U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE MARY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 751
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE MARY
TO) COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 751
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
FEBRUARY, 1978
-------
CONTENTS
Page
*
Foreword " ii
List of Callvomis Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
Io Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
IIL Lake end Drainage Basin Characteristics 2
IV. Water Qur.'iity Surunary 3
V. Literature Reviewed 6
V:'. Appendices 7
-------
11
FOREWORD
Tha 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 agenciess information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
end 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
iijrvey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
swi^ces, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
bo By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can Le transformed into an operational representation of
a 1r»kes its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAK: ANALYSIS
In this reports 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.
-------
iii
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 cf 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
ths 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,
w!io 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
Growley
Dan Pedro
El si nore
FaTien Leaf
Hennessey
Henshaw
Iron Gat.r
'riandocino
sbury
Lanta
Shaver-
Silver
Tahoa
Till loch
Lower Twin
Upper Twin
County
Amador
Nevada
Shasta
Ventura
Mono
Tuolumne
Riverside
El Dorado
Napa
San Diego
Siskiyou
San Luis Obispo
Mono
Mendocino
Mann
San Diego
Lake
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Fresno
Mono
El Dorado, Placer, CA;
Carson City, Douglas,
Washoe, NV
Calaveras, Tuolumne
Mono
Mono
-------
Lake
Mamie
LAKE MARY
X Lake Sampling Site
Lake
George XVK
—3736
—3734
Map Location
11900
11858
-------
LAKE MARY
STORE! NO. 0615
I. INTRODUCTION
Because of inaccessibility and lack of flows, only two tributary
samples were collected, and this report relates only to the lake samp-
ling data.
The limited tributary data are included in Appendix C for the record.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A, Trophic Condition*:
The somewhat limited Survey data indicate that Lake Mary
is oligotrcphic. It ranked fourth in overall trophic quality
when the 24 California lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975
were compared using a combination of six parameters**. One of
the othfir lakes had less median total phosphorus, none of the
others had less median dissolved orthophosphorus, none had
less and four had the same median inorganic nitrogen, four
had less mean chlorophyll a_, and two had greater mean Secchi
disc transparency. Some depression of dissolved oxygen with
depth occun'ed in June.
Survey limnologists noted some submerged macrophytes in
June.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal ass-ay results are not considered representative
of conditions in the lake at the times the samples were col-
lected. However, the lake data indicate phosphorus limitation
iji_June and possible nitrogen limitation in November.
* See Appendix A.
** Trophic assessment is based on the levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and chlorophyll a_; phytoplankton kinds and numbers; and transparency (Allurn
et al., 1977).
-------
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
ft
A. Morphemetry :
]. Surface area: 0.42 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 8.2 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 27.4 meters.
4. Volume: 3.463 x 10s m3.
B. Pracipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 8.1 centimeters,
2. Mean annual: 14.5 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
ft Kramer 9 1976.
* Sea Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976",
-------
3
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Mary was sampled two times during the open-water season
of 1975 by means of c pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters wera collected from
a numbar of depths at a single station on the lake (see map, page v).
During each visit, a depth-integrated (4.6 m to surface) sample was
collected for phytoplankton identification and enumeration,, and a
similar sample was taken for chlorophyll a_ analysis. During
both visits, a single 18 9-Viter depth-integrated sample was collected
for sisal assays. The maximum depth sampled was 19.8 meters.
The samp"ing results are presented in full in Appendix C
and ave summarized in the following table.
-------
'PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
IDISS OXY (KG/L)
iCNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
iTOT P
tORTHO P (MG/L)
>N02*N03 (MG/L)
-AMMONIA (MG/L)
'KJEL N (MG/L)
ilNORG N (MG/L)
iTOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLWPYL A (UR/L)
SECCHI (METEPS)
A. SUMiXftPY OF
1ST SAMPL
1 b
RANGE
9,5
8.4
33.
8*2
4.3 -
4.4 -
17* -
7.3 -
18. - 22.
O.OOd - Oo013
0.002 - 0.002
C.020 - 0.050
0.020 - 0.060
0.200 - 0.400
0.040 - 0.110
0.220 - 0.450
3.0 - 3.0
5.2 - 5.2
OF PHY
NG ( 6/
TcS
MEAN.
7.5
7.1
22.
7.9
2X.
0.010
0.002
0.030
0.033
0.267
0.063
0.297
3.0
5,2
blCAl. AND
.~:0/75)
MFD 1 AW
e.,6
e»2
21,
8.J
22.
0.009
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.250
0.040
0.270
3.0
5.2
CHEMICAL
STORCT C
C.'-WfUCf^PI
O'"c OblS
STICS FOK
2NU SAMHLING til/
4.1
7.6
39.
7.5
16.
0.008
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.200
0,040
0.220
2.1
««e»«e
i
rtA-^GE
4.2
d.6
- 44.
8.0
26.
- 0.023
- 0.006
- 0.020
- 0.020
- 0.400
- 0.040
- 0.420
2.1
-««»«»««
SITES
MEAN
*.a
8.3
45.
7*7
21,
0.012
0.003
0.020
0.020
0.240
0.040
0.260
2.1
.*»«»«**«*,
LAKE MARY
3/75)
MEOIAN
4,2
8^4
40.
7.7
21.
0.010
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.200
0.040
0.220
2.1
*os«nnt
SAMPLING
0 SITES
HANGE MEAN
MEDIAN
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Samp!i ng
Date
06/30/75
11/05/75
2. Chlorophyll a_
Sampling
Date
Domi nant
Genera
1 . Synedra sp.
2. Asterionella sp.
3.
_
4. Dinobryon"s!p.
5. ChroomonasC?) sp.
Other genera
Total
1 . Asterionella sp.
2 . Dinobryon sp.
3. Chroomonasl?) sp.
4. Cryptomonas sp.
5. Synedra sp.
Total
Station
Number
Algal Units
per ml
568
487
81
41
41
41
1,259
215
132
83
66
17
513
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D
06/30/75 1 3.0
'11/05/75 1 2.1
Limiting Nutrient Study:
Significant nutrient changes occurred in the assay samples
between the times of collection and the beginnings of the assays,
and the results are not considered representative of conditions
in the lake at the times the samples were taken.
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in June and
possible nitrogan limitation in November (the mean inorganic
nltrogen/orthophosphorus ratios were 32/1 and 13/1, respectively).
-------
LITERATURE REVIEWED
All urn, Mo 0., R. Eo Glessner, and J, H. Gakstatter, 1977. An
eval'jSitioo of the National Eutrophicatioo Survey. Working
Paper No. 900, Con/all is Env. Res. Lab.s CorvaTKSs, OR.
Kramer, Don, 1976o Personal conrnunication (lake morphometry).
CA Water Res, Contr. 8d.s Sacramento.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
t AitZ D.O& 70 ri^ JSEO IN NAMtfi'WGi.
LAKE
CO'JE LAKE Nfi^:-:
f.NO^G -y
CMLCrfA
o&oi A^aooH RESERVOIR
G632 80CA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
0604 CASITAS RE
O&OS CPOtal.EY LAKE
0606 DON PEOTO
0607 LAKE ELSINORE
0603 FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
0609 LAKE HENNESSEY
0610 LAKE HENSHAeJ
0611 IKON 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
0622 SHAVER
0623 SILVER LAKE
062* TULLOCK RESERVOIR
0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES
0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES
OeO^O
C«OA?
OcOC,7
Co029
0.046
0.013
0.469
0.007
0.027
Oel39
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
Oc2vr,
o.e-^o
O..U5
0.05*
0.045
0.060
0.120
08040
0.060
00070
0.699
0.09©
0.040
0.050
0.345
0.130
0.060
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.055
0.060
0.043
0.040
^ r* o ^ ^ 6 T
3??cfl3.?
^^>tf« 50 'f
*eo.zso
374.750
381.733
*89.21«
24,357
4J6.000
461.000
440.333
372.000
296.000
436.530
482.778
447.250
466.667
400.000
381.542
346 , 400
356.000
433.000
300.200
248.000
?£*183
urea
*.e;i
3.192
5.800
3 = 564
78,572
S.7S6
4.525
26,703 '
6.217
8.658
2.550
3.100
6.633
15.933
6.389
9.122
4.087
1.700
1.800
13.378
3.340
2.900
U-J.OO
6.800
11=200
1^.000
12=200
11.400
8eOOO
6.800
15.000
9.800
1.1. 300
15.000
10.600
9®400
9.600
15.000
B.200
14.800
9.000
7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
0*020
0.003
0.04?
0.014
0.03^
0.004
0.092
0.005
0.012
0.073
0.124
Oo343
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 L-iKES alT-i HIGHER VALUES fNUMBER OF LAK£S
VALUES)
LAKE
COOE LAKE NAME
0601 AMADOR RESERV01*
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
0604 CA5ITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CROWLEY LAKE
0600 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
0616 LAKE MENOOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
06i
< 22)
< 15)
( 6)
( 5)
( 13)
( 9)
( 14)
( 18)
(20)
< 12)
( 16)
< 17)
MEDIAN
1NO»G N
'',
*e
22
74
78
54
17
87
54
33
0
26
87
70
9
13
41
33
54
<*1
65
54
98
87
J I)
( 22)
t 5)
{ 17)
( 18)
( n>
( 4)
( 19)
( 11)
( 7)
( 0)
( 6)
( 19)
( 16)
( 2)
( 3)
( 9)
( 7)
( 11)
( 9)
( 15)
( 11)
( 22)
( 19)
500-
KEAN irC
f3
70
17
48
65
57
0
100
39
13
26
74
91
30
4
22
9
52
61
83
78
35
87
96
• 10)
( It.)
( 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
(>l
0
100
52
4
39
26
83
74
30
13
35
22
57
96
87
17
65
78
J ?)
< 21!
( 11)
( 16)
( 10)
( 14}
( 0?
( 23)
( 12)
< 1)
( 9)
C 6)
( 19)
( 17)
( 7)
( 3)
( 6)
( 5)
( 13)
( 22)
( 20)
( 4)
( 15)
( 18)
15-
MIN 00
17
100
43
22
30
37
78
70
4
54
26
4
48
61
54
4
74
13
65
87
96
87
87
37
( 4)
( 23)
( 10)
( 5)
( 7)
( 8)
( 18)
< 16)
( 0)
( 12)
( 6)
( 0)
( 11)
( 14)
( 12)
( 0)
< 17)
( 3)
( 15)
( 19)
( 22)
( 19)
( 19)
( 8)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO
-------
UES RAR.K?_0 iW IftK- frO-So
LAKE Caffil t.^RE MAKE
2 063ft
3 ®623
* 6625
5 fl62S
6 C626
7 ©622
8 86S6
9 06S&
16 9621
11 ©624
12 0604
13 S619
!<» 0605
15 0609
Ib ©62®
17 0617
18 0603
19 061*
20 0601
21 0610
22 0618
23 0607
24 0611
FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR 52?
SILVER LftKE
LAKE MARY
UPP£R TSiON LAKES
LOaER THIN LAKES 463
SHAVER «63
DON PEDRO RESERVOIR 370
LAKE MENOOCINO 363
SHASTA LAKE 320
TULLOCK RESERVOIR 302
CASITAS RESERVOIR 29*
LAKE PILLSBURY 279
CROdLEY LAKE 268
LAKE HENNESSEY 249
S&MTA MARGARITA LAKE 196
NICASIO RESERVOIR 169
LAKE BRITTON 164
LOPEZ LAKE 134
AMADOR RESERVOIR 134
LAKE HENSHA* 130
LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR 120
LAKE ELSINORE 104
IRON GATE RESERVOIR 104
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0,6214 - miles
Heters 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 3 Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
RETRIEVAL DAiE 76/09/34
JaiSOi
37 ?b 14.0 k!9 CO 15.0 3
CALIFORNIA
HEPALEb 751126 2111202
Ot-65 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/30
75/11/05
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/30
75/11/05
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 SC
il 50
11 50
11 SO
11 SO
il SO
12 15
12 !5
12 15
12 15
12 15
TIME
OF
DAY
11 50
11 SO
11 50
11 50
11 SO
11 50
12 15
12 15
12 15
12 15
12 15
0000
0005
0010
0020
CC40
0065
0000
0005
0020
0036
0061
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0010
0020
0040
0065
0000
0005
0020
0036
0061
000)0
WATER
TEMP
CENT
9.5
9.5
9.0
8.2
4.8
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.013
0.010
0.008
0.009
0.012
0.023
P030C Ov077 C0094
DO TR^NbP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MI
8.2 ?04
8o2
8.2
8.4
5,0
4.4
8.2
8*6
8.4
8.6
7.6
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
3.0
2.1
CHOMHO
23
22
17
17
20
33
42
40
40
44
39
00400 004J.O
PH T ALK
CAC03
su
8*?0
8,iG
8.10
7.90
7.55
7.30
8.00
7.80
7.70
7*70
7.55
MG/L
22
22
21
22
18
19
26
23
21
13
16
00610 00625 00630 00671
NH3-N TOT KJEL N02S.N03 PKOS-DIS
TOTAL N N-TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.060
0.060
G*020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
MG/L
0.200K
0.200K
0.200
0.300
0.30C
0.400
Oe200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.400
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.050
0.050
0.020K
O.C20K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
MG/L P
0.002K
0.002K
0*002K
0.002K
0.002K
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.006
K VALUE KNOWN TO &f
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET
DATE
OP630 0062'^ OQ61C
DATf TIME" OEPTh NG2S.N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N
F«OM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL
TO OAr FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L
3? Jc- 50.0 U8 59 ic?80
MArtN.OTH CXilEK
Ob r^OKO CO MWY MAP
7 /LAKE MA«Y
HO 8WOG .? Mi SSE UF LK MARY RD JCT
OSCO FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00671 C0665
PHOS-OIS PHOS-TOT
OPTHO
HG/L r MG/L P
75/03/23 15 30
0.200
0.8CO
0.02-
0.090
-------
STORET RETRIEVfiL OATE
00630 006?S 00610
DATE TIME DEPTH N0?<^03 TOT KJEL NH3-N
FROM OF M-TOTAL N TOTAL
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L
37 36 00.0 118 59 -+9.0 ^t
COLO rfATEK' CREEK
06 MONO CO HWY MAP
T/LfiKE MARY 150t92
SEC -^0 Br^OG .8 MI 5SE OF LK MARf rtO JCT
IIE^ALES 211120^t
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00671 00665
PHOS-DIS PHOS-TGT
ORTHO
MG/L P MG/L P
75/02/23 15 30
0.300
O.C16
0.02^
------- |