U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LOPEZ RESERVOIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 750
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
LOPEZ RESERVOIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO OMTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 750
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1978
-------
CONTENTS
PajJJL
Foreword ii
List of California Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Reservoir and Drainage Basin Chararteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 10
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
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 [§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.
-------
111
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.
-------
1v
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY RESERVOIRS
State of California
Name
Amador
Boca
Britton
Cas i tas
Crow!ey
Don Pedro
El si nore
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
-------
1^
120'40'
120 30'
120'25
^°i %,
Map Location
35'15'-
LOPEZ RESERVOIR
0 Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
Drainage Area Boundary
246
2 3
Scale
sKm.
5Mi.
-------
LOPEZ RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 0614
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition*:
Survey data indicate that Lopez Reservoir is eutrophic. It
ranked nineteenth in overall trophic quality among the 24 Cali-
fornia lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 when compared using
a combination of six water quality parameters**. Twenty-two of
the water bodies had less median total phosphorus, 23 had less
median dissolved orthophosphorus, 17 had less median inorganic
nitrogen, and 17 had less mean chlorophyll a_. Six of the water
bodies had greater mean Secchi disc transparency; however,
Secchi disc depth was only measured once during the sampling
year (06/25/75). Dissolved oxygen depletion with depth occurred
at all four sampling stations in June and at stations 1 and 2
in November. Depression of hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen is re-
ported to occur during summer stratification (Bailey, 1977).
Survey limnologists noted surface concentrations of algae
in June and November and reported heavy growths of submerged
aquatic weeds near station 1 in June.
Lopez Reservoir previously has been assessed as mesotrophic;
but phytoplankton growths and fish kills have been noted as
nuisance problems in this water body (Johns, 1975).
* Trophic assment 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 Lopez Reservoir was nitrogen
limited at the times the samples were collected (03/10/75 and
11/12/75). The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation
at all sampling times.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—No known wastewater treatment plants
impacted the reservoir during the Survey sampling year. Septic
tanks serving near-shore campgrounds were estimated to have
contributed less than 0.1% of the total phosphorus input to
Lopez Reservoir during the sampling year, but a shoreline survey
would have to be conducted to determine the significance of such
sources.
The present phosphorus loading of 1.12 g/m2/year is four
times that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon,
1974) as a eutrophic loading (see page 13). Any reduction in
the loading would require control of non-point source inputs.
2. Non-point sources--Non-point sources accounted for
over 99.9% of the total phosphorus load during the sampling
year. Arroyo Grande Creek contributed 25.6%, Lopez Creek
contributed 21.2%, and the ungaged minor tributaries and im-
mediate drainage contributed an estimated 51.6% of the total
load.
Stream nutrient concentrations (see Appendix E) and rela-
tively high non-point phosphorus export rates (see page 12)
indicate diffuse inputs may be significant. In a previous
-------
report, it is noted that much of the drainage basin is under-
lain by highly erodable, sedimentary geologic formations (Fuller
et al., 1975). In addition, Survey geographers note that much
of the land in the drainage is used for grazing and farming.
An additional investigation is needed to determine if nutrient
loads from such sources can be controlled by land-conservation
practices.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 3.80 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 16.6 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 50.6 meters.
4. Volume: 62.908 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 7.3 years (based on outflow),
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name
Arroyo Grande Creek
Huffs Hole Creek
Lopez Creek
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage -
Totals
2. Outlet - Aqueduct
Arroyo Grande Creek
Drainage
area (km2)*
35.2
8.0
55.9
72.4
171.5
175.3
Totals 175.3***
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 62.1 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 55.7 centimeters.
Mean flow
(m3/sec)*
0,044
0.012
0*146
0.134
0.336**
0.149
0.125
0.274***
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
tt Dendy, 1974.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "... Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Inflows adjusted to equal outflow plus evaporation.
*** Includes area of reservoir; outflow for year of sampling provided by
San Luis Obispo Cty. Flood Contr. & Water Cons. Distr.
**** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lopez 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 four 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 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 38.1 meters at station 1, 22.6 meters at station
2, 17.1 meters at station 3, and 17.4 meters at station 4. '
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (o
DISS 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)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 3/10/75)
4 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
9.7 - 12.3 11.1 11.4
5.6 - 13.6 9.4 9.5
477. - 497. 489. 490.
8.2 - 8.9 8.6 8.6
305. - 475. 379. 375.
0.351 - 0.484 0.394 0.380
0.321 - 0.424 0.358 0.345
0.020 - 0.190 0.045 0.020
0.020 - 0.060 0.025 0.020
0.200 - 1.000 0.465 0.400
0.040 - 0.220 0.070 0.040
0.220 - 1.020 0.5H 0.445
13.5 - 21.6 16.1 14.7
o-00000 -oooooooooooooooooooooo
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR LOPEZ LAKE
STOP.ET CODE 0614
2ND SAMPLING ( 6/25/75)
4 SITES
RANGE
9.4 - 20.3
0.0 - 8.8
505. - 680.
7.4 - 10.3
394. - 386.
0.310 - 0.808
0.381 - 0.738
0.020 - 0.140
0.020 - 0.500
0.400 - 1.000
0.040 - 0.520
0.420 - 1.020
1.9 - 4.7
2.4 - 4.6
MEAN
15.8
4.4
597.
8.6
328.
0.505
0.450
0.025
0.183
0.635
0.208
0.660
3.1
3.3
MEDIAN
18.5
5.8
613.
8.4
323.
0.420
0.328
0.020
0.050
0.500
0.070
0.570
2.9
2.7
3RO SAMPLING (11/12/75)
4 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
10.1 - 15.4 13.9 14.4
0.0 - 8.4 5.4 6.8
455. - 520. 480. 484.
7.7 - «.5 8.3 8.5
280. - 374. 326. 333.
0.374 - 0.900 0.451 0.365
0.247 - 0.918 0.41b 0.341
:0.020 - 0.060 0.033 0.040
0.020 - 0.910 0.185 0.140
0.400 - 1.200 0.600 0.550
0.040 - 0.930 0.223 0.180
0.440 - 1.220 0.638 0.585
5.4 - 7.8 6.7 6.9
oooooo _»«•«««»«»»«»»»«»»«•»««»«
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/10/75
06/25/75
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ceratiurn sp.
Fragilaria sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Euglena sp.
Total
Chroomonas (?) sp.
Apham'zomenon sp.
Schroederia sp.
Fragilaria sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
534
140
56
56
28
814
298
216
162
81
54
55
11/12/75
Total
1. Chroomonas (?) sp.
2. Apham'zomenon sp.
3. Cryptomonas sp.
4. Ceratiurn sp.
5. Oocystis sp.
Other genera
866
191
127
127
64
42
21
Total
572
-------
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampli ng
Date
03/10/75
06/25/75
11/12/75
Station
Number
1
2
3
4
1
2
3 .
4
1
2
3
4
Chlorophyll
(yg/D
14.0
13.5
15.4
21.6
2.1
4.7
1.9
3.7
7.3
5.4
7.8
6.5
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. March sample -
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
b. November sample -
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.345
0.395
0.395
0.345
Spike (mg/1)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
Ortho P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.360
0.410
0.410
0.360
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.072
0.072
1.072
1.072
Inorganic N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.255
0.255
1.255
1.255
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
4.5
4.6
37.8
37.7
Maximum yield
(mg/1-dry wt.)
12.9
12.5
44.3
42.5
-------
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri
cornutum, indicate that the potential primary productivity
of Lopez Reservoir was moderately high in March and high
in November. Also, in both assays the lack of yield in-
crease with the addition of phosphorus until nitrogen was
also added indicates the reservoir was nitrogen limited at
those times. Note that the addition of nitrogen alone re-
sulted in yields significantly greater than those of the
controls.
The reservoir data confirm the assay results. The
mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios were less
than 1/1 at all sampling times, and nitrogen limitation
would be expected.
-------
10
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. Nutrient
loads for the aqueduct were calculated using the mean nutrient con-
centrations measured at lake station 1 and the mean annual aqueduct flow.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate drain-
age" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concentrations in
Arroyo Grande, Huffs Hole, and Lopez creeks at stations A-2, B-l, and
C-l and the mean annual ZZ flow. Only one nutrient sample was collected
from Huffs Hole Creek at station B-l, and nutrient loads for this tri-
butary are included in the minor tributary loads.
No known wastewater treatment plants impacted the reservoir during
the sampling year.
-------
11
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) -
Arroyo Grande Creek 1,095 25.6
Lopez Creek 905 21.2
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 2,205 51.6
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 5 < 0.1
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - _ 65_ 1 .5
Total 4,275 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - **« 2.
Total 2,835
3. Net annual P accumulation -1,440 kg.
* Estimate based on four campgrounds; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Arroyo Grande Creek 1,970 16.4
Lopez Creek a 2,135 17.8
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 3,500 29,2
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 280 2.4
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 4,100 34.2
Total 11,985 100.0
2. Outputs -
Arroyo Grande Creek 2,845
Reservoir outlet -
Aqueduct 5,020
Total 7,865
3. Net annual N accumulation - 4,120 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Arroyo Grande Creek 31 56
Lopez Creek 16 38
* Estimate based on four campgrounds; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
13
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/mVyr 1.12 0.38 3.2 1.1
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lopez Reservoir:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 0.30
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.15
-------
14
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.
Bailey, Thomas E., 1977. Personal communication (reviews of pre-
liminary report). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Dendy, William B., 1974. Personal communication (waterbody infor-
mation and morphometry). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Fuller, Richard H., Robert C. Averett, and W. G. Hines, 1975.
Problems related to water quality and algal control in Lopez
Reservoir, San Luis Obispo County, California. Water Res.
Inv. 47-74, U.S. Geol. Surv., Sacramento.
Johns, Gerald E., 1975. Personal communication (water quality in-
formation). 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.
-------
15
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO HE USED IN BANKINGS
LAKE
COOE LAKE NAME
0601 A*ADO» RESERVOIR
0603 80CA LAKE
0603 LAKE flPITTON
060* CASITAS RESE»VOI«
060-5 CPOhLEY LAKE
0606 DON PEORO RESERVOIR
0607 LAKE ELSINORE
0608 FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
0609 LAKE HENNESSEY
0610 LAKE HENSHAW
0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR
0614 LOPEZ LAKE
0615 LAKE MARY
06it LAKE MENDOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
0619 LAKE PILLSBURY
0630 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0621 SHASTA LAKE
0632 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
0.04*
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
INORG 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
44d.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
a. 200
14.800
9.000
7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
MEDIAN
DISS OHTHO P
0.020
0.003
0.047
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 or L»KES -IT* HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
COOE LAKE NAME
0601 AMADOR RESERVOIR
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
0604 CA5ITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CROWLEY LAKE
0606 DON PEORO RESERVOIR
0607 LAKE ELSINORE
0608 FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
0609 LAKE HENNESSEY
0610 LAKE HENSHAW
0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR
061* LOPEZ LAKE
0615 LAKE MARY
0616-v LAKE MENDOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
0619 LAKE PILLSBURY
0630 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0621 SHASTA LAKE
0622 SHAVER
0623 SILVER LAKE
0624 TULLOCK RESERVOIR
0625 UPPtR 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)
( D
( 22)
( 15)
( 6)
< 5)
( 13)
< 9)
( 14)
( 18)
< 20)
( 12)
( 16)
( 17)
MEDIAN
INORG 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)
22)
5)
17)
18)
11)
4)
19)
11)
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)
( IS)
( 13)
( 0)
( 23)
( 9)
( 3)
( 6)
( 17)
( 21)
( 7)
( 1)
( 5)
( 2)
< 12)
( 14)
U 19)
( 18)
1 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>
( 11)
( 16)
( 10)
( 14)
( 0)
( 23)
( 12)
( 1)
< 9)
< 6)
< 19)
( 17)
( 7)
< 3)
( 8)
( 5)
( 13)
( 22)
( 20)
( 4)
( 15)
( 18)
15-
MIN 00
17 l
100 I
43 1
22 (
30 i
37 i
78 i
70 i
4 1
54 I
26 i
4 <
48 1
61 <
54 1
4 1
. 74 1
13 1
65 1
87 (
96 <
87 (
87 (
37 <
[ 4)
I 23)
[ 10)
I 5)
( 7)
1 8)
( 18)
( 16)
I 0)
I 12)
I 6)
t 0)
1 11)
I 14)
[ 12)
1 0)
I 17)
[ 3)
: 15)
: 19)
: 22)
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 CROHLEY LAKE 268
15 0609 LAKE HENNESSEY 249
16 0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE 196
17 0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR 169
18 0603 LAKE B«ITTON 164
19 0614 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
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR CALIFORNIA
12/02/76
LAKE CODE 0614
LOPEZ RESERVOIR
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY
175.3
175.3
TOTAL FLOW IN
TOTAL FLOW OUT
6.69
0.0
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0614A1
0614A2
0614bl
0614C1
11
12
1
2
3
5
7
11
12
1
2
3
5
7
11
12
1
2
3
5
7
11
12
1
2
3
5
7
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.040
0.051
0.037
0.068
0.057
0.042
0.023
0.001
O.OC3
0.004
0.045
0.034
0.009
0.003
0.119
0.159
0.136
0.467
0.473
0.150
0.068
17
8
18
2
1
3
28
17
8
4
2
1
3
28
17
8
4
2
1
3
28
17
8
4
2
1
3
2a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.037
0.042
0.040
0.311
0.054
0.048
0.017
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.566
0.010
0.010
0.002
0.119
0.110
0.167
5.38C
0.136
0.178
0.062
31
0.042
31
0.007
31
0.119
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/10
75/06/25
75/11/12
TIME
OF
DAY
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0020
0035
0050
0065
0080
0100
0125
0000
0005
0015
0033
0055
0080
0105
0124
0000
0005
0015
0035
0060
0070
0116
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
12.3
12.0
11.6
10.5
10.1
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.7
19.3
18.8
18.6
18.4
10.9
9.7
9.4
9.4
14.6
14.5
14.4
14.4
14.4
10.7
10.1
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES M1CROMHO
13.4 489
13.6 489
11.2 490
9.0 486
8.2 484
7.8 485
6.4 487
6.4 488
5.6 490
7.4 180 620
8.4 670
8.2 680
6.8 640
0.2 590
0.0 590
C.O 590
0.0 610
494
7.0 490
7.0 491
6.4 491
0.0 456
0.0 455
0.0 466
061401
35 11 18.0 120 29 OS.O 3
LOPEZ LAKE
06074 CALIFORNIA
140491
HEP ALES
0139
00400
PH
SU
8.90
6.90
8.70
a. so
8.40
8.30
8.20
8.20
8.20
7.40J
10.30J
10.10J
9.90J
9.70J
9.40J
9.30J
9.00J
8.55
8.50
8.50
8.50
7.90
7.80
7.70
2111202
FEET DEPTH CLASS
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
345
335
395
360
330
380
445
375
450
326
326
296
316
350
310
344
336
338
334
284
304
296
282
346
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.020K
0.030
0.030
0.080
0.220
0.330
0.430
0.120
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.910
0.020K
0.020K
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.000
0.900
0.300
0.200K
0.200
0.200K
0.200
0.200K
0.300
0.800
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.600
0.800
0.800
0.600
0.600
0.500
0.600
0.800
1.200
0.600
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.050
0.120
0.150
0.190
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.140
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PriOS-UlS
OKTHO
MG/L P
0.323
0.341
0.340
0.353
0.362
0.376
0.398
0.404
0.424
0.310
0.305
0.304
0.326
0.484
0.536
0.554
0.572
0.335
0.339
0.344
0.359
0.820
0.764
0.918
K VALUE KNO*N TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
KNOWN TO BF_ IN ER*
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
061^01
35 11 18.0 120 29 08.0 3
LOPEZ LAKE
06079 CALIFORNIA
140491
11EPALES
0129 FEET
DEPTH
2111202
CLASS 00
DATE
FROf
TO
75/03/10
75/06/25
75/11/12
TIME
OF
DAY
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
15 50
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
12 30
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
14 40
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0020
0035
0050
0065
0080
0100
0125
0000
0005
0015
0033
0055
0080
0105
0124
0000
0005
0015
0035
0060
0070
0116
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.403
0.424
0.363
0.369
0.381
0.391
0.458
C.462
0.484
0.328
0.325
0.319
0.330
0.479
0.582
0.620
0.630
0.359
0.361
0.365
0.382
0.900
0.784
0.856
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
14.0
2.1
7.3
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/34
061^02
3S II S8.0 120 29 10.0
LOPEZ LAKE
06079 CALIFORNIA
140491
i
( DATE TIME
FROM OF
TO DAY
75/03/11 09 15
09 15
t 09 15
09 15
09 15
« 09 15
09 15
75/06/25 11 45
I 11 45
11 45
11 45
( 11 45
11 45
75/11/12 15 00
( 15 00
15 00
15 00
( 15 00
15 00
l DATE TIME
FROM OF
TO DAY
75/C3/11 09 15
09 15
i 09 15
09 15
09 15
DEPTH
FEE!
0000
0005
0015
0030
0045
0060
0074
0000
0005
0015
0030
0050
0072
0000
0005
0015
0040
0060
0070
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0015
0030
0045
(. 09 15 0060
09 15
75/06/25 11 45
« 11 45
11 45
11 45
i 11 45
11 45
75/11/12 15 00
• 15 00
15 00
15 00
15 00
0074
0000
0005
0015
0030
0050
0072
0000
0005
0015
0040
0070
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
11.9
11.7
11.6
11.3
10.3
9.9
9.9
19.5
19.4
19.0
17.6
11.6
10.0
15.1
15.0
14.3
14.2
14.0
10.7
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.351
0.362
0.362
0.363
0.381
0.406
0.484
0.310
0.328
0.330
0.359
0.632
0.640
0.371
0.373
0.365
C.376
0.888
00300
DO
MG/L
11.
10.
10.
9.
7.
6.
6.
8.
8.
8.
4.
0.
0.
7.
6.
6.
6.
3.
0.
32217
00077 OOOV4
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
8
2
0
8
6
4
0
4
4
6
8
0
0
4
8
2
2
a
0
00031
477
490
490
489
484
486
488
620
620
615
600
520
505
471
484
460
485
483
462
HEPALES 2111202
0073 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
PH T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS-OIS
CAC03 TOTAL N N-TOTAL OHTHO
SU
8.80
8.75
8.75
8.60
8.30
8.25
8.20
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.80
7.80
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
7.95
7.90
MG/L
305
385
410
475
405
475
365
298
382
386
318
296
306
316
374
340
280
330
370
MG/L
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.020K
0.280
0.330
0.120
0.140
0.140
0.160
0.830
0.020K
MG/L
0.700
0.400
0.300
0.200K
0.300
0.400
0.200
0.500
0.500
0.600
0.400
0.700
0.700
0.500
0.500
0.600
0.500
0.600
1.000
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.070
0.120
0.020K
0.020K
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.020K
MG/L P
0.321
0.343
0.343
0.347
0 . 365
0.390
0.409
0.281
0.288
0.295
0.326
0.586
0.578
0.344
0.347
0.349
0.351
0.426
0.656
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
13.
4.
5.
REMNING
PERCENT
5
7
4
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
75/03/11 10
10
10
10
10
75/06/35 14
14
14
14
14
14
75/11/13 14
14
14
14
14
05 0000
05 0005
05 0015
05 0030
05 0051
30 0000
30 0005
30 0015
30 0030
30 0045
30 0056
15 0000
15 0005
15 0015
15 0030
15 0046
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
12.3
12.2
12.0
11.4
10.1
19.8
19.8
19.3
18.0
11.8
10.6
14.5
14.5
14.3
14.2
13.6
061403
35 11 58.0 120 27 47,0 3
LOPEZ LAKE
06079 CALIFORNIA
140491
HEP ALES
00300
00
MG/L
12.4
12.0
11.0
9.2
5.6
8.4
8.8
8.2
2.8
0.0
0.4
8.4
7.0
6.6
6.8
6.8
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
494
495
497
494
492
96 625
625
625
600
525
515
497
471
485
475
484
0055
00400
PH
SU
8.90
8.80
8.80
8.65
8.30
8.55
8.70
8.70
8.10
8.05
8.25
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.55
8.50
2111202
FEET DEPTH CLASS
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
325
365
360
380
375
342
318
344
336
320
374
336
316
282
372
338
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.060
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.250
0.440
0.490
0.120
0.120
0.140
0.100
0.110
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
0.700
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.900
0.900
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.700
00630 00671
N02&.N03 PHOS-DIS
N-TOTAL ORTriO
MG/L MG/L P
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.070
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.050
0.338
0.336
0.341
0.334
0.386
0.311
0.309
0.317
0.570K
0.738
0.722
0.321
0.327
0.318
0.312
0.296
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/11
75/06/25
75/11/12
00665 32217 00031
TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
OF A REMNING
DAY FEET
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
05
05
05
05
05
30
30
30
30
30
30
15
15
15
15
15
0000
0005
0015
0030
0051
0000
0005
0015
0030
0045
0056
0000
0005
0015
0030
0046
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.362
.369
.361
.371
.415
.359
.357
.361
.510
.808
.778
.350
.346
.337
.347
.396
UG/L PERCENT
15.4
1.9
7.8
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/2*
061*04
35 11 26.0 120 27 46.0 3
LOPEZ LAKE
06079 CALIFORNIA
140491
HEP ALES
2111202
0049 FEET DEPTH CLASS
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/11
75/06/25
75/11/12
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/11
75/06/25
75/11/12
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 <*5 0015
10 45 0030
10 45 0045
16 00 0000
16 00 0005
16 00 0015
16 00 0030
16 00 0046
In 00 0057
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
14 00 0015
14 00 0044
TIMf DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 45 0000
10 45 0005
10 45 0015
10 45 0030
10 45 0045
16 00 0000
16 00 0005
16 00 0015
16 00 0030
16 00 0046
16 00 0057
14 00 0000
14 00 0005
14 00 0015
14 00 0044
00010
HATER
TEMP
CENT
12.2
12.0
12.0
11.4
10.3
20.3
19.7
19.2
16.7
11.5
10.5
15.4
14.4
14.4
14.2
00665
PriOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.395
0.379
0.378
0.368
0.395
0.688
0.360
0.349
0.782
0.790
0.774
0.274
i) . 346
0.350
0.338
00300 00077
DO TRANSP
SECCHI
MG/L INCHES
12.6
12.0
11. 0
8.6
7.0
8.4 108
8.6
7.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
7.6
6.4
6.8
6.8
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
21.6
3.7
6.5
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
493
493
493
494
489
635
625
620
610
525
515
520
489
479
478
00400
PH
SU
8.85
8.90
8.80
8.40
8.50
8.80
8.80
8.80
8.10
8.10
8.05
8.25
8.50
8.50
8.50
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
375
375
330
335
395
356
336
318
312
298
294
320
344
338
332
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.060
0.030
0.040
0.500
0.490
0.490
0.120
0.140
0.160
0.160
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.300
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.900
1.000
0.900
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.500
„
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.338
0.339
0.338
0.350
0.368
0.323
0.325
0.330
0.700
0 .664
0.640
0.247
0.329
0.326
0.327
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/11/17 11 30
74/12/08 09 35
75/01/18 15 00
75/09/07 11 55
0614A1
35 li 10.0 120 29 24.0 4
ARROVO GRANDt CREEK
06 7.5 TAR SPRG RIO
0/LOPEZ RESERVOIR
BNK «ELO LOPEZ DAM 300 FT s OF
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
LOPEZ UK
0630
6.N03
OTAL
G/L
0.008
0.024
0.015
0.050
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.300
0.700
2.300
0.700
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.025
0.032
0.024
0.085
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.075
0.086
0.080
0.300
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.075
0.100
0.100
0.345
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
74/11/17
74/12/08
75/01/04
75/02/02
75/03/01
75/05/03
75/C5/31
75/07/28
75/09/07
75/11/0?
09
09
13
10
15
12
10
16
10
14
00
50
15
00
00
45
30
10
05
00
00f>30 00625 00610
DATE TIKE DEPTH N02*N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L
i.120 0.700 0.050
3.164 0.300 C.042
0.144 0.900 0.032
0.240 3.300 0.168
C.224 4.000 0.084
0.005 0.300 0.030
0.005 1.800 0.050
0.100 0.950 0.025
0.075 0.400 0.020
0.065 0.400 0.015
0.610
0.551
0.490
0.960
0.502
0.510
0.775
0.710
0.590
35 11 03.0 120 26 11.0 4
ARROYO GRANDE GREEK
06 7.5 TAR SPRG RID
T/LOPEZ KESERVOIR 140491
BNK AT USGS GG STATION 11 MI E US 101
lltt-ALES 211120-+
0000 f££T DEPTH CLASS 00
00665
PHOS-TOT
00671
PMOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P MG/L
0.630
0.595
0.520
2.000
0.870
0.500
U.56J
0.780
0.750
0.690
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL OATE 76/09/24
00630
DATE TIME DEPTH NOa&N03
FROM OF NI-TOTAL
TO DAY FEET MG/L
061481
35 13 02.0 120 27 17.0 4
HUFFS HOLE CREEK
06 7.5 TAR SPRG RID
T/LOPEZ RESERVOIR 140491
LOPtZ CYN RD BRDG 14.2 MI NE OF US 101
HEPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
75/05/31 10 45
0.050
0.550
0.060
0.575
0.580
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TIME DEPTrl N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/11/17
74/12/08
75/01/04
75/02/02
75/03/01
75/05/03
75/05/31
75/07/28
75/09/07
75/1 1/02
10
10
14
10
15
13
11
16
10
14
?0
25
00
50
30
15
00
30
15
30
0614C1
35 13 48.0 120 28 22.0 4
LOPEZ CREEK
06 7.5 TAR SPRG RIO
T/LOPEZ RESERVOIR 140491
3NK 50 FT E OF WATERS END RO
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
'&N03
OTAL
G/L
0.006
0.016
0.024
0.320
0.016
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.025
C.015
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.000
0.100K
0.300
0,300
0.700
0.050K
0.100
0.750
0.700
0.200
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.025
0.011
0.024
0.024
0.032
0.010
0.015
0.005
0.015
0.010
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.195
0.196
0.190
0.175
0.184
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.199
0.205
0.190
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.210
0.200
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |