U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
WASHOELAKE
WASHOE COUNTY
NEVADA
EPA REGION IX
WORKING PAPER No, 814
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
ON
WftSHQE U\KE
WOE COUNTY
NEVADA
EPA EGIOM IX
WORKING PAPER No,
THE COOPERATION OF THE
NEVADA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICE
AND THE
NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD
SEPTEMBER, 1977
-------
REPORT ON WASKOE LAKE
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
EPA REGION IX
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Quality Branch
Monitoring Operations Division
Environmental Mcr.itcring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Special Studies Branch
Ccrvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
iSs Oregon
Working Paper No. 814
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
September 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Paqe
^ . --itifl^M
11
List of Nevada Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions !
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings H
V. Literature Reviewed 16
VI. Appendices 17
-------
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 freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concen-
trations, 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 nonpoint source pollution abatement in lake water-
sheds.
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.
tu 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
watershed 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 qualltv criteria/standards review
[§3Q3(c;L clean lakes [§314(a,b;], and water quality monitoring
[§108 and §305(b)] activities mandated by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
111
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic
condition are being made to advance the rationale and data
base for refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for
the Nation's freshwater 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 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and to augment
plans implementation by the States.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency) expresses sincere appreciation to the Nevada State
Environmental Protection Service for professional involvement,
to the Nevada National Guard for conducting the tributary
sampling phase of the Survey, and to those Nevada wastewater
treatment plant operators who provided effluent samples and
flow data.
The staff of the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, State Environmental
Protection Service provided invaluable lake documentation
and counsel during the Survey, reviewed the preliminary reports
and provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this
Working Paper Series.
Major General Floyd L. Edsall, the Adjutant General of
Nevada, and Project Officer Major Harold E. Roberts, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Nevada National Guardsmen, are
also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF NEVADA
LAKE NAME
Lake Mead
Lahontan Reservoir
Rye Patch Reservoir
Lake Tahoe
Topaz Reservoir
Upper Pahranagat Lake
Washoe Lake
Wildhorse Reservoir
Wilson Reservoir
Walker Lake
COUNTY
Clark (Mohave in Arizona)
Lyon, Churchill
Pershing
Washoe, Carson City,
Douglas (Placer,
El Dorado in CA)
Douglas (Mono in CA)
Lincoln
Washoe
Elko
Elko
Mineral
-------
39 20'-
Map Location
119°50'
WASHOE LAKE
<8) Tributary Sampling Site
c
(
X Lake Sampling Site
O Drainage Area Boundary
) 2 4 6
i i I
1 1 I 1
) 1 2 3 4
Scale
s Km.
5 Mi.
119'40'
39° 10-
-------
REPORT ON WASHOE LAKE, NEVADA
STORE! NO. 3208
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Survey data indicate that Washoe Lake is eutrophic, i.e.,
nutrient rich and highly productive. Whether such nutrient
enrichment is to be considered beneficial or deleterious is
determined by its actual or potential impact upon designated
beneficial water uses of the lake.
Chlorophyll a_ values in the lake ranged from 4.7 yg/1
to 20.7 yg/1 with a mean of 11.6 yg/1. Potential for primary
productivity as measured by algal assay control yields was
high in March and moderate in November. Of the 10 Nevada
lakes sampled in 1975, only 1 had higher median total phos-
phorus values (0.403 mg/1), 4 had higher median inorganic
nitrogen levels (0.130 mg/1), and 1 had higher median ortho-
phosphorus values (0.268 mg/1) than Washoe Lake.
Survey limnologists did not report any algal blooms
or macrophyte problems on their visits to the lake. However,
extremely low Secchi disc visibility (range of 0.08 - 0.25 m)
suggest that primary production in Washoe Lake is light-
rather than nutrient-limited.
*See Appendix E.
-------
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assay results indicate nitrogen was the primary limiting
nutrient in Washoe Lake during the March sampling time (03/17/75).
Lake data further suggest nitrogen limitation in the lake through-
out the sampling year.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point Sources -
There were no known point sources impacting Washoe Lake
during the sampling year.
Substantial nutrient contributions to the lake attributable
to septic tanks may exist. The Nevada Environmental Protection
Service (F. Luchetti, Personal communication) reports there are
approximately 3,000 people living in the vicinity of the lake,
all of whom are connected to,septic tanks. However, it is not
known how many of these septic tanks are within 100 meters
(U.S. EPA, 1975) of the shoreline, or if those outside this
100 meter limit do indeed contribute nutrients to the lake as
has been suggested (F. Luchetti, Personal communication).
Additional study is recommended to obtain a more accurate pic-
ture of the nutrient budget for Washoe Lake.
2
The present phosphorus loading of 0.10 g P/m /yr is equal
to that proposed by Vollenweider (1975) as "eutrophic" for a
lake with such volume and hydraulic retention time. Although
-------
Vollenweider's model may not be applicable to highly turbid
water bodies, Washoe Lake obviously is highly eutrophic and
phosphorus levels in the waterbody will have to be substan-
tially reduced before water quality improvement can be expected.
2. Nonpoint sources -
During the sampling year Franktown Creek contributed
19.3% of the total phosphorus load to Washoe Lake, Ophir Creek
contributed 7.5% and ungaged tributaries were estimated to
have contributed 55.3% of the total.
The phosphorus exports of the three gaged tributaries
to Washoe Lake (See Section IV-D) were substantially lower
than the phosphorus export of the Carson River to nearby
Lahontan Reservoir*.
*See Working Paper 807, "Report on Lahontan Reservoir".
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake morphometry data were provided by James B. Williams, Jr.
(personal communication). Tributary flow data were provided by
the Nevada District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Outlet drainage area includes the lake surface area. Mean
hydraulic retention time was obtained by dividing the lake volume
by mean flow of the outlet. Precipitation values are estimated
by methods as outlined in National Eutrophication Survey (NES)
Working Paper No. 175. A table of metric/English conversions
is included as Appendix A.
A. Lake Morphometry:
2
1. Surface area: 16.59 km .
2. Mean depth: 1.5 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 3.6 meters.
4. Volume: 25.163 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 2,080 days (5.7 yrs).
-------
Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean Flow
Name area (km^) (m-Vsec)
C-l Ophir Creek 16.8 0.13
D-l Franktown Creek 39.6 0.24
G-l Winters Creek 4.7 0.02
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 137.2 0.48
Total 198.3 0.87
2. Outlet - A-l Steamboat Creek 215.0 0.14
Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 30.2 cm.
2. Mean annual: 29.2 cm.
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Washoe 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 col-
lected from three stations on the lake and from one or more depths
at each station (see map, page v). During each visit, depth-
integrated samples were collected from each station for chloro-
phyll a_ analysis and phytoplankton identification and enumeration.
During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-integrated
samples were composited for algal assays. Maximum depths sampled
were the surface at Station 01, 2.1 meters at Station 02, and 1.5
meters at Station 03. For a more detailed explanation of NES
methods, see NES Working Paper No. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C
and are summarized in III-A for waters at the surface and at the
maximum depth for each site. Results of the phytoplankton counts
and chlorophyll ^determinations are included in III-B. Results
of the limiting nutrient study are presented in III-C.
-------
*ASHOE
STOPET CORE
PHYSICAL
CHF"ICAL CHAHACTEPISTICS
TEMPERATURE (OEG CENT)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L)
0.-1.5 " DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
CONDUCTIVITY (UMNO1:)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MA< DEPTH**
TOTAL ALKALINITY (MR/LI
O.-l.* M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
TOTAL P (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M OEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
DISSOLVED OQTHO P (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
N02+N03 (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
KJELOAHL N (MG/L)
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DFPTH**
SECCHI DISC (METERS)
( 3/17/75 1
N* PANiGE MEDTAN
3
)
5
3
5
3
5
3
)
5
3
5
3
L)
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
'.6- 3.^
2.6- 3.4
10.4- 10.6
10.4- 10.6
498.- 584.
498.- 579.
8.7- 8.8
8.7- 8.8
284.- 382.
284.- 360.
0.376-0.664
0.395-0.664
0.251-0.299
0.251-0.299
0.040-0.080
0.040-0.080
0.040-0.050
0.050-0.050
1.000-1.400
1.000-1 .400
3.3
3.3
10.4
10.6
564.
564.
8.8
8.7
33".
314.
0.403
0.403
O.?70
0.280
O.nqo
0.080
0.050
0.050
1.100
l.loo
1
MAX
OtPTn
« ANGf
(METERS)
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
n.O-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
o.o-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
O.Or
0.0-
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
l.b
1.5
K5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
(\; it
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
0
0
$
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
( 6/27/75 1
MANGE MEDIAN
13.7- 14.6
13.7- 14.6
7.8- 8.2
H.O- 8.2
410.- 445.
410.- 440.
8.6- 8.8
8.6- 8.8
*«»»<> »»«»«
0.240-0.260
0.240-0.260
0.?4Q-0.260
0.240-0.260
0.0«5-0.120
0.085-0.115
0.065-0.190
0.175-0.190
1.150-1.500
1 .SOO-1.800
14.3
14.2
8.2
8.2
435.
430.
8.8
8.8
:::::
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.102
0.100
0.127
0.182
1.325
1.650
i
MAX
DEPTH
(METERS)
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
::::::
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
1.5
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.5
2.1
ooa*
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.1
N*
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
( 11/10/75 1
SANGE MEDIAN
6.4- 8.8
6.4- 8.8
8.5- 9.2
8.5- 9.?
368.- 461.
368.- 461.
8.6- 9.8
8.6- 9.8
358.- 392.
358.- 39?.
0.652-0.70?
0.652-0.70?
0.250-0.290
0.250-0.290
0.020-0.040
0.020-0.040
0.020-0.400
0.020-0.400
1.300-1.600
1.300-1.600
8.7
8.7
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/17/75
06/27/75
11/11/75
Dominant
Genera
1. Melosira
2. Chroomonas?
3. Cryptomonas
4. Rhopalodia
Other genera
Total
1. Melosira
2. Cryptomonas
3. Euglena
4. Rhopalodia
5. Fragilaria
Other genera
Total
1. Melosira
2, Epithemia
3-. Fragilarfa
4. Stauroneis
5. Sun're 11 a.
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
Per ml
671
79
79
79
908
859
136
136
136
90
315
1,672
1,111
115
115
77
38
229
1,685
-------
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll
Date Number (yg/1)
03/17/75 01 20.7
02 13.0
03 12.8
06/27/75 01 6.3
02 12.9
03 4.7
11/10/75 01 13.4
02 11.7
03 9.2
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked - 03/17/75
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum Yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control 0.250 0.064 4.4
0.05 P 0.300 0.064 3.9
0.05 P + 1.0 N 0.300 1.064 33.0
1.00 N 0.250 1.064 30.8
-------
10
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum*, indicate that the potential for primary productivity
in Washoe Lake was high on the March sampling date (03/17/75).
In this assay, the increased growth of the test alga over the
control yield in response to the addition of nitrogen, as well
as the lack of response to the addition of phosphorus alone,
indicate nitrogen limitation.
The November algal assay results are not considered repre-
sentative of conditions present in the lake at the time of
sample collection due to significant changes in nutrient con-
centrations in the samples during shipment from the field to
the laboratory.
The mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios (N/P)
in the lake data were less than 2/1 on all three sampling
occasions suggesting primary limitation by nitrogen (a mean N/P
ratio of 14/1 or greater generally reflects phosphorus limitation)
*For further information regarding the algal assay test procedure
and selection of test organisms, see U.S. EPA (1971).
-------
11
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Nevada 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 April, May, and June when two samples were
collected. Sampling was begun in November 1974, and was completed
in October 1975.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for
the year of sampling and a "normalized" or average year were pro-
vided by the Nevada District Office of the USGS for the tributary
sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were
determined by using a modification of a USGS computer program for
calculating stream loadings. Nutrient loads indicated for tribu-
taries are those measured minus known point source loads, if any.
Nutrient loadings for unsampled "minor tributaries and imme-
diate drainage" ("ZZ" of USGS) were estimated by using the mean
annual nutrient loads, in Ophir Creek, Franktown Creek, and Winters
Creek, at Stations C-l, D-l, and G-l and multiplying the means by
2
the ZZ area in km .
-------
12
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal - None
2. Known industrial - None
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
C-l Ophir Creek 130 7.5
D-l Franktown Creek 335 19.3
E-l Winters Creek 20 1.2
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 960 55.3
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks - None known
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation* - 290 16.7
Total 1,735 100.0%
2. Outputs - A-l Steamboat Creek 1,770
3. Net annual P export** - 35
*Estimated (See NES Working Paper No. 175)
**Export probably due to unknown sources and/or sampling error.
-------
13
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
C-l Ophir Creek 1,925 5.5
D-l Franktown Creek 2,630 7.6
G-l Winters Creek 370 1.1
b. Minor tributaries and immediate
drainage (nonpoint load) - 11,935 34.3
c. Known municipal STP's - None
d. Septic tanks - None known
e. Known industrial - None
f. Direct precipitation 17.910 51.1
Total 34,770 100.0%
2. Outputs - A-l Unnamed Creek 8,875
3. Net annual N accumulation - 25,895
*Estimated (See NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
14
D. Mean Annual Nonpoint Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
2 2
Tributary kg P/km /yr kg N/km /yr
Ophir Creek 8 115
Franktown Creek 8 66
Winters Creek 4 79
E. Mean Nutrient Concentrations in Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P Mean Total N
Tributary (mg/1) (mg/1)
*1-E Galena Creek 0.029 0.376
*1-F Jones Creek 0.024 0.497
*Special interest streams outside the Washoe Lake drainage basin.
-------
15
F. Yearly Loadings:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus annual
loading is compared to the relationship proposed by Vollenweider
(1975). Essentially, his "eutrophic" loading is that at which
the receiving waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his "oligotrophic" 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 "eutrophic" and "oligotrophic".
Note that Vollenweider's model may not apply to lakes with
short hydraulic retention times or in which light penetration is
severely restricted by high concentrations of suspended solids
in the surface waters.
Total Yearly
Phosphorus Loading
(g/m2/yr)
Estimated loading for Washoe Lake 0.10
vollenweider's "eutrophic" loading 0.10
Vollenweider's "oligotrophic" loading 0.05
-------
16
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Luchetti, F. 1977. Personal communication (septic tanks). Nevada
Environmental Protection Service. Carson City, Nevada.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Algal Assay Procedure
Bottle Test. National Eutrophication Research Program, Corvallis,
Oregon.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophica-
tion Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175. National
Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Pacific
Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-Output Models With Special
Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology.
Schweiz. Z. Hydro!. 37:53-84.
Williams, James B., Jr. 1974. Personal communication (lake
morphometry). Department of Human Resources, Carson City, Nevada.
-------
17
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
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 motors/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 ~ pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 ~ Ibs/squarc mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
THI8UTAHY FLOW INFORMATION! FOR NEVADA
LAKE CODE 320S «ASHOE LA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOP
1/81/77
LAKE CODE 3?oe
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLO«S
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAK MEAN FLOW DAY
3209D1
320bfil
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
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
0.099
0.170
0.198
0.170
0.227
0.212
0.311
0.255
0.028
0.006
0.011
0.042
0.011
0.014
0.011
0.011
0.014
0.011
0.014
0.006
0.042
0.008
0.006
0.006
10
7
11
9
15
n
n
21
q
14
12
in
7
11
0
15
\?
11
21
9
14
1?
FLO* DAY
Q.079
0.142
0.227
0.170
0.227
0.19b 26
0.255 31
0.170 28
0.006
0.011
0.0*2
0.011
0.014
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.014
0.006
FLO* DAY
FLOW
0.008
0.006
0.006
0.227
0.396
0.142
26
31
28
0.014
0.014
0.003
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
uATE 77/01/2*
' M T 1 r 1 j T "<
r L- A |_ A S V
/TY^/AMH
OATF
F 3 0 '
TO
75/03/17
?b/06/27
7b/ll/10
UATE
FPOM
TO
75/03/17
75/06/27
75/11/10
0 p r i C A T 1 C" '
£ u A S
1NIT/LftKC
TI»F OEPTr-
OH"
U A Y F t E T
15 10 0000
14 30 0000
08 46 0000
TIME OEVT»"
OF
DAY FEFT
15 10 0000
14 30 0000
08 45 0000
V. <-l/tv
0 0 0 1 0
Tr MP
CfcNT
2.6
14. fj
6.4
0066b
PHOSrTOT
MG/L p
0 .664
0.240
0.654
00300 00077 000 £ L A * t
32U31 \VAOA
llt^Al.ES 0400
0003 FEE.T DEt'Tn CLASS
00400 00410 00610
PH T ALK NH3-N
CAC03 TOTAL
bo M6/L Mf5/L
H.70 204 0.050
fi.60 0.190
9. HO 358 0.400
1K.MM
1002
or,
nn62b
TOT KjtL
^
MG/L
l.*00
1 .SCO
1.600
^0^71
0.040
C (T-0
"'?/!. ^
i).251
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
.AFF 7.V01/;
<- - I'r Y
. - J - L A 5
75/06/27 14 !) nijQ'i
14 10 0007
75/11/10 09 00 000"
0 1) 0 1 0
A r t^
T- vp
<~.t *^f
*.S
i.4
u!a
H.7
0 0 3 0 U
.00
"li/L
10.4
10.4
7.rt
a.o
9.f
00077
TRfl'jSP
^fcCC-il
TNfHtS
«
10
4
00094
CNDUCTVY
F IELO
MICROMHO
5P4
579
440
440
429
000<
00400
PM
S(.
8.7b
B.70
H.80
8. HO
8.60
'> FEFT fiE'-
00410
T AL*
CAC03
MG/L
3d2
314
372
-Tn CLASS
OOM 0
\iH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.050
0.065
0.17S
O.OPOK
TO
OOr2S
TOT 71
DMOS-OI ^
O-'T^O
M.;/L >>
0.270
0.299
0.260
0.26U
n.-tHi*
TIME
r^O" OF
TO DAY FEET
75/03/17 IS 4b r,00n
IS <»5 OOOS
7b/'lb/27 14 10 OOO'I
14 ID 0007
75/11/10 09 00
PHOS-TOT
0.403
n.260
0.260
00031
IMCOT LT
UG/L PPHO't
13.0
12.9
11.7
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
?T"-tT -£ TU T t. ;u>_
i ~ . l--1'"-^-!: :,
L *. i -_ A 3 v t Ti t S
j !r C - 'j 3
3 :j la 44.0
32031
47 30.') 3
JiTF
m
«^-.T/L ,
T I -tE
16 1
TCMP
CENT
3.3
3. 3
14. S
13.7
8. ft
00300
!jO
M(,/L
10.4
ID. 6
M.2
8.2
9.2
001. 77 OOAQ4
Ti^fiNSr1 C^DUCTVY
cECC"! Fjtn)
INCntS MIC^OMHO
7 561
S6<*
6 -*4S
43U
3 461
00400
MH
SH
M.PO
P. an
8.PO
«.r>0
«.6b
OO4! 0
T t|_*
CAC03
MG/L
330
360
392
04001
-Ti-i CL4SS
00610
Njn3-N
TOTAL
Mb/L
0.040
o.oso
0.0?OK
100-i
00
0062=.
TOT
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
,M'_ -iT-ntr-rrflTI-- '> |wV|-.Y
-~w- I_AC Virsfti 3«, 1-£/£- -jf>T/STJ--"
J' TF T I '£ '"iF.PT1
F M o i OK
TO
7»/ii/in
74/l?/(.7
7 ?> / ') 1 / 1 1
71r/0?/G<»
7b/fl5/l">
7 S / f> 4 / 1 3
7b/r */26
7 *? / ' s / 1 1
''-/nb/ U
7'r/'i
10
\ \
3-
B-I
30
IS
^-)
00
jf'
On
3T
i)
o
0
0
0
0
0
ii
U
0
(i
it
II
Ci
.01J
.'J4s
,oun
.n's
.osn
.ons
.00^
.om
.03S
.0^0
. f I 3 ii
.1) I'.t
. i>"^-
.ion
2
?.
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
?
I
2
.SO'i
.300
.HOO
.300
.100
.9SO
.010
. oSi)
.<>SO
. ?SO
. 1 0 (i
.MiO
. «0>j
.41,0
00
MnJ
TuT
Mi
,M t
t'L
00671
00
flOPD r>.FT rtf->T« CLASS '.'I
*,AS
AJ/L ^o/L " «P/L I-1
0
Tp
0
(1
0
0
n
0
1)
0
0
n
d
n
. 3SO
.Ob')
^ p. p
.o^a
. d ?->
.030
.in j
./no
.060
,n^o
.H^T-
. i)"^
. 0 4 3
.u7o
O.0
.4f>0
CTV
-------
/ T r - \/ u- -,'\T /ST-'17'.
? " / 1 1 / 1 '. 11 'J ^
r^/ii/ ,7 n i-,
l/ll 1? 4S
'/I? 11 ID
\?. no
7u/n £/?1 11 00
7^/jh/c?H 14 O'1
T-/ OH/09
NO5- M; H
N-T'-. I "L
MI-/L
t 'J - C
17 e
«^ I--.'1
b-uc. CITY
/.S
L
US
04001004
oooo FFFT UE>-TM CLASS no
t CTY
CHI'S 1 "
..iT "JEL
n n (, 7 1
Pt-'JS-' IS P-iOS-TCiT
O^TnC.
'I. 01^
U . 0 0 M
fi.n?4
0.020
(: .(inr.
O.'JO^
o.oin
o.nss
') .010
J.OO^
u.oin
o.oo1-;
0.00^
o . *i o o
0 . 1 0 0 K
0.400
O.^bO
0.300
0. .^00
0.800
O.luO
O.lbO
0.100
O..JSO
U .400
0.^00
1.110
O.U30
0 . 0 1 0
0 . U 7 0
o.on /
0.040
O.u3b
0.0 IS
0 . 0 1 -5
0.0 OS*
0.0. 33
0.1 ftO
0.0 Id
O.oin
0.010
0 . 0 1 ?
o . o 1 i;
0.010
0.010
0 . 0 1 U
0.010
0.010
0.017
0.01S
0.01S
o.oso
0.0^0
0.030
0.070
O.OPO
0.010
0.040
0.0^0
0.040
0.030
O.ODO
0.040
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
7S/"S/11
75/:,->/ )l
To/'
;l
(?5.0 114 ri'.l ?S.') 4
T")*\ C*e t-fl
7.^
M.,
n
ii
a
u
0
ii
i)
u
0
0
(1
11
0
0
> -J i 1
TAL
/L
.002
. uO>J
.01?
.010
.on-;
. (10^,
. 00=,
.Ofic
.00'-.
. Ofm
.oos
.Olo
.Old
.on ,
iOT
^
M(3
0
0
0
0
0
U
!)
.)
U
0
0
1
(<
1
K.JtL
/L
. -Oil
.60"
.TOO
. JSH
.1V.H
.^00
.4i-b
.HOII
.1^0
. IbO
.VKli
.7ju
,-v'IO
.60 ')
'.^3-
T ij r A
,', t
1.
".I/I.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
i' 3 u
Oil
Olo
-------
. r ( 7 7 / I / x
~'tlt
- 1'
Tn
T I
fir
10
OH
75/0 3/IS 0-i
KEc.1
~it>
SO
30
10
on
09
16
1 .1
V 0 H 1 *'
.ll II1*
-'h.t.i
7»b ^A
CITY
COOP F-:ET
0400100
CLASS no
1
;
n
,t
(j
0
n
o
0
0
0
0
(i
d
c>
0
"- 3 "> 1 0
-ten TV, r
r 'L fM
XL
.OOf.
.1)0 J.
.0 3?
.030
.00^
. 00^
.00~
.0?-,
. IMS
.007
.00^-
.one
.00^
.on-
M(,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0bbO
. o o r>
.soo
C 0 f- \ ' 0 " ^
TuTiL 0-T"
*i'i
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
/t.
.030
.III.?
.010
.0?0
.010
.0"b
. Kib
.O'S
.nib
.0)7
.Of'5*
. 0 ? :J
.o^n
.i;'b
Mfi/L
0.
0 .
0.
Oc
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0.
0.
n
"'IS c
(-
f'lb
oib
012
015
0^0
nis
0 I 3
n^O
nib
0
-------
/IY-i/u. -I'-T/F 1 -F<
T I "
OH
t-'PTV
"] 4 / 1 S 1
01
Ci
V!
T ' T K J t L
2?
i*J * * GO. 'i fc
A.AS""t CITY
FttT
"OAU e
0^001004
Tn CLflbS (JO
.-
;
r,
t
i:
i
.,
t't
a
I!
,->
r,
fu|
/L
. 0° -
. on .
.110
. uor
.onc.
.01S
,on-
.00-
.01 r
.jo-,
.Oft-.
j
"(-
0
0
u
0
u
0
0
0
it
1
.)
TUT.IL 0-*!'
/L Mfa/L '"G/l
vO.)
30..
3 Sit
20.i
iO-t
Ibu
?50
ISO
1 0 n
100
10 r'
0
0
(1
;i
i<
0
0
0
']
n
0
,.i'
-------
.. T i - . - _, _. ;
*-U- i 4<~ i't'. fci.
/(Y-£/A<(i^T/SI
i)£TF TI>i- i'
h- I" GI-
T'l lva» F
74/11/10 I-I S-
74/1^/ri^ 10 3"
75/11/11 1? Ofi
10 0^
1 0 l->
1^ on
'J1 11 0 f
' 0 0
0,
..Tii
il . 0 1 tj
0 . u 1 £
0 . 0?5
O.nO ?
O.I
').(
O.I
U.I
0.010
O.OOs
0 . 0 1 0
0.(
O.I
!.->
44 £0.1 <*
ni'L CITY
l^
3^ .3 "»! *> '
0400100-
I^ CLibS O'i
CTv
7 i
P^OS-TOT
MG/L ^
n.r.i<^>
O.OOh*
O.OOSf
o.oos
0.007
0.007
0.010
0.010
0 . 0 1 U
0 . 0 U b K
0.00^
O.OOb
0.010
0.005".
«r,/L ^
n.QeO
0.010K
0.030
O.U30
O.OHO
0.030
0.0?0
0.0 ^b
0.010
0.030
O.O.-'C
0.0-.0
o.oi o
K VALUE KNOWN TO K LESS
THAN INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1975
STATE OF NEVADA
Mean or median values for six of the key parameters evaluated
in establishing the trophic conditions of Nevada lakes sampled are pre-
sented to allow direct comparison of the ranking, by parameter, of
each lake relative to the others. Median total phosphorus, median
inorganic nitrogen and median dissolved orthophosphorus levels are
expressed in mg/1. Chlorophyll £ values are expressed in pg/1. To
maintain consistent rank order with the preceding parameters, the
mean Secchi disc depth, in inches, is subtracted from 500. Similarly,
minimum dissolved oxygen values are subtracted from 15 to create
table entries.
-------
LAiCE DATA TO 3E USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
3201
3202
LAKE NAME
LAKE ?1EAD
LAKQNTAN RESERVOIR .
3204 RYE PATCH RESERVOIR
3205 LAKE TAKOE
3206 TOPAZ RESERVOIR
UPPER PAKRANGAT LAKE
l.'ASHQE LAKE
WILD HORSE RESERVOIR
WILSON RESERVOIR
2207
320S
2209
3210
3211 V.-ALXER LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.016
0.193
O.G94
0.005
0.057
0.173
0.403
0.114
0.049
0.602
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.340
0.350
0.050
0.040
0.165
0.125
0.130
0.320
0.120
0.030
500-
P.EPN SEC
266.565
472.033
467.750
-3.269
376.000
470.000
494.555
439.400
197.333
405.333
MEAN
CHLORA
3.111
4.603
4.933
0.571
7.517
11.633
75.530
10.033
3.422
15-
MI.N DO
11.400
10.400
10.000
10.200
14.500
3.500
7.200
14.600
11.400
15.000
r^EDIAN
DISS ORTriO P
0.005
0.14S
0.039
. 0.003
0.041
0.026
0.26S
0.065
O.G16
0.574
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUEC (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
3201 LAKE MEAD
3202 LAHONTAN RESERVOIR
3204 RYE PATCH RESERVOIR
3205 LAKE TAHOE
3206 TOPAZ RESERVOIR
3207 UPPER PAHRANA3AT LAKE
3208 WASHOE LAKE
3209 WILD HORSE RESERVOIR
3210 WILSON RESERVOIR
3211 WALKER LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
89 (
22 (
56 (
100 (
67 (
33 (
11 (
44 (
73 (
0 (
8)
2)
5)
9)
6)
3)
1)
4)
7)
0',
MEDIAN
INORG
11 (
0 (
89 (
100 (
33 (
56 (
44 (
22 (
67 (
78 (
N
1)
0)
8)
9)
3)
5)
4)
2)
6)
7)
500-
fiEAN SEC
78 (
22 t
44 (
100 (
67 (
33 (
0 (
11 (
89 (
56 (
;1EAN
CHLORA
7)
2)
4)
9)
6)
3)
0)
1)
8)
5)
Q<3 /
oo v
63 (
50 (
100 (
38 (
.--
13 (
0 (
25 (
75 (.
7)
5)
4)
8)
3)
1)
0)
2)
6)
15-
MIN DO
39 (
56 (
78 (
67 (
17 (
89 (
100 (
17 (
39 (
0 (
HEDIAH
DISS ORTHO P
3)
5)
7).
6)
1)
a)
9)
1)
3)
0)
89
22
55
100
44
67
11
33
78
0
( 8)
( ?-)
( 5)
( 9)
( 4)
( 6)
( 1)
( 3)
( 7)
C 0}
------- |