM LAKE
4013 TEMKILLER FEPRY RF5ERVOI
4014 LAKE THUMDEKHIRD
4015 WISTEP
4834 TEXCMA LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL t>
0.041
O.T20
0.03?
O.ofrl
0.138
O.r,70
0.027
0.142
0.067
0.057
0.136
0.059
0.039
O.n27
0.080
0.045
MEDIAN
INORT, N
0.060
0.070
0.070
-0.40S
0.1 lU
0.135
0.090
1.780
0.7*0
0.250
0.690
0.580
0.550
0.150
0.230
0.160
500-
MEAN SEC
a6B.62S
443.600
"59.400
482.513
454.667
485.167
463.857
484.333
468.857
461.000
484.303
483.000
435.500
465.000
478.500
460.875
MEAN
CHLOKA
14.750
7.027
8.4JO
4.3fl3
14.967
9.733
4.862
7.973
6.768
5.667
21.427
5.137
6.646
8.422
4.812
12.325
15-
MIN 00
8.<*00
14.600
9,<»00
14.200
8.400
7.600
8.400
8.200
14.800
9.000
14.900
14.600
15.000
12.000
15.000
14.600
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO
0.010
0.003
0.009
0.029
0.01?
0.014
0.006
0.093
0.03B
0.036
0.096
0.031
0.016
0.009
0.016
0.016
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES »ITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBFR OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
COUt LAKE NAME
( 1)
( ?)
( 3)
( 0)
( 4)
( 7)
( 1?)
( M
( 7)
------- |