U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE CROWLEY
MONO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 743
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKECROWLEY
TO (MY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 743
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1978
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of California Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Reservoir and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
IV. Water Quality Summary 4
V. Literature Reviewed 8
VI. Appendices 9
-------
11
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
V
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 [§303Cc)], 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.
-------
Ill
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentration (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, 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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the California State Water
Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards for professional involvement, to the California
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of
the Survey, and to those California wastewater treatment plant
operators who voluntarily provided effluent samples and flow
data.
The staff of the Division of Planning and Research of the
State Water Resources Control Board provided invaluable lake
documentation and counsel during the Survey, coordinated the
reviews of the preliminary reports, and provided critiques
most useful in the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General Glen C. Ames, the Adjutant General of Cali-
fornia, and Project Officer Second Lieutenant Terry L. Barrie,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the California National
Guardsmen, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance
to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY RESERVOIRS
State of California
Name
Amador
Boca
Britton
Casitas
Crowley
Don Pedro
Elsinore
Fallen Leaf
Hennessey
Henshaw
Iron Gate
Lopez
Mary
Mendocino
Nicasio
Lower Otay
Pillsbury
Santa Margarita
Shasta
Shaver
Silver
Tahoe
Tulloch
Lower Twin
Upper Twin
County
Amador
Nevada
Shasta
Ventura
Mono
Tuolumne
Riverside
El Dorado
Napa
San Diego
Siskiyou
San Luis Obispo
Mono
Mendocino
Mari n
San Diego
Lake
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Fresno
Mono
El Dorado, Placer, CA;
Carson City, Douglas,
Mashoe, NV
Calaveras, Tuolumne
Mono
Mono
-------
-37'30'
LAKE CROWLEY
Lake Sampling Site
Drainage Area Boundary
2 1/2 5
Scale
7 1/2 Mi .
-------
LAKE CROWLEY
STORE! NO. 0605
I. INTRODUCTION
Lake Crowley was included in the National Eutrophication Survey
as a water body of interest to the California State Water Resources
Control Board. Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled,
and this report relates only to reservoir sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition*:
Survey data indicate that Lake Crowley is eutrophic It
ranked fourteenth in overall trophic quality when the 24
California lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared
using a combination of six parameters**. Sixteen of the
water bodies had less median total phosphorus, 18 had less
median dissolved orthophosphorus, five had less median
inorganic nitrogen, 13 had less mean chlorophyll a_, and eight
had greater mean Secchi disc transparency. Depression of
hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen occurred at sampling station 1
in June (2.8 mg/1 at 25.9 meters).
Survey limnologists noted surface concentrations of
algae in June and November, and depression of dissolved oxy-
gen and fish kills have been reported to occur in the reservoir
(Johns, 1975).
* Trophic assessment is based on levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and
chlorophyll a; phytoplankton kinds and numbers; and transparency (Allurn
et al., 19777.
** See Appendix A
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate the reservoir was nitrogen
limited in early June. The reservoir data indicate nitrogen
limitation at all sampling stations and times.
-------
III. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTER1STICS+
A. Morphometryi"*":
1. Surface area: 21.38 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 10.6 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 38.4 meters.
4. Volume: 226.628 x 106tm3.
B. Precipitation*
1. Year of sampling: 8.1 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 14.5 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
tt Dendy, 1974.
* See Working Paper No. 175, "... Survey Methods, 1973-1976",
-------
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Crowley was sampled three times during the open-water season
of 1975 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. The first
time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected
from a number of depths at two stations and thereafter from three
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 25.9 meters at station 1,
14.6 meters at station 2, and 7.9 meters at station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT AUK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L)
N02«N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/L>
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING < 6/10/75)
2 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
10.0 - 17.6 14.1 15.3
5.a - 7.8 6.9 7.3
169. - 233. 211. 213.
7.9 - 8»5 8.3 8.4
87. - 116. 108. 110.
0.034 - 0.068 0.047 0.042
0.032 - 0.072 0.046 0.042
0.020 - 0.030 0.021 0.020
0.020 - 0.050 0.026 0.020
0.200 - 0.200 0.200 0.200
0.040 - 0.070 0.047 0.040
0.220 - 0.230 0.221 0.220
1.0 - 1.7 1.3 1.3
5.5 - 5.5 5.5 5.5
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR CROWLEY LAKE
STORET CODE 0605
2ND SAMPLING ( 6/30/75)
3 SITES
RANGE
13.8 - 20.3
2.8 -
8.8
231. - 271.
7.8 - 8.8
98. - 121.
0.049 - 0.446
0.026 - 0.122
0.020 - 0.030
0.030 - 0.120
0.400 - 0.800
0.050 - 0.150
0.420 - 0.820
4.8 - 6.8
1.5 - 3.0
MEAN MEDIAN
17.2 16.9
6.9
250.
8.4
110.
0.104
0.046
0.021
0.041
0.507
0.062
0.529
5.5
2.4
7.6
250.
8.5
111.
0.070
0.039
0.020
0.035
0.500
0.055
0.520
5.0
2.7
3RD SAMPLING (ll/ 5/75)
3 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
7.5 - 8.2 7.9 7.9
8.0 - 9.4 8.6 . 8.6
235. - 248. 241. 241.
8.6 - 8.8 8.7 8.7
64. - 109. 95. 97.
0.027 - 0.071 0.037 0.033
0.011 - 0.018 0.013 0.013
0.020 - 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.020 - 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.200 - 0.400 0.246 0.200
0.040 - 0.040 0.040 0.040
0.220 - 0.420 0.266 0.220
8.8 - 9.3 9.0 9.0
-otnnnnnnnnnnnniinnnnnnjo
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phy to plankton -
Sampling
Date
06/10/75
06/30/75
Dominant
Genera
1. Chroomonas (?) sp.
2. Asterionella sp.
3. Dinobryon sp.
4. Fragilaria sp.
5. Cryptomonas sp.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Chroomonas (?) sp.
Anabaena sp.
Asterionella sp.
Schroederia sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
11/05/75 1. Aphanizomenon sp.
2. Fragilaria sp.
Chroomonas "(?) sp.
Oscillatoria sp_.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Other genera
Total
Algal Units
per ml
1,049
504
378
252
84
2,267
892
803
758
580
312
668
4,013
421
225
168
140
112
29
1,095
-------
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll _a_
Date Number (yig/1)
06/10/75 1 1.7
2 1.0
3
06/30/75 1 6.8
2 5.0
3 4.8
11/05/75 1 9.0
2 8.8
3 9.3
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/l-dry wt.)
Control 0.040 0.050 2.7
0.050 P 0.090 0.050 2.5
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.090 1.050 24.8
1.0 N 0.040 1.050 13.0
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Lake Crowley was high at the time the sample was col-
lected (06/10/75). Also, a significant increase in yield
with the addition of nitrogen alone indicates that the reservoir
was limited by nitrogen at that time. Note that the addition
of phosphorus alone did not result in an increased yield.
The reservoir data also indicate nitrogen limitation; i.e.,
the mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios were
3/1 or less each sampling time.
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
All urn, M.O., R.E. Glessner, and J. H. Gakstatter, 1977. An evalua-
tion of the National Eutrophication Survey data. Working Paper No.
900, Corvallis Env. Res. Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Dendy, William B., 1974. Personal communication (waterbody infor-
mation and morphometry). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Johns, Gerald E., 1975. Personal communication (Lake Crowley
water quality summary). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
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.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE' RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO rt£ USED IN BANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
OfaOl
0602
0603
060".
060S
0606
0607
0604
0609
0610
0611
061<>
061S
0616
0617
0618
0619
0630
0631
0632
0633
0634
0625
0626
LAKE N4ME
A"AOO« RESERVOIR
60CA LAKE
LAKE BPITTON
CASITAS RESERVOIR
CROWLEY LAKE
DON PEDRO RESERVOIR
LAKE ELSINORE
FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
LAKE HENNESSEY
LAKE HENSHAW
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
LOPEZ LAKE
LAKE MARY
LAKE MENDOCINO
NICASIO RESERVOIR
LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
LAKE PILLSBURY
SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
SHASTA LAKE
SrtAVER
SILVER LAKE
TULLOCK RESERVOIR
UPPER TWIN LAKES
LOWER TWIN LAKES
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.040
.012
.067
.029
.046
.013
.469
.007
.027
.138
.184
.371
.010
.020
.055
.058
.022
.037
.021
.014
.012
.025
.015
.014
MEDIAN
INORG N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.390
.040
.115
.050
.045
.060
.120
.040
.060
.070
.690
.090
.040
.050
.345
.180
.060
.070
.060
.060
.055
.060
.040
.040
500-
MEAN SEC
408
373
.667
.833
44d.500
400
374
3al
489
24
416
461
440
373
296
436
482
447
466
400
381
346
356
433
300
248
.250
.750
.733
.214
.357
.000
.000
.333
.000
.000
.500
.778
.250
.667
.000
.542
.400
.000
.000
.300
.000
MEAN
CMLORA
32.
1.
4.
3.
5.
3.
70.
0.
4.
26.
6.
8.
2.
3.
6.
15.
6.
9.
4.
1.
1.
13.
3.
2.
383
700
an
192
800
564
572
786
525
783
317
658
550
100
633
933
389
122
087
700
aoo
878
340
900
15-
MIN 00
14.600
6.800
11.200
14.000
13.300
11.400
8.000
8.800
15.000
9.800
13.800
15.000
10.600
9.400
9.800
15.000
8.200
14.800
9.000
'7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
0.020
0.003
0.04/
0.014
0.034
0.004
0.092
0.005
0.013
0.073
0.124
0.343
0.002
O.OOB
0.013
0.013
o.ooe
0.014
0.015
0.004
0.003
0.009
0.004
0.003
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES «ITn nIGhEH VALUES
< 19)
( 01
< 23!
< ID
< 3)
< 2)
( 1!
1 22)
( IS)
I 6)
( 5)
( 13)
( 9)
( 14)
( 18)
(20)
I 12)
( 16)
( 171
MEDIAN
INOHG N
4
98
22
74
78
54
17
87
54
33
0
26
87
70
9
13
41
33
54
41
65
54
98
67
( 1)
( 221
( S>
( 17)
I 18)
( ID
! 4!
I 191
< 111
( 71
< 01
( 61
( 19)
( 16)
< 2)
( 31
( 91
( 7!
( 11)
I 9)
r is>
i ID
( 22)
I 19)
500-
MEAH SEC
43
70
17
48
65
57
0
100
39
13
26
74
91
30
4
22
9
52
61
83
78
35
87
96
( 10)
( 161
( 4)
( HI
( IS)
( 13)
( 0)
( 23)
( 9)
( 3)
( 6)
< 171
( 21)
( 7)
( 1)
( 5)
( 2)
( 12)
( 14)
«. 19)
( 18)
( 8)
< 20)
< 22)
MEAN
CHLOSA
9 (
SI <
48 <
7C (
43 (
61 (
0 (
100 (
52 1
4 !
39 (
26 (
83 <
74 (
30 I
13 I
35 I
22 (
57 (
96 (
87 (
17 (
65 <
78 !
2!
21)
11)
16)
10)
14)
0)
23!
12)
1)
9)
6)
191
171
7)
3)
8)
S)
13)
22!
20)
4)
IS)
18)
15-
MIN 00
17 <
100 (
43 (
22 (
30 I
37 (
78 (
70 (
4 (
54 (
26 (
4 (
48 (
61 (
54 (
4 (
. 74 <
13 (
65 (
87 (
96 <
87 (
87 {
37 (
4)
23)
10)
5!
71
8)
18)
16)
0)
12)
6)
0)
11)
14)
121
0)
17)
3)
15)
19)
22!
19)
19)
8)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
Za
tl
17
37
22
78
g
70
52
13
4
0
100
63
46
46
63
37
30
78
91
57
78
91
( 6)
( 20!
( 4)
( 81
( S)
< 171
( 2)
( 16)
( 12)
( 3)
( 1)
( 0)
( 23)
( 14!
( 10!
( 10)
( 14)
( 8)
( 7)
( 17)
I 20)
( 13)
< 17)
< 20)
INDEX
NU
134
539
164
294
268
370
104
527
249
130
104
134
505
363
169
120
279
196
328
463
506
302
485
463
-------
LAKES RANKED 8Y INDEX NOS.
RASK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INOE* NO
1 0602 BOCA LAKE 539
2 oeoa FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR 527
3 0623 SILVER LAKE 506
4 0615 LAKE MARY 505
5 0625 UPPER T*IN LAKES 485
6 0626 LOHER TWIN LAKES 463
7 0622 SHAVER 463
8 0606 OON PEDRO RESERVOIR 370
9 0616 LAKE MENOOCINO 363
10 0621 SHASTA LAKE 328
II 0624 TULLOCK RESERVOIR 302
12 0604 CASITAS RESERVOIR 294
13 0619 LAKE PILLSBURY 279
14 0605 CROrfLEY LAKE 268
15 0609 LAKE HENNESSEY 249
16 0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE 196
17 0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR 169
18 0603 LAKE 8RITTON 164
19 061* LOPEZ LAKE 134
20 0601 AMADOR RESERVOIR 134
21 0610 LAKE HENSHArf 130
22 0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR 120
23 0607 LAKE ELSINOSE 104
24 0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR 104
-------
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 "^ = 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
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
060501
37 35 16.0 118 42 33.0 3
C*OWL£Y LAKE
06051 CALIFORNIA
11EPALES 751126 2111202
0080 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/10
75/06/30
75/11/05
TIME
OF
DAY
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
11
11
11
11
11
50
50
50
50
50
50
45
45
45
45
45
30
30
30
30
30
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0015
0031
0055
0076
0000
0005
0020
0050
0085
0000
0005
0016
0045
0082
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
17.6
16.9
16.2
11.2
10.3
10.0
20.3
20.2
16.8
15.5
13.8
8.1
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.5
00300
DO
MG/L
7.8
7.8
7.8
6.6
5.4
5.4
8.8
8.8
7.0
5.4
2.8
9.0
8.6
8.2
e.6
8.2
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
216
60
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
222
225
211
169
202
205
271
268
249
231
251
240
242
237
245
241
94
TVY
MHO
222
225
211
169
202
205
271
268
249
231
251
240
242
237
245
241
00400
PH
SU
8.50
8.20
8.50
8.20
8.50
7.90
8.80
8.75
8.50
8.30
7.85
8.70
8.70
8.70
8.70
8.70
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
104
104
105
87
111
115
110
112
111
109
121
91
97
100
97
95
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.120
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.500
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.600
0.200
0.200K
0.300
0.200
0.200
00630
N02&.N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.02UK
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.035
0.036
0.035
0.042
0.066K
0.072
0.027
0.026
0.037
0.045
0.122
0.014
0.011
0.018
0.015
0.013
DATE
FROM
ro
75/06/10
75/06/30
75/1 1/05
00665
32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
OF
DAY FEET
13 50 0000
13 50 0005
13 50 0015
13 50 0031
13 SO 0055
13 50 0076
15 45 0000
15 45 0005
15 45 0020
15 45 0050
15 45 0085
11 30 0000
11 30 0005
11 30 0016
11 30 0045
11 30 0082
MG/L P
0.034
0.039
0.057
0.039
0.058
C.06rt
0.446
0.066
0.099
0.070
0. 146
0.030
0.027
0.032
0.037
0.071
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
1.7
6.8
9.0
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/34
060502
37 36 14.0 118 44 48.0 3
CSOWLEY LAKE
06051 CALIFORNIA
11EPALES 751126 2111303
0047 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/10
75/06/30
75/11/05
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
1*
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
11
11
11
11
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
00
00
00
00
0000
0005
0015
0038
0043
0000
0005
0015
0030
0046
0000
0005
0015
0043
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
17.4
15.6
15.3
13.4
10.8
19.2
17.9
17.0
16.5
15.5
a. a
8.1
8.0
7.9
00665
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/10
75/06/30
75/11/05
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
11
11
11
11
FEET
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
00
00
00
00
0000
0005
0015
0038
0043
0000
0005
0015
0030
0046
0000
0005
0015
0048
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.043
.038
.038
.042
.056
.055
.088
.064
.065
.091
.030
.030
.033
.042
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
7
7
7
6
7
8
7
6
5
8
8
8
8
3221
.6
.6
.0
.2
.8 130
.0
.6
.6
.2
.4
.4
.4
.0
7 00031
333
323
322
213
201
260
253
252
244
244
?36
235
238
237
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
1
5
8
REMNING
PERCENT
.0
.0
.8
00400
PH
SU
8.50
8.40
8.40
8.30
8.40
8.SO
8.60
8.50
8.40
8.10
8.6C
8.60
8.60
8.70
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
110
110
110
112
116
111
112
111
115
113
64
87
88
90
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.600
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.400
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.300
00630 00671
N02&N03 PHOS-DIS
N-TOTAL ORTriO
MG/L MG/L P
0.020K
0.020K
0.02GK
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.030K
0.020K
0.020K
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.032
0.042
0.040
0.051K
0.055
0.031
0.032
0.034
0.046
0.064
0.012
0.014
0.012
0.013
-------
STOftET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
060503
3T 36 03.0 118 44 08.0 3
CROWLEY LAKE
06051 CALIFORNIA
11EPALES 751304 2111202
0030 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
75/06/30 14 40 0000
14 40 OOOb
14 40 0015
14 40 0026
75/11/05 11 50 0000
11 50 0005
11 50 0015
11 50 0021
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
19.1
17.4
16.4
15.9
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.7
00300
DO
MG/L
7.6
7.6
7.6
6.4
9.4
9.4
8.8
8.8
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
105
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
357
242
237
237
242
244
248
243
00400
PH
SU
8.55
8.60
8.50
8.30
8.30
8.80
8.80
8.80
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
98
107
108
108
102
104
107
109
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.300
0.400
00630
N026.N03
M-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTriO
MG/L P
0.040
0.039
0.046
0.049
0.012
0.014
0.014
0.013
00665 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET MG/L P UG/L
75/06/30 14 40 0000 0.049 4.8
14 40 0005 0.067
14 40 OOlb 0.071
14 40 0026 0.076
75/11/05 11 50 0000 0.043 9.3
11 50 0005 0.037
11 50 0015 0.033
11 50 0021 0.034
00031
INCOT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
K VALUE KfiOdN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |