U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
IRON GATE RESEKVUIK
SISKIYOU COUNTY
CALIFOiMA
EPA mm ix
WORKING PAPER No, 749
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
[DEPORT
ON
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
SISKIYOU COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 749
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1978
-------
CONTENTS
Forev/ord ii
List of California Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Reservoir and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 9
V. Literature Reviewed 13
VI. Appendices 14
-------
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to 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 [§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 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
Marin
San Diego
Lake
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Fresno
Mono
El Dorado, Placer, CA;
Carson City, Douglas,
Washoe, NV
Calaveras, Tuolumne
Mono
Mono
-------
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
Tributary Sard ing Site
X Lake Sampling Site
o i 2 3 4 5 Km
-------
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 0611
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition*:
Survey data indicate that Iron Gate Reservoir is eutrophic.
It ranked last in overall trophic quality when the 24 Cali-
fornia lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared
using a combination of six parameters**. Twenty-one of the
water bodies had less median total phosphorus, 22 had less
median dissolved orthophosphorus, 23 had less median inor-
ganic nitrogen, 14 had less mean chlorophyll a^ and 17
had greater mean Secchi disc transparency. Significant de-
pression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred at both sam-
pling stations in July and at station 1 in October.
Nuisance level algal blooms, depletion of dissolved oxy-
gen at depth, and fish kills have been observed in the reser-
voir (Johns, 1975).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate the reservoir was nitrogen
limited in March and October. The reservoir data indicate
nitrogen limitation at all stations and sampling times.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—No known point sources impacted Iron
Gate Reservoir during the sampling year.
* Trophic assessment is based on levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and
chlorophyll a; phytoplankton kinds and numbers; and transparency (Allurn
et al., 1977T.
** See Appendix A.
-------
2. Non-point sources--Non-point sources contributed the
entire phosphorus loading to the lake during the sampling
year. The Klamath River contributed about 98% of the total
load.
The estimated phosphorus loading of 109.97 g/m2/yr is
about 22 times that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider
and Dillon, 1974) as a eutrophic loading (see page 12).
Since most of the load is in the outflow of naturally eu-
trophic Klamath Lake, it appears little can be done to im-
prove the trophic condition of Iron Gate Reservoir.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry^:
1. Surface area: 3.39 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 21.4 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 64.0 meters.
4. Volume: 72.522 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 11 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Klamath River 11,181.0 70.400
Fall Creek 37.8 0.230
Camp Creek 43.3 0.283
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 573.4 3.570
Totals 11,835.5 74.483
2. Outlet -
Klamath River 11,838.9** 74.483**
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 45.4 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 51.0 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Dehdy, 1974.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "... Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of reservoir; outflow adjusted to equal sum of inflows.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Iron Gate Reservoir was sampled three times in 1975 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 sta-
tions 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
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 46.0 meters at station 1 and 37.8 meters
at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PA3AMETE-?
TEMP (C)
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L)
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INOftG N (MG/I.)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/27/75)
2 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
3.9 - 5.3 4.6 4.6
9.4 - 11.4 10.9 10.6
123. - 196. 164. 169.
7.8 - 8.0 7.9 7.9
64. - 82. 69. 69.
0.170 - 0.206 0.184 0.182
0.090 - 0.125 0.109 0.112
0.410 - 0.520 0.465 0.465
0.200 - 0.270 0.230 0.230
1.000 - 1.500 1.150 1.100
0.610 - 0.780 0.695 0.690
1.500 - 1.910 1.615 1.570
11.1 - 21.6 16.3 16.3
0.6 - 0.6 0.6 0.6
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR IRON GATE RESERVOIR
STORET CODE 0611
2ND SAMPLING ( 7/16/75)
2 SITES
HANGE
3.9 -
1.4 -
133. -
7.0 -
58. -
.096 - 0
21.2
9.8
168.
V.I
81.
.298
MEAN
13.8
5.6
150.
7.9
71.
0.168
MEDIAN
15.5
5.1
148.
7.7
70.
0.133
0.066 - 0.278
0.020 - 0.570
0.030 - 0.200
0.400 - 1.500
0.050 - 0.760
0.580 - 1.520
1.4 - 2.3
2.1 - 2.7
0.139 0.117
0.253 0.115
0.080 0.055
0.708
0.333
0.962
1.8
2.4
0.600
0.175
0.835
1.3
2.4
3RO SAMPLING (10/31/75)
2 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
7.9 - 12.4 10.9 11.3
1.2 - 7.2 5.5 6.2
142. - 164. 151. 151.
6.9 - 7.3 7.2 7.3
7<». - 91. 78. 77.
0.181 - 0.31S 0.212 0.190
0.130 - 0.290 0.161 0.14<»
0.140 - 0.580 0.47b 0.550
0.180 - 0.330 0.247 0.240
1.000 - 1.700 1.155 1.100
0.450 - 0.810 0.730 0.765
1.360 - 1.840 1.646 1.665
0.3"- 0.6 0.4 0.4
1.5 - 1.5 1.5 1.5
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/27/75
07/16/75
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cryptomonas sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Chroomonas (?) sp.
Pennate diatoms
Euglena sp.
Other genera
Total
Schroederia sjj.
Synedra sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Melosira sp.
Aphanizomenon sp.
Total
Algal Units
per ml
1,976
1,297
247
62
62
60
3,704
435
73
73
73
36
690
10/31/75
1. Oscillatoria sp.
2. Cryptomonas sp.
3. Aphanizomenon sp.
4. Stephanodiscus sp.
5. Chroomonas (?) sp.
133
80
53
53
27
Total
346
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling
Date
03/27/75
07/16/75
10/31/75
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D
11.1
21.6
1.4
2.3
0.6
0.3
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. March sample -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
b. October sample -
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicate that the potential primary productivity
of Iron Gate Reservoir was very high at the times the assay
samples were collected (03/27/75 and 10/31/75). Also, the
0.100
0.150
0.150
0.100
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.140
0.190
0.190
0.140
0.656
0.656
1.656
1.656
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.765
0.765
1.765
1.765
26.7
28.1
62.0
54.5
Maximum yield
(mg/1 -dry wt. )
33.2
34.0
65.5
64.3
-------
8
significant increases in yield with the addition of
nitrogen alone indicate the reservoir was limited by
nitrogen at those times. Note that the addition of phos-
phorus alone did not result in yields significantly
larger than those of the controls.
The reservoir data also indicate nitrogen limitation;
i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios
were 6/1 or less on each sampling occasion.
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the California National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page v). Sampling was begun in
November, 1974, and was completed in November, 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were provided by
the California District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the reservoir.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were cal-
culated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows. Nu-
trient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate drainage"
("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concentrations in
Fall and Dutch creeks at stations C-l and D-l and the mean annual
ZZ flow.
No known wastewater treatment plants impacted Iron Gate Reservoir
during the sampling year.
-------
10
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Klamath River 367,020 98.5
Fall Creek 240 0.1
Camp Creek 525 0.1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 4,955 1.3
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 60 < 0.1
Total 372,800 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Klamath River 345,290
3. Net annual P accumulation - 27,510 kg.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Klamath River 3,976,450 97.3
Fall Creek 5,025 0.1
Camp Creek 8,655 0.2
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 91,420 2.3
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 3.660 0.1
Total 4,085,210 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Klamath River 4,944,425
3. Net annual N loss - 859,215 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Klamath River - 33 356
Fall Creek 6 133
Camp Creek 12 200
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1)
Jenny Creek 0.036 0.686
Scotch Creek 0.036 1.117
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
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
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 109.97 8.12 1,205.1 loss*
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/mVyr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Iron Gate Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 4.90
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 2.45
* There was an apparent loss of nitrogen during the sampling year. This
may have been due to nitrogen fixation in the reservoir, solubilization of
previously sedimented nitrogen, recharge with nitrogen-rich ground water,
unsampled point sources discharging directly to the reservoir, or (probably)
insufficient outlet sampling in relation to the relatively short hydraulic
retention time. Whatever the cause, a similar nitrogen loss has occurred
at Shagawa Lake, Minnesota, which has been intensively studied by EPA's
former National Eutrophication and Lake Restoration Branch (Malueg et al.,
1975).
-------
13
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Allum, 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 in-
formation and morphometry). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacra-
mento.
Johns, Gerald E., 1975. Personal communication (trophic condition
of the reservoir). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Malueg, Kenneth W., D. Phillips Larsen, Donald W. Schults, and
Howard T. Mercier; 1975. A six-year water, phosphorus, and
nitrogen budget for Shagawa Lake, Minnesota. Jour. Env.
Qual., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 236-242.
Vollenweider, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Natl. Res. Council of Canada Pub!. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
14
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO rtE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
COOE LAKE NAME
ObOl A*AOOW RESERVOIR
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
0604 CASITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CPOWLEr LAKE
0606 DON PEORO RESERVOIR
0607 LAKE ELSINORE
0608 FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
0&09 LAKE HENNESSEY
0610 LAKE HENSHAW
0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR
061* LOPEZ LAKE
0615 LAKE MARY
0616 LAKE MENOOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
0619 LAKE PILLSBURY
0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0621 SHASTA LAKE
0622 SHAVER
0623 SILVER LAKE
0624 TULLOCK RESERVOIR
0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES
0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.040
0.012
0.067
0.029
0.04f,
0.013
0.469
0.007
0.027
0.138
0.184
0.371
0.010
0.020
0.055
0.058
0.022
0.037
0.021
0.014
0.012
0.025
0.015
0.014
MEDIAN
INORO N
0.390
0.040
0.115
0.050
0.045
0.060
0.120
0.040
0.060
0.070
0.690
0.090
0.040
0.050
0.345
0.180
0.060
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.055
0.060
0.040
0.040
500-
MEAN SEC
408.667
372.833
446.500
400.250
374.750
381.733
489.214
24.357
416.000
461.000
440.333
372.000
296.000
436.500
482.778
447.250
466.667
400.000
381.542
346.400
356.000
433.000
300.200
248.000
MEAN
CHLOrtA
22.383
1.700
4.811
3.192
5.800
3.564
70.572
0.786
4.525
26.783
6.217
8.658
2.550
3.100
6.633
15.933
6.389
9.122
4.087
1.700
1.800
13.878
3.340
2.900
15-
MIN 00
14.600
6.800
11.200
14.000
12.200
11.400
8.000
8.800
15.000
9.800
13.800
15.000
10.600
9.400
9.800
15.000
b.200
14.800
9.000
7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
MEDIAN
OISS OKTHU P
0.020
0.003
0.04/
0.014
0.034
0.004
0.092
0.005
0.012
0.073
0.124
0.343
0.002
0.008
0.013
0.013
0.008
0.014
0.015
0.004
0.003
0.009
0.004
0.003
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES wITri rtlGHEW VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
C03E LAKE NAME
0601 AMADOR RESERVOIR
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE UPITTON
0604 CASITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CROWLEY LAKE
0606 DON PEORO RESERVOIR
0607 LAKE ELSINORE
060B FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
0609 LAKE HENNESSEY
0610 LAKE HENSHAW
0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR
061"» LOPEZ LAKE
0615 LAKE MARY
0616 LAKE MENDOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
0619 LAKE PILLSBURY
0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0621 SHASTA LAKE
0622 SHAVER
062J SILVER LAKE
0624 TULLOCK RESERVOIR
0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES
0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
35
89
17
43
30
83
0
100
48
13
9
4
96
65
26
22
57
39
61
78
89
52
70
74
( 8>
< 20)
( 4)
( 10)
( 7)
( 19)
( 0)
( 23)
( 11)
( 3)
( 2)
< 1)
( 22)
( 15)
( 6)
( 5)
( 13)
( 9)
( 14)
( 18)
< 20)
( 12)
< 16)
( 17)
MEDIAN
INOWG N
4
98
22
74
78
54
17
87
54
33
0
26
87
70
9
13
41
33
54
41
65
54
98
87
( 1)
t 22)
( 5)
( 17)
( 18)
( 11)
( 4)
( 19)
( ID
( 7)
( 0)
( 6)
( 19)
( 16)
( 2)
( 3)
{ 9)
( 7)
( 11)
( 9)
( 15)
( 11)
( 22)
( 19)
500-
MEAN 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)
( 16)
( 4)
( 11)
( 15)
( 13)
( 0)
( 23)
( 9)
( 3)
( 6)
( 17)
( 21)
( 7)
( 1)
( 5)
( 2)
( 12)
( 14)
(. 19)
( 18)
( 8)
( 20)
( 22)
MEAN
CHLORA
9
91
48
7C
43
61
0
100
52
4
39
26
83
74
30
13
35
22
57
96
87
17
65
78
( 2)
( 21)
( ID
( 16)
( 10)
I 14)
( 0)
( 23)
( 12)
( 1)
( 9)
( 6)
( 19)
< 17)
( 7)
( 3)
( »>
( 5)
( 13)
( 22)
( 20)
( 4)
( 15)
( 18)
15-
MIN 00
17
100
43
22
30
37
78
70
4
54
26
4
48 i
61 i
54 i
4 I
. 74 I
13 1
65 1
87 1
96 1
87 (
87 1
37 1
( 4)
( 23)
( 10)
( 5)
( 7)
( 8)
( 18)
( 16)
( 0)
( 12)
( 6)
( 0)
1 11)
( 14)
[ 12)
I 0)
I 17)
1 3>
1 15)
! 19)
'. 22)
1 19)
! 19)
: 8>
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
26
91
17
37
22
78
9
70
52
13
4
0
100
63
46
46
63
37
30
78
91
57
78
91
( 6)
( 20)
( 4)
( 8)
( 5)
( 17)
( 2)
( 16)
( 12)
( 3)
( 1)
( 0)
( 23)
( 14)
( 10)
( 10)
( 14)
( 8)
( 7)
( 17)
( 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 BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 0602 BOCA LAKE 539
2 0608 FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR 527
3 0623 SILVER LAKE 506
4 0615 LAKE MARY 505
5 0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES 485
6 0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES 463
7 0622 SHAVER 463
8 0606 DON PEDRO RESERVOIR 370
9 0616 LAKE MENDOCINO 363
10 0621 SHASTA LAKE 328
11 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 (3RITTON 164
19 0614 LOPEZ LAKE 134
20 0601 AMADOR RESERVOIR 134
21 0610 LAKE HENSHAW 130
22 0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR 120
23 0607 LAKE ELSINORE 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
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR CALIFORNIA
LAKE CODE 0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SO KM) 11836.9
08/17/77
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAfSQ KM)
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MEAN
0611A1
06iua
0611C1
061101
0611ZZ
1I838.9
11181.0
37.8
43.3
7.1
lie. 95
80.11
C.27
0.031
2.07
107.05
91.95
0.31
0.063
<».28
144.72
111.10
0.27
0.094
4.56
121.21
99.26
0.25
0.938
7.44
75.33
84.14
0.22
1.030
8.19
30.87
56.68
0.20
1.104
8.76
20.70
38.54
0.19
0.086
3.22
27.47
39.80
0.18
0.018
1.84
37.10
48.12
0.19
0.009
1.21
48.99
55.68
0.19
0.009
0.27
72.22
66.00
0.20
0.007
0.42
92.04
75.07
0.25
0.017
0.73
74.56
70.40
0.23
0.283
3.57
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 11838.9
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 11269.2
TOTAL FLOW IN * 895.59
TOTAL FLOW OUT * 896.65
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILV FLOWSICMSI
TRIBUTARY
0611A1
MONTH YEAR
MEAN FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0611A2
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
P.
9
10
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
76.739
84.951
87.216
95.145
131.673
121.479
110.153
37.095
22.031
31.149
45.590
68.810
77.588
82.1 19
81.269
84.951
117.515
97.693
86.366
25.287
17.415
26.590
41.909
67.677
16
7
19
22
8
12
4
5
13
25
14
16
7
19
22
8
12
4
5
13
25
14
82.119
80.703
87.499
88.632
112.984
111.285
137.903
55.501
20.388
33.131
44.741
79.?87
79.287
84.667
83.818
88.915
91.180
114.117
43.608
4.786
30.582
39.927
-------
LAKE CODE 0611
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR CALIFORNIA
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
08/17/77
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTrl YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
0611C1
061101
0611Z/C
11
13
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
?
3
4
c
6
7
8
9
10
7t
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
1.104
1.133
.246
.213
.169
.246
.213
.019
.019
.019
1.076
1.104
0.011
0.025
0.042
0.079
0.136
.274
1 .4^4
0.680
0.054
0.017
0.011
0.040
1.133
1.841
4.814
9.061
11.1 00
16.349
19.397
8.976
3.341
2.832
2.407
0.765
16
7
19
22
8
12
4
5
13
25
14
16
7
19
22
8
12
4
5
13
25
14
FLOW DAY
1.104
1.133
1.246
1.189
1.161
1.218
1.331
0.963
1.048
1.048
1.076
0.0
0.0
0.017
0.014
0.014
0.793
1.359
0.963
0.082
0.014
0.014
FLOW DAY
FLOW
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
00010
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/27
75/07/16
75/10/31
TIME
OF
DAY
14
14
14
14
14
14
10
10
10
10
10
10
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0015
0030
0045
0065
0000
0005
0015
0040
0090
0146
0000
0005
0015
0050
0090
0120
0151
WATER
TEMP
CENT
5
5
5
5
5
4
21
21
17
14
<*
3
11
11
11
10
10
9
7
.2
.3
.2
.2
.2
.9
.1
.2
,0
.0
.6
.9
.9
.8
.3
.5
.3
.9
.9
00300
00
MG/L
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.7
10.8
9.0
8.6
4.4
4.6
2.6
8.6
7.0
6.4
6.2
5.8
5.0
1.8
1.2
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
24
108
60
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
195
193
189
190
196
191
168
164
143
133
137
144
164
157
150
143
142
142
151
061101
41 56 05.0 122 26 02.0 3
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
06093 CALIFORNIA
140191
11EPALES
0069 FEET
DEPTH
2111202
CLASS 00
00400
PH
SU
195
193
189
190
196
191
168
164
143
133
137
144
164
157
150
143
142
142
151
7.85
7.85
7.80
7.80
7.80
7.85
8.80
8.80
7.90
7.50
7.15
7.00
7.10
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.20
7.00
6.90
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
00630 00671
N02&N03 PHOS-OIS
N-TOTAL OrtTHO
MG/L MG/L P
66
64
65
67
68
82
69
68
69
66
77
81
77
76
76
75
78
79
91
0.270
0.250
0.250
0.260
0.250
0.240
0.090
0.040
0.060
0.030
0.030
0.120
0.240
0.240
0.240
0.260
0.280
0.330
0.310
1.000
1.000
1.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.500
0.700
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.900
1.100
1.200
1.000
1.200
1.100
1.000
1.700
0.500
0.510
0.520
0.520
0.520
0.500
0.020
0.020K
0.060
0.150
0.560
0.570
0.570
0.560
0.560
0.460
0.430
0.360
0.140
0.116
0.122
0.125
0.121
0.124
0.118
0.074
0.084
0.118
0.116
0.159
0.185
0.141
0. 144
0.145
0.147
0.156
0.202
0.290
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/27
75/07/16
75/10/31
00665 32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
OF A REMNING
DAY FEET
14 10 0000
14 10 0005
14 10 0015
14 10 0030
14 10 0045
14 10 0065
10 10 0000
10 10 0005
10 10 0015
10 10 0040
10 1C 0090
10 10 0146
13 45 0000
13 45 OOOb
13 ^5 0015
13 45 0050
13 45 0090
13 45 0120
13 45 0151
MG/L P
0.170
0.181
0.178
0.179
0.173
0.175
0.103
0.101
C.128
0.139
0.177
0.275
0.195
C.I 89
0.190
0.205
0.220
0.277
0.31«
JG/L PERCENT
11.1
1.4
0.6
K VALUE KNOWNt TO 9E
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/34
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/27
75/07/16
75/10/31
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/27
75/07/16
75/10/31
TIME DEPTH
OF
OAr FEET
14 15 0000
14 15 0005
14 15 OOlb
14 15 0055
14 15 0090
14 15 0124
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0015
10 45 0040
10 ^5 0075
10 45 0110
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
13 30 0015
13 30 0046
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 15 0000
14 15 0005
14 15 0015
14 15 0055
14 15 0090
14 15 0124
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0015
10 45 0040
10 45 0075
10 45 0110
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
13 30 0015
13 30 0046
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
20.9
20.5
18.0
13.0
6.9
<*.1
12. f
11.3
11.3
10.9
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.185
0.187
0.183
0.186
0.201
C.206
0.113
0.096
0.122
0.1 Ha
0.260
0.298
0.131
0.136
0.187
0.183
00300
DO
MG/L
11.2
11.2
11.2
9.4
11.4
11.4
9.8
9.7
5.6
2.0
1.4
1.4
6.6
6.2
6.6
7.2
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
21.6
2.3
0.3
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICPOMHO
22 123
124
124
143
148
150
84 166
157
153
141
1*6
149
60 155
154
152
147
OC031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
061102
41 57 25.0 122 25 55.0 3
IRON C3ATE RESERVOIk
06093 CALIFORNIA
140191
11EPALES
0126 FEET
0
00400 00410
PH T ALK
CAC03
SU MG/L
7.95
7.95
7.95
6.00
7.95
7.95
9.10
8.90
8.00
7.40
7.20
7.10
7.20
7.25
7.25
7.30
69
70
71
70
70
68
71
70
58
68
75
76
74
77
76
2111202
DEPTH CLASS 00
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.220
0.210
0.200
0.200
0.210
0.200
0.040
0.030
0.090
0.050
0.180
0.200
0.180
0.210
0.210
0.220
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.500
1.200
1.200
1.300
1.100
1.400
0.800
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.600
0.700
1.000
1.100
1.100
1.200
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.410
0.430
0.430
0.420
0.410
0.410
0.060
0.020
0.080
0.410
0.530
0.560
0.560
0.580
0.540
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.097
0.098
0.093
0.090
0.094
0.108
0.066
0.069
0.106
0.153
0.257
0.278
0.133
0.141
0.142
0.130
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/34
0611A1
41 55 50.0 122 26 20.0 4
KLAMflTh RIVER
06 15 COPCO
0/IRONi GATE RESERVOIR 140191
BNK FRM COPCO RO .1 M BELO IRON GATE 0AM
11EFALE5 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/11/16
74/12/07
75/01/19
75/02/22
7B/OJ/08
75/04/12
75/05/04
75/06/05
75/07/13
75/08/25
75/09/14
75/11/08
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
10
09
09
10
09
13
11
16
10
14
14
10
00
35
35
30
55
05
30
20
?0
00
05
20
MG/L
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
.660
.736
.672
.660
.672
.175
.065
.005
.070
.090
.195
.460
MG/L
1.
1.
1.
5.
1.
0.
1.
0.
2.
1.
I.
1.
200
500
300
900
400
900
050
800
300
950
100
400
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PriOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
U.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
C.
0.
300
375
480
368
312
065
035
015
052
150
155
199
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
P
150
135
105
120
152
060
050
040
085
130
165
126
MG/L P
0. 180
0.190
0.120
0.170
0.160
0.130
0.080
0.080
0.120
0.160
0.200
0.170
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TI*E DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/11/16
74/12/07
75/01/19
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/04
75/06/05
75/07/13
75/08/25
75/09/14
75/1 1/06
I?
10
11
11
11
14
12
15
11
15
15
11
05
50
1?
55
10
45
50
30
35
10
?6
?0
061112
41 58 15.0 122 19 55.0 4
M.AMATH HIVER
06 15 COPCO
T/IRON GATE RESEKVOIK U0191
PPiL SRDG 1 MI S OF COPCO
llErfiLES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630 O06.?5
&N03 TOT KJEL
OTAL N
G/L MG/L
0.640 1.400
0.768 P.OOO
0.672
0.704
C.768
0.045
0.1 JU (
0.070
0.045
0.175
y.3io
0.4iO
.300
.500
.600
.150
.800
.150
.500
.050
.400
.600
00610 00671 00665
NH3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.240
0.590
0.573
0.360
0.288
0.060
C.045
0.045
0.050
0.110
0.155
0.260
MG/L P
0.135
0.135
0.115
0.176
0.168
0.055
0.070
0.085
0.080
0.165
0.165
0.110
MG/L P
0.180
0.190
0.130
0.190
0.180
0.140
0.090
0.120
0.120
0.200
0.230
0.190
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/34
0611B1
41 58 20.0 122 23 45.0 4
JENNV CREEK
06 15 COPCO
T/IRON GATE RESERVOIR 140191
500 FT UPSTrfM FR 6KOG ON COPCO RO
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTn CLASS 00
DATE
FPOM
TO
74/1 1/16
74/12/07
75/01/19
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/04
75/06/05
75/07/13
75/08/25
75/09/14
75/11/02
75/1 1/03
00630 00625
TIME DEPTH N02kN03 TOT KJEL
OF N-TOTAL N
DAY FEET
11
10
10
11
10
14
12
17
11
14
14
10
10
15
?0
35
2»
40
10
20
00
00
45
55
30
55
MG/L
0
0
0
0
c
0
n
C
0
0
0
0
0
.024
.009
.024
.062
.100
.025
.045
.025
.010
.010
.010
.110
.015
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
100K
2CO
100
100K
500
150
200
900
450
550
200
600
400
00610 00671 00665
NM3-N PHOS-DIS PHOS-TOT
TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
030
015
G06
024
032
015
010
045
030
030
020
050
045
MG/L
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
p
020
017
025
024
040
020
010
020
015
015
005K
020
MG/L P
0.020
0.040
0.025
0.040
0.150
0.030
0.010
0.020
0.050
0.015
0.020
0.030
0.020
K VALUE KNOWN TO Be
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STuRET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE
FROM
TO
74/11/lb
74/12/07
75/01/19
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/04
75/06/05
75/07/13
75/OB/25
75/09/1*.
75/11/02
75/11/08
TIME
OF
DAr
11 35
10 35
10 47
11 45
10 50
14 30
12 35
15 ?C
11 25
14 55
15 00
11 30
11 05
FE£T
0611C1
41 58 os.o 122 21 ss.o 4
FALL CREEK
06 15 COPCO
T/IRON GATE RESERVOIR
bNK KKM COPCO RO .3 Ml
11EPALES
0000 FEET DEPTH
U0191
S OF COPCO
2111204
CLASS 00
0630
s>N03
OT«L
G/L
0.040
0.040
V.040
P. 056
C.032
0.020
0.020
0.035
0.03b
0.035
0.0 3b
0.0^5
O.C2S
00625
TOT KJEL
N
•".G/L
0.100K
0.100K
0.600
0.200
0.800
0.100
0.600
2.400
2.500
0.200
0. 100
0.200
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.012
C.015
0.025
0.016
0.016
0.010
0.01G
0.025
0.03C
0.015
0.010
0.115
0.010
00671
PhOS-DIS
OPTHO
MG/L P
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.020
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
00665
PriOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.025
0.030
0.025
0.024
0.030
0.030
0.010
0.030
0.050
0.030
0.030
0.075
0.040
K VALUt KNOteN TO d£
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/11/02
061101
41 58 20.0 122 26 15.0 4
CAMP CREEK
06093 15 COPCO
T/IRON GATE RESERVOIR 140191
300 FT UPSTRM FRM BROG ON COPCO RD
11EPALES 211120'*
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/01/19
75/02/22
75/03/08
75/04/12
75/05/04
75/06/05
75/07/13
75/08/25
75/09/14
75/11/08
00630
TIME DEPTH N02&N03
OF
DAY FEET
10 1?
11 05
10 25
13 50
12 05
16 50
10 55
14 30
14 40
10 45
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.008
0.032
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.125
0.020
0.035
0.005
0.010
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.200
0.500
0.700
0.700
0.250
1.450
4.000
0.100
0.600
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.010
0.016
0.020
0.015
0.020
0.035
0.050
0.040
0.015
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.060
0.080
0.072
0.065
0.021
0.025
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.025
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.060
0.123
0.100
0.080
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.040
0.030
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 7b/09/24
06UE1
41 58 40.0 122 26 35.0 4
SCOTCH CREEK
06 15 COPCO
T/IRON GATE RESERVOIR 140191
COPCO f!0 BSDG 5.0 MI W OF COPCO
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE TI-1E DEPTH N02&N03
FROM UF
TO OAY FEET
74/12/07 10 05
75/01/19 10 00
75/02/22 10 45
75/03/08 10 15
75/04/12 13 30
75/05/04 11 50
75/06/05 10 40
75/07/13 10 45
0630
6.N03
OTAL
G/L
0.336
0.312
0.400
0.160
0.095
0.045
0.015
0.020
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
C.400
0.300
0.650
0.600
0.600
0.200
2.400
2.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
O.C15
0.010
0.008K
0.010
0.010
0.025
0.035
00671
PHOS-DIS
URTHO
MG/L P
0.045
0.020
0.032
0.020
0.010
0.020
0.030
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.050
0.020
0.032
o.oao
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |