U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
UPPER TWIN LAKE
MONO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 762
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
UPPER TWIN LAKE
MONO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 762
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD '
JUNE, 1978
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
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
-------
ii
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 fresh water 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
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
Crowl 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
-------
UPPER and LOWER
TWIN LAKES
<8> Tributary Sampling Site
X Lake Sampling Site
o Drainage Area Boundary
0
I
— Map Location
3805-
119 30
11925
11920
-------
UPPER TWIN LAKE
STORE! NO. 0625
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition*:
Survey data indicate that Upper Twin Lake is early mesotrophic.
It ranked fifth 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**. Seven of the
water bodies had less median total phosphorus, four had less
and two had the same median dissolved orthophosphorus, none
had less and four had the same median inorganic nitrogen, eight
had less mean chlorophyll a,, and three had greater mean Secchi
disc transparency. Essentially no depression of dissolved
oxygen occurred at depths as great as 31.4 meters.
Survey limnologists observed some submerged macrophytes but
no surface concentrations of algae. Extensive macrophyte growths
are reported to Occur at the west end of the lake (Bailey, 1977).
Others have noted that the water quality of Upper Twin
Lake is good and have assessed the lake as oligotrophic
(Johns, 1975).
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results are not considered representative
of conditions in the lake at the times samples were taken.
* Trophic Assessment is based on levels of nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and
chlorophyll a; phytoplankton kinds and numbers; and transparency (Allurn
et al., 19777. .-—
** See Appendix A.
-------
The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation in June and
Npyemher and phosphorus limitation in July.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—No known wastewater treatment plants
impacted Upper Twin Lake during the sampling year. Septic
tanks serving Mono Village and lakeshore dwellings accounted
for an estimated 1.2% of the total phosphorus load, but a
shoreline survey would have to be conducted to determine the
actual inputs from those sources. However, septic tank failures
in the past have resulted in contamination and enrichment
of the adjacent waters (Johns, 1975).
The present phosphorus loading of 0.84 g/m2/year is less
than that proposed by Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974)
as a eutrophic loading but is more than his suggested oli-
gotrophic loading (see page n). Because the lake is phos-
phorus limited much of the time, all phosphorus inputs should
be minimized to the greatest practicable extent to protect
the existing quality of this water body.
2. Non-point sources—Non-point sources accounted for
98.9% of the total phosphorus input during the sampling year.
Robinson Creek contributed 65.9%, and the ungaged minor tri-
butaries and immediate drainage contributed an estimated 30.7%.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphometry"^:
1. Surface area: 1.07 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 14.3 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 34.1 meters.
4. Volume: 15.301 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 136 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Robinson Creek 54.4 0.889
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 20.9 0.414
Totals 75.3 1.303
2. Outlet -
Robinson Creek 76.4** 1.303
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 8.1 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 14.5 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Uttormark (in press).
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
\
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Upper Twin 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 one station in June and from two stations in July
and November (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 com-
posited 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 28.7 meters at station 1 and 31.4
meters at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNOCTVY IMCROMOI
Prl (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L)
N02+NO3 (MG/D
AMMONIA (MG/D
KJEL N (MG/L)
INOftfo N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLR^YL A
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
Dominant
Genera
Algal Units
per ml
06/10/75
1. Melosira sp.
2. Stephanodiscus sp.
3. Tabellaria sp.
4. Anabaena sp.
Total
122
61
61
31
275
07/01/75
1. Synedra sp.
2. Asterionella sp.
3. Stephanodiscus sp.
4. Melosira sp.
5. Chroomonas (?) sp.
Total
265
166
33
33
33
530
11/06/75
1. Melosira sp.
2. Cryptomonas sp.
3. Dlnobryon sp.
231
115
38
Total
384
-------
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
06/10/75
07/01/75
11/06/75
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
1
2
Chlorophyll a
(yg/D
2.5
2.5
3.1
4.5
4.1
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
The algal assay results are not considered representative
of conditions in the lake at the times the samples were col-
lected (06/10/75 and 11/06/75) due to significant changes in
nutrient concentrations in the samples during shipment from
the field to the laboratory. However, the lake data indicate
that nitrogen was limiting in June and November and phosphorus
was limiting in July; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen/ortho-
phosphorus ratios were 5/1 in June, 21/1 in July, and 7/1 in
November.
-------
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 May when two samples were collected. Sam-
pling was begun in November, 1974, and was completed in September, 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 lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
calculated using mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows.
Nutrient loads for unsampled "minor tributaries and immediate drainage"
("ZZ" of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the mean concentrations in
Robinson Creek at station A-2 and the mean annual ZZ flow.
The nutrient contributions of the Mono Village wastewater treatment
facilities were estimated at 0.1134 kg P and 4.263 kg N/capita/year; and
the contributing population was estimated on the basis of flow (0/3785 m3/
capita/day).
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known domestic* -
Pop. Mean flow Receiving
Name Served Treatment (m3/day) Water
Mono Village 55 septic tank/ 20.74 Upper Twin Lake
leach field
2. Known industrial - none
* Pailey, 1977.
-------
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Robinson Creek 590 65.9
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 275 30.7
c. Known domestic STP's -
Mono Village 5 0.6
d. Septic tanks* - 5 0.6
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 20 2.2
Total 895 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Robinson Creek 615
3. Net annual P accumulation - 280 kg.
* Estimate based on 12 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
10
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg N/ % of
Source yjr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Robinson Creek 21,505 65.1
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 10,015 30.3
c. Known domestic STP's -
Mono Village 235 0.7
d. Septic tanks* 130 0.4
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation** - 1.155 3.5
Total 33,040 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Robinson Creek 36,200
3. Net annual N loss - 3.160 kg.
D. Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km2/yr kg N/km2/yr
Robinson Creek 11 395
* Estimate based on 12 lakeshore dwellings; 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 0.84 0.26 30.9 loss*
Vollenweider phosphorus loadings
(g/m2/yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Upper Twin Lake:
"Dangerous" (eutrophic loading) 1.16
"Permissible" (oligotrophic loading) 0.58
* There was an apparent loss of nitrogen during the sampling year. This
may have been due to nitrogen fixation in the lake, solubilization of
previously sedimented nitrogen, recharge with nitrogen-rich ground water,
underestimation of septic tank contributions, or (possibly) insufficient
outlet sampling in relation to the hydraulic retention time of the lake.
Whatever the cause, a similar nitrogen loss has occurred at Shagawa
Lake, Minnesota, which has been intensively studied by EPA's former
National Eutrophication and Lake Restoration Branch (Malueg et al., 1975),
-------
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.
Bailey, Thomas E., 1977. Personal communication (reviews of pre-
liminary report). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Johns, Gerald E., 1975. Personal communication (water quality
data). CA Water Res. Contr. Bd., Sacramento.
Malueg, Kenneth W., D. Phillips Larsen, Donald W. Schults, and
Howard T. Mercier; 1975. A six-year water, phosphorus, and
nitrogen budget for Shagawa Lake, Minnesota. Jour. Environ.
Qual., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 236-242.
Uttormark, Paul D. (in press). TSI and LCI: A comparison of
two lake classification techniques. North American Project
Rept., EPA Order No. P5J11904-J, Corvallis, OR.
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
CODE LAKE NAME
ObOl A^ADOW RESERVOIR
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE BPITTON
060* CASITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CPOhLEY LAKE
0606 DON PE9RO RESERVOIR
0607 LAKE ELSINORE
060S FALLEN LEAF RESERVOIR
0609 LAKE HENNESSEY
0610 LAKE HENSHAW
0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR
061* LOPEZ LAKE
0615 LAKE MARY
0616 LAKE MENOOCINO
0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR
0618 LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR
0619 LAKE PILLSBURY
0630 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0621 SHASTA LAKE
0622 SHAVER
0623 SILVER LAKE
062<» TULLOCK RESERVOIR
0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES
0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.040
0.012
0.067
0.029
0.046
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 5EC
408.667
372.833
446.500
400.250
374.750
381.733
489.214
24.357
416.000
461.000
440.333
372.000
296.000
436.500
482.778
447.250
466.667
400.000
381.542
346.400
356.000
433.000
300.200
248.000
MEAN
CHLOKA
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
8.200
14.800
9.000
7.400
7.000
7.400
7.400
11.400
MEDIAN
DISS OKTHO 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 OF LAKES *ITri niGHEH VALUES CNUMSEK OF LAKES-„• IT* «16HE£ VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
0601 AMADOR RESERVOIR
0602 BOCA LAKE
0603 LAKE HPITTON
0604 CASITAS RESERVOIR
0605 CROWLEY 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 PILLSBURY
0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0621 SHASTA LAKE
0622 SHAVER
062J SILVER LAKE
0624 TULLOCK RESERVOIR
0625 UPPLR TWIN LAKES
0626 LOWER TWIN LAKES
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
35
89 '
17
43
30 i
83 <
0 i
100 i
48 <
13 i
9 I
4 1
96 1
65 <
26 i
22 i
57 1
39 I
61 I
78 1
89 (
52 1
70 I
74 i
( 8)
I 20)
I 4)
( 10)
t 7)
t 19)
I 0)
I 23)
I ID
I 3)
1 2)
t D
( 22)
1 15)
I 6)
t 5)
1 13)
I 9)
I 14)
:' is)
! 20)
I 12)
I 16)
t 17)
MEDIAN
INOWG N
4 1
98 I
22 i
74 i
78 i
54 i
17 I
87 I
54 i
33 I
0 <
26 I
87 I
70 1
9 1
13 <
41 1
33 1
54 1
41 1
65 (
54 (
98 <
87 1
I 1)
I 22)
! 5)
t 17)
t 18)
I 11)
t 4)
1 19)
t 11)
! 7)
I 0)
! 6)
I 19)
I 16)
t 2)
1 3)
t 9)
; 7)
i ID
; 9)
: 15)
ID
I 22)
I 19)
500-
MEAN SEC
43
70
17
48
65
57
0
100
39
13
26
74
91
30
4
22
9
52
61
83
78
35
87
96
( 10)
( 16)
( 4)
< 11)
( 15)
( 13)
( 0)
( 23)
( 9)
( 3)
( 6)
( 17)
( 21)
( 7)
( 1)
( 5)
( 2)
< 12)
( 14)
U 19)
( 18)
( 8)
( 20)
( 22)
MEAN
CHLORA
9
91
48
7C
43
61
0
100
52
4
39
26
83
74
30
13
35
22
57
96
87
17
65
78
( 2)
( 21)
( 11)
( 16)
( 10)
( 14)
( 0)
( 23)
( 12)
( 1)
( 9)
( 6)
( 19)
( 17)
( 7)
( 3)
( 8)
( 5)
( 13)
( 22)
< 20)
( 4)
( 15)
( 18)
15-
MIN DO
17 i
100 I
43 1
22 I
30 I
37 l
78 1
70 1
4 1
54 1
26 1
4 {
48 1
61 1
54 1
4 1
. 74 (
13 1
65 (
87 (
96 (
87 (
87 (
37 (
t 4)
1 23)
I 10)
1 5)
1 7)
I 8)
I 18)
! 16)
I 0)
1 12)
I 6)
I 0)
! 11)
1 14)
I 12)
I 0)
; 17)
: 3)
: is)
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
( (-1
( 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
I 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 326
11 0624 TULLOCK RESERVOIR 302
12 0604 CASITAS RESERVOIR 294
13 0619 LAKE PILLSBURY 279
14 0605 CROrtLEY LAKE 268
15 0609 LAKE HENNESSEY 249
•
16 0620 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE 196
17 0617 NICASIO RESERVOIR 169
18 0603 LAKE BRITTON 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 ELSINORE 104
24 0611 IRON GATE RESERVOIR 104
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 - cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR CALIFORNIA
LAKE CODE 0625 UPPER TWIN LAKES
09/24/76
0625A1
0625A2
0625ZZ
.INAGE AREA OF LAKE (SO KM)
DRAINAGE
:A(SO KM) JAN
76.4
54.4
20.7
0.21
0.22
0.10
FEB
0.28
0.24
0.11
76.
MAR
0.31
0.31
0.13
4
APR
1.13
0.79
0.26
MAY
2.49
2.21
0.74
NORMALIZED FLOwS(CMS)
JUN JUL AUG
4.67
3.06
1.05
3.82
1.93
0.62
2.41
0.79
0.26
SEP
1.22
0.37
0.14
OCT
0.45
0.24
0.11
NOV
0.16
0.24
0.11
DEC
0.11
0.25
0.11
MEAN
1.303
0.889
0.414
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 76.4
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS = 75.1
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/34
DATE
FROM
TO
75/07/01
75/11/06
DATE
FROM
TO
75/07/01
75/11/06
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
13 30 0015
13 30 0030
13 30 0050
13 30 0074
14 15 0000
14 15 0005
14 15 0025
14 15 0055
14 15 0094
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 30 0000
13 30 0005
13 30 0015
13 30 0030
13 30 0050
13 30 0074
14 15 0000
14 15 0005
14 15 0025
14 15 0055
14 15 0094
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
10.1
10.3
10.3
10.2
9.3
8.1
10.5
10.6
10.5
10.4
10.3
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.015
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.029
0.016
0.013
0.018
0.016
0.018
00300
DO
MG/L
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.8
8.4
8.2
8.4
8.4
8.2
7.8
7.8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
2.5
4.5
00077
TRANSP
SECCHI
INCHES
204
228
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMHO
48
35
35
37
43
42
17
17
17
17
17
062501
3d 09 10.0 119 21 15.0 3
UPPER TWIN LAKES
06051 CALIFORNIA
150193
11EPALES 2111202
0078 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
00400
PH
SU
48
35
35
37
43
42
17
17
17
17
17
7.90
7.80
7.80
7.90
7.70
7.60
7.45
7.45
7.45
7.40
7.40
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
00630
N02S.N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
20
23
26
25
24
22
37
25
22
21
32
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.300
0.300
0.200
0.300
0.200
0.200
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.003
0.002K
0.002K
0.002K
0.002
0.002K
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.007
0.004
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
062502
38 08 52.0 119 21 52.0 3
UPPER TWIN LAKES
06051 CALIFORNIA
11EPALES 751126 2111202
0107 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/10
75/07/01
75/11/06
TIME
OF
DAY
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0020
0041
0071
0103
0000
0005
0021
0045
0065
0092
0000
0005
0015
0030
0064
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
10.6
10.8
8.0
5.7
4.3
4.1
9.6
9.6
9.5
8.7
7.6
6.7
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.5
OC665
DATE
FROM
TO
75/06/10
75/07/01
75/11/06
TIME
OF
DAY
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
00
00
00
00
00
OP
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
DEPTH
FEET
0000
0005
0020
0041
0071
0103
0000
0005
0021
0045
0065
0092
0000
0005
0015
0030
0064
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•:t
0
0
.013
.010
.009
.011
.010
.023
.015
.017
.015
.015
.016
.027
.013
.018
.018
.018
.029
00300
DO
MG/L
8.
9.
9.
9.
8.
7.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
7.
32217
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
8 135
0
2
0
2
6
6 204
6
6
6
0
6
8 228
0
4
0
8
00031
35
34
30
35
37
39
32
29
31
32
32
32
17
17
17
17
17
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
2.
3.
4.
REMNING
PERCENT
5
1
1
00400
PH
SU
35
34
30
35
37
39
32
29
31
32
32
32
17
17
17
17
17
7.60
7.90
8.10
7.60
7.50
7.90
8.20
7.90
7.80
7.70
7.60
7.40
7.40
7.45
7.40
7.40
7.40
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
21
20
21
24
27
29
26
25
25
25
27
29
35
37
33
47
43
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.020
0.020K
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.200*
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.400
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200K
0.200
0.200K
0.200K
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTriO
MG/L P
0.005
0.011
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.014
0.002K
0.002
0.002K
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.007
0.006
0.010
0.007
0.007
K VALUE KNOWN TO b£
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/09/24
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/11/15
75/01/15
75/03/14
75/03/15
75/04/27
75/05/12
75/05/30
75/06/06
75/07/07
75/07/24
75/08/04
75/08/15
75/09/11
11 50
10 52
11 30
11 00
09 14
13 00
09 35
09 55
14 35
12 15
14 10
10 50
16 40
0625A1
38 09 15.0 119 20 55.0 4
KOBINSON CHEEK
C6 15 MATTERHORN PK
0/UPPER TWIN LAKES 150193
UNPVO RD bRDG .6 M SW TlrflN LKS CAMPGWND
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
i0630
I&N03
OTAL
IG/L
0.008
0.012
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.015
0.095
0.005
0.015
0.015
0.005
C.005
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.400
0.400
1.700
0.100K
0.150
1.450
2.500
2.500
0.400
0.300
0.050K
0.100
1.200
00610
IMH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.012
0.045
0.008K
0.010
G.010
0.080
0.080
0.025
0.005
0.005
0.005K
0.315
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.005K
0.005K
0.005K
0.008K
0.005K
0.005K
0.005
0.005K
0.005K
0.010
0.005
0.005K
0.005K
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.010
0.010K
0.010K
0.010K
0.010K
0.020
0.010
0.025
0.010
0.030
0.010K
0.020
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STOKET tftTRIEV-AL DATE 76/0-9/24
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
74/11/15
74/12/13
75/01/15
75/03/14
75/03/15
75/05/12
75/05/30
75/07/07
75/07/24
75/08/04
75/08/15
75/09/11
11 10
10 00
10 30
11 15
10 45
12 45
09 30
14 05
13 50
13 55
11 10
16 10
062SA2
33 08 45.0 119 22 30.0 4
HfOBINSON CREEK
06 is MATTERHORN PK
T/UPPER TWIN LAKES 150193
tJNK .5 MI S OF MONO VILLAGE
I1EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
0630
&N03
OTAL
G/L
0.02^
0.0^8
0.072
0.055
0.056
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.005
0.030
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.100
0.400
0.400
0.300
0.100K
0.700
1.500
3.700
0.050
0.050
0.800
0.700
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020
0.015
0.016
0.030
0.008K
0.005
0.025
0.135
0.005K
0.010
0.010
0.210
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.005K
0.006
0.005K
0.005K
0.008K
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005K
0.005K
006t>5
PMOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.0?0
0.020
0.010K
0.010K
0.010*
0.040
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.040
0.020
0.030
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |