U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
SHAVER LAKE
FRESNO COUfJTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 758
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
SHAVER LAKE
FRESNO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA EGION IX
WORKING PAPER No. 758
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, .1978
-------
CONTENTS
Pa.ge.
Foreword ii
List of California Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Hap v
Sections^
I. Conclusions 1
II. Reservoir and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. .Hater 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 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)j, 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 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
El sinore
Fallen Leaf
Hennessey
Henshaw
Iron Gate
Lopez
Mary
Mendocino
Nicasio
Lower Otay
Pillsbury
Santa Margarita
Shasta
Shaver
Silver
Tahoe
Tulloch
Lower Twin
Upper Twin
County
Amador
Nevada
Shasta
Ventura
Mono
Tuolumne
Riverside
El Dorado
Napa
San Diego
Siskiyou
San Luis Obispo
Mono
Mendocino
Mari n
San Diego
Lake
San Luis Obispo
Shasta
Fresno
Mono
El Dorado, Placer, CA;
Carson City, Douglas,
Washoe, NV
Calaveras, Tuolumne
Mono
Mono
-------
Mammoth Pool
Reservoir
Shaver Lake
Heights
37'20'
37 10-
SHAVER LAKE
Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
10 Km.
5 Mi.
Scale
"S 119*00'
-------
SHAVER LAKE
STORE! NO. 0622
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition*:
Survey data indicate Shaver Lake is early mesotrophic. It
ranked seventh in overall trophic quality when the 24 California
lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared using a com-
bination of six lake parameters**. Five of the water bodies had
less and one had the same median total phosphorus, four had less
and two had the same median dissolved orthophosphorus, nine had
less and five had the same median inorganic nitrogen, one had
less and one had the same mean chlorophyll a_, and four had greater
mean Secchi disc transparency. No significant depression of dis-
solved oxygen occurred at depths as great as 29 meters.
Survey limnologists observed a few emergent macrophytes in
early June.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate the reservoir was phosphorus
limited in early June. The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limi-
tation in early and late June but nitrogen limitation in November.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—No known wastewater treatment plants
impacted Shaver Lake during the sampling year. Septic tanks
* Trophic assessment is based on the levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
and chlorophyll a/, phytoplankton kinds and numbers; and transparency (Allum
et al., 1977).
** See Appendix A.
-------
serving shoreline dwellings were estimated to have contributed
0.2% of the total phosphorus load to the reservoir, but a shoreline
survey is needed to determine the significance of those sources.
2. Non-point sources--Non-point sources contributed essen-
tially all of the phosphorus loading to the reservoir during the sam-
pling year. The North Fork of Stevenson Creek, with flow greatly
augmented by diversion from Huntington Lake, contributed 85.2%
of the total loading. The ungaged minor tributaries and immediate
drainage contributed an estimated 12.2%.
The estimated phosphorus loading of 0.71 g/m2/yr is less than
that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as
a eutrophic loading but more than his suggested oligotrophic loading
(see page 11). While it does not appear that the present loading
can be reduced significantly, every effort should be made to
prevent any increase in the loading to protect the existing
quality of the reservoir.
-------
II. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1'
A. Morphometry .
1. Surface area: 8.39 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 19.9 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 54.9 meters.
4. Volume: 166.870 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 252 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
N. Fk. Stevenson Creek 3.9 6.440
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 63.1 1.209
Totals 67.0 7.649
2. Outlet -
Aqueduct 75.4** 7.649**
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 19.3 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 26.0 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Dendy, 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
Shaver Lake 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 on the reservoir (see map, page v).
During each visit, a single depth-integrated (4.6 m to surface) sample was
composited from the stations for phytoplankton identification and
enumeration; and during the first visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-inte-
grated 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 30.5 meters
at station 1 and 29.0 meters at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ACK (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/D
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING < 6/ 4/75)
2 SITES
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SHAVER
STORET CODE 0622
2ND SAMPLING ( 6/24/75)
2 SITES
RANGE
4.6 - 18.5
8.6 - 10.4
10. - 16.
8.2 - 10.9
10. - 25.
0.012 - 0.041
0.003 - 0.022
0.030 - 0.210
0.020 - 0.060
0.200 - 0.800
0.050 - 0.250
0.230 - 0.850
1.4 - 1.8
2.7 - 3.8
3RD SAMPLING (11/13/75)
2 SITES
MEAN
9.9
9.5
13.
9.5
17.
0.019
0.007
0.061
0.0*5
0.377
0.105
0.338
1.6
3.3
MEDIAN
7.8
9.6
12.
9.5
19.
0.015
0.004
0.050
0.040
0.200
0.100
0.260
1.6
3.3
RANGE
7.5
7.8
14.
5.7
10.
0.012
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.200
0.040
0.220
1.2
3.0
- 15.7
9.6
64.
8.2
13.
- (1. 222
- 0.010
- 0.020
- 0.070
- o.saa
- 0.090
- 0,520
1.5
3.0
MEAN
12.3
8.5
28.
6.7
12.
0.049
0.004
0.020
0,035
0.327
0.055
0.347
1.3
3.0
MEDIAN
12.9
8.4
25.
6.4
12.
0,014
0.003
0.020
0.030
Q.30Q
0.050
0.320
1.3
3.0
RANGE
13.3
7.6
37.
6.8
10.
0.009
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.200
0.040
0.220
2.0
4.7
- 14.4
8.2
39.
7.0
26.
- 0.018
- 0.018
- 0.050
- 0.020
- 0.200
- 0.070
- 0.250
2.3
5.2
MEAN
13.5
7.8
38.
6.9
16.
0.011
0.004
0.026
0.020
0.200
0.046
0.226
2.1
5.0
HEDIAI
13.5
7.8
37.
6.9
16.
0.010
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.200
0.040
0.220
2.1
5.0
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
Dominant
Genera
Algal Units
per ml
06/04/75
1. Synedra sp.
2. Peri dim'urn sp.
3. Asterionella sp.
4. Ankistrodesmus sp.
Total
27
20
20
7
74
06/24/75
1. Chroomonas (?) sp.
2. Mallomonas sp.
3. Cryptomonas sp.
4. Dinobryon sp.
5. Synedra sp.
Total
193
97
32
32
32
386
11/13/75
1. Cryptomonas sp.
2. Ankistrodesmus SJD.
3. Achnanthes sp.
153
44
22
Total
219
-------
Sampling
Date
06/04/75
06/24/75
11/13/75
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
Chlorophyll ji
(yg/D
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.3
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornuttim, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Shaver Lake was moderately high at the time the sample was
collected (06/04/75). Also, the significant increase in yield
with the addition of phosphorus alone indicates that the reservoir
was limited by phosphorus at that time.
The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation in early
and late June but nitrogen limitation in November (the mean
inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios were 15/1, 14/1, and
12/1, respectively).
0.015
0.065
0.065
0.015
0.035
0.035
1.035
1.035
1.0
5.3
22.6
0.9
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the California National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples when possible from
each of the tributary sites indicated on the map (page v). Sampling
was begun in September, 1974, and was completed in June, 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 the North Fork Stevenson Creek
were calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
It was not possible to directly sample the aqueduct, so outlet nutrient
loads were estimated using the mean nutrient concentrations at reservoir
sampling station 1 and the mean annual outflow.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate
drainage" ("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concentrations
in Markwood Creek at station C-l and the mean annual ZZ flow.
No known wastewater treatment plants impacted Shaver Lake during the
sampling year.
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) -
N. Fk. Stevenson Creek 5,075 85.2
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 725 12.2
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 10 0.2
e. Known industrial - None - -
f. Direct precipitation** - 145 2.4
Total 5,955 100.0
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Aqueduct 3,620
3. Net annual P accumulation - 2,335 kg.
* Estimate based on 31 shoreline dwellings and one camp; see Working Paper
No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
10
Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source
kg N/
yr
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
N. Fk. Stevenson Creek 317,840
b. Minor tributaries & irimediate
drainage (non-point load) - 28,235
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks* - 400
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 9,060
Total 355,535
2. Outputs -
Reservoir outlet - Aqueduct 66,825
3. Net annual N accumulation - 280,710 kg.
Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Stream:
Tributary
Markwood Creek
Mean Total P
Cone, (mg/1)
0.019
% of
total
89.5
7.9
0.1
2.5
100.0
Mean Total N
Cone, (mg/1)
0.740
* Estimate based on 31 shoreline dwellings and one camp; see Working Paper
No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
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 0.71 0.28 42.4 33.5
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Shaver Lake:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 1.02
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.51
-------
12
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 infor-
mation and morphometry). 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 AMAOOW RESERVOIR
0602 60CA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
060*. CASITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CPOWLEY LAKE
0606 DON PEDRO RESERVOIR
O607 LAKE ELSINORE
0608 FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
ot>09 LAKE HENNESSEY
06io LAKE HENSHAW
06ii IRON GATE RESERVOIR
0614 LOPEZ LAKE
0615 LAKE MARY
06ie LAKE MENDOCINO
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
0.04*
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
I NOR 6 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
400.350
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 oo
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
U.200
14.800
9.000
7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
MEDIAN
OISS OHTHO P
0.020
0.003
0.04/
0.014
0.034
0.004
0.092
O.OOb
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 LftKES *ITri rllGHE* VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
ObOl AMAOOR RESERVOIrt
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE bPITTON
0604 CASITAS 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 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 UPPtR TWIN LAKES
0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES
HIGHER VALUES)
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
B7
54
33
0
26
87
70
9
13
41
33
54
41
65
54
98
87
( 1>
( 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 1
70 i
17 i
48 I
65
57 i
0
100 '
39 i
13 <
26 <
74 i
91 i
30
4 <
22
9
52
61 <
83 i
78 i
35 i
87 i
96 i
! 10)
I 16)
I 4)
I 11)
( 15)
I 13)
( 0)
I 23)
t 9)
( 3)
I 6)
1 17)
( 21)
( 7)
( 1)
( 5)
( 2)
I 12)
( 14)
U 19)
( 18)
t 8)
( 20)
1 22)
MEAN
CHLO«A
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)
< 1<»)
( 0)
( 23)
( 12)
( 1)
( 9)
( 6)
( 19)
< 17)
( 7)
( 3)
( 8)
( 5)
( 13)
{ 22)
< 20)
( 4)
( 15)
( 18)
15-
MIN DO
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 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
266
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 0633 SILVER LAKE 506
4 0615 LAKE MARY 505
5 0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES *85
6 0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES <»63
7 0622 SHAVER 463
a 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
1<» 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 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 ~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
LAKE CODE 06?2 SHAVER LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AKEA OF LAKEfSQ KM) 75.4
12/02/76
SUB-DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY ARFACSQ KM)
0622A2
0622B1
0622ZZ
3.9
75.4
75.4
JAN
2.12
8.33
0.335
FEB
5.92
6.66
0.335
MAR
4.42
10.00
0.774
APR
4.84
11.66
2.322
MAY
19.71
5.00
6.398
NORMALIZED FLOWS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
21.00
13.33
3.251
8.27
11.66
0.645
4.67
13.33
0.077
SEP
2.44
1.67
0.036
OCT
1.90
1.67
0.044
NOV
1.64
3.33
0.101
DEC
0.40
5.00
0.134
MEAN
6.44
7.65
1.209
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE =
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS =
75.4
79.3
TOTAL FLOW IN
TOTAL FLOW OUT
91.77
91.63
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY
0622A2
0622B1
0622ZZ
FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY
FLOW
11
12
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
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
74
74
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
0.062 16
0.059 7
0.093
0.116
0.261
3.964 19
31.998 17
44.457 8
5.550
0.127
C.113
0.085
5.975
5.692
0.082
3.2?8
4.106
16.764
17.188
17.245
3.568
8.353
6.853
6.541
0.062
0.068
0.130
0.178
0.340
0.510
7.674
7.419
0.651
0.173
0.042
0.059
0.065
0.051
0.311
44.457
48.139
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STOwET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
062201
37 OB <*0.0 119 18 00.0 3
06019 CALIFORNIA
760109 2111202
0100 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/04
75/06/24
75/1 1/13
DATE
FROM
TO
75/Ob/04
75/06/24
75/li/U
TIME DEPTH
OF
OAY FEET
20 00 0000
20 00 0003
20 00 0010
20 00 0016
20 00 002-+
20 00 OC<*5
20 00 0100
15 59 0000
15 59 0005
15 59 0020
15 59 0030
15 59 0060
15 59 0086
08 50 0000
03 50 0005
03 50 0015
08 =0 OQ32
08 50 0065
TIME DEPTH
OF
UAr FEET
20 00 0000
20 00 0003
20 00 0010
20 00 0016
20 00 002*
20 00 0045
15 59 0000
IS 59 OOOb
15 59 0020
15 5P 0030
15 59 0060
15 59 U036
OS 50 0000
08 50 0005
08 50 0015
08 50 0032
08 C0 0065
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
17.5
17.5
9.5
7.5
6.3
5.0
<*.6
15.7
15.7
15.5
11.6
8.8
7.9
14."
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
C0665
HHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.037
0.018
C.017
0.015
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.013
:) . 0 1 3
C .012
;.-.2?2
,•5.009
0.010
S . 0 1 0
C . 0 I o
0 . 0 1 1
00300 00077
DO TKANSP
SECCHI
MG/L INCHES
8.6 108
9.0
10.4
9.4
7.8
7.8
7.8
9.6
9.2
H.2
7.6 186
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.8
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCUT LT
A «EMMNG
UG/L PERCENT
1.8
1.2
2.0
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICrtOMhO
15
15
13
12
11
11
12
30
15
15
17
23
27
37
37
37
37
37
00400
PH
SU
10.20
10.00
9.60
9.60
9.20
3.80
8.20
5.90
6.10
5.95
5.70
6.20
6.20
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
7.00
OO'+IO
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
25
19
18
19
18
21
12
13
13
10K
11
10
26
22
24
10K
10K
00610
Nn3-N
TOTAL
Mb/L
0.060
0.040
u.040
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.030
0.040
0.030
0.0<+0
0.030
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.800
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.20C
0.300
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.300
0.200K
0.20CK
0.200K
0.20CK
0.200K
00630
rt02«.N03
N- TOTAL
Mii/L
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.02UK
00671
PhOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/u P
0.022
0.008
0.006
0.004
O.OOt
0.008
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.002
0.002K
0.010
0.002K
0.002*
0.002K
0.002K
0.002
K VALUE KNOWN TO b
L£SS
-------
STOSET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/Z*
06220?
37 07 30.0 1J9 17 30.0 3
Srl/WER
0601* CALIFORNIA
11EPALES 760109 3111203
0056 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
KATE
FROM
TO
75/06/04
75/06/24
75/1 1/13
DATE
FROM
TO
75/U6/U4
75/0 b/24
75/11/13
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
19 30 0000
19 30 0003
19 30 0010
19 30 0016
19 30 0024
19 30 0040
19 30 0054
15 20 0000
15 ?0 OU'15
15 ?0 0020
15 20 0030
15 2C 0060
15 20 0095
09 10 0000
09 10 0005
09 10 001S
09 10 0035
09 10 0076
TIME DEPTH
OF
UAI- FCET
lv 3C OOUO
19 30 C003
1^ 30 0010
19 30 0016
19 30 0024
19 30 0040
l-i 30 0054
15 20 0000
15 20 0005
15 20 0020
15 ?C 0030
IS ?0 0060
15 ?0 CO 95
09 10 0000
09 10 UOOb
09 10 0015
09 10 0035
09 10 OC76
OC010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
la. 5
18.5
9.5
8.0
6.5
5. <*
5.0
14.7
14.7
14.3
11. '5
9.5
7.5
13.5
13.4
13.4
I3.o
13.3
00665
PHOS-TOT
' MO/L i3
O.OM
0.015
0.019
0.013
0.013
a. 019
0.012
0.02?
0 . 0 1 <*
S.012
0.012
( .132
0.009
0 . 0 1 C
.; . 0 i 5
0.012
C.Ol^
00300
00
MG/L
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
9.
9.
8.
H.
9.
9.
9.
8.
8.
«.
a.
R.
7.
32217
00077
TRANSP
SECChI
INCHES
8 150
0
a
0
0
6
8
4 120
4
0
0
0
4
0 204
0
2
?
8
00031
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELO
MICK'OMHO
16
16
11
12
10
10
11
64
45
14
20
29
30
37
3«
39
39
37
00400
PH
SU
10.89
9.60
9.60
9.20
9.20
9.40
9.30
8.20
8. 10
7.50
6.80
6.90
6.70
7.00
6.95
6.90
6.90
6.80
OOnlO
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
23
?1
21
10K
10K
10K
10K
13
12
12
10K
11
10
11
20
' 17
14
OOblO 00625 00630
NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03
TOTAL
MG/L
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.020
0.0*0
0.040
0.030
0.070
0.030
0.020
0.040
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
N N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.600
0.200
0.200
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.400
0.400
0.500
0.400
0.500
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0...200K
0.200K
Mo/L
0.050
0.050
0.210
0.0<«0
0.030
0.060
0.060
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.050
0.050
0.020N
00671
PhOS-015
ORTrtO
MG/L P
U.010
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.010
0.005
0.00-4
0.003
0.003
0.002K
0.002K
O.Olb
U.OOS
0.003
CHLRPHVL INGOT LT
A
JG/L
1.
I.
2.
REMNING
PERCENT
4
5
3
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TIME DEPTH N02S.N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FF.ET
74/1 1/16
74/12/07
75/04/19
75/05/17
75/06/08
12
13
12
11
11
15
10
30
?0
15
0622A2
37 0V 15.0 119 14 30.0 4
N Fr, STEVENSON CREEK
06 15 HUNTING10N LK
T/S^AVER LAKE 141192
BNK 200 FT S UNPVD RU .6 M SE HWY 168 JT
IIE^ALES 2111204
0000 FEET Ot^TH CLASS 00
0630
S.N03
OTAL
G/L
0.048
0.080
0.055
0.005
0.035
00625
TOT KJEL
N!
MG/L
1.300
o.eoo
1.750
1.150
2.600
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.035
0.015
0.045
0.015
0.055
00671
PhOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.020
0.005
0.025
0.005
0.005
00665
PriOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.025
0.030
0.025
0.020
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE
00630
OATE TIME OEPTri N02&N03
FROM OF N-TOTAL
TO DAY FEET MG/L
74/1 1/16
74/13/07
11 00
11 05
0.040
0.040
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
1.000
0.400
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.055
0.007
00671
PhOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.010
0.027
0622C1
37 05 45.0 119 1& 00.0 4
MARK«OOD CREEK
06 15 HUNTINGTON LK
T/SHAVEH .LAKE 141192
StC rtO BROG 4.3 MI E OF SLV« LK HEIGHTS
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.010
0.027
------- |