U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
ALTUS RESERVOIR
GREEK AND KIOWA COUNTIES
OKLAHOMA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 581
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
ALTUS RESERVOIR
GRER AND KIOWA COUNTIES
OKLAHOW
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 581
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
AND THE
OKLAHOMA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON ALTUS RESERVOIR
GREER AND KIOWA COUNTIES, OKLAHOMA
EPA REGION VI
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Monitoring Branch
Monitoring Applications Laboratory
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Eutrophication Survey Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Working Paper No. 581
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1977
-------
I
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Oklahoma Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Sumary 6
IV. Nutrient Loadings 12
V. Literature Revie d 19
VI. Appendices 20
-------
11
FOREWORD.
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated In 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment. toinvestigate’ the nation-
wide threa.t of accelerated. eutrophi.cation to. freshwater lakes and
reservoi rs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey’ was designed. to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies’, information on’ nutrient sources, concen-
tra.tions,and.impact on selected:freshwa•ter lakes as a basis for
formu1a.ting comprehensive and. coordinated; national, regiona.l, and.
state. management. practices relà.tingz ’to.. point sou.rce discharge:
reduction and nonpoint. source: pollution: abatement’ in: lake water-
sheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The”mathema’tical and::statistical ’ procedures; selected for the
Survey’s: eutrophication’ anal.’ysis are based on related concepts.
that:..
a. A’ genera.lized : representation o.r’mode 1 re lating:
sou.rces’,.concentra’tlons., and. impac.ts can be
cons truc.ted:..
b . By applyl ng: 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:
rel a:ted. nutr.i ents’...
c.. With such’ a: transformation’, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In thfs :repor.t,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
plannin9 [ 5303(e)], ,water quality ’criteria/s’tandards review
[ 3O3(c)],, olean’ la kes [ 3l4(a,b.)], and water quality monitoring
[ lO6..and §305(’b)]’ac.tivities mandated. by, the Federal Water
Pollution Control:A’c.t Amendments of l972 ..
-------
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 refine-
ment of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s freshwater
lakes. Likewise, nultivariate 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 b.y the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and to augment plans implementation by the states.
AC KNOWLEDGMENTS
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection F.gency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Oklahoma Departrr ent of
Pollution Control for professional involvement, to the Okiahona
National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the
Survey, and to those Oklahoma wastewater treatment plant operators
who provided effluent samples and flow data.
Dr. Denver Talley, Director, Oklahoma Departnent of Pollution
Control; the staff of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board; and the
staff of the Oklahoma State Department of Health reviewed the pre-
liminary reports and provided critiques most useful in the prepara-
tion of this Working Paper Series.
Major General John Coffey, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Oklahoma, and Project Officers Colonel Curtis W. Milligan and
Major James 0. Haney, Jr., who directed the volunteer efforts of
the Oklahoma National Guardsr!en, are also gratefully acknowledoed
for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
L.AKE NAM [
Altus Reservoir
Arbuckle Lake
Lake Elsworth
Lake Eufaula
Fort Cobb Reservoir
Fort Supply Reservoir
Foss Dam Reservoir
Lake Frances
Grand Lake 0’ The Cherokees
Lake Hefner
Keystone Reservoir
Oologah Lake
Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir
Lake Thunderbird
Ulster Reservoir
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
COUNTY
Greer, Kiowa
Murray
Caddo, Comanche
1 -laskell, 1cIntosh,
Okmulgee, Pittsburg
Caddo
Woodward
Custer
Adair
Mayes, Delaware, Craig,
Ottowa
Okl ahoma
Tulsa, Creek, Usage, Pawnee
Nowata, Rogers
Cherokee, Sequoyah
Cleveland
L e FT ore
-------
I,
Moravia •
1Okl.
Granite
Map Location
LAKE ALTUS
Tributary Sampling
Lake Sampling Site
ALTUS
-------
REPORT ON ALTIJS RESERVOIR, OKLAHOMA
STORET NO. 4001
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
On the basis of field observations and Survey data,
Altus Reservoir is considered 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 each lake.
Chlorophyll a values in Altus Reservoir ranged from
7.3 ugh in the sumer to 26.8 pg/i in the fail, with a mean
of 14.8 pg/i. Potentials for primary production as measured
by algal assay control yield were moderate in spring and high
during October sampling. Of the 16 Oklahoma lakes (including
Lake Texoma) sampled in 1974, 9 had higher median total phos-
phorus values, 15 had higher median inorganic nitrogen values,
and 11 had higher median orthophosphorus levels than Aitus
Reservoir.
Survey iimnoiogists did not report any problem algal
blooms or aquatic macrophytes during their visits to the lake.
*See Appendix E.
-------
2
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
ilean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus (NIP) ratios in the
lake data were 11/1 or less on all sampling occasions, indicating
primary limitation by nitrogen in the reservoir. Algal assay results
sugges-t Altus Reservoir was limited by available phosphorus levels
in March and colimited by both phosphorus and nitrogen during October
sampling.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources -
During the sampling year there was one known point source,
Quartz Lodge, impacting Altus Reservoir. However, no chemistry
or flow data are available on the plant at this time and
nutrient loadings for the plant are not included in the lake
nutrient budget (pp. 15 and 16). In addition, it is suspected
that a portion of the sewage treatment plant effluent from
Granite, released to ground, ultimately will impact Altus
Reservoir, but estimates of loading directly attributable to
this source are not presently available.
The present estimated annual phosphorus loading of
0.42 g P/m 2 /yr to the reservoir is greater than that proposed
by Vollenweider (1975) as “eutrophic” for a lake with such
volume and retention time. Additional investigation is needed
to determine loading levels contributed by the Quartz Lodge
plant.
-------
3
U.S. avtro uiente1 Pyotection Ageecy
CorvaIIi Evivironrnent&1 Re8earch Lab.
OO $.W. 35th Street
CoTvalltB. Oregon 97330
2. Nonpoint sources -
Nonpoint sources (including precipitation) contributed
all of the calculated loading to Altus Reservoir during the
sampling year. The North Fork Red River contributed 88.9%,
Lake Creek contributed 2.7%, and ungaged drainage areas contri-
buted an estimated 4.2%.
The phosphorus export rates of the North Fork Red River
and Lake Creek were 2 and 3 kg/km 2 /yr, respectively, (see
Section IV-D). The rates are somewhat lower than those of
the unimpacted tributaries draining into nearby Elsworth Lake*
(range of 3-6 kg/km 2 /yr).
*See Working Paper No. 583, “Report on Elsworth Lake”.
-------
4
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Lake and drainage basin characteristics are itemized below.
Lake morphometry data were provided by the Oklahoma Department of
Pollution Control. Tributary flow data were provided by the
Oklahoma 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. Tributary drainage areas plus the
lake surface area do not equal the outlet drainage area probably
because of differences in the pool elevation used by the different
sources in their calculations. 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:
1. Surface area: 25.41 km 2 .
2. Mean depth: 6.4 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 23.5 meters.
4. Volume: 162.624 x 106 m .
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 759 days (2.1 yr).
-------
5
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix B for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Me n flow
Name area(km ) ( ma/sec )
A-2 North Fork Red River 5185.2 3.82
B-i Lake Creek 107.0 0.11
Minor tributaries and
immediate drainage - 147.6 0.16
Totals 5439.8 4.09
2. Outlet -
A-i North Fork Red River 5480.4 2.48
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sampling: 77.7 cm.
2. Mean annual: 63.3 cm.
-------
6
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Altus’ Reservoirwas sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1974 byme ans of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each
time, samples for’physical and.chémical parameters were collected:
frOm three stations on the lake (Station 03 was only sampled twice)
and from a number of depths at each station (see map, page v).
‘During each visit, depth-integrated samples were collected from
each station for chlorophyll a analysis and phytopiank.ton identifl-
cationand enUmeratibn. Duriiig the first and’ last visits, 18.9-liter
depth-integrated samples Were composited for’algal assays. Maximum
depths. sampled were 9.8 metersat Station 01., 4.9 meters at
Station 02, and 7.9 meters’ at’ Station’ 03. For a more detailed
explanation of’NES methods, see NES WOrking’ PaperNo. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix C and”
are siirrn rized. in Ill-A for waters at.the surface and at the máxi-
mum depth foreach site. Results. of the phytOplankton counts and
chlorophyll adetèrrni’ñat.ionsare ‘included i’n Ill -B. Results of
the limiting nutrient st’udy are presented in Ill-C.
-------
ALTUS PESE VuI—
ST3 IT F’E 4fl31 I- iYS1CAL Ai’4 [ ) C -i MICAL C ACTE ISTICS
,/10/7’ ) 10/24 /7’
= 2 ** 3 £)ET?Ti c**o 3
014 (•1E ,) 01Ar. t ’ETE4S 4ArqG Ej1AN (P.IETERS)
TE— TL’r. L• ’ i
1 . — 11.0 )( •f 0.0— 1.5 f 2 •l — 2’i.6 23. 0.0— 1.S s l6. — lt .c 16.6 0.0— 1.
2 10.4— 10.4 .4.6 4. — 4.1 3 2j.s— 23. ’ 23.5 ‘.. — 3 i 5 1 .6 1 .S 3•7— 7.’,.
)ISc., .L J Y ’7 \ (M(,/L)
io.o— 10.2 10.1 1.5— 1. 3 7.0— 7.’ 7. 1.5— 1.5 5 .2— 8.5 8.6 0.0— 1.
y 2 10.0— 10.? 10.1 4.6— 9.1 3 .5 5. ‘.9— 9.8 3 1.2— 8.5 .4 3.7— 7.’
CONu C TI I I
. . 1583.17i,1. j593. 1 () 1. 6 ?.—276 i. 44. ).4— 1.5 6 2014.—2019. 201U. 0.0— 1.
2 167 ..—1701. 1589. 4. — 9.1 3 2?32.—22’U. 2234. 4.4— 9.4 3 19 ,9.—2073. 2015. 3.7— 7.
1 -r A’ L) ( ,J 1f •)
4 ,.3— 5.4 0.0— 1.5 s 7.9— 6.5 8.2 0.0— 1.5 5 a.?— 6.3 8.3 0.0— 1.5
N’A . , UE2I 2 .3— .3 .6— .1 3 13.1— 13.3 8.1 .9— 9.6 3 6.1— 8.3 8.i 3.7—
TOTAL 4L AL1NITY (“/L)
iF T1 * 13).— 151. 146. 0.0— 1.5 6 143.— 1’+b. 145. 0.0— i.s Hi.— 107. 104. 0.0— 1.5
2 146.— 1 . 148. 4.5— 9.1 3 1 +?.— 146. 144. 4.9— ‘v.8 3 101.— 105. 104. 3.7— 7.
TOTAL
4 0.035-0.043 0.037 0.0— 1.5 6 o.03s—0.043 0.039 0.0— 1.5 0.055—0.flS O.OSd 0.0— 1.s
2 0.039—0.040 0.039 4.5— 4.1 3 u.03 —0.fl4 0.042 4.9— 9.4 .1 u.061—0.45 0.0h7 3.7— 7 e
DISS(jLVSI) O Tr ) P ( “ fL)
EFT’’ 4 0.010—0.016 0.011 0.0— 1.5 s 0.006—0.011 0.009 0.0— 1.4 . , 0.007—0.018 0.010 0.0— 1.5
1 i )F.pT4** , c .I)1fi—0.01I) o.0I0 4.6— 9.1 3 0.007—0.010 0.0(39 4.9— ,.8 0.uU8—0.02 0.01 . 3.7 7.9
N 0 .k)3 (..A(./ 1 )
‘ 4 0.0 0—0.030 0.0 u 0.0— 1. 6 0.020—0.050 0.u20 0.0— 1.:’ 5 0.O?0—0.020 0.020 0.0 1.5
“ AA L fr 2T *’. ’ 2 0.0 )—0.)d0 0.020 4.6— ‘4.1 ‘3 .05u—0.0t0 0.060 4.9 .8 3 U.u20—0.020 0.020 3.7— 7.4
AM ) ”JN!A ( ,,‘L)
‘ ‘E- I-i + .04o—0.040 u.fl S (3.0— 1.5 1 .040—U.070 0.045 0.0— 1.5 e 0.03 1J0.05Q 0.030 0,0 1.
)A . L;T-i 2 (,.030—0.030 0.030 .4_ 4.1 ‘3 0.u90—U.100 0.040 4.9— .5 3 0.030—0.120 0.040 3.7— •9
J!LJI6L N (‘ ( fLI
. 3. —U.. ’ 0fl o. 7 00 0.0— .5 5 0.500—1.001) 0.600 0.0— 1.5 6 0.600—0.900 0.600 0.0— 1.)
1 ’L X :FP1 ’4 2 il.700—0.I0 )J 0.700 ‘ .5— 4.1 3 t).500U.600 0.500 .6 3 0.hOO—?.300 0.600 3•7 7’
CCr’I D!SL ( ETL— )
( 0. — : .N4 (.5. 1.’ 0.’ ‘3 0.:’— Oe 1
N N ()• UF “,M) PLfS
M4 jMJM LiE T A t.EU AT .AC - jTt ’
S ‘ U. O SOIlS SA 8LL) UN T 1S OATS
-------
8
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Algal
Sampling Dominant Units
Date Genera per ml
03/29/74 1. Oscillatoria 7,319
2. Chroomonas 232
3. Carteria 155
4. Dactylococcqpsis 77
5. Stephanodiscus 77
Other genera 117
Total 7,977
06/10/74 1. Oscillatoria 1,330
2. Chroomonas 272
3. Carteria 242
4. Microcystis 242
5. Merismopedia 212
Other genera 664
Total 2,962
10/24/74 1. Navicula 4,928
2. Oscillatoria 1,437
3. Centric diatoms 667
4. Cryptomonas 205
5. Lyngbya 205
Other genera 309
Total 7,751
-------
9
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( ugh )
03/29/74 01 10.9
02 11.4
03
06/10/74 01 7.3
02 9.0
03 8.2
10/24/74 01 25.4
02 19.0
03 26.8
-------
10
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Spi ked ( mg/i )
Ortho P
Conc. (mg/i )
Inorganic N
Conc. (mg/i )
Maximum Yield
( mg/i-dry wt. )
a. 03/29/74
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0
1.00 N
N
0.010
0.060
0.060
0.010
0.078
0.078
1.078
1.078.
0.5
2.6
22.2
0.8
b. 10/24/74
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0
1.00 N
N
0.021
0.071
0.071
0.021
0.178
0.178
1.178
1.178
4.0
5.3
25.5
5.7
-------
11
2. Discussion —
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicate that potential for primary production was
moderate in Altus Reservoir during spring sampling and high during
autumn. In March, the addition of orthophosphorus alone produced
a significant increase in yield over that of the control, indicat-
ing the sample was phosphorus limited at that time. The addition
of nitrogen alone did not result in a significant increase in yield
over that of the control. In October, additions of either phosphorus
or nitrogen produced similar growth responses, suggesting colimita-
tion by the two nutrients. In both assays, the simultaneous
addition of both phosphorus and nitrogen produced the maximum
yield increase over their respective control yields.
The mean inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus (NIP) ratios
in the lake data were 11/1 or less on all sampling occasions,
suggesting that nitrogen was the primary controlling nutrient
limiting productivity in Altus Reservoir (a mean N/P of 14/1 or
greater generally reflects phosphorus limitation).
-------
12
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Oklahoma
National Guard collected a number of monthly near-surface grab
samples from each of the tributary sites indicated on the map
(page v), including the high runoff month of April when two
samples were collected. Sampling was begun in December 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 Oklahoma District Office of the USGS for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries
except North Fork Red River at Station A-i were determined by
using a modification of a USGS computer program for calculating
stream loadings. Nutrient loads indicated for tributaries are
those measured minus known point source loads, if any. Loadings
for the North Fork Red River, Station A-i, were calculated from
mean annual concentrations and mean annual flows. It should be
noted, however, that loadings for A-i are calculated from limited
data (Station A-i was sampled only four times during the 1974
sampling year) and may not reflect actual nutrient loadings from
that tributary.
-------
13
Nutrient loadings for unsampled “minor tributaries and
immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of USGS) were estimated by using the
mean annual nutrient loads in kg/km 2 /year, in Lake Creek at
Station B-i, and multiplying the means by the ZZ area in km 2 .
-------
14
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal -
Pop. M 9 n Flow Receiving
Name Served Treatment ( in /d x 10 ) Water
Quartz Lodge* ? ? Altus Reservoir
Granite** 900 Stabilization 0.341***
pond,
released to
ground
2. Known industrial — None
*peavy, Howard S.,. personnal comunication.
**u.S.EPA, 1971.
***Estimated at 0.3785 m 3 /capita/day.
-------
15
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading — Average Year:
1. Inputs —
% of
Source kg P/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 North Fork Red River 9,52O. 88.9
B-i Lake Creek 290 2.7
b. Minor tributaries and inimedi-
ate drainage (nonpoint load) — 445 4.2
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Quartz Lodge ?
d. Septic tanks* - 5 <0.1
e. Known industrial-- None
f. Direct precipitation** - 445 4.2
Totals 10,705 100.0
2. Output - A-i North Fork Red River 3,910
3. Net annual P accumulation 6,795 -
*Estjmate based on 8lakeside residences and ipark..
**Estimated (See NES Working Paper No. 175). - -
-------
16
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
% of
Source kg N/yr total
a. Tributaries (nonpoint load) -
A-2 North Fork Red River 855,890 94.8
B-i Lake Creek 8,080 0.9
b. Minor tributaries and. immedi-
ate drainage (nonpoint load) - 11,220 1.2
c. Known municipal SIP’s —•
Quartz Lodge ?
d. Septic tanks* - 120 <0.1
e.. Known industrial — None
f. Direct precipitation** - 27,435 3.1
Totals 902.,.745 100.0
2. Output - A-•l North Fork Red River 96 ,825
3. Net annual N accumulation 805,920
*Estjmat based on 8 lakeside residences and 1 park.
**Estjmated (See NES Working Paper No. 175).
-------
17
D.
E.
Mean Annual No
Tributary
North Fork Red
npoint Nutrient
River
E
xport by Subdrairia
kg P/km 2 /yr
2
ge Area:
kg N/km 2 /yr
165
Lake Creek
3
76
Mean Nutrient
Concentrations
in
Ungaged Streams:
Mean Total P
(mg/i)
Mean Total N
Tributary ___________ ( mg/i )
C-i Unnamed Stream 0.208 2.704
Phosphorus levels in Unnamed Streams tributary C-i, are
substantially higher than those found in the other gaged tributaries
to Altus Reservoir. The reasons for these inflated phosphorus values
are not known.
-------
18
F. Yearly Loading:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus annual
loading is compared to those 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 be applicable to
water bodies with very short retention times or in which light
penetration is severely restricted from high concentrations of
suspended solids in the surface waters.
Total Yearly
Phosphorus Loading
(g/m 2 /yr)
Estimated loading for Altus Reservoir 0.42
Vollenweider’s “eutrophic” loading 0.34
Vollenweider’s “oligotrophic” loading 0.17
-------
19
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Peavy, Howard S. 1974. Personal communication (Sewage Treatment
Plant to Altus Reservoir). Oklahoma Department of Pollution
Control, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. “Inventory of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities”. EPA Publication No. OWP-1, Volume
6. Office of Media Programs, Office of Water Programs,
Washington, D.C.
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. 7. Hydrol. 37:53-84.
-------
20
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERS J0 FA’CT0RS
Hectares x 2 .471 acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 miles
Meters x 3.281 feet
Cubic iicters 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
Kiloqr tms x 2.205 pounds
Kilograrns/squ re kilometer x 5.711 lbs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOiJ INFORMATION FOR OKLA’ OMA
03/25/77
LA
-------
TrQIEjUTAR1 FLOs INFOkMAT1D FUR Or¼LA-$OMA 03/25/77
LAKE CODE 4001 \LTUS RES.
MEAN 1ONTHLY FLOwS AND UAILY FLO S (CMS)
IPIBUTARY MONT .- YEAR 4EAN FLOw DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
001ZZ 11 7’ . 0.425
12 14 0.150
1 75 0.113
2 75
3 75 0.14?
4 75 u.2e1
5 15 0.122
6 75 0.708
7 75
8 75 0.538
9 75 0.059
10 75 0.059
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
srD ET ET IEVAL DATE 77/03/24
400101
3’+ 53 15.0 099 17 30.0 4
LTUS EPvOI4
‘.0 0KLA 34A
10 15’1
/1 T- i /AM13Nt/L AKF.
1 1E ALES
Q j3e) FEET
04001002
DEMTr CLASS 00
‘< V. LUL r’ NQWN 10 • t
O OJ I3
00300
0 077
000’4
00 .00
00 ’ .10
00510
00b25
00o30
00671
J TE
TIME
DEPTH
T -p
ro
T r 5P
CNDJCTVT
r1
I AL
J— i
ruT K EL
N02 N03
PhOS—DIS
F U’
F
1EM’-
5ECC -’I
FIELD
CAC(J3
TOTAL
N
N—rOTAL
0 T- 0
IL
D. Y
FEET
CENT
‘lG/L
INChES
MIC OMMO
Sd
MG/L
MulL
MG/L
M(,/L.
MG/L P
7’/03/29
15 05 0000
10.7
30
1685
8.3j
146
0.030
0.700
0.030
0.010
15 05 0005
10.7
10.0
1683
8.35
151
0.030
0.700
0.020
0.015
15 05 0015
lo.5
10.0
1681
8.30
150
0.030
0.700
0.020
0.012
15 05 0030
10.4
10.0
1674
8.30
149
0.030
0.700
O.0 0
0.010
74/06/10
10 00 0000
2D.
54
2242
8.10
146
.O5o
1.000
0.050
0.009
10 00 0005
23.7
7.4
2243
8.20
146
0,040
0.600
0.020
0.009
10 00 0315
23.7
7.4
2242
8.20
145
u.040
0.600
0.020
u.OOd
10 00 002s
23.7
6.8
2242
8.20
143
0.05i)
0.500
0.020
0.u0
10 00 0032
23.5
6.8
2232
8.10
144
0.090
0.600
0.060
0.007
74/10/24
15 00 0000
la.5
R.6
25
2017
8.19
106
0.040
0.800
0.020k
0.01
15 r’n 0005
16.5
6.2
2019
8.19
105
0.050
0.600
0.020
0.011
15 00 0015
16.5
8.0
1957
8.19
104
0.050
0.600
0 .020K
0.009
15 00 0026
16.5
7.2
1959
8.15
105
0.120
2.300
— 0.020 (
0.02b
LESS Tr1AN IND1C TEJ
-------
5TD T €JRIEVAL DATE 77/03/24
400101
3’s S3 15.0 099 17 30.t) 4
LTU EsE vorP
‘ .0 0KLA - D
101 ’91
1 1 LES 04001002
0036 FEET DEPT’ CLASS 00
i ’ 0665 32217 0031
PHOS—TOr Cr’L Pr’/L INCDT LI
E iN1N0.
“lOlL ‘ DO/L E? CENT
7’./03/29 15 05 0000 0.037
15 05 0005 *.O3
15 05 0015 U.0 ’.o
15 05 0030 0.040
74/06/10 13 00 0000 C.041
10 00 0001
10 00 0005 u.03’l
10 00 0010
10 00 0015 3.037
10 00 0025 u.03H
10 00 0032 0.039
74/10/24 15 00 0000 D.057
15 00 0005 0.060
15 00 0015 0.076
15 00 0026 3. .55
JC TE
FQO
TO
TI 1E DEPTH
DAY FEET
10 • 9
7.3
25. ‘s
-------
ST0 ET RETRIEVAL DATE 77/03/24
400102
34 55 30.0 099 1 15.0 4
MLTU ESEr VOI
OicLA,IOMA
101591
I IEPALES
0020 FEET
(,‘400 1002
DE - Tr-i CLASS 00
lo.2
10.2
7.0
a
8.b
8.2
8.6
•D 001
00300
J0 077
00094
00400
00410
00610
00625
00630
00671
DATE
TIME
DEPTI
4. TE
03
T .\NSP
CNDUCTVY
ri
I ALK
N 13—N
TOT KJEL
NO2 NO3
Pr40S—UIS
FROM
OF
TL IL
SECChI
FIELD
CACO3
TOIAL
N
N-TOTAL
ORTriO
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROM 1O
J
MG/L
M6/L
MG/L
MOI’L
MG/L P
74/03/29
16 45 0000
11.0
30
1701
.40
130
0.040
0.800
0.030
0.010
16 .s coos
ii.o
1701
8.40
145
0.040
0.600
0.030
0.012
16 45 0015
10.9
1701
.4O
146
0.030
0.700
0.020
0.010
74/06/10
11 15 0000
24.6
33
2245
d.5C
143
0.050
1.000
0.020
0.006
11 15 0005
23.7
2236
7.90
145
0.070
0.600
0.030
0.011
11 1 0016
23.6
2234
8.10
146
0.100
0.500
0.070
0.009
74/16/24
14 25 0000
16.6
18
2013
.27
107
0.030
0.900
0.020K
0.OOo
1 25 COOS
16.6
2u13
d.25
102
0.030
0.600
0.020 c
0.007
14 25 0012
16.5
2015
8.25
101
0.030
0.600
0.020K
0.012
DATE
FROM
IC ,
TIME
OF
DAY
00665 32217
DEPTH P P-lOS—TOT CrPLPPI-4YL
A
FEET MG/L P UC/L
74/03/29 16 45 0000
16 45 0005
16 45 0015
74/06/10 11 15 0000
11 15 0001
11 IS 0005
11 IS 0006
11 15 0016
74/10/24 14 25 0000
14 25 0005
14 25 0012
fl0031
INCDT LT
REM I NG
P C I- CEN I
Sc so
1.0
0.036
0.043
0.039
O • 043
r .036
.046
C.063
U • 064
0.067
11.4
9.0
19.0
K V LUL KNOwN TO 8E
L SS T’-i4N INDICuTEt )
-------
STORET PETP1Ev .L ‘JATE 77/03/24
400103
3’. S . 35.0 099 17 40.0 ‘ .
ALTUS R€SERv)1
OKLAH0.’ 4A
1u15?1
/TYr)A/AM8NT/L E
lic. P ALE S
0030 FEET
u’00 lOud
DEPTh CLASS (10
74/06/10 10 45 0300
10 45 0001
10 45 0005
10 45 0008
10 45 0015
10 45 0026
7 4/lv/24 l’4 45 000
14 45 0005
1’. 45 0021
0.043
0.038
0.038
0.042
0.057
0.061
0j 031
INCDT LT
E CENT
50.0
1.0
7.4
7.4
6.8
8,6
8.6
8 .4
00010
00)00
) 077
00094
00400
00410
00610
00o25
00 3O
00671
‘JAIE
TI iE
‘)EPT
.ATER
36
T 4’ S
CN 1 )UCTvY
r h
I AL
Nr43—N
TOT KJEL
1U2 NOj
PHOS JIS
F 0r
OF
TEMP
SECCr4I
FIELU
CACO3
T .)TAL
N
N—TOTAL
ORTI-1O
TO
OAf
FEET
CENT
MG/L
INC 1ES
M1CP0’ iHO
Su
MG/L
rlG/L
MG/L
M1j/L
iG/L P
74/06/10
10 ‘.5 0000
2..,)
35
2265
8.20
144
0.040
0.600
0.020
0.010
10 45 0005
23.9
2245
8.23
145
0.0’.0
0.500
0.020
0.u09
10 ‘.5 0015
23.8
22 4b
8.’.0
143
0.060
0.500
0.020
0.008
10 45 0026
23.6
2240
8.30
142
0.090
0.600
0.050
0.010
74/10/24
1’. 45 0000
16.6
26
2 19
8.27
101
( ,030
0.600
u.O2OK
0.010
1’+ 45 0005
16.6
2(119
8.27
102
0.030
.o00
0.020k
0.Ole
14 45 0021
16.6
2 u23
8.25
10’.
0.0 ’+0
0,600
0.020P
0.008
DATE
FPO’ i
To
0066 5 32217
TIME DE’ T-s P iOS-Tor C -1LPPP-4YL
OF A
DAY FEET M(,/L P UG/L
26.8
ic VhLUE ‘ OWN TO 8E
LESS ThAN INDIc rEO
-------
APPENDIX D
TRIBUTARY AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STO ET ET IEVAL D 1E 77/03,2 .
/T f?A/ANT/ST .A’
‘.001 Al
34 53 00.0 O9 17 ,0.0 4
ALTUS C NAL
‘ .0 7.5 LAKE ALTIJS
O/ALTtJS LAr E l01 1
A Lrc. JVR 1Ri GTI0I 4 C-4NNL 1000 FT r ELU L)M
LlE ALEb 04 o010
0000 FE DEPIrI CLASS 30
00630
00625
30610
00671
00665
DATE
T1’iE
DEPTH
O NO3
TOT . j
M- 3—N
P’iOS—DIS
PhOS TOT
F O
o
—TOTf L
4
TUTAL
OPIrsO
TO
FEET
IG/L
MG/L
M /L
HGIL P
MG/L P
75/02/16
15 20
0.576
1.203
0.072
0.016
0.030
75/06/21
14
?0
0.103
1.350
0.025
0.010
0.050
75/08/09
10 50
3.120
0.650
0.120
0.020
0.060
75/09/13
17 10
0.525
0.700
0.060
0.025
0.060
-------
STJr E1 r
-------
‘.00 Ibi
35 03 15.0 099 22 40.0 4
L4I ’t. CkEEK
40 15 r ET QOP
T/ALTUS LArcE
OK -1 Y 6 OG 7 *
1 1E ALES
0000 FEET DEPTh
STOP.ET - ET rEvAL OATE 77/’)3/?’.
/TYP4/A NT/ST 0 Ei M
0 0 30
DATE
TIME
DEPT
N02e .N03
F’ L 4
OF
N—TOTAL
TO
UAY
FEET
MG/L
74/ 12/ I’. 10 15
7 /01/1 14 GO
75/02/16 15 On
75/03/15 10 00
75/04/05 17 30
75/04/20 14 15
75/05/11 10 30
75/0’ /13 17 25
101 ’ 91
OF WILLJ
04u0 1004
CLASS 00
00625
Tut KJEL
N
MG/ L
1.500
0.800
1. o0
1.400
2.200
1.500
0.750
0.800
0 • d4O
1.660
1.450
,.500
C • 3b0
0.600
0.5 30
O 610
- 3 —
T T AL
o.c0
• 136
0.072
0.048
0.0 30
0.0 35
0.330
0.015
00671
Pr OSuIS
u T-iO
MG/L )
0.010
0.0 10
0.032
0.040
0.015
C .010
0.0 15
0.045
00665
MG/L P
0.050
0.030
0,040
0.20 0
0.0 90
0.0 50
0.120
0.110
-------
TC ET ETPIEV L JATE 77/03/?+
/TY A/AMT/ST C M
4 01C1
35 03 50,0 099 20 35.0 4
uNN iEu ST EA.
40 15 REN
T/ALTtJS LAKE l0I5 1
DG N/S SCTN LNE ) 1.5 1 SE JCT Y 6
11 P4LES 04001004
0000 FEEl T-i CLASS 0
i 3630
00625
00610
00671
00665
DATE
TI E
DE T-i
Nu2 N03
TOT JEL
N13—N
hOS—iJ1
Ph —T)t
F’ Oe 1
OF
N TL)1AL
N
TUTAL
0 t iU
TO
OAT
FEET
M(j/L
MG/L
M /L
MG/L P
MG/L ?
74/12/14
11
15
1.960
1.000
0.055
0.005
0.G30
75/01/18
13 t r
2.275
0.600
0.032
C.005
0.020
75/02/16
15 45
2.030
1.000
0.040
3.016
0.020
75/03/15
10 40
0.54u
5.400
0.112
0.108
1.450
75/04/05
17 00
1.400
0.700
.03O
0.005
0.020
75/04/20
14 25
0.910
1.650
0.050
0.007
0.040
75/05/11
10 5
0.320
1.500
0.280
0.020
0.120
75/06/21
14 i0
0.005
2.200
0.035
0.010
0.090
75/0 /13
17 Of)
0.200
0.650
0.025
0.025
0.040
KVALUE K Qr N TO 8E
Lt SS THAN IN’)IC TE [ )
-------
APPENDIX E
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
-------
LAl( OATA TO E uSED IN i o
LAr E
CODE
LAKE ‘. iE
iE ’1
TOT4L
t.UI
IN0 G N
MEAN SEC
C ILONA
MIN 00
DISS 0 THO
4001
ALTUS 2ESE 1Q
0.060
6 .625
14.750
8. flO
0.010
4002
A Bt!C’cLE LAKF
0.020
0.070
‘&43. O0
7.027
14.600
0.008
‘003
ELLc ( T-
•. T
0.070
4 9.400
A.430
Q.’e00
0.0(19
4004
LAKE EUFAI!LA
O. 0 1
0.40
82.513
4.383
14.200
O. 02q
.. )0,
FORT COF CE 0!R
0.11(1
‘454.b 6 7
14. ,67
8. 00
0.012
400 ’
F0 T SUPP lY ESt I11P
0.070
0.13’5
48S.167
9.733
7.800
0.014
4007
FSC DAi EsEPvor
o.o21
0.090
463.857
4.862
8.400
0.006
4008
LAKE FRANCES
0.142
1.780
484.333
7.973
8,200
Q.093
4009
GPA JD LAI(F 0’ THE CHE 0
0.187
0.740
468.857
6.768
14.800
0.038
4010
LAKE -IEFNFk
0.057
0.250
461.000
5.667
9.000
0.036
4011
t EYsTO F RESFWvOIP
0.136
0.690
484.303
21.427
14.900
0.096
401
OOLOGAM LAKE
o.n sc
0.580
‘ R3.000
5.137
14.600
0.031
4013
TFNKIILER F€.PQY RESER J0I
o.n3 ’
0.550
435.500
6.646
15.000
0.016
4014
LAKE TH’INDEr P1PD
0.021
0.150
465.000
8.422
12.000
0.009
4çiiS
w1ST RESEkV1I c
0.c b0
0.230
478.500
4. 12
15.000
0.016
-------
Pf CF T flF LA-F5 wrT -4 -I1GHE. OF LANES wrTh HI -iE /ALUE5)
L cE
C0D
LA (E JA- 4E
E lA ) ’i
TOTc.t P
MEDT J
INQ4G
N
S00—
ME . SEC
MEAN
CHL0r 4
15—
MIN 00
DISS
PTO
&O1
LT ’5 SE- ’r
)
i’) (
1 )
47
7)
13 C
2)
afl (
11)
73
( Ii)
A ’C L
10’ C
1 )
‘) (
13)
9
1 )
53 C
—)
33 C
)
3
( 14)
4003
LAKE ELLS cJ T-
Y) C
1 )
;r) (
13)
o
12
33
5)
bO
7
( 13)
4004
L4KE EI’FAILA
2 C
fl
5)
27 (
4)
100 C
15)
47 (
7)
33
(
40O
F’)PT E- v’ 1
73 C
Li)
71 (
11)
87 C
13)
7 C
1)
80 C
ii)
67
( 1 )
4006
FOQT StJPPLv Qv)1R
33 C
5)
57 C
10)
0 C
0)
27 C
)
100 C
15)
60
C 4)
4007
fOSS DA ES vj (
43 C
14)
80 C
1>)
60 C
9)
87 C
13)
80 (
11
100
C 1 )
4008
LA’(E F ’ NCES
0 C
0)
0 (
0)
7 C
1)
47 C
7)
93 C
14)
7
C 1)
4 Oo
(1QAND L rcF 0’ PiE CriLA r
13 (
)
7 (
1)
41) (
6)
60
)
20 C
3)
13
C ‘)
4010
LAKE EFNF
47 C
7)
40 (
6)
67 C
10-)
73 C
11)
67 C
10)
20
C 3)
4011
KFY TUr EsE - v0I
7
1)
13 C
2)
13 C
2)
0 C
0)
13 C
2)
0
C 0)
4u12
OOLOGA8 L4 c
40 (
)
20 C
3)
2CC C
3)
80 C
12)
33 C
4)
27
( 4)
4(13
4014
TEtsWILLEQ FE ’OY ‘CF5ER i01
L E TH tflEP8I i)
67 1
87 C
10)
13)
27 (
60 1
4)
9)
11)0 C
53 C
15)
5)
67 1
60 C
10)
6)
3 C
53 C
0)
8)
50
80
I 7)
C 1?)
4015
wISTER REsERVor
27 C
.4)
.47 C
7)
33 1
5)
93 C
14)
3C
0)
40
C 6)
4834 TEXOM4 LAKE
53 ( 8) 53 ( 8) 73 ( 11) 20 1 3) 33 C 4) SO C 7)
------- |