U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
LAKE MENDOCINO
MENDOCINO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WDRKING PAPER No, 752
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
LAKE ffNDXINO
1WXXINO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WDRKING PAPER No, 752
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
FEBRUARY, 1973
-------
i
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of California Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 12
VI. Appendices 13
-------
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 impact's can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and 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
Crow!ey
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
-------
Map Location
• Redwood Valley
LAKE
MENDOCINO
LAKE MENDOCINO
Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
-------
LAKE MENDOCINO
STORE! NO. 0616
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition*:
Survey data indicate Lake Mendocino is meso-eutrophic. It
ranked ninth in overall trophic quality when the 24 California
lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared using a com-
bination of six parameters**. Eight of the water bodies had
less median total phosphorus, eight had less and one had the
same median orthophosphorus, six had less and one had the same
median inorganic nitrogen, six had less mean chlorophyll a^, and
16 had greater mean Secchi disc transparency. Although no sig-
nificant decrease in dissolved oxygen with depth was apparent
at any of the Survey sampling times, hypolimnetic depression
has occurred during summer stratification (Bailey, 1977).
The rather low mean chlorophyll ^concentration (3.1 yg/1),
the numbers of algae in the phytoplankton samples (page 6), and
the relative lack of Secchi disc transparency (mean of 1.3 meters)
indicate the primary productivity of the reservoir may be light-
limited at times. Survey limnologists noted the entire reservoir
was turbid in March and along the east shoreline in June. Tur-
bidity of natural origin is reported to be a problem in this water
body (Johns, 1975).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
A significant change in nutrients occurred in the algal assay
* Trophic assessment is based on the levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and chlorophyll a_; phytoplankton kinds and numbers; and transparency
(Allum et a]., 1977).
** See Appendix A.
-------
2
sample during shipment from the field to the laboratory, and
the assay results are not considered representative of condi-
tions in the reservoir at the time the sample was taken (11/11/75).
The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation at all sampling
times. However, as noted above, primary productivity may be
light-limited at times rather than nutrient-limited.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—No known point sources impact Lake Men-
docino. Nonetheless, the phosphorus loading of 3.96 g/m2 measured
during the sampling year is over three times that proposed by
Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as a eutrophic
loading (see page 11). If this loading is a typical annual
loading and cannot be reduced, the trophic condition of the
reservoir can be expected to deteriorate.
2. Non-point sources—Apparently, non-point sources con-
tributed the entire phosphorus load to the reservoir during the
sampling year. The East Fork Russian River added 90.1% of the
total load, and the ungaged minor tributaries and immediate
drainage contributed an estimated 9.5% of the total.
The phosphorus export rate of the East Fork was a very high
118 kg/km2 during the sampling year. However, land-use practices
in the drainage are not believed to contribute significantly to the
phosphorus load in the river (Church, 1976). Landslides and erosion
occur in the Eel River watershed upstream from the diversion (Johns,
op. cit.) and may contribute to the phosphorus load in the East Fork.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 7.92 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 19.1 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 51.8 meters.
4. Volume: 151.103 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 168 days (based on outflow).
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
East Fork Russian River 238.8 10.480
Minor tributaries &
Immediate drainage - 25.2 0.472
Totals 264.0 10.952
2. Outlet -
East Fork Russian River 271.9 10.400
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 105.2 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 97.6 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
tt Dendy, 1974.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of reservoir.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Mendocino was sampled three times during the open-water season
of 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 stations in March and June and three stations
in November (see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth-inte-
grated (4.6 m to surface) sample was composited from the stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the November
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 27.7 meters at station 1, 11.3 meters at station 2, and 8.8
meters at station 3.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AMD
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR MENDOCINO LAKE
STO^ET CODE 0616
PA3AMETEP
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/L>
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
Pri (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTriO P (MG/L)
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/D
KJEL N (MG/L)
INOPG N (MG/D
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (Uf,/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
RANGE
7.5 - 10.2
9.6 - 10.2
100. - 108.
7.4 - 7.9
63. - 67.
0.091 - 0.118
0.018 - 0.023
0.150 - 0.200
0.030 - 0.040
0.200 - 0.700
0.180 - 0.230
0.350 - 0.870
1.1 - 1.2
0.3 - 0.3
NG ( 3/
TES
MEAN
9.1
10.0
104.
7.7
65.
0.106
0.020
0.165
0.031
0.345
0.195
0.510
1.1
0.3
12/75)
MEDIAN
9.5
10.0
104.
7.6
65.
0.105
0.020
0.160
0.030
0.300
0.190
0.480
1.1
0.3
2ND
RANGE
8.9 -
5.6 -
122. -
7.5 -
74. -
0.013 - 0
0.002 - 0
0.020 - 0
0.020 - 0
0.200 - 0
0.040 - 0
0.220 - 0
2.4 -
2.4 -
SAMPLING (
2
20.8
10.0
171.
8.3
78.
.330
.027
.230
.050
.400
.280
.530
3.3
3.5
SITES
MEAN
16.3
7.2
151.
7.9
76.
0.056
0.013
0.077
0.031
0.270
0.108
0.347
2.8
3.0
6/26/75)
MEDIAN
18.8
6.8
156.
7.6
76.
0.025
0.013
0.040
0.030
0.300
0.065
0.340
2.8
3.0
3RD
RANGE
11.7 -
8.6 -
67. -
8.0 -
64. -
0.013 - 0
0.004 - 0
0.020 - 0
0.020 - 0
0.200 - 0
0.040 - 0
0.220 - 0
2.6 -
«««»«» .««
SAMPLING (11/1
3
14.3
10.6
107.
8.7
92.
.020
.010
.040
.020
.300
.060
.320
5.7
««««<
SITES
MEAN
13.7
9.0
82.
8.2
82.
0.016
0.005
0.021
0.020
0.207
0.041
0.229
4.6
>»»»««»«««»
1/75)
MEDIAN
13.9
8.8
81.
3.1
82.
0.016
0.004
0.020
0.020
0.200
0.040
0.220
5.4
«»o«»
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/12/75
06/26/75
11/11/75
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Melosira sp.
Chroomonas (?) sp.
Total
Chroomonas (?) sp.
Ankistrodesmus SJK
Cryptomonas sp.
Total
Chroomonas (?) sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Melosira sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
313
57
370
1,188
64
64
1,316
1,101
227
194
81
81
115
2. Chlorophyll a. -
Sampling
Date
03/12/75
06/26/75
11/11/75
Total 1,799
Station
Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Chlorophyll a
(ug/1)
1.2
1.1
3.3
2.4
2.6
5.4
5.7
-------
7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
A significant change in nutrients occurred in the assay
sample from the time of collection to the beginning of the
assay, and the results are not considered representative of
conditions in the reservoir at the time the sample was taken.
The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation at all sam-
pling times; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus
ratios were 10 to 1 in March and 8 to 1 in June and November.
However, because of turbidity, primary productivity may be light-
limited at times rather than nutrient-limited.
-------
8
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), except for the high
runoff months of March and April when two samples were collected.
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 deter-
mined by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings*. Nutrient loads for unsam-
pled "minor tributaries and immediate drainage" ("II" of U.S.G.S.)
were estimated using the nutrient loads at station A-2, in kg/km2/year,
and multiplying by the II area in km2.
No known wastewater treatment plants impacted Lake Mendocino during
the sampling year.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
9
A. Waste Source:
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) -
E. Fk. Russian River 28,240 90.1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 2,980 9.5
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ? ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 140 0.4
Total 31,360 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - E. Fk.
Russian R. 19,285
3. Net annual P accumulation - 12,075 kg.
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
10
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source y_r total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
E. Fk. Russian River 347,915 88.5
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 36,715 9.3
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 8,550 2.2
Total 393,180 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - E. Fk.
Russian R. 275,870
3. Net annual N accumulation - 117,310 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
E. Fk. Russian River 118 1,457
E. Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1)
Cold Creek 0.082 0.931
* See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
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 mesotrophic 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 Accumul ated Total Accumulated
grams/m2/yr 3.96 1.52 49.6 14.8
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Lake Mendocino:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 1.22
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.61
-------
12
LITERATURE REVIEWED
Allum, M. 0., R. E. Glessner, and J. H. Gakstatter, 1977. An
evaluation 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 reports). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Church, Ron, 1976. Personal communication (drainage characteristics
N. Coastal Reg. Off., CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Santa Rosa.
Dendy, William B., 1974. Personal communication (lake rnorphometry).
CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Johns, Gerald E., 1975. Personal communication (data on Lake
Mendocino). 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
13
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN BANKINGS
LAKE
COOE LAKE NAME
0601 A«ADOW RESERVOIR
0602 80CA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
0604 CASITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CROtaLEY LAKE
0606 DON PEDRO 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 MENDOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
0619 LAKE PILLS8URY
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 f
0.04Q
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
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
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 DO
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
0.200
14.600
9.000
7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
MEDIAN
DISS OHTHU 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 "ITi nIGHEK VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WlTrt HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
0601 AMAOOR RESERVOIR
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE tJPITTON
060* 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
0614 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
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 i
13 i
9 i
4 I
96 I
65 I
26 I
22 (
57 1
39 1
61 <
78 1
89 1
52 <
70 (
74 (
( 8)
( 20
( 4)
( 10)
( 7)
( 19)
I 0)
( 23)
I 11)
I 3)
1 2)
1 1)
! 22)
I 15)
I 6)
1 5)
1 13)
1 9)
! 14)
I 18)
I 20)
: 12)
! 16)
: 17)
MEDIAN
INOPG N
4
•y8
22
74
78
S4
17
87 i
54 i
33 I
0 i
26 I
87 I
70 (
9 1
13 1
41 1
33 1
54 (
41 (
65 <
54 (
98 <
87 (
( D
( 22)
( 5)
( 17)
( 18)
( 11>
( 4)
I 19)
( 11)
1 7)
1 0)
! 6)
1 19)
[ 16)
1 2)
I 3)
I 9)
; 7»
; ID
; 9)
: is)
: ID
: 22)
: 19)
500-
MEAN SEC
43
70
17
48
65
57
0
100
39 i
13 i
26 i
74 1
91 <
30 1
4 1
22 1
9 1
52 1
61 (
83 (
78 (
35 (
87 (
96 (
< 10)
( 16)
( 4)
( 11)
( 15)
( 13)
( 0)
I 23)
( 9)
I 3)
I 6)
1 17)
1 21)
I 7)
! 1)
I 5)
I 2)
: 12)
: 14)
; 19)
: 18)
8)
20)
22)
MEAN
CHLORA
9
91
48
7C
43
61
0
100 '
52 i
4 1
39 1
26 1
83 <
74 1
30 1
13 1
35 1
22 (
57 <
96 (
87 (
17 (
65 (
78 (
( 2)
( 21)
( 11)
( 16)
( 10)
( 14)
( 0)
( 23)
1 12)
1 1)
1 9)
I 6)
1 19)
1 17)
i 7)
! 3)
: 8)
! 5)
: 13)
22)
20)
4)
15)
18)
15-
MIN 00
17
100
43
22
30
37
78
70
4
54
26
4 i
48 I
61 i
54 l
4 1
74 1
13 1
65 1
87 (
96 (
87 (
87 <
37 (
( 4)
( 23)
( 10)
( 5)
( 7)
( 8)
( 18)
( 16)
( 0)
( 12)
( 6)
I 0)
1 11)
I 14)
1 12)
! 0)
I 17)
[ 3)
1 15)
: 19)
22)
19)
19)
8)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
26
91
17
37
22
78
9
70
52
13
4 i
0 i
100 <
63 1
46 1
46 1
63 (
37 (
30 (
78 (
91 (
57 (
78 <
91 (
( 6)
( 20)
( 4)
< 8)
( 5)
( 17)
( 2)
( 16)
( 12)
I 3)
I 1>
I 0)
1 23)
[ 14)
: io>
I 10)
I 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 CROWLEY LAKE 268
15 0609 LAKE HENNESSEY 249
16 0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE 196
17 0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR 169
18 0603 LAKE 6RITTON 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 IrtON 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"4 = 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
Os>/24/76
LAKE CODE 0616
LAKE MENOOCINO
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE(SO KM)
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY AREAfSQ KM)
JAN
FE8
271.9
MAR
APR
MAY
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MEAN
06IfcAl
0616A2
0616ZZ
271.9
238.8
33.2
27.18
26.70
1.529
16.59
16.82
1.416
11.24
13.85
0.793
6.85
9.91
0.566
5.66
6.63
0.113
6.54
4.59
0.0
7.65
4.81
0.0
7.93 6.97
4.53 6.80
0.0 0.0
6.88
7.79
0.0
7.53
8.64
0.227
13.93
14.95
1.076
10.40
10.48
0.472
SUMMARY
TOTAL
SUM OF
DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
271.9
271.9
TOTAL FLOW IN =
TOTAL FLOW OUT =
131
124
.73
.96
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW OAY
0616A1
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
0616A?
11
12
i
?
3
4
5
IS
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
6.088
3.738
6.4?fl
33.414
30.865
7.051
9.203
7.702
7.2^9
8.778
9.288
9.061
9.316
8.778
9.741
27.977
30.299
11. ICO
8.637
5.663
3.738
3.710
8.212
8.665
16
14
18
1
8
5
3
7
28
30
20
11
16
18
18
1
8
5
3
7
28
30
20
11
5.663
4.701
3.171
4.899 23
13.535 18
1.019 19
16.905
8.778
7.759
7.872
9.345
9.118
9.345
8.523
9.146
48.139
37.095 18
12.828 19
10.506
7.249
3.653
3.625
8.920
8.948
18.378
0.991
7.646
71.358
10.307
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
3TORET RETRIEVAL DATE 7&/09/24
G&lbOl
39 11 52.0 123 10 45.0 3
LAKE MENOOCINO
06045 CALIFORNIA
140291
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/12
75/06/26
75/11/11
DATE
FROM
TO
75/03/12
75/06/26
75/11/11
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 20 0000
14 20 0005
14 20 0015
14 20 0030
14 20 0050
14 20 0070
14 20 0090
14 20 0000
14 20 0005
14 20 0020
14 20 0040
14 20 0060
14 20 0091
12 45 0000
12 45 0005
12 45 0015
12 45 0035
12 45 0060
12 45 0090
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 20 0000
14 20 0005
14 20 0015
14 20 0030
14 20 0050
14 20 0070
14 20 0090
14 20 0000
14 20 0005
14 20 0020
14 ?0 0040
14 20 0060
14 20 0091
12 45 0000
12 45 0005
12 45 0015
12 45 0035
12 45 0060
12 45 0090
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
10.0
10.0
9.5
8.9
8.3
7.8
7.5
20.8
20.6
18.5
11.5
9.9
8.9
14.3
14.1
14.1
14.0
13.8
13.1
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.101
0.102
0.106
0.105
0.102
0.103
0.107
0.013
0.013
0.023
0.036
C.050
0.330
0.015
0.013
0.013
C.016
0.017
0.015
00300 00077
DO TRANSP
SECCHI
MG/L INCHES
10.2 10
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.0
9.6
9.6
8.0 96
8.0
5.6
7.4
6.2
6.2
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.8
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
1.2
3.3
2.6
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
108
108
106
105
103
102
100
168
165
148
130
122
130
107
71
83
72
85
84
11EPALES 2111202
0094 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625
PH
su
7.90
7.80
7.75
7.75
7.55
7.50
7.45
8.30
8.30
7.60
7.60
7.50
7.50
8.40
8.50
8.70
8.50
8.35
8.00
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
66
65
64
65
65
66
65
76
76
76
75
74
75
83
79
79
78
82
82
NH3-N TOT KJEL
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
N
MG/L
0.400
0.200
0.400
0.300
0.700
0.300
0.300
0.200
0.300
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.300
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.150
0.150
0.160
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.200
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.100
0.220
0.230
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PrlOS-DIS
ORTriO
MG/L P
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.018
0.020
0.020
0.021
0.003
0.002
0.008
0.022
0.027
0.025
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.005
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER
FROM OF
TO OAY FEET
75/03/12 15 15 0000
15 15 0005
15 15 0015
15 15 0031
75/06/26 14 55 0000
14 55 0005
14 55 0020
14 55 0037
75/11/11 13 10 0000
13 10 0005
13 10 0015
13 10 0036
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
75/03/12 15 15 0000
15 15 0005
15 15 0015
15 15 0031
75/06/26 14 55 0000
14 55 0005
14 55 0020
14 55 0037
75/11/11 13 10 0000
13 10 0005
13 10 0015
13 10 0036
06lt>u2
39 13 18.0 123 10 15.0 3
LAKE MENDOCINO
06045 CALIFORNIA
140291
0010
,TER
EMP
:ENT
10.2
9.9
9.6
8.9
20.5
20.4
19.1
12.4
14.2
14.0
13.9
13.8
>0665
IS-TOT
i/L P
0.113
0.118
0.091
0.018
O.OU
0.033
0.028
0.014
0.015
0.016
C.017
00300
DO
MG/L
10.2
10.2
10.0
9.8
8.0
10.0
6.0
6.2
8.8
9.4
8.8
8.6
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
1.1
2.4
5.4
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
10 106
104
103
104
138 171
169
164
140
67
76
87
as
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
11EPALES 2111202
0035 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400 00410 00610 00625
PH
su
7.95
7.90
7.70
7.80
8.35
8.20
7.70
7.60
8.50
8.20
8.00
8.00
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
64
63
67
66
78
78
75
76
86
86
85
83
NH3-N TOT KJEL
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
N
MG/L
0.500
0.200
0.200K
0.300
0.300
0.400
0.300
0.300
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.160
0.150
0.170
0.160
0.030
0.020K
0.060
0.050
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTrlO
MG/L P
0.021
0.020
0.023
0.021
0.004
0.004
o.oia
0.022
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STOKET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
Oc.1603
39 14 05.0 123 10 12.0 3
MENDOCINO LAKE
06045 CALIFORNIA
11EPALES 760114 2111202
0033 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/11/11
DATE
FROM
TO
75/11/11
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
13 30 0015
13 30 0029
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
13 30 0015
13 30 0029
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
13.9
13.7
13.3
11.7
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.017
0.017
0.020
0.020
00300
00
MG/L
10.6
9.0
9.0
9.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
5.7
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
FIELD
94
TVY
MHO
74
79
71
104
00400
PH
su
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
82
80
64
92
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.300
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.040
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.010
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STGRCT RETRIEVAL DAT
D616A1
39 11 45.0 123 11 30»0 4
E FORK RUSSIAN RIVER
06 7.5 UKIAH
0/MENOOCINO RESERVOIR 140291
bNK 500 FT DWNSTRM FROM COYOTE DAM
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE TIME DEPTH N026.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/11/16
74/12/14
75/01/18
75/02/01
75/02/23
75/03/08
75/03/18
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/06/07
75/07/28
75/08/30
75/09/20
75/10/11
75/11/08
11 IS
09 30
11 00
11 00
18 00
08 30
08 30
09 30
09 30
U8 30
10 00
08 30
10 00
09 30
08 10
09 30
0630
'6.N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.016
0.050
0.120
0.088
0.120
0.152
0.204
0.165
0.180
0.150
0.160
0.150
0.020
0.005
0.010
0.030
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0,600
0 = 900
Io350
0.900
0.800
0.900
1.700
Ie750
0..400
0.850
1.400
0.500
0.600
0.500
0.100
0.500
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.025
0»030
0.068
0,024
0.032
0.016
0.040
0.130
0.025
0.025
0.020
0.030
0.025
0.025
0.020
0.010
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.010
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.032
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.035
0.035
0.030
0.030
0.020
0.015
3.005
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.030
0.030
0.055
0.070
0.110
0.070
0.070
0.110
0.090
0.095
0.030
0.060
0.040
0.027
0.020
0.020
-------
STORE!
0 BROG 5 MI E OF CALPELLA
UEPALES 211120**
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
6..NC3
OTAL
IG/L
0.056
0.104
0.152
0.168
0.096
0.106
0.100
0.145
0.060
0.095
0.085
0.0v5
0.035
0.075
0.230
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
0.600
U400
0.800
0.650
2.200
0.750
0.850
0.100
1.350
0.350
1.000
1.300
0.200
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
Oo230
Oo060
Oo065
0.064
Oo016
D.015
0.050
0.015
Co 025
0.025
0.030
0«015
0.020
0.020
0.010
00671
PriOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.045
0.032
0.040
0.030
0.010
0.015
0.030
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.020
0.010
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L f
0.010
0.060
0.100
0.160
0.290
0.050
0.020
0.110
0.040
U.110
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.030
-------
STOHET RETRIEVAL DATE 7fe/09/2-v
Obl6dl
39 14 48.0 123 07 36.0 4
COLO CREEK
06 7.5 UK1AH
T/MENOOCINO RESERVUIK
hrtY 20 8*DG 4.6 MI
11EPALES
0000 FEET DEPTH
140291
E OF CALPELLA
3111204
CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
74/11/16
74/12/14
75/C1/1H
75/02/01
75/03/07
75/03/18
75/04/05
75/04/19
75/05/03
75/06/07
75/07/28
75/08/30
75/09/20
75/10/11
75/11/08
TIME 1
OF
DAY 1
11 50
1C 00
11 30
10 ?0
09 00
09 00
09 50
10 00
09 00
10 30
09 00
10 40
10 15
09 00
10 OC
FEET
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.200
0.288
0.3d4
0.088
0.064
0.060
0.175
0.070
C.145
O.ldO
0.180
0.195
0.220
0.280
0.030
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.6'0
0.300
1.250
0.80C
?.400
1.850
0.650
0.350
0.350
0.050
0.550
0.100K
0.100K
1.200
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
•J.050
0.015
0.005
0.056
0.008
0.028
0.025
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.010
D. 015
0.005
0.005
3.022
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.060
0.032
0.031
0.015
0.020
0.010
0.005
0.010
0.020
0.015
0.015
• o.oio
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.040
0.015
0.025
0.400
0.400
0.020
0.040
0.04C
0.010K
0.020
0.060
0.015
0.030
0.030
K VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |