a water-quality study of the russian river ...a water-quality study of the russian river basin...
TRANSCRIPT
A WATER-QUALITY STUDY OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN DURING THE
LOW-FLOW SEASONS, 1973-78, SONOMA AND MENDOCINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
By Marc A. Sylvester and Ronald L. Church
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4174
Prepared in cooperation with the
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, and the
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,
NORTH COAST REGION
o i
(T. O O (N
Sacramento, California May 1984
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dallas L. Peck, Director
For additional information write to:
District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building, Room W-2235 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825
Copies of this report can be purchased from: Open-File Services Section Western Distribution Branch U.S. Geological Survey Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Telephone: (303) 234-5888
CONTENTS
PageAbstract-------- ________ __________________ _________ __________ iIntroduction------- ----------------------------------- - ------------ 3
Background----- -- ---------------------------- ----- --_- ____ 3Purpose and scope------------ -------------------------------- --- 3Acknowledgments - --- ---- - --- - 6
Location and description of study area-------------- ------------ ----- 5Topography and hydrology------------------------ ------------------ 5Climate 12Geology 13Land use and land cover------------------------------ - ---------- 13Population and water use-------------------------------------------- 18
Data collection and methods---------------------------------------------- 181973-76 181977 and 1978 19
Scheduled sampling---------------------------- ---- --------- 19Diel study ------------- - _________________ ______________ 27Field methods-------------------- ------------------------- - 27Laboratory methods---------------------------- --------------- 29
Results and discussion------------------------------ - ---------------- 30Temporal variations in streamflow and water quality------- -------- 30
Changes in streamflow and water quality during the periodof study---------------------------- ----------------------- 30
Changes in streamflow and water quality during the low-flowseasons of the 1977 and 1978 water years--------------------- 44
Areal variations in streamflow and water quality-------------------- 50Effect of geomorphology on water quality of the Russian River-- 51Effect of tributaries on water quality of the Russian River---- 52Effect of the West Fork on water quality of the main stem------ 53Effect of principal water diversion on water quality of
the Russian River----- ------------------------------------- 54Effect of recreational impoundments on water quality of theRussian River----------------------- --------- __--------__ 55
Effect of land use on water quality of the Russian River------- 56Tidal influences on water quality of the Russian River--------- 56Effect of climate on water quality of the Russian River-------- 57
Problem areas and times of water-quality degradation---------------- 57Aquatic community metabolism---------------------------------- ---- 66Periphyton---------------------------------------------------------- 70
Summary and conclusions-------------------------------------------------- 77Evaluation of data-collection program------------------------------------ 80Selected references------------------------------------------------------ 81Explanation for figures 19-21, 23, 25-28-- 85
III
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page Figure 1. Map showing location of study area and principal features
of the Russian River basin----------------- ----- ---- - 42. Aerial photograph showing Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino------ 73. Map showing location of geomorphic reach types in the
Russian River basin------------ --- --- -- -- -------- g4. Graph showing river-gradient profile ---- ----------------- IQ
5-7. Aerial photographs of:5. Russian River between Monte Rio and Duncan Mills
showing characteristics of reach type i------------- n6. Russian River near Geyserville showing
characteristics of reach type 2--------------------- 117. Russian River at Squaw Rock (between Hopland and
Cloverdale) showing characteristics of reach type 3 12
8. Map showing part of basin covered by U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Level III land-use and land-cover information- - 16
9. Map showing location of sampling stations-------------------- 2010-11. Graphs showing:
10. Changes in annual mean streamflow, 1973-78 wateryears----- ---------------- --- _________________ 31
11. Streamflow during the low-flow seasons, 1973-78water years--- ---------------- __________________ 32
12-16. Graphs showing changes in water quality during the study period at:12. East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (station 11462000)- 3413. Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge
(station 11463680) 3614. Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights
(station 11466800) 3815. Russian River at Mirabel Heights (station 11466850) 4016. Russian River at Johnson's Beach (station 11467002) 42
17-18. Graphs showing changes in streamflow and water quality at:17. East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000) during
the low-flow seasons of 1977 and 1978 water years--- 4618. Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) during the
low-flow seasons of 1977 and 1978 water years------- 4819-21. Graphs showing comparison of water quality and streamflow:
19. Among stations at locations representative ofgeomorphic reach types----------- --- ------------ 86
20. Between tributary stations and main-stem stations----- 8821. Between the East and West Forks of the Russian River
and the main stem downstream of the forks----------- 92
IV
Page Figure 22. Aerial photograph of Ranney collectors near Mirabel Park---- 54
23. Graph showing comparison of water quality and strearaflow at stations upstream, in, and downstream of principal water diversion reach of river----------- --------------- 95
24. Aerial photograph showing recreational impoundment atJohnson's Beach in the community of Guerneville- -------- 55
25-28. Graphs showing comparison of water quality and streamflow:25. Upstream and downstream of recreational impoundments- 9726. At a station in an agricultural reach with a station
in a reach downstream of an urban area----------- 10027. At a station in tidal reach with a station upstream
of tidal reach 10328. Among stations in different climatic areas of
the basin------------ --------- -- _______---- iQ529. Graphs showing changes in water quality during the diel
study 68 30-32. Graphs showing changes in:
30. Periphyton autotrophic index------------------------- 7431. Periphyton chlorophyll-a----- --- ----------------- 7532. Periphyton organic weight------------------------- - 76
TABLES
Page Table 1. Annual precipitation, 1973-78 water years------------ ----- 13
2. Land use and land cover for areas bordering the RussianRiver-------------------------- --------------------------- 14
3. Sampling program during low-flow seasons, 1973-76- -- 224. Sampling program during 1977 and 1978 - - 245. Example of completed reconnaissance sampling form showing
the kind of information obtained---------- ---------------- 266. Water-quality objectives for the Russian River basin---------- 587. Stations where State water-quality objectives were not
attained, 1973-78 low-flow seasons-------------------------- 608. Periphyton cellular contents---- - -- - - 72
V
CONVERSION FACTORS
For readers who prefer to use International System of Units (SI) rather than inch-pound units, the conversion factors for the terms used in this report are listed below:
Multiply By
acres 0.4047 ft (feet) 0.3048 ft/s (feet per second) 0.3048 ft 3/s (cubic feet per 0.02832
second) gal/min (gallons per 0.003785minute)
in (inches) 25.4 mi (miles) 1.609 mi2 (square miles) 2.590 |jmho/cm at 25°C (micromhos 1
per centimeter at 25°Celsius)
Degrees Celsius are used in this report, degrees Fahrenheit (°F) use the formula:
To obtain
ha (hectares)m (meters)m/s (meters per second)m3/s (cubic meters per
second) m3 /min (cubic meters per
minute)mm (millimeters) km (kilometers) km2 (square kilometers) |jS/cm at 25°C (microsiemens
per centimeter at 25°Celsius)
To convert degrees Celsius (°C) to
Temp. °F = 1.8 (temp °C) + 32
Explanation of abbreviations
mg/L milligrams per liter|jg/L micrograms per liter|jm micrometermg/m2 milligrams per square metermL millilitersMF membrane filterMPN most probable numberNTU nephlometric turbidity unitAI autotrophic index
AGP algal growth potential COD chemical oxygen demand g 0 2 /(m2 /d) grams of oxygen
per square meter per day (mg/m2 )/d) milligrams per
square meter per day P/R production/respiration
ratio
National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929): A geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called mean sea level. NGVD of 1929 is referred to as sea level in this report.
Water Year: The water year starts October 1 and ends September 30; it is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.
The use of brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
VI
Station Number and Name
11461000
11462000
11462050
11462690
11463000
11463150
11463210
11463400
11463500
11463680
11464010
11465400
11466800
11466850
11467000
11467002
11467006
11467210
Russian River near Ukiah
East Fork Russian River near Ukiah
Russian River at Ukiah
Russian River at Hopland
Russian River near Cloverdale
Russian River at Preston
Big Sulphur Creek at mouth, near Cloverdale
Russian River at Asti
Russian River at Geyserville
Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge
Russian River at Healdsburg
Russian River at Wohler Bridge
Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights
Russian River at Mirabel Heights
Russian River near Guerneville
Russian River at Johnson's Beach
Russian River at Vacation Beach
Russian River at Duncan Mills
VII
A WATER-QUALITY STUDY OF THE RUSSIAN RIVER BASINDURING THE LOW-FLOW SEASONS, 1973-78
SONOMA AND MENDOCINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
By Marc A. Sylvester 1 and Ronald L. Church2
ABSTRACT
Water quality and streamflow in the Russian River basin during the low- flow season (May to October) were studied during water years 1973 through 1978 to document water-quality and streamflow conditions in the basin, and to determine the extent and cause(s) of any water-quality impairment during the low-flow season. Prior to May 1977, sampling was done by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region. During 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the U.S. Geological Survey jointly participated in water-quality sampling. Properties and constituents measured included streamflow, water temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, fecal-coliform and fecal-streptococcal bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) chemical oxygen demand, phytoplankton counts and cellular contents, periphyton cellular contents, and algal growth potential.
The most important factors affecting surface-water quality and streamflow in the Russian River basin during the period of study were wastewater dis charges during the low-flow season, their abatement beginning in 1975, and the drought during 1976 and 1977. During the 1974 low-flow season, concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria at most sampling stations were not in accordance with water-quality objectives. Fecal-coliform bacteria and nutrient concen trations decreased markedly after 1974, coinciding with the implementation of regulations specifying no discharge of wastewater during the low-flow season. After 1974, water-quality objectives for fecal-coliform bacteria were met at all stations except Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights (11466800). Until 1978, the Mark West Creek drainage continued to receive wastewater during the low-flow season from the basin's principal urban area, Santa Rosa and nearby communities.
Rainfall and streamflows in the Russian River basin were much below normal during the drought (water years 1976 and 1977). Abnormally low rain fall and streamflows in the basin during the drought resulted in some improve ment in water quality. Generally, turbidity and organic and inorganic nitrogen were least during the 1977 low-flow season.
1Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, Calif. Environmental Specialist, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, North Coast Region, Santa Rosa, Calif.
Deleterious effects of the drought on the quality of surface waters in the basin were increases in specific conductance and pH and decreases in dissolved oxygen. As a result, at most stations during the 1977 low-flow season, these water-quality properties were not in accordance with the water- quality objectives.
Algal growth in the Russian River depends on the amount of nitrogen in the water and is not limited by the amount of phosphorus in the water.
Basin geomorphology, diversion of water and diversion impoundments, recreational impoundments and associated human activities, land use (other than wastewater discharges), and tidewater did not have much effect on water quality of the Russian River during the period of this study.
Big Sulphur and Mark West Creeks did affect the water quality of the Russian River during the low-flow season. Specific conductance and pH values were greater downstream of Big Sulphur Creek. The dissolved-solids, and specific-conductance values of this creek are determined by geology and geothermal activity. Specific-conductance values and concentrations of orthophosphorus and phytoplankton in the Russian River were greater downstream of Mark West Creek. Due mostly to the influence of wastewater discharges, Mark West Creek had much greater values of these properties and constituents than did other stations.
During the low-flow season, local climatic conditions have an important impact on water temperature of the Russian River. Water released from Lake Mendocino composes most of the flow of the Russian River during the low-flow season. As cold water released from Lake Mendocino proceeds downstream, it is markedly warmed in climatic areas receiving little ocean influence. Releases of cold bottom water from Lake Mendocino probably maintain downstream water temperatures within the range of tolerance of certain aquatic organisms (for example, salmon and trout), inhibit aquatic community respiration, and minimize nuisance growths of phytoplankton and periphyton.
Results of a diel study in the Russian River indicate photosynthetic production of oxygen during the low-flow season is not sufficient to offset respiration. Thus, depletion of dissolved oxygen to levels harmful to some aquatic plants and animals appears probable. The section of the river most likely to be affected is the reach downstream of Mirabel Park with the least gradient, slowest water velocities, most pooled sections, and least potential for reaeration by physical mechanisms such as diffusion. The probability of nuisance algal growths occurring appears to be low, if the heterotroph- dominated aquatic community that was present during the diel study persists. This conclusion is supported by periphyton data, that indicate periphyton at most stations during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons was dominated by organisms not having chlorophyll.
INTRODUCTION
Background
In 1973 the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (Regional Board), began a water-quality sampling program of the Russian River basin (fig. 1) to determine if basin waters were of suitable quality for agricultural, municipal, recreational, and instream uses. During the summer of 1974, fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations in the main stem of the river and one of its tributaries generally exceeded water-quality objectives. As a result of these findings, several wastewater-discharge requirements were promulgated from 1975 to 1977. These requirements prohibit wastewater dis charge to the main stem and tributaries of the Russian River from May 15 to September 30. Wastewater discharges are also prohibited at other times of the year when the flow of the Russian River at Healdsburg (11464010) is less than 1,000 ft 3/s or when the dilution ratio of river water to wastewater is less than 100 to 1.
During the time these revised wastewater-discharge requirements were being implemented, the Russian River was identified as 1 of 28 rivers in California to be included in a statewide network of water-quality sampling stations (California Department of Water Resources, 1976). Inclusion of the Russian River in this network of stations, bacterial and algal problems in the river during 1974, and a need to evaluate the effect of revised wastewater- discharge requirements on the quality of water in the basin, led the Regional Board to decide to do an intensive water-quality study of the Russian River and some of its tributaries. This study, which began in 1975, was primarily a continuation of the 1974 sampling program but with special emphasis on sampling during the low-flow, high recreational-use season when water-quality problems had been most apparent.
During 1977 the U.S. Geological Survey (Survey), under a cooperative agreement with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), joined the Regional Board in the study. The Regional Board and the Survey jointly participated in water-quality sampling from May 1977 to October 1978.
Purpose and Scope
The objectives of this report are to document water-quality and stream- flow conditions in the Russian River basin and to determine the extent and cause(s) of any water-quality impairment in the basin during the low-flow season (May to October). This part of the year was chosen for sampling because water quality is most likely to impact beneficial water uses during the low-flow season. Most of the agricultural, municipal, and recreational water uses occur during the low-flow season. The principal source of informa tion for this report was the streamflow and water-quality data collected jointly by the Survey and Regional Board during 1977 and 1978. Data collected by the Regional Board from 1973 to 1977, was used to characterize pre-1977 water-quality conditions. Land use and other physiographic information were also compiled and their effects on water quality during the low-flow season were examined.
123
30'
123
00
'12
2 3
0'
39
3
0'
39
00
'
BA
SIN
B
OU
ND
AR
Y
ME
ND
C
O
U
N
Stu
dy
area
Up
p
V ^
x^Sa
n F
ranc
isco
^
Q
X\
''%
'
\
LA
KE
38
3
0'
O
O
Ba
se fr
om
U
.S.
Ge
olo
gic
al
Su
rve
y,
Topogra
phic
se
rie
s 1:5
00,0
00,
1968
CO
UN
TY
10 I15
I
Mt. S
ain
t H
elen
a
Jmito
wn
S O
N
O
M
A
Hea
ldsb
ut
CO
UN
TY
Wohle
r B
rie
-Mem
oria
l B
each
N
A
P A
:<: C
OU
NT
\Jc
nner
R o
\sa
eek
o M
onte
Rio
H
eig
hts
,D
unea
n M
ills
1116
* S
ebas
topo
l \<
£^
p (
&
20
MIL
ES
I
10
15
20
25
30 K
ILO
ME
TE
RS
^
San
ta R
osa. S
M A
R I
N
CO
UN
TY
FIG
UR
E 1
. L
ocat
ion
of s
tudy
are
a an
d pr
inci
pal
feat
ures
of
the
Russ
ian
Riv
er b
asin
.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Robert R. Klamt, Kristine Henderson, Leslie James, Judy Nosechi, Candi Parker, Theresa Wistrom, and Robert Jouganatos of the Regional Board staff for their assistance in sampling. The authors also thank the County of Sonoma for providing wages and transportation for a field technician during three summers of the study, and gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ken W. Lee and Diane Van Schoten, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, Calif., in the preparation of certain illustrations used in this report.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
Topography and Hydrology
The 1,485 mi 2 Russian River basin (fig. 1) is on the north coast of California primarily in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties (less than 1 percent is in Lake County). The basin is about 80 miles long and from 10 to 30 miles wide with its major axis generally paralleling the coastline. Mountains of the Coast Ranges form basin boundaries. Elevations range from sea level at the mouth of the Russian River near Jenner to 4,343 feet at the crest of Mount St. Helena in the Mayacmas Mountains. Most of the basin is mountainous with peak elevations mostly between 1,000 and 3,500 feet and slopes commonly exceeding 30 percent.
The main stem of the Russian River is about 110 miles long and flows southward from its headwaters near Redwood and Potter Valleys to Mirabel Park where the direction of flow changes to westward as the river transects a part of the Coast Ranges. Principal tributaries of the Russian River are Big Sulphur Creek and Mark West Creek from the east and Dry Creek from the west. Streamflow during the rainy season (October to May) composes most of the total annual flow of the Russian River. From May through September, most of the flow is imported water from the Eel River. Since 1910, Eel River water has been diverted from Lake Pillsbury to the East Fork of the Russian River near Potter Valley to augment summer flow of the Russian River. Coyote Dam, constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and completed in 1959, impounds Lake Mendocino and supplements Russian River summer flow by regulated release of stored intrabasin and imported water (fig. 2).
East
North South
West
FIGURE 2. - Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino.
Based on river gradient and channel characteristics, the Russian River can be divided into three distinct geomorphic reach types. As shown in figures 3 and 4, the terrain adjacent to the river alternates between flat and mountainous. Major flatland areas bordering the river are, the Santa Rosa Plains and the following valleys: Potter, Redwood, Ukiah, Sanel, and Alexander. Mountainous reaches are between Potter Valley and Ukiah, Hopland and Cloverdale, Jimtown and Healdsburg, and Mirabel Park and Jenner.
Reach type 1 (figs. 3 and 4) includes only the mountainous reach, Mirabel Park to Jenner. This reach type has: (1) A lesser river gradient than flat- land and other mountainous reaches; (2) channel width intermediate between flatland and other mountainous reaches; (3) long, deep pools with only a few riffles and some steep side slopes; and (4) loose bed material of pebbles, sand, silt, and sometimes cobbles (fig. 5). Flatland reaches comprise reach type 2. Characteristics of this reach type are: (1) river gradient usually less than adjoining mountainous reaches; (2) broad channel (sometimes braided) with gentle side slopes; (3) shallow pools; and (4) loose bed material of cobbles, pebbles, sand, and silt (fig. 6). Reach type 3 consists of mountainous reaches that have: (1) river gradients usually greater than adjoining flatland reaches; (2) narrow channel with generally steep side slopes; (3) some rapids and deep pools; and (4) bedrock substrate with cobbles and some boulders in riffles and rapids and pebbles, sand, and silt in pools (fig. 7).
WEST FORK RUSSIAN RIVER
38
30
' -
oeo
-s
/>
~\
r~
u_X
-±A
j
10
15
20
2
5
30
K
ILO
ME
TE
RS
.M A
.R
I N
r.ryj
^ '
' ''
C O
U
NB
ase
from
U
.S.
Geolo
gic
al
Su
rve
y,
To
po
gra
ph
ic
serie
s 1
:50
0,0
00
, 1
96
8
I
FIG
UR
E 3
. -
Loca
tion
of g
eom
orph
ic r
each
typ
es i
n th
e Ru
ssia
n R
iver
bas
in.
(Rea
ch t
ypes
are
des
crib
ed i
n th
e te
xt o
n p.
7.)
103
0
40
5
0
60
DIS
TA
NC
E A
BO
VE
MO
UT
H,
IN M
ILE
S
MA
IN S
TEM
RU
SSIA
N R
IVE
R
70
80
0 10
D
IST
AN
CE
AB
OV
E J
UN
CT
ION
, IN
MIL
ES
EA
ST F
OR
K R
USS
IAN
RIV
ER
UJ
ctn
.<S
*t
I
Off
*
2i
900
^ m
80
0ui
"1
700
_i UJ
600
90
100
Rea
ch t
ype
2
0 10
D
IST
AN
CE
AB
OV
E J
UN
CT
ION
,
IN M
ILE
S
WES
T FO
RK
RU
SSIA
N R
IVE
R
FIG
UR
E 4.
- R
iver
-gra
dien
t pr
ofile
. (R
each
typ
es a
re d
escr
ibed
in
the
text
on
p.7.
)
FIGURE 5. - Russian River between Monte Rio and Duncan Mills showing characteristics of reach type 1.
FIGURE 6. - Russian River near Geyserville showing characteristics of reach type 2.
11
FIGURE 7. - Russian River at Squaw Rock (between Hopland and Cloverdale) showing characteristics of reach type 3.
Climate
During low-flow season, the climate of the Russian River basin near the coast is moist and cool because of ocean influences, particularly fog. For the main stem of the Russian River, ocean influences occur primarily from the mouth to Mirabel Park. Farther inland, the climate becomes warmer because areas upstream of Healdsburg are progressively more isolated from ocean influences by the Coast Ranges.
Mean annual precipitation varies from about 30 inches in the southern part of the basin near Santa Rosa to 50-80 inches in the Mayacmas Mountains, from Mark West Creek drainage to Big Sulphur Creek drainage, and in the western part of the basin near the coast. In the central part of the basin from Redwood and Potter Valleys to Guerneville, mean annual precipitation is about 30 to 40 inches (Rantz, 1969). Rainfall is infrequent from May to October (the dry season).
During the 1976 and 1977 drought in California, annual precipitation in the Russian River basin averaged only 22.27 inches, 38 percent of the mean annual precipitation for the period 1973-75 and 1978 (table 1). Based on 1941-70 normals, the Russian River basin received more precipitation than normal during water years 1973, 1974, and 1978. Precipitation was nearly normal during the 1975 water year.
12
TABLE 1. - Annual precipitation, 1973-78 water years
[Data from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1972-78. Precipitation values are in inches; E, indicates amount is wholly or partly estimated; ---, dash indicates value not available]
Potter Valley----- Ukiah:
City Mountains south west of city.
1973
45.41
41.75 54.21
56.20 50.43
65.23 69.45 42.91
76.41
1974
67.12
57.04 66.74
63.82 62.89
71.58 82.01 42.19
127.27
Water
1975
47.75
38.78 50.04
40.65 40.37
47.16 50.83 28.03
69.41
year
1976
28.27
19.55 28.24
18.74 18.38
24.93 32.26 16.92
43.80
Normals based on
1977
17.84
16.12 22.47
18.38 17.42
17.70 E20.13 12.78
26.90
1978 1941-70 period
59.10
52.47 64.37
64.29 63.50
Oct. -Apr. E67.83 E70.81 32.36
Oct. -Aug. 91.71
45.66
38.43
43.51
54.08 30.54
Mean for Russian River basin.
55.78 71.18 45.89 25.68 18.86 62.94
Geology
The Franciscan Formation and Great Valley Sequence primarily compose the geology of mountainous areas except for Sonoma Volcanics in the southeastern part of the basin. Stream channel, alluvial, and river-terrace deposits are predominant in the flatland areas upstream of Jimtown and along the Russian River from Healdsburg to Jenner. The geology of the Santa Rosa Plains is primarily composed of the Glen Ellen Formation and alluvial deposits (Blake and others, 1971; and Fox and others, 1973). Most of these geologic forma tions are water bearing, but the Franciscan Formation and Great Valley Sequence generally provide low yields to wells (less than 3 gal/min, California Department of Water Resources, 1975, p. 147).
Land Use and Land Cover
In general, the predominant land use in the Russian River basin is agri culture, primarily pasture, vineyards, and orchards; but the amount of urban land use is substantial and is increasing. Agriculture occurs mostly in the flatland areas bordering the Russian River or its tributaries. The main urban centers are Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, Cloverdale, and Ukiah. Important activ ities in these agricultural and urban areas include cultivation of crops, extraction and processing of riparian sand and gravel, retail and wholesale trade, wine production, and processing of orchard and timber crops. Recre ational activities are most prevalent in the section of the Russian River from Mirabel Park to Jenner. Principal land covers are forestland and rangeland. Forestland near the coast primarily contains dense stands of redwood and fir; whereas, further inland, it contains less dense stands of fir, pine, and hardwood (mostly oaks) mixed with shrubs. Grass is the main vegetation on rangeland.
13
The preceding description of land use and land cover in the Russian River basin is based on the information provided in table 2. This information was compiled from land-use and land-cover mapping done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District during 1975 for the 7%-minute quadrangles shown in figure 8. The area mapped constitutes about 50 percent of the total basin.
TABLE 2. - Land use and land cover for areas borderingthe Russian River
Land use or land cover AreaSquare
Name Acres miles
Urban and built-up land:Residential
Single-family 43,168.88 67.45 Multifamily 675.00 1.05 Mobile homes 715.44 1.12 Transient lodgings----- -- 145.41 .23 Other 136.60 .21
Commercial, institutional, and servicesWholesale trade 54.20 .08 Retail trade 1,303.49 2.04 Business, professional,
institutional, and services. - -- 2,252.47 3.52 Cultural, entertainment, and
recreational. 757.74 1.18 Military 422.74 .66
IndustrialHeat processing 12.84 .02 Industrial park 485.10 .76 Food processing ______ _ __ 63.55 .10Wineries 194.16 .30 Wholesale warehousing- 1,071.36 1.67 Lumber mills and lumber storage - 881.05 1.38 Other 119.85 .19
ExtractiveShaft mining 38.10 .06 Strip mines 1,502.79 2.35 Quarries 10.44 .02 Sand and gravel pits 626.15 .98
Transportation, communications, andutilities.
Transportation 2,338.97 3.65 Telecommunications, radio, and
TV facilities. 21.40 .03 Electric plants 17.28 .03 Water plants 2.40 .00 Sewage plants 282.61 .44 Solid waste disposal 60.37 .09 Marinas and port facilities- - ---- 20.09 .03 Other 11.32 .02
Urban openGolf courses 479.91 .75 Cemeteries 188.71 .29 Parks 205.42 .32 Vacant and (or) cleared 2,541.62 3.97 Campgrounds--- -- --- -- -- -- 148.35 .23 Other 11.18 .17
14
TABLE 2. - Land use and land cover for areas bordering the Russian River Continued
Land use or land cover AreaSquare
Name Acres miles
Agricultural land:Cropland and pasture 5.71 0.01 Cropland 16,207.50 25.32 Pasture 26,293.63 41.09
Orchards, groves, vineyards, andhorticultural.
Fruit and nut trees 20,208.64 31.58 Vineyards 26,003.18 40.63 Nursuries 225.86 .35 Other 650.39 1.02
Confined feeding operationsFeedlots 71.03 .11 Poultry and egg houses--------------- 301.43 .47Other 11.43 .02
Related facilities 2,097.50 3.28 Equipment, fodder, stock storagebuildings. 500.05 .78
Other 7.49 .01Other agricultural land 98.19 .15
Forestland:Harvested 1,027.80 1.61Other 228,549.60 357.12
Rangeland 78,586.06 122.79 Wetland:Vegetated 193.12 .30Bare 11.68 .02Riparian 1,565.96 2.45
Water:Streams and waterways 2,486.92 3.89Still waterNatural lakes and ponds-------------- 16.22 .03Reservoirs 2,373.18 3.71 Summer dam impoundments-------------- 49.16 .08Other 75.13 .12
Manmade waterwaysStock ponds 146.09 .23 Canals 34.75 .05
Other 77.12 .12 Barren land: 32.50 .05
Sand beachesRiver 1,139.62 1.78
Sand areas other than beaches---- 1,092.13 1.71Bare exposed rock---------------------- 30.5 .05Abandoned extractiveQuarries 27.70 .04 Sand and gravel pits 33.20 .05
Transitional (land disturbed byconstruction). - 1,371.48 2.14
15
123
30'
123
00
'12
2 30'
39 3
0'
39 0
0'
O
U.S
. G
EO
LO
GIC
AL
SU
RV
EY
7
.5-M
INU
TE
QU
AD
RA
NG
LE
S
FO
R W
HIC
H
LEV
EL-
111
]l
LA
ND
-US
E A
ND
L
AN
D-C
OV
ER
F
^IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
IS
MA
PP
ED
BA
SIN
"^
B
OU
ND
AR
Y^
I
M
E N
D
O
CO
UN
TY
LA
KE
CO
UN
TY
Res
ervo
i under
' co
nst
ruct
ion
Mi. S
ain
t H
elen
a
Mem
oria
l t
each
v G
uern
evil
k
1 lon
te R
io
<£-H
el
Mill
s
30 K
ILO
ME
TE
RS
M A
R I
N
CO
UN
TY
Ba
se fr
om
U
.S.
Ge
olo
gic
al
Su
rve
y,
To
po
gra
ph
ic
serie
s 1:5
00,0
00,
1968
FIG
UR
E 8.
- P
art
of b
asin
cov
ered
by
U.S.
Arm
y C
orps
of
Engi
neer
s Le
vel-I
ll la
nd-u
se a
nd l
and-
cove
r in
form
atio
n.
Population and Water Use
Water in the Russian River basin is used primarily for agricultural, urban, recreational, and instream purposes. Surface water supplies most of the water used for agricultural and urban purposes (about 70 percent of the total water used in 1975). Projections show that surface water probably will continue to be the predominant source of water used for agricultural and urban purposes in the basin. Irrigation of vineyards is the primary agricultural use. Most of the agricultural use is upstream of Healdsburg. Urban use is mainly downstream of Healdsburg, with surface water supplying about two-thirds of the urban use. Recreational use of water (primarily swimming, bathing, and boating) occurs throughout the basin, but most of it occurs downstream of Mirabel Park. Of the water used for agricultural and urban purposes, more than one-half of it is used from May to October (California Department of Water Resources, 1980).
Agricultural water users generally obtain surface water either by direct diversion or pumping. The Sonoma County Water Agency is the major purveyor of water for urban use in the Russian River basin. This agency relies on surface water obtained from Ranney collectors, located adjacent to the Russian River near Mirabel Park, to meet the water needs of the Santa Rosa area. About one-half of the water obtained from the Ranney collectors is transported out of the basin for use in southern Sonoma and northern Marin Counties.
As a result of an agreement between the Sonoma County Water Agency and the California Department of Fish and Game, minimum flows to maintain fish habitat are required at two locations on the Russian River: (1) 150 ft3/s at the junction of the east and west forks of the Russian River, and (2) 125 ft3/s downstream of Guerneville. Presently, these requirements are met by releases from Lake Mendocino. When the Warm Springs Dam Project (Lake Sonoma) is completed (fig. 1), additional water will be available to meet these requirements and water uses in the basin.
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODS
1973-76
During 1973 and 1974, the Regional Board collected water-quality samples between Alexander Valley and Duncan Mills near the mouth of the river (stations 11463680-11466850 and 11467002-11467210, as shown in fig. 9). Properties and constituents sampled and sampling frequencies are listed in table 3. The twice-weekly samples were collected during normal working hours, with the sequence of stations sampled reversed every week. Samples were collected by the Regional Board staff, and handled in accordance with California Department of Health Services procedures (California Department of Public Health, 1971).
18
Field measurements and laboratory analyses were conducted in accordance with standard methods current at that time (American Public Health Association and others, 1971). Fieldwork was done by the Regional Board staff, and laboratory analyses were done in commercial laboratories working under con tract with the Regional Board and approved by the California Department of Health Services.
In 1975 and 1976, the Regional Board expanded its sampling effort (table 3) to include all but two stations (Russian River near Cloverdale (11463000 and Russian River near Guerneville 11467000) used in the joint Survey-Regional Board samplings of 1977 and 1978.
During 1975, samples were collected twice weekly; in 1976, they were collected once weekly. Because it was impractical to collect from all sta tions on a single day, the samples for the upper reaches of the river from the East and West Forks of the Russian River to Geyserville (11461000-11463500) were collected on one day and the remainder from Jimtown to Duncan Mills (11463680-11467210) on the next sampling day. Sampling was done during normal working hours, and the sequence of stations sampled was reversed for each sampling trip. Samples were collected and handled in the field, as they were in 1973-74, and again they were analyzed by contract laboratories using standard methods current at that time (American Public Health Association and others, 1976).
As shown in the far right column of table 3, the Survey during this period was sampling at station 11462000 as part of a cooperative study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, and at station 11467000 which is part of the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN). Data collected by the Survey at these stations during the time periods shown in table 3 are included in this report.
1977 and 1978
Scheduled Sampling
From May to October (low-flow season) of 1977 and 1978, the Survey and the Regional Board jointly sampled at the 18 stations shown in figure 9 for the properties and constituents and at the sampling frequencies listed in table 4. The sampling stations were selected for the reasons given in table 4 and on the basis of the information obtained during a reconnaissance of possible sampling stations during April 1977 (table 5). The reconnaissance provided information on the general character of each station and the magni tude of any cross-sectional variation in water quality. Such information indicated the suitability of each station for streamflow measurements and water-quality sampling.
Constituent selection was based on the observation that the principal water-quality problems in the Russian River basin were bacterial contamination (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, 1976) and nuisance algal growths (California Department of Water Resources, 1968).
19
123
30'
123
00
'12
2 30'
39 3
0'
39
00'
BA
SIN
X
B
OU
ND
AR
Y^
j
O
O
ME
ND
OC
'JN
O
CO
UN
TY
EX
PLA
NA
TIO
N
WA
TE
R-Q
UA
LIT
Y S
AM
PLIN
G S
TA
TIO
N
CO
NT
INU
OU
S-R
EC
OR
D G
AG
ING
ST
AT
ION
11
46
54
00
U
.S.
GE
OLO
GIC
AL S
UR
VE
Y S
TA
TIO
N N
UM
BE
R
NO
TE
: S
ee t
ab
le 3
for
sta
tion
nam
es.
LA
KE
38
3
0'
11
46
31
50
P
resto
nlL
j 1
46
32
10
S»
£//
,,C
OU
NT
Y
Re
serv
oir
under
' co
nst
ruct
ion
1146
3400
-,
Warm
Sp
rir
11
46
35
00
Gey
serv
ille
1 1
46
36
80
Mt. S
ain
t H
elen
a >N
I o
|i Ji
mto
wn
|JS
ON
O
M
A
N
A
P A
CO
UN
Th
jMt
Mem
oria
l B
each
14
6401
0C
OU
NT
Y11465400-
11466850-
114670
11
46
70
02
Guo
rnev
illc
,
)unca
n
11
46
72
10
30 K
ILO
ME
TE
RS
M A
R 1
N
CO
UN
TY
Base
fr
om
U
.S.
Geolo
gic
al
Surv
ey,
To
po
gra
ph
ic
series
1:5
00
,00
0,
1968
FIG
UR
E 9
. - L
ocat
ion
of s
ampl
ing
stat
ions
.
to
to
TABLE
3.
- Sampling program during lo
w-fl
ow seasons, 19
73-7
6
[Sam
plin
g or
me
asur
emen
t fr
eque
ncy,
number of
ti
mes
per
month.
Field
meas
urem
ents
, water
temp
erat
ure,
pH
, al
kali
nity
, specific co
nduc
tanc
e,
dissolved
oxyg
en,
and
turb
idit
y.
Nutrients, in
clud
e total
N03
, Kjeldahl nitrogen,
and
phosphorus,
unless otherwise
noted.
Agen
cy co
llec
ting
data:
RB,
Regional Board; US
GS,
U.S. Geological Su
rvey
]
Sampling or
measurement
freq
uenc
y
Sept
.Apr.
Apr
.
May
May
May
May
Sept.
Apr.
Apr.
Sept.
Apr.
Apr.
Sept.
Apr.
Apr.
Sept.
Apr.
Apr.
Aug.
Apr
.Apr.
Sept.
Apr.
Apr.
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
Date
s
1974
to
Nov.
to
Nov
.
to
Oct.
to
Oct.
to
Oct.
to
Oct.
1974
to
Nov
.to
Nov.
1974
to
Nov.
to
Nov.
1974
to
Nov .
to
Nov.
1974
to
Nov
.to
Nov.
to
Sept
,to
No
v .
to
Nov.
1974
to
Nov.
to
Nov
.
to
Oct.
to
Oct.
to
Nov.
to
Nov.
Stat
ion
No.
1146
1000
1975
1976
1973
1146
2000
1974
1975
1976
1146
2050
1975
1976
1146
2690
1975
1976
1146
3150
1975
1976
1146
3210
1975
1976
.1974
1146
3400
1975
1976
1146
3500
1975
1976
1973
11
4636
801974
1975
1976
Stat
ion
name
Russ
ian
Rive
r ne
arUkiah.
East
Fork Ru
ssia
nRiver
near
Ukiah.
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Ukiah.
Russ
ian
River
atHopland.
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Preston.
Big
Sulp
hur
Cree
kat mouth
near Cl
over
dale
.
Russ
ian
River
atAs
ti.
Russ
ian
River
atGe
yserville.
Russ
ian
River
atAlexander
Vall
eyRo
ad Br
idge
.
Fiel
d measure
ments
4-9
1-3
3-4
1-4
4-13
2-6 -
4-9
1-3 _
4-9
1-3 _
4-9
1-3
4-9
1-3 -
4-9
1-3 _
4-9
1-3
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
Total
coliform
bacteria
MPN
4-9
1-3 _ -
7-9
2-3
- 4-9
1-3 _
4-9
1-3 _
4-9
1-3
_- 4-9
1-3 -
4-9
1-3 _
4-9
1-3
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-3
Fecal
coliform
bacteria
MPN
10 4-9
1-3 _
107-9
2-3
10 4-9
1-3
10 4-9
1-3
10 4-9
1-3
10 4-9
1-3
10 4-9
1-3
10 4-9
1-3 _
0-5
4-10
1-3
Feca
l strepto-
cocc
al
bact
eria
l MP
N
0-1
0-3 _ -
0-1
0-3 -
0-1
0-3 _
0-1
0-3 _
0-1
0-3 -
0-1
0-3 -
0-1
0-3 _
0-1
0-3 _ -
0-1
0-2
Pseu
domo
nas
aeruginos
bacteria
MPN
0-1
1-3 . -
0-1
0-3 -
'0-1 0-3 _
0-1
0-3 _
0-1
0-3 -
0-1
0-3 -
0-1
0-3 -
0-1
0-3 _ -
0-1
0-2
Nutrients
2-5
1-3
O-l
1O-
l1
1-5
11-4
1
-2-
51-
3 _2-5
1-3 _
2-5
1-3 -
2-5
1-3 -
2-5
1-3 _
2-5
1-3
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
Phyto-
plankton
coun
ts
2-4
1-3 _ -
2-4
1-3 -
2-4
1-3 _
2-4
1-3 _
2-4
1-3 -
2-4
1-3 -
2-4
1-3 _
2-4
1-3
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
Agen
cy
collecting
data
uses
.RB
, US
GS.
RB,
USGS.
RB,
USGS
.
TABLE
3.
- Sampling program during lo
w-fl
ow seasons, 19
73-7
6--C
onti
nued
N> OO
Date
s
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
July
July
Apr.
Apr.
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
May
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
May
June
Apr.
Apr.
to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Stat
ion
No.
1973
11464010
1974
1975
1976
1973
11465400
1974
1975
1976
1973
11466800
1974
1975
1976
1973
11466850
1974
1975
1976
1974
11467000
1975
1976
1973
11467002
1974
1975
1976
1973
11
4670
061974
1975
1976
1973
11467210
1974
1975
1976
Stat
ion
name
Russ
ian
River
atHe
alds
burg.
Russ
ian
River
atWohler Br
idge
.
Mark We
st Creek
near
Mi
rabe
lHe
ight
s .
Russ
ian
River
atMi
rabe
l Heights.
Russ
ian
Rive
rne
ar Gu
erneville.
Russ
ian
River
atJohnson's
Beac
h.
Russ
ian
River
atVacation Be
ach.
Russ
ian
River
atDu
ncan
Mills.
Fiel
d me
asur
e
ments
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
3-5
4-9
4-10
1-3
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
1-4
1-7
0-3
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
0-9
4-9
4-10
1-3
Total
coliform
bacteria
MPN
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-3
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-2
0-1
2-4
4-10
1-2
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-2 - - -
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-2
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-2
1-5
2-5
4-10
1-2
Sampling
Feca
l coliform
bacteria
MPN
0-5
4-10
1-3 _
0-5
4-10
1-2
0-1
0-5
4-10
1-2 _
0-5
4-10
1-2 _ - - _ -
4-10
1-2 _
0-5
4-10
1-2 _
0-5
4-10
1-2
or measurement
frequency
Fecal
strepto-
cocc
al
bacterial
MPN -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 - - - _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2
Pseu
domo
nas
aeruginos
bacter
iaMP
N -0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ - - _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2 _ -
0-1
0-2
Nutrients
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
2-4
2-93
2-8
1-3
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
I4 1 O-l5
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
0-52
2-93
2-8
1-3
Phyt
o-
Agen
cy
plankton
collecting
counts
data
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
0-1
2-4
2-5
1-3
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
1 USGS .
1 USGS .
1 USGS .
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
1-5
2-5
2-5
1-3
1Nutrients sa
mple
d at th
is station:
2Nutrients sa
mple
d at th
is st
atio
n:3Nutrients sa
mple
d at this st
atio
n:4Nutrients sa
mple
d at
this st
atio
n:5Nutrients sa
mple
d at
this st
atio
n:
Tota
l and
dissolved
N02
, N03
, NH4
, Kjeldahl ni
trog
en,
total
phosphorus,
and
diss
olve
d or
thop
hosp
horu
s,
Tota
l N0
2, N0
3, NH
4, Kjeldahl nitrogen,
phos
phor
us,
and
dissolved
orthophosphorus.
Tota
l N0
3, Kjeldahl ni
trog
en,
phosphorus,
and
diss
olve
d orthophosphorus.
Tota
l N0
2+N0
3, Kjeldahl ni
trog
en,
and
phosphorus.
Tota
l N0
2, N0
3, NH
4, Kjeldahl nitrogen,
and
phosphorus.
C^ -C^ -C^ -C^ON ON ON ON^J *sj *sj *sj
to o o o t J O O OO ON to O
[=(=(=(=05 05 05 05
CO CO CO 0)P P P P
< < < <fD fD fD fD
Co Co Co P
O < C_i nP &) OP n p" on co p eCo pl- 05 fDP H- O It
o 0 p3 P - fDH- W <M CO H-M fD Dd MW Co fD i i
n co fD P" oP"
X
XXXX
XXX
X X
X
X
XXX
X X
P* -C^ON ONON ON00 00Ln oO 0
1= CO05 It05 !V
ft> «P 0)
W
fD It
fDeo yr_ P3 fDp. CDIt ItCOcr 3fD H-1 ' h(
COEG crfD fDH1 I""'
ooP" Wn- fD 05 H.
oop-rt-05
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
.pv
ON
£»
O0
e05
COP
fD
Co
sg*Op-MfD
COH-a.
oofD
X
X
X
X
X
X
£* -P"0-v 0-v
O O^ ( J OQ0 0
e e05 W
CO COp p
fD fD
Co Co
W >fD M0) fDM Xa. a> 05 Pcr a-c n it it
00 s3I_JKJfD
XJ
»0Coa.COitH-a.
00fD
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
.pv .pv .pv .£>. .pv
ON ON ON ON ONLO LO LO LO LOi~n .p- to M oO O HJ L/1 Oo o o o o
e e H. e c 05 05 O OO W Cfl05 w i i w en
Co co < e Co coP P fD M P P
It "T3
< < M It < < fD fD fD fD fD
(-> ItCo Co fD Co P
pr* CoO > TJ itfD 05 0) it
X! pf pf fD O05 H> W 1 ifD B If 0it O O << e P fD H- n- it M p- a. i-j pjfD P M
fD fDCOIt
X
XX XX
X
X
X X
XX X
X
X XX
X
X X
£v
ONtoON^oo
»0505
Cop»fD
Co
wow1 '
Copa.
X
X
X
^v
ONto0
0
»0505
Cop»<fD
Co
dp7*H-COp-
X
X
X
X
X
X
t^ -C^ON ONto I-10 00 00 0
co ew wpf 05
H' *Tl 0)0 PIt
H-5ti <e fD05H- P
P CO
»H- C< sr fD H-it CoP"pfDCoh(
c!?r H-&>P"
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
COft
Z, coO pf
H-Op
COpi-Co pi-H-0ppCo3fD
Existing or historical gagingstation
Existing or historical water-quality station
Major river branch ortributary
Main stem downstream of majorriver branch or tributary
Main stem or tributary downstream of major urban area
Main stem or branch inagricultural area
Main stem, branch, or tributary in recreational area
Main stem within or downstreamof recreational impoundment
Main stem within or downstreamof major riparian sand andgravel extraction area
Main stem at upstream limitsof tidal influence
Major geomorphic reach type
Reservoir release
op-Co itConpi-fDItH-NfD
05pi- ItfDCO3 HIt ' 0«CuPO.
«Co pi- fDit
£>
Cot 'H-n-x!
oHI
Downstream of geothermal area
Bacterial contaminationproblem ;
Nuisance algal growth problem
58 fDCo05OP
HiOit
05pl-COpl-H-Op05fDt 'fD OPl-H-Op
COCo
3 3 C | *T3- t '
H-0 PP 00fD
Ot/I it&)3 B
*T3 fD| / £;
n> wo.g e fD it 3H- fDP P oo pi-3 H-,Co it
X! fDuO
o e It fDP
c-i ne x! P fD
P
co i - crfD
0 it
fD P-0 05 a. CO H-
3 nW COM ri-fD fD
050.C Pi-it H. H. 3P fD
00 05
^ 3
C fDoo it05 3Pi- O
p 0 pi-it P"
cofD O
>T3 -pi-fD n3 0cr p 0) pl-It H-^-> P
Coc05
ItfDn oit a.fDIt
TABLE
4.
- Sampling pr
ogra
m during 1977 an
d 19
78--
Cont
inue
d
Sampling or me
asur
emen
t frequency
Stat
ion
No.
1146
1000
11462000
11462050
1146
2690
11463000
1146
3150
1146
3210
1146
3400
1146
3500
11463680
1146
4010
11465400
1146
6800
11466850
11467000
11467002
1146
7006
11467210 1Maj
or2Fie
ld
Stat
ion
name
Russ
ian
River
near Uk
iah
East
Fo
rk Ru
ssia
n River
near
Ukiah
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Uk
iah
Russian River
at Ho
plan
dRu
ssia
n River
near Cloverdale
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Pr
esto
n
Water
dis
char
ge C C 5 5 CNo
t possible
4Bi
g Su
lphu
r Creek
at mo
uth
near
Cl
over
dale
5
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
As
tiRu
ssia
n River
at Ge
yser
vill
e5 5
Russ
ian
River
at Alexander
Valley Road Br
idge
5
Russian River
at He
alds
burg
Russ
ian
Rive
r at Wohler Bridge
Mark West Cr
eek
near Mi
rabe
l He
ight
sRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
at Mi
rabe
l He
ight
sRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
near
Guerneville
Russ
ian
River
at Jo
hnso
n's
Beach
Russ
ian
River
at Vacation Be
ach
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Duncan Mills
ions
(HC0
3, Cl,
S04
, Ca
, Mg
, Na,
K,me
asur
emen
ts:
spec
ific
co
nductance,
3Nut
rien
ts:
diss
olve
d N0
2 as
N, di
ssol
ved
as N, to
tal
5No
t possible
45 5 C 5 5
Not
possible
4
Si02
, B,
F, Fe)
samp
led
water
temp
erat
ure,
pH,
Field
meas
ure
me
nts2
and
feca
lcoliform
and
feca
lstrepto-
coccal
bacteria
(MF
and
MPN) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Algal
growth
potential
and
phyto-
Pseu
do-
Nutri
ents
3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 times
per
month
dissolved
oxygen
N03
as N,
di
ssol
ved
Kjeldahl nitrogen as
N02
as N, total
N03
as N,
to
tal
Kjeldahl nitrogen as
N,
total
NH4
as N
, total
Chem
ical
oxygen
demand
1977
1978
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
only fr
om May
toand
turbidity.
N, dissolved
NH4
orga
nic
nitrogen
plankton
counts ,
chlo
ro
phyll
a,and
biom
ass
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Octo
ber
1977
.
as N, di
ssol
ved
monas
aeru-
gino
sabac
teri
a
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
orga
nic
Peri-
phyt
on,
chlo
ro
phyll
a,and
biom
ass
MJ-A
SMJ
-AS
MJ-A
SMJ
-AS
MJ-AS
MJ-A
SMJ
-AS
MJ-A
SMJ-AS
MJ-A
SMJ
-AS
MJ-A
SMJ
-AS
MJ-A
SMJ
-AS
MJ-AS
MJ-AS
MJ-AS
nitrogen
as N, di
ssol
ved
orthophosphorus
as P,
and
total
phosphorus as
P.
4Not
possible be
caus
e st
atio
n was
in pooled
, im
poun
ded,
or ti
dall
yinfluenced
sect
ion
of ri
ver.
TABLE 5.
- Example of
completed reconnaissance sampling form showing the
kind of information obtained
[LEW,
left edge water; REW, right edge water; S,
near surface; M, middle; B, bottom]
WATER QUALITY - RECONNAISSANCE FORM
ON
STATION NAME:
Russian River at
Mirabel Heights
NUMBER:
11466850
7^-minute quadrangle
DATE:
4/23/77
Camp Meeker
TIME
: 11:00 a.
m. to
11:30 a.
m.
Fie
ld
mea
sure
men
ts
Vj
- m
g/L
--
Cro
ss
secti
on poin
ts
Up
stre
am35-f
oot
12
34
5
cen
tro
id
Dow
nstr
eam
30-f
oot
centr
oid
19.0
O£ Q
Vert
icals
1 2
5 fe
et
from
LE
W
Cen
tro
id
S M
B
S M
B
18.5
18.5
18.5
19
19
19
9.8
9.9
9
.9
9.8
9
.9
9.8
3 2
feet
from
S M
19
19
9ft
Q
ft
Q
REW
B 19
Water discharge -- Estimated at
75 ft
s/s.
Time of travel from last station -- 10 minutes (8
.2 miles) from Russian River near Guerneville (11467000).
Route River Road.
Station location description Approached from le
ft bank,
about 200 fe
et downstream of
ol
d dam posts downstream
of Mirabel Park swimming area and boat launch.
Ranney collectors on right bank.
Station character description Water appearance (l
ight
penetration, degree of
shading, color) -- Turbid, brownish color
(different from downstream stations where water appears greenish).
Substrate of
streambed -- Small cobbles, sand,
and silt.
Steeper than right bank
Fairly fl
at\________________________/
LEW
40 feet
REW
Vegetation and streambank -- At sampling station very little canopy.
Mostly willows and lo
w brush; redwoods and
California bay on left bank near dam posts an
d recreation area.
Manmade structures -- Ranney collectors on right bank, old dam posts approximately 20
0 feet upstream.
Aquatic life Some filamentous, green periphyton.
Access -- At Mirabel Park Recreation area.
Take north exit at sign (junction of River Road and
Mirabel Road).
Park in
campground area and walk about 500 fe
et downstream using left bank to sampling station.
Best spot for
QW -- 200
feet downstream of
old dam posts, mostly level river be
d, moderate water velocity.
Best spot for
streamflow measurement -- same as for
QW,
stream velocity =
1-2
ft/s,
sufficient depths in
cross
section fo
r measurements.
Inflows -- Mark West Creek about \
mile upstream on left bank.
Other comments Pictures taken:
1. Sampling site.
2. Upstream area from sampling site.
3. Downstream ar
ea from sampling site.
Diel Study
In addition to the scheduled sampling shown in table 4, a diel study (intensive monitoring for a 24-hour period) was done during 1977 at two stations: Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680) and Russian River near Guerneville (11467000). The diel study was done to provide an estimate of primary productivity and community metabolism in the Russian River during the low-flow season. To obtain an estimate representative of the low-flow season, late August was chosen because streamflows were fairly stable and about average for the 1977 low-flow season and recreational use was con sidered typical for the season. The station at Alexander Valley Road Bridge was chosen because it was at the downstream limits of a major agricultural area and geomorphic reach-type 2. The station near Guerneville was chosen because it was within the river's major recreational-use area and geomorphic reach-type 1. In addition, by choosing these stations, urban influences on river productivity and community metabolism might be assessed because the station near Guerneville is downstream of the basin's major urban center, Santa Rosa, whereas the station at Alexander Valley Road Bridge is downstream of an agricultural area and upstream of Santa Rosa.
Field Methods
Using the current-meter method (Carter and Davidian, 1968, p. 6 and 7), instantaneous discharge measurements were made at stations without continuous recorders. At continuous-record stations, water stages were measured using bubble-gage sensors with digital recorders. Water discharges were derived from the water-stage record and the stage-discharge relation developed from current-meter measurements. Portable meters were used for making field measurements of pH and specific conductance. Water-temperature measurements were made with hand-held mercury-filled thermometers that were calibrated with an ASTM (American Standards for Testing Materials) standard laboratory ther mometer. Field thermometers had a full-scale accuracy of 0.5°C. Dissolved- oxygen concentrations were determined by the Alsterberg azide modification of the Winkler method (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 611-613). Alkalinity was measured by electrometric titration (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 517 and 518) and was done only at Big Sulphur Creek at mouth near Cloverdale (11463210) during 1977, in conjunction with major-ion sampling. The membrane filter method was the field technique used to enumerate fecal-coliform and fecal-streptococcal bacteria concentrations in water. Culture media were M-FC agar for fecal-coliform bacteria and KF streptococcus agar for fecal- streptococcal bacteria (Greeson and others, 1977, p. 53-62). Laboratory methods were also used to enumerate fecal-coliform and fecal-streptococcal bacteria as well as Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria (see laboratory methods).
Multi-electrode, water-quality monitors were used during the diel study to measure water temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved-oxygen concentration (electrometric, polarographic probe method; Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 537-542).
27
Water samples were obtained at the centroid of flow. Grab samples were obtained for bacteria and depth-integrated samples for other properties and constituents. Centroid samples were considered representative of water- quality conditions at the sampling stations because data obtained during the reconnaissance survey of possible sampling stations indicated there was little cross-sectional variation in water quality at these stations.
Samples for dissolved constituents were filtered in the field through 0.45-|Jm pore-size membrane filters. Samples for cations and chemical-oxygen demand were acidified to a pH of less than 2. Samples for nutrients were chilled. Samples for phytoplankton enumeration were collected in 1-liter, narrow-mouth bottles and preserved with 40 mL of 37- to 40-percent formalin solution, 5 mL of 20-percent detergent solution, and 1 mL of cupric sulfate solution. Samples for phytoplankton cellular contents (chlorophyll and biomass) and AGP (algal growth potential) were collected in narrow-mouth, glass jugs. For phytoplankton cellular contents, a measured quantity of the water collected was filtered through a 47-mm glass-fiber filter. The filter was rolled with the phytoplankton on the inside and placed in a glass vial with a screw cap. The vial was immediately chilled with ice. Upon completion of the field trip, the chilled vials were frozen before shipment to the laboratory. For AGP, filtrate from phytoplankton filtration was refiltered using a low-water extractable, 0.22-|Jm pore-size membrane filter. To prevent damage to algal cells and possible release of nutrients into the sample, a vacuum of 10 inches of mercury was not exceeded during filtration. The filtrate was put into a liter bottle and immediately chilled.
Periphyton samples were collected using artificial substrates (1- by 6-inch polyethylene strips). The strips usually were nailed to the streambed in riffles at locations and depths providing appropriate light exposure for algal growth. At stations in pooled, impounded, or tidally influenced sec tions of the river, strips were attached to submerged objects in sunlit areas. These strips were installed at each station during May or June, and August or September. Strips were retrieved from the water after a green or brown growth was noticed. Length of exposure (colonization period) varied from station to station according to edaphic and climatic conditions at each station, and seasonal changes in these conditions. After retrieval, the strips were immediately put into glass jars and chilled.
Nutrient, major ion, and COD (chemical oxygen demand) samples were sent express mail (guaranteed 24-hour delivery time) to the U.S. Geological Survey Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colo. Phytoplankton, periphyton, and AGP samples were sent express mail to the U.S. Geological Survey Water Quality Laboratory in Doraville, Ga. Bacterial samples for laboratory analyses were sent to private local laboratories approved by the California Department of Health Services and chosen by the Regional Board.
28
Laboratory Methods
Nutrient samples were analyzed using automated colorimetric methods given in Skougstad and others (1979, p. 389-399, 407, 415-417, 433-439, 445-447, 479-481, and 491-493). Samples for calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), and potassium (K) were analyzed by atomic absorption spectrometric methods given in Skougstad and others (1979, p. 107 and 108, 177 and 178, 229 and 230, and 255-256). Automated colorimetric methods (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 333-335, 375-377, 497-499, and 501-504) were used to analyze samples for iron (Fe), chloride (Cl), silica (Si02 ), and sulfate (S04 ). Samples for boron (B) were analyzed by a nonautomated colorimetric method (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 315 and 316). Bicarbonate was calculated from alkalinity determi nations done by the electrometric titration method (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 517 and 518). Fluoride determinations were done by electrometric ion-selective electrode method (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 525-528). During 1977, COD samples were analyzed by the "low-level" method (Brown, Skougstad, and Fishman 1970, p. 124-126) and during 1978, the "high-level" method was used (Skougstad and others, 1979, p. 449 and 450).
The inverted microscope method was used to enumerate phytoplankton (Greeson and others, 1977, p. 97-99). Cellular contents of phytoplankton and periphyton were determined by chromatography and fluorometry (Greeson and others, 1977, p. 217-224 and 233-241). AGP bioassays were done using an electronic particle counter to obtain counts of the test alga, Selenastrum capricornutum. Counts were made until the growth rate of the test alga was less than 5 percent per day. This was considered to be the point at which the maximum standing crop had been obtained.
Turbidity measurements were done at the Regional Board's laboratory in Santa Rosa, Calif., by the people who did the sampling, using the nephelo- metric method given in Skougstad and others (1979, p. 549 and 550). Samples for turbidity were chilled immediately after collection and measurements made within 24 hours.
Laboratory analyses for fecal-coliform, fecal-streptococcal, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria were done by multiple tube fermentation MPN (most probable number) methods (American Public Health Association and others, 1976, p. 916-926, 942-944, and 976-982).
29
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temporal Variations in Streamflow and Water Quality
Changes in Streamflow and Water Quality During the Period of Study
Prior to 1975, treated wastewater was discharged to the Russian River throughout the year. In 1975, when improved wastewater treatment facilities were coming into operation, the Regional Board adopted regulations prohibiting the discharge of wastewater to the Russian River and its tributaries during the low-flow season. By 1977 no wastewater was discharged to the Russian River during the low-flow season. During 1976 and 1977, a drought occurred in California.
The flow of the Russian River during the period of this study is summa rized in figures 10 and 11. Streamflows are given at only two stations because prior to 1977 either Streamflow measurements were not made or water- quality samples were not collected at the other stations. Flows at Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) for the 1973 low-flow season are not shown in figure 11 because water-quality data were not collected at this station during that time. The flow of the Russian River during the 1973-75 and 1978 water years was greater than normal, but during the drought (1976-77) the flow was considerably less than normal (fig. 10). Flow at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000) was 69 percent of normal in 1976 and 31 percent of normal in 1977. Near Guerneville the flow was 17 percent of normal in 1976 and 4 percent of normal in 1977. Thus, the effect of the drought on the flow of the Russian River was more evident in the lower part of the basin than it was in the upper part of the basin where flows are regulated by Coyote Dam.
Changes in the flow of the Russian River during the 1973-78 low-flow seasons correspond to changes in annual mean flows (figs. 10 and 11). During the 1973-78 low-flow seasons, Streamflow at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and at Russian River near Guerneville varied greatly (fig. 11). During the low-flow season, Streamflow was less during drought years than during non- drought years.
The effect of wastewater regulations and the drought on water quality of the Russian River is shown in figures 12-16. These data displays are for five representative stations: (1) East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000); (2) Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680); (3) Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights (11466800); (4) Russian River at Mirabel Heights (11466850); and (5) Russian River at Johnson's Beach (11467002). Water- quality properties and constituents shown are the ones for which samples were obtained throughout the study period.
30
4500I I I I Tj
East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000)
II | .I I I Russian River near
Guerneville (11467000)
4000
3500
O
ID 3000 wDC ID o.h-ID LLJ Li.
Om 2500D O
< 2000ID QC
Mean annual streamflow, water years 1940 78
1500
1000
500 r Mean annual streamflow.
co ^- m to i^ coO) O) O) O) O) O)
o ^ in to r>- ooO) O) O) O) O) O)
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 10. - Changes in annual mean streamflow, 1973-78 water years.
31
IZUU
1100
1000
900
800
QZ0u111totr 700m
Hm01LL
u5 600
uz
0s! 50°
OltrH-w
400
300
200
100
0
East F
I I
ork Russian River Russian Rver nearnear Ukiah (11462000) Guerneville (11467000)
-
-
_
(
pc
..-
(1
1
1
>16
>! 5,15
\
\
J,15 ()32
i ' ' f
\ 1 J
11
- \ /
M J935
n
I
I
\
\
\
(
.
1 I
(
I
I
> 9 'i I
.\ .
-
-
-
_
>26 ~
\ '
\T\rT ?
11 ^ W ID !"" CO M^WtDI^CO
^O)O)O)^O> O) O) O) Cn o) o)
EXPLANATION
Maximum -r
Arithmetic mean 6 11 Number of observations
Minimum - -
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 11. - Streamflow during the low-flow season, 1973-78 water years.
32
The patterns of change in water quality are nearly the same at main-stem stations: Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge, Russian River at Mirabel Heights, and Russian River at Johnson's Beach (figs. 13, 15, and 16, respectively). At these stations, beginning in 1975, substantial decreases occurred in fecal-coliform bacteria, total nitrate, total ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and dissolved orthophosphorus. These decreases coincide with the initial implementation of regulations specifying no discharge of wastewater during the low-flow season.
Turbidity was less during 1977 and 1978, than during 1974. This does not appear to be related to the regulation of wastewater discharges or the drought because turbidity generally was greater at Russian River at Mirabel Heights and at Russian River at Johnson's Beach during 1976 than during other years of study.
From 1977 to 1978, there was an increase in total nitrate and total ammonia plus organic nitrogen at Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge and at Russian River at Mirabel Heights. This appears to be the result of increased storm runoff and greater streamflows after the 1976-77 drought.
A large increase in phytoplankton occurred from 1976 to 1977. Another large increase occurred from 1977 to 1978 at Russian River at Mirabel Heights and Russian River at Johnson's Beach. Increases in phytoplankton from 1976 to 1977 are related to substantially less streamflow during the 1977 water year (fig. 10). Less streamflow, especially during the low-flow season (fig. 11), coupled with less turbidity can concentrate nutrients and allow greater light penetration into the water of the Russian River, thus promoting phytoplankton growth. During the 1978 low-flow season, phytoplankton concentrations re mained greater than during the 1974-76 low-flow seasons. This suggests the reduction in turbidity from 1974-76 levels to 1977-78 levels (figs. 12-16) is more important than reduced streamflows in promoting phytoplankton growth.
The station, East Fork Russian River near Ukiah, is immediately down stream of Lake Mendocino and the flow at this station is water released from the lake. Thus, the water quality at this station is closely related to the water quality of and variations in volume of water released from Lake Mendocino. At Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge, Russian River at Mirabel Heights, and Russian River at Johnson's Beach, specific conductance, total nitrate, turbidity, and phytoplankton values also appear to be related to the water quality of Lake Mendocino and variations in the volume of water released from this lake. The patterns of yearly change in values of these water-quality properties and constituents at these stations (figs. 13, 15, and 16) are similar to those observed at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah. However, concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria, total ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and dissolved orthophosphorus at these stations do not appear to be related to the water quality of Lake Mendocino or to variations in the volume of water released from this lake, because the patterns of yearly change in values of these constituents are not similar to those observed at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah.
33
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,IN MICROMHOS PER
CENTIMETER AT 25° C
TURBIDITY, IN NEPHELOMETRIC
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA (MPN), IN COLONIES
ouu
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
(
-
-
-
-
-
-
C"
0
*s.3
>C
) <i a
e
t IT1 0
(1
1
1 ->58
) CC
) 0
(1'
/"/
1>24
r>
) 0
,35
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
(.
a0
-
-
-
-
-
_
,32
-
_
-
-
-
-
1»U
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
_ (
-
n *t Lo o <
,39 ^ T
X T T
ni $?'.<o CD r» o
T) 0) 0) C
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
r- -
-97
J
0
n
3UU
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
h-
-
-
<
1 1
1^ioJ
n t0) 0)
£2_J,1
>
n CD r
J) O C
?2\
- V>. a7i C
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
w
-
-
-
-
V
3
n
EXPLANATION
Maximum - -
Arithmetic mean*<> 11 Number ofobservations
Minimum - -
* Median for fecal cohform bacteria
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 12. - Changes in water quality during the study period at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (station 11462000).
34
TOTAL AMMONIA AND DISSOLVED PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTS,TOTAL NITRATE AS N, IN ORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN IN NUMBERS OF CELLSMILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MILLIGRAMS PER LITER PER MILLILITER
I.O
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
T
>
o * in ID ro> o o o> c
" 0
n c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,10
0
n
/.o
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
i-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-^
^ .
0) (
S
* u
J> C
)26T
\ I >y6-jyT (D r-- 0
J> O) O) C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>12-
0
n
I.O
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
a3 n4 $5 G B 08 a10o ^ in (D r-- ooo o o o o o
JUUU
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
5.9 Jl I''
co ^ 10 (0 ro o o o c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
f\ -
- 00
J> O)
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 12.- Continued.
35
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,IN MICROMHOS PER
CENTIMETER AT 25° C
TURBIDITY, IN NEPHELOMETRIC TURBIDITY UNITS
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA(MPN), IN COLONIES
PER 100 MILLILITERSoou
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
(
c
20
0 "
1C
?\\)
* u
(
//J43
) I
i/[-/
/)9
0 r-
,22
\
\
\
\ (
-
->
-
) 2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
0
IBU
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
/ » u
O) O Ol O) O O
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
r-
-
-
-
_ _
& 44TX \ r^ TO I Vl^ 1 T
CO *fr LD ID r> CO
Ol Ol Ol C) O Ol
IOUU
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
-
_
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(
_
)1I
\\
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
T( £4-&Pl22
CO <fr LD ID 1^ CO
(Jl CD CD CD CD CD
EXPLANATION
Maximum -r
Arithmetic mean*( ) 1 1 Number of observations
Minimum - -
* Median for fecal coliform bacteria 1 Where maximum value extends
beyond the grid area, the value is indicated
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 13. - Changes in water quality during the study period at Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (station 11463680).
36
TOTAL AMMONIA AND DISSOLVED PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTS,TOTAL NITRATE AS N, ORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN IN NUMBERS OF
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MILLIGRAMS PER LITER CELLS PER MILLILITER1.0
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
I2
-
-
-
-
-
-
cc
1
--
IK
\
\
\
h25
\\k28
/X)1 1 /
^,o rf \n ID i^ oT) O) O) O) O) 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
>10~
3 )
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
( ^13
- 1 \)2B~1 y
I \-<5l5 x
_!-.. wn rt \n ID rCD en 01 01 c
('
1
>11
0
n c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
)-
-
0
D
1.0
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(
_
-
-
rc
3
?17
\
\
\
\
i 'n c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,25\\
. \
\
\\
j in ID r^ coJl Ol Ol O G)
ODUU
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<
I
i 1
1
1
1
f
f
~feiico st in to rC) Ol Ol Ol C
?6
\\
\
an a
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
1
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 13. - Continued.
37
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,IN MICROMHOS PER
CENTIMETER AT 25° C
TURBIDITY, FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIAIN NEPHELOMETRIC <MF), IN COLONIESTURBIDITY UNITS PE R 100 MILLIMETERS
1 OUU
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-
-
-
-
-
f"{12- Jj19
l\
1\\I
-
-
n *
(- i
I
(44
n (.
s.Jg
I '
\
\
0 r- 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
,20
-
-
-
IOU
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
r\
-
-
-
-
(
uo r
J.
o ^
^ ,45
\
)
t in u
J
^11
^6
>
3 r- C
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
,16
ouuu
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
n
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
(
-
o r
11000
)(
\-\
\IJ, ,45
\ \
. £
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
/
£9
'_
I15\
io <* in to r- a
_
-
-
-
,1 6
D
oooooo oooooo oooooo
EXPLANATION
Maximum'-i-
Arithmetic mean*( ) 11 Number of observations
Minimum - -
* Median for fecal coliform bacteria 1 Where maximum value extends
beyond the grid area,the value is indicated
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 14. - Changes in water quality during the study period at Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights (station 11466800).
38
TOTAL AMMONIA AND DISSOLVED PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTS,TOTAL NITRATE AS N, IN ORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN IN NUMBERS OF CELLSMILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MILLIGRAMS PER LITER PER MILLILITER
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
~~
-
(i
/
"|<
.fl
CO
O)
,18i
\
\
. \
:* iV) (
*n a
y> c
r"
0 P
n c
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
"
-
) 8 -
V>10- CO
) 0)
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
c
c
\I\\\
1
0 ^
n c
>9
\\\\
1
t un c
J
>28
> un c
J.fl
D r
n c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
|8
, -
\f_O10
'
CO
) O
/.O
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
_ _
A~ \
\- \
\-1 \ T
\\\ 5
\\i*
n ft in (D r^ aoo O) O) O) o O)
/o,uuu
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5000
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
<
I
I
i
I
I I
i
I
I J
I
I
I
^s?.8?4iiCO ^ tO CD P
0) 0) 0) 0) C
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
>5
II -I"
11
11 -i1o5 -
--
- CO
n o>
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 14. - Continued.
39
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, TURBIDITY,IN MICROMHOS PER IN NEPHELOMETR 1C
CENTIMETER AT 25° C TURBIDITY UNITS
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA(MPN), IN COLONIES
PER 100 MILLILITERS/^u
680
640
600
560
520
480
440
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
(
-
-
-
-
20 / Y*
CO '
fi
/
,f
,22 \\'
\ \ <
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
t in co r^ ooO) O) C ^ O) C) C
lOU
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-r
- 3 L ,,,.f0jf F }co 1 in co r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
f-Ja)
00
J.b
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
"> O O O O O) O)
24000
-
-
-
-
_
-
-i
-
-
-
-
-
(
> 8I
\
\
\
-
-
-i
-
_
-
-
-
y
Q- -Ql°^
-
-
-
-
-
-
>2!£16
n t in <£> r^ oo
o> o> o> o> o> o>
EXPLANATION
Maximum 1 - -
Arithmetic mean*( ) 1 1 Number of observations
Minimum - -
* Median for fecal coliform bacteria 1 Where maximum value extends
beyond the grid area, the value is indicated
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 15. - Changes in water quality during the study period at Russian River at Mirabel Heights (station 11466850).
40
TOTAL AMMONIA AND DISSOLVED PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTS,TOTAL NITRATE AS N, IN ORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN IN NUMBERS OFMILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MILLIGRAMS PER LITER CELLS PER MILLILITER
,5.0
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-
-
-
c
c
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
J
\ _
\
\- ^y>10~o ^ in CD i^ oo
i 01 01 01 01 01
O.O
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
o
c
.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
" -
J5\
^3 P9~ H2'l1 /
..N 1 .."
o <t in to r» oo
n 01 01 01 01 01
J.D
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1111 11 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
)25 \
\
" \
\T
17,000
16,000
1 5,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
1 1 ,000
10,000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
n
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(
r-
-
-
-
-
-
-
j
>6
-
-
-
-
-
>5
00 't in tO 1^ CO
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 15. - Continued.
41
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, TURBIDITY, FECAL COLIFORM BACTER IAIN MICROMHOS PER IN NEPHELOMETR 1C (MPN), IN COLONIES
CENTIMETER AT 25° C TURBIDITY UNITS PER 100 MILLILITERSDUU
580
560
520
480
440
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
-
-
-
-
_
-
_TV90*
|-1 J
-
-
_
-
CO
*OC-ir\L >
(/
/
I/OQ/T
^
-
-
-
-
_
?22
\
\T _o20I-
-
-
_
-
tj- w co r» oo
IOU
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-
-
-
-
T
1 A_ j( ^-(rQj ^
j£30JL2" 1 JL \
ro ^ ifl ID r
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
JS$.~- 00
IDUU
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
OOOdOO QQOQQO
2400
-
-
-
-
-
_
~
-
-
-
(
-
.8
\
\
\ [ l?!
CO * Ifl U
1600
K
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
^;' 63 r* 00
EXPLANATION
Maximum 1 - -
Arithmetic mean*<> 11 Number of observations
Minimum - -
* Median for fecal coliform bacteria1 Where maximum value extends
beyond the grid area, the value is indicated
O) O) O) CD CD O)
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 16. - Changes in water quality during the study period at Russian River at Johnson's Beach (station 11467002).
42
TOTAL AMMONIA AND DISSOLVED PHYTOPLANKTON COUNTS,TOTAL NITRATE AS N, ORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN IN NUMBERS OF
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MILLIGRAMS PER LITER CELLS PER MILLILITER
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- T T
-
Jtff
..^r'-ii'co <tf in <D r- aO) O) O) O) O) 0
-
->
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
;3
1
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
j
" '^"tf-f1 ..!n <tf in <D rOT OT OT OT C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>11 \
00
I) OT
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
- -,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (.
-
-
-
cc
,14
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 '
j> (
I25\
* in to r- coJ) O) OT OT O)
co 'j in CD r- oo
WATER YEAR
FIGURE 16. - Continued.
43
Except for specific conductance, dissolved orthophosphorus, and phyto- plankton values, the patterns of changes in water quality at Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights (fig. 14) are different than at other stations (figs. 12, 13, 15, and 16). The main differences are the increases in turbidity, fecal- coliform bacteria, and total nitrate from 1976 to 1977, and the increases in total ammonia plus organic nitrogen from 1975 to 1977. These increases and the greater water-quality property and constituent values at Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights than at other stations are mostly due to the low-flow season discharge of treated wastewater into the Mark West Creek drainage until 1978 and to the greatly reduced flow of Mark West Creek during the 1976 and 1977 low-flow seasons (between 0.00 and 0.50 ft 3/s during most of the 1977 low-flow season).
During 1976 and 1977, specific conductance increased markedly at all stations shown in figures 12-16. Decreased streamflows during the 1976-77 drought are responsible for increased specific conductance during this period. Decreased streamflow concentrated dissolved solids, thus increasing specific conductance. Increased streamflows during 1978 resulted in decreased specific conductance.
Changes in Streamflow and Water Quality During the Low-Flow Seasons
of the 1977 and 1978 Water Years
Changes in streamflow and water quality during the low-flow season are described for only the 1977 and 1978 water years and for only two stations: East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000) and Russian River near Guerneville (11467000). Prior to 1977, either streamflow measurements were not made or water-quality samples were not collected at the other stations.
Streamflows were variable and did not follow a consistent pattern at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and Russian River near Guerneville (figs. 17 and 18). During the low-flow season, variable streamflow is expected because water releases from Lake Mendocino depend on the variable water needs of downstream users, and these water releases comprise all the flow at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and compose most of the flow at Russian River near Guerneville. The streamflow patterns at these two stations are dissimilar because the flow at Russian River near Guerneville is also influenced by accrual of water from tributaries, water withdrawal by water users, and water losses by evaporation that occur between these stations. During the 1977 low-flow season, mean monthly streamflows ranged from 86 to 183 ft 3 /s at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and from 23 to 39 ft 3 /s at Russian River near Guerneville. During the 1978 low-flow season, mean monthly streamflows ranged from 207 to 296 ft 3 /s at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and from 167 to 809 ft 3 /s at Russian River near Guerneville.
44
Water temperatures at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah markedly increased during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons (fig. 17). This probably resulted from a greater contribution of warm water from the epilimnion (upper zone in stratified water body) to release water as the reservoir is drawn down during the low-flow season. During the 1977 and 1978 low-flow season, water temperatures at Russian River near Guerneville followed the summer pattern of air temperatures, increasing from May to July in response to greater daylight periods and more insolation and decreasing in August or September because of decreasing periods of daylight and less insolation (fig. 18). During the 1977 low-flow season, mean monthly water temperatures ranged from 10.7 to 22.7°C at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and from 19.5 to 24.8°C at Russian River near Guerneville. During the 1978 low-flow season, mean monthly water temper atures ranged from 12.4 to 19.2°C at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and from 20.2 to 24.3°C at Russian River near Guerneville.
Although remaining less than 90 col/100 mL, fecal-streptococcal bacteria concentrations generally increased during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons (figs. 17 and 18). Fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations were less than fecal-streptococcal bacteria concentrations and increased only slightly or did not increase during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons.
During the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons, turbidity, total ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and total nitrite plus nitrate values generally decreased except at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah where turbidity increased during the 1977 low-flow season (figs. 17 and 18). Water stored in Lake Mendocino is generally more turbid in May than in summer months because imported water from the Eel River and streams tributary to Lake Mendocino are turbid during the rainy season (October through April). As the suspended matter in Lake Mendocino settles to the bottom of the lake during the low-flow season, stored water and release water become less turbid. The increase in turbidity at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah during the 1977 low-flow season may be the result of drought conditions that produced greater than usual drawdown of Lake Mendocino.
The similarity of nitrogen and turbidity graphs in figures 17 and 18 suggests organic and inorganic nitrogen in the Russian River are associated with suspended matter.
Decreases in algal growth potential during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons generally correspond to decreases in nitrogen, indicating that algal growth in the Russian River is dependent on the amount of nitrogen in the water. Algal growth potential did not follow the pattern of dissolved orthophosphorous concentrations that decreased only slightly at Russian River near Guerneville (fig. 18) and essentially did not change at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (fig. 17). Hence, algal growth in the Russian River is not limited by the amount of phosphorus in the water. These observations are supported by correlation coefficients of 0.95 and 0.98 (number of observations = 8, significant at 0.05 level) between algal growth potential and total nitrite plus nitrate at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and Russian River near Guerneville, respectively. Correlation coefficients between algal growth potential and dissolved orthophosphorus were 0.00 (number of observations = 8, not significant at 0.05 level) at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah and -0.34 (number of observations = 9, not significant at 0.05 level) at Russian River near Guerneville.
45
FECAL COLIFORM AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCAL BACTERIA,IN COLONIES PER 100 MILLILITERS, AND
WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS
CD<
^J ^~
m ^
^ CO
JJ00 CDn
5 o>
CO c_«>J Coo rj§
m <~
_0
HCD5"D""*"
1
~T T (T\*Z-itD1.? &,
tl \
f\ ">~^ vA»C
' 5 -n ^ V/I (D "* *
* 2 >
0 ^
(D OS'3
tf-n f. (D .
1 18^ "L 1 LT IS ^J»^.
1 1| \\
\ ^ * \^-I- ^ \
i0 g
*' ' ' ' *» ^j 1 "*" "*" ~~tfearnfi
1 ^ < ^
; i Ij y o^rf^ §3 ^ ^/ r~~~J ^ **
^ i--"CD W
t t
CD .
/ ss 'T^ 3< > ~^ HO /
HI %v , ___ _ "^
i1 I.I l * 7± M NJ CO 0 01 0 01 0O O o O O
STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION, IN PERCENT
0 _ M CO J
TURBIDITY, IN NEPHLOMETRIC TURBIDITY UNITS
§ "
Zl
t a % ^r CD
m |-J) < >m c^ CO
HCOCD
T3
$ ^-gVo-l"^""'0*^.
7* * Cf- eT^^ - %
/ef1 ^ ^ * "^ """
J^ ^ O/-
Vs / "^^f'c»** . ^^J'fff ___ V W ^ ^ JPOnj . _
1 ^ "I 1 1 II 1 1
p p p p p p p p p r1 .-*'-» KJ co '^ ai a> '-j co CD o -1
TOTAL NITRITE PLUS NITRATE AND TOTAL AMMONIA PLUSORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
o:lu
UJ 1- -J
9DC U
J°~
Q
\li
DC
?g
'
_j I
6
z -j
5
H 2
4U
J 1-
O °-
3I 1- S 0
2CC
(3 <
1
O <
n
I I
| I
I I
I I
I I
V-
\ -
\ \
V,
\iO
V
lV&
, V
\iO \1
. £
.-5
" »
t^\
v^
vo.
A
co
\Q
\r*
\^«
. W
'
__
V \
I
\ \^s
>
^f
» » »1
\ \~~
^D
isso
lve
d
~
\J
1 ^.^
*/
ort
hophosp
horu
s^,
3|
1 i-
4 ?
f _
43
1-
|2\_
_|s
_ _
_|2
._ -
|
I .U
Jj
u Zj
0.9
J Q
.
OT
0.8
| CC
O
0
.7 3 «
J S0
.6 z
^w
0.5
g
O X
0.4
Si
O I Q.
0.3
0I 1- cc
0.2
O Q U
J
0.1 3 o C/
J ton
^M
ay
June
July
A
ug
Sept
1977
WA
TE
R Y
EA
R
May
June
July
A
ug
S
ept
1978 W
AT
ER
YE
AR
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
Month
ly m
edia
ns a
re g
iven
for
feca
l co
lifo
rm
and
feca
l st
rept
ococ
cal
bact
eria
, ot
hers
ar
e m
onth
ly a
rith
metic
mea
ns.
Num
ber
ne
xt t
o t
he m
ean
is n
um
be
r of
valu
es u
sed
to c
alcu
late
the
mea
n. S
tream
flow
poin
ts
are
mea
n daily
for
each
mo
nth
sho
wn.
FIG
UR
E 1
7. - C
hang
es i
n S
tream
flow
and
wat
er q
ualit
y at
Eas
t Fo
rk R
ussi
an R
iver
nea
r U
kiah
(11
4620
00)
durin
g th
e lo
w-f
low
sea
sons
of
1977
and
197
8 w
ater
yea
rs.
8*7
FECAL COLIFORM AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCAL BACTERIA, IN COLONIES PER 100 MILLILITERS, STREAMFLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION, IN PERCENT
f \
/ \
1 /
'// / *v *
(0 (0 0) OI
3 3
II
la
WATER TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES CELSIUS
TURBIDITY, IN NEPHLOMETRIC TURBIDITY UNITS
«
ff
1 ^
°^X
°0
^ <§"°f
CD C D w
) p p p p p p p pp.-*; '-^ KJ co '-& en b) '>j bo CD oTOTAL NITRITE PLUS NITRATE AND TOTAL AMMONIA PLUS
ORGANIC NITROGEN AS N, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ALGAL GROWTH POTENTIAL, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
M CO-CiCJ1O)vJOOCD
m ,-r 3
>
CO
CD <_
CO 3<
> £.
m <3J-< >m c
-JL
/ o Df r+ c/>
P 02.i "° < 1 3-(Di O D.
t f O
fc lX
o p p p p p p p p p .-1 '-> Ko co 'ji cji bs 'vj bo CD o
DISSOLVED ORTHOPHOSPHORUS, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
CD CD CD
~i O fD(D v (iU3 i.'* 3
oDCO Q) ^ Sg.<
_)
Q.
<"
-*i O-^CD Q}OIT
3 oD i-t ^"
CD
CD
i-t
CD
3CD Q}D
. Stream1
_
^.CD
3CD CDD
v>
DC
3
? o"*
^.^^f arithmet
ic means.
£
reptococci
a)
C7 QJ Or+ CD-^Q)'
Den
CD
CD
(0<'
CDD-*i O
<t O Q}
rt
mXPLANATI
0z
D C
At East Fork Russian River near Ukiah mean monthly dissolved-oxygen saturation decreased from 98 to 93 percent during the 1977 low-flow season and from 101 to 91 percent during the 1978 low-flow season (fig. 17).
These decreases may have been due to increasing oxygen demand of material in the bottom waters of Lake Mendocino induced by the marked increase in water temperature shown in figure 17. At Russian River near Guerneville, changes in dissolved-oxygen saturation during the 1977 low-flow season appear to be related to streamflows (fig. 18). Changes in streamflow during this period of unusually low streamflows greatly affected the amount of streambed under water and the amount of light reaching the submerged streambed. Photoinhibition may occur when too much light reaches periphyton. Thus, during the 1977 low-flow season, the extent of the periphytic community and; hence, oxygen production were regulated by streamflow. Also, physical aeration of the water is directly related to the amount of water turbulence and, at Russian River near Guerneville, the amount of water turbulence is directly related to streamflow. During 1978, streamflows at Russian River near Guerneville were much greater than during 1977 and were large enough to provide sufficient streambed cover age and physical aeration to keep mean monthly dissolved-oxygen saturation between 98 and 108 percent.
Areal Variations in Streamflow and Water Quality
The approach used in this section of the report is: (1) to identify those attributes of the basin that may be affecting the streamflow and water quality of the Russian River during low-flow periods; (2) to select stations that are in or just downstream of the attributes identified; and (3) to deter mine whether data collected at these stations are different from data col lected at other stations in the basin. Data distributions for the properties and constituents compared among stations are graphically represented by box plots which were prepared from information computed using the UNIVARIATE procedure in a computerized statistical analysis system called SAS (Helwig and Council, 1979). Statistical tests were used to determine if property and constituent values were alike among stations compared. A nonparametric sta tistical procedure, Kruskal-Wallis (Chi-square approximation) test, was used if the data sets compared were not normally distributed. A parametric statis tical procedure, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) Model II, single classification test (Dixon and Massey, 1969, p. 109-119 and p. 150-162) was used if the data sets compared were normally distributed. Depending on the number of observa tions in the data set, the Shapiro-Wilk W-statistic (N<50) or a modified version of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov D-statistic (N>50) (Stephens, 1974) was used to test whether or not data sets compared were distributed normally. SAS procedure NPARIWAY with option WILCOXON was used for the Kruskal-Wallis tests and GLM with statement LSMEANS and option PDIFF was used for ANOVA tests.
50
Comparisons were based on data collected during water years 1973 through 1978 unless data were collected during dissimilar time periods or at dissim ilar sampling frequencies. When 1973 through 1978 water-year data could not be used for comparisons, only 1977 and 1978 water-year data were used because similar data collections were done at all sampling stations during those water years. During low-flow periods, the effect of the following basin attributes on the streamflow and water-quality of the Russian River will be discussed: (1) Geomorphology; (2) Tributaries; (3) West Fork of Russian River; (4) Principal Water Diversion; (5) Recreational Impoundments; (6) Land Use; (7) The Tide; and (8) Climate.
Effect of Geomorphology on Water Quality of the Russian River
As described previously in this report, the Russian River can be divided into three distinct geomorphic reach types (figs. 3 and 4). A comparison of property and constituent values among stations at locations representative of these geomorphic reach types is shown in figure 19 (at end of report). Generally, property or constituent values were alike for the stations compared. Dissolved othophosphorus, phytoplankton counts, water temperature, and turbidity were significantly greater at Russian River near Guerneville (11467000, in reach type 1) than at the other stations compared (in reach types 2 and 3).
Phytoplankton counts at Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) were greater than at other stations compared in figure 19. This may be the result of less riverbed gradient, slower flows, and more pools in geomorphic reach type 1 than in others. Such conditions facilitate the utilization of nutri ents by algae and promote their growth; thus, accounting for the lesser nitrate values at Russian River near Guerneville than at Russian River near Hopland (11462690) and Russian River near Cloverdale (11463000). The reason for the lesser nitrate values at Russian River near Geyserville (11463500) than at Russian River near Hopland and at Russian River near Cloverdale is not known. Higher water temperatures at Russian River near Guerneville also helped to produce more algae. Slower flows and more pools in reach type 1 contribute to higher water temperatures at Russian River near Guerneville than at other stations compared in figure 19, but cold-water releases from Lake Mendocino were primarily responsible for the significantly lower water temperatures at the other stations.
Greater orthophosphorus and turbidity values at Russian River near Guerneville than at other stations compared in figure 19 were due to attri butes other than geomorphology (tributaries and recreational impoundments) and will be discussed later in this report.
The reason for the lesser pH values at Russian River at Hopland than at other stations compared in figure 19, is not known. Lesser streamflows at Russian River near Guerneville than at other stations compared in figure 19 were due to water withdrawals upstream and will be discussed later in this report.
51
Effect of Tributaries on Water Quality of the Russian River
The principal tributaries that contribute flow to the Russian River during most, if not all, of the low-flow season are Big Sulphur Creek and Mark West Creek (fig. 1). Big Sulphur Creek drains a prominent geothermal area and Mark West Creek drains the major urban area in the basin, Santa Rosa and nearby communities.
The impact of Big Sulphur Creek on the water quality of the Russian River is shown by examining the difference in water quality between Russian River at Preston (11463150) (1 mile upstream of Big Sulphur Creek) and Russian River at Asti (11463400) (5 miles downstream of Big Sulphur Creek). Greater specific conductance and pH values at Russian River at Asti than at Russian River at Preston were caused by Big Sulphur Creek inflow (fig. 20 at end of report). Because of the geothermic activity and the geology of the Big Sulphur Creek drainage, specific conductance values were greater at the Big Sulphur Creek station (11463210) than at Russian River at Preston and Russian River at Asti. Greater pH values at the Big Sulphur Creek station than at Russian River at Preston and Russian River at Asti were due to lesser flows and turbidity and to greater nitrate concentrations of Big Sulphur Creek. These conditions enhanced periphyton growth (fig. 31), and increased pH as the result of C02 uptake by periphyton. Big Sulphur Creek was less turbid than the Russian River because turbid bottom releases from Lake Mendocino (fig. 21) compose most of the flow of the Russian River during the low-flow season.
Nitrate and fecal-streptococcal bacteria concentrations were greater at the Big Sulphur Creek station than at Russian River at Preston and Russian River at Asti (fig. 20). Cattle and pets from nearby residential areas could be the source of the greater nitrate and fecal-streptococcal bacteria concen trations at the Big Sulphur Creek station. Cattle and pets were observed to drink from, wade in, and occasionally defecate in Big Sulphur Creek near the sampling station.
The increase in water temperature and dissolved oxygen from Russian River at Preston (11463150) to Russian River at Asti (11463400) was not due to Big Sulphur Creek, but rather to decreased water depth and more water turbulence at station 11463400 than at station 11463150, where the water was pooled.
Even though most property and constituent values were greater at the Mark West Creek station than at the main-stem stations, the creek's effect on the Russian River was limited to increasing specific conductance and orthophos- phorus values and phytoplankton counts from Russian River at Wohler Bridge (11465400) to Russian River at Mirabel Heights (11466850) (fig. 20). Mark West Creek's effect on the Russian River was tempered by the much greater flows of the Russian River. Lesser dissolved-oxygen saturation at the Mark West Creek station than at the main-stem stations was related to greater COD (chemical oxygen demand) values at the Mark West Creek station than at the main-stem stations. Until 1978, treated wastewater was discharged to the Mark West Creek drainage during the low-flow season. These discharges were mostly responsible for the greater property and constituent values in Mark West Creek than in the Russian River.
52
Effect of the West Fork on Water Quality of the Main Stem
During the low-flow season, water in the main stem of the Russian River is primarily releases from Lake Mendocino. Flow at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000) is from Lake Mendocino and averaged 187 ft 3/s during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. The West Fork of the Russian River also contributes some flow during most of the low-flow season and averaged 3.8 ft3/s during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. As shown in figure 21 (at end of report), the West Fork had no effect on the water quality at Russian River at Ukiah (11462050) even though there were differences in water quality between the East and West Forks. The West Fork had no effect on main-stem water quality because its flow composed only a very small portion of the main-stem flow during the low-flow season (2 percent of the flow at Russian River at Ukiah, 11462050).
During the low-flow season, the West Fork of the Russian River had greater specific conductance values than the East Fork of the Russian River (fig. 21). This was not caused by geologic factors because the geology of the Eel River basin and the East and West Forks of the Russian River are very similar, but rather, is because the East Fork station is downstream of Lake Mendocino. Water in Lake Mendocino comes mostly from the Eel River and the headwaters of the East Fork during the high-flow season (October to May). This water charac teristically has lesser specific conductance values than low-flow season water. Values of pH were greater in the West Fork because of substantially less flow, turbidity, and higher water temperatures than in the East Fork. Such conditions facilitate algal growth, thus increasing pH. The differences in water temperature and turbidity between the East and West Forks were due to the lower flows of the West Fork and the cold and turbid water released from Lake Mendocino.
Fecal-coliform and fecal-streptococcal bacteria concentrations were less at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000) than at Russian River near Ukiah (11461000) and Russian River at Ukiah (11462050). Concentrations of these bacteria were less at station 11462000 than at any other location sampled during this study. Apparently, these bacteria are either present in low concentrations in imported water and native East Fork water or settle out of the water and (or) die in the reservoir.
53
Effect of Principal Water Diversion on Water Quality of the Russian River
Ranney collectors located adjacent to the Russian River in the vicinity of Mirabel Park are the main water-withdrawal structures in the basin. The Ranney collectors withdraw water from the alluvium of the river channel (fig. 22). An inflatable dam across the river impounds water and facilitates perco lation of water into the riverbed alluvium. This impoundment and the indirect withdrawal of water from the river by the Ranney collectors had little effect on the water quality of the Russian River other than to increase pH and water temperature (fig. 23 at end of report). The reason is not known for the increase in turbidity from Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680) to Russian River near Guerneville (11467000). The increase in orthophosphorus from Russian River at Wohler Bridge (11465400) to Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) was because of high concentrations of this constituent in Mark West Creek (see previous discussion on the effect of tributaries on the water quality of the Russian River). .The increase in phytoplankton counts from station 11463680 to station 11467000 was due to the diversion impoundment and other summer impoundments between these stations, as well as basin geomorphology and the influence of Mark West Creek (see previ ous discussion on these topics in this report). Impoundment of water facili tates phytoplankton growth by providing a more stable environment than does a flowing stream. As expected, streamflow was less downstream of the Ranney collectors than it was upstream.
East
North South
West
FIGURE 22. - Ranney collectors near Mirabel Park.
54
Effect of Recreational Impoundments on Water Quality of the Russian River
The principal recreational impoundments on the Russian River are located at Memorial Beach, Vacation Beach (fig. 1), and Johnson's Beach (at Guerneville, fig. 24). To determine if these impoundments and the recre ational activities associated with them have any effect on the water quality of the Russian River during the low-flow season, the water quality upstream of these impoundments was compared with the water quality downstream of these impoundments (fig. 25 at end of report). Water temperature, pH, and fecal- coliform bacteria were less and turbidity was greater at Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680, upstream of Memorial Beach and other recreational impoundments in the Fitch Mountain area) than at Russian River at Healdsburg (11464010, downstream of Memorial Beach). Water impoundments and climatic factors (discussed later) probably were responsible for increased pH and water temperatures downstream of Memorial Beach. Water-contact recreation probably was responsible for the greater fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations downstream of Memorial Beach. Reasons for greater turbidity at station 11463680 than at station 11464010 are not known.
Except for greater fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations and lesser turbidity at Russian River at Johnson's Beach (11467002), there was no observ able difference in water quality between station 11467000 (upstream of Johnson's Beach and Vacation Beach) and stations 11467002 and 11467006 (down stream of Johnson's Beach and Vacation Beach, respectively). Water-contact recreation probably was responsible for the increase in fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations from Guerneville to Johnson's Beach. Fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations were not significantly different at Guerneville and Vacation Beach, probably because water-contact recreation was less at Vacation Beach than at Johnson's Beach. Reasons for lesser turbidity at Johnson's Beach than at Guerneville and Vacation Beach are not known.
FIGURE 24. - Recreational impoundment at Johnson's Beach in the community of Guerneville.
55
Effect of Land Use on Water Quality of the Russian River
The main land uses in the Russian River basin are agriculture and urban. To determine if these land uses have any impact on water quality of the Russian River during the low-flow season, property and constituent values were compared between Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680) and Russian River at Mirabel Heights (11466850) (fig. 26 at end of report). Station 11463680 is at the downstream limits of one of the major agricultural areas of the basin (Alexander Valley) and station 11466850 is immediately downstream of Mark West Creek which drains the principal urban area in the basin, Santa Rosa, and nearby communities.
Greater specific conductance and pH values and greater concentrations of fecal-coliform and fecal-streptococcal bacteria and orthophosphorus at station 11466850 than at station 11463680, reflect the influence of urban, low-flow, wastewater discharges to the Russian River, prior to 1976 (also, see the discussion on the effect of tributaries on the water quality of the Russian River). The decrease in flow between these stations was the result of water withdrawal by Ranney collectors in the vicinity of Mirabel Park.
Agricultural land use had little or no effect on the water quality of the Russian River during the low-flow season because most property and constituent values were not significantly different between Russian River near Geyserville (11463500), which is in Alexander Valley, and Russian River near Cloverdale (11463000), which is upstream of this agricultural area (fig. 19).
Tidal Influences on Water Quality of the Russian River
Russian River at Duncan Mills (11467210), near the mouth of the Russian River, is in a tidal reach. Water flow at this station is dependent on tidal fluctuations, but usually backwater conditions due to tidal inflow were found when sampling. As shown in figure 27 at end of report, the water quality at this station is very similar to that at Russian River at Vacation Beach (11467006), 6 miles upstream from the mouth of Austin Creek, which is near the upstream limit of tidal reach. The only significant differences in water quality between these stations were lower water temperatures and lesser dissolved-oxygen saturation at the station in the tidal reach. Lower water temperatures at the tidal reach station were expected because this station is closer to the ocean and its temperature-moderating influences, such as fog and cool breezes. Lesser dissolved-oxygen saturation at the tidal reach station than at Russian River at Vacation Beach may have been the result of lower water temperatures and, hence, less primary productivity. Greater specific conductance values at the tidal reach station were expected because of the likelihood of saltwater inflow with the tide. Apparently, the tide seldom brings enough saltwater from the ocean to Russian River at Duncan Mills to produce a significant difference in specific conductance values between this station and Russian River at Vacation Beach.
56
Effect of Climate on Water Quality of the Russian River
The climate of the Russian River basin during the low-flow season varies from place to place according to the degree of ocean influence. To determine if climatic differences have any effect on water quality of the Russian River, property and constituent values were compared at stations in areas representa tive of the spectrum of ocean influences received (fig. 28 at end of report). As expected, there was a significant increase in water temperature from Russian River at Hopland (11462690) to Russian River at Healdsburg (11464010). As cold water released from Lake Mendocino proceeds downstream, it is warmed in climatic areas receiving little ocean influence. Water temperatures did not increase downstream of Healdsburg because air temperatures were cooler in this climatic area with much ocean influence.
Of the stations compared in figure 28, values of pH were least at the station closest to Lake Mendocino and in the climatic area most isolated from ocean influences because the lower water temperatures there inhibited aquatic plant growth and thus kept pH values lower. Greater phytoplankton counts at Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) probably were due to higher water temperatures, slower flows, and a greater amount of pooled and impounded water in this reach of the river. The increase in specific conductance from Russian River at Hopland (11462690) to Russian River at Healdsburg (11464010) may have been related to climatic factors, but most likely was due to tributary inflows like Big Sulphur Creek that have greater dissolved-solids concentrations than does the main stem of the Russian River. The decreased flow of the Russian River between Healdsburg and Guerneville was caused by water withdrawal by Ranney collectors in the vicinity of Mirabel Park, not by local climatic conditions.
Problem Areas and Times of Water-Quality Degradation
State water-quality objectives have been established for the Russian River basin to maintain water suitable for present and anticipated beneficial uses. Objectives for some of the properties and constituents sampled in this study are given in table 6. Objectives for other properties and constituents sampled in this study have not been established.
Sampling stations where water-quality objectives were not attained are shown in table 7. If property and constituent values from Mark West Creek are compared to objectives for the Russian River downstream of its confluence with Mark West Creek (table 6), then fecal-coliform bacteria, specific conductance, and dissolved-oxygen values from Mark West Creek were not in accordance with objectives most of the time during the period of this study. It is likely that this condition was mostly caused by fecal-coliform bacteria, dissolved salts, and oxygen-demanding substances in wastewater received by this creek from the Santa Rosa area.
Many of the stations sampled during this study were not sampled during the 1973 low-flow season. Thus, except for what has been stated for Mark West Creek, not much is notable in table 7 for the 1973 low-flow season. The rest of this discussion will be presented on a property or constituent and yearly basis, because the areas where water-quality objectives were not attained vary from one low-flow season to another, depending on the property or constituent examined.
57
TABL
E 6.
- Water-quality
objectives for
the
Russian
River
basi
n
[Source
is Ca
lifo
rnia
St
ate
Wate
r Resources
Cont
rol
Board, 1975b]
Objective
Property
Russ
ian Ri
ver
upstream
of confluence with
Mark
West
Creek
Russian
River
down
stre
amof
confluence with
Mark
Wes
t Creek
CO
or
co
nst
ituent
Fec
al
coli
form
bacte
ria M
PNO
" f '
A
*
- *
<-»
U J
_ O
O V
.L.
V ^
U
WA
V Z
~^.L
i.
TT
p J.1 J
L U
1.
J- U
C
ctl
lU
llJ.
UX
.ctU
C
do
11
Tii
vV
i-i' A
-i t
-tr
l -------------------
or
col/
100
m
L--
-(Jm
ho at
25
°C--
m
g/L
-- -
- u
nit
s--
m
g/L
--. -
WTT
T
Min
im
um 7.0
6.5
CIK
ol
1
Me
dia
n 50 250
7.5 --
r»/\
f-
lw
90-
per
cent
val
ue
400
320 --
^
T
1*1 f*
TT
£* *
Max
im
um -- 8.5
10.0
HO
A/l
m
/IY
^A
Min
im
um -- 7.0
6.5
Cl^
l 1
Me
dia
n 50 285
7.5 --
r»/\
f-
Vi
90
-per
cen
tv
alu
e
400
375 --
£*
T fl
f* Y
» A
*
Max
im
um -- --8
.51
0.0
1 O
£»H
than
20
percent ab
ove
natu
rall
y occurring
back
ground le
vels
more th
an 20
pe
rcen
t above
natu
rall
y occurring
back
grou
nd levels
1For
th
is st
udy
"naturally
oc
curr
ing background le
vels
" were de
fine
d to
be
maximum
obse
rved
at
ea
ch s
tati
on during the
1977
and
1978
low-flow seasons.
They a
re gi
ven
below:
Station
1146
1000
11
4620
00
1146
2050
11
4626
90
1146
3000
11463150
11463200
1146
3400
11463500
Maximum
9.5 20 13
8.0
7.0
6.8
6.0
4.9
4.9
Stat
ion
1146
3680
11464010
11465400
1146
6800
11
4668
50
1146
7000
11
4670
02
1146
7006
11467210
Maximum
4.0
4.0
6.3 56 28 16 15 15
8.0
During the 1974 low-flow season, fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations at most stations were not in accordance with objectives (table 7). During this period, wastewater was still being discharged to the Russian River and its tributaries and was probably the major source of the unacceptable concen trations of fecal-coliform bacteria. Even though rainfall and streamflow were much greater than normal during the 1974 water year (table 1, and fig. 10), land-surface runoff was not the major cause of unacceptable concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria during the 1974 low-flow season. Rainfall and stream- flow during the 1978 water year (table 1, and fig. 10) were also much greater than normal, but concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria during the 1978 low-flow season did not exceed objectives except at Mark West Creek. Also, during the 1975 water year, rainfall and streamflow were near normal; but, except for Mark West Creek, fecal-coliform objectives were not exceeded during the 1975 low-flow season (table 7). The most likely cause of the decrease in fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations from the 1974 to the 1975 low-flow season, was the initiation in 1975 of regulations specifying no discharge of wastewater to the Russian River during the low-flow season.
Specific-conductance values at most stations exceeded objectives during the 1977 low-flow season (table 7); indicating that dissolved solids increased as a result of the concentrating effect of lower flows during the second year of the drought. Even without the lower flows, specific-conductance values of Big Sulphur Creek and Mark West Creek consistently exceeded objectives during this study. If the specific-conductance objectives for the Russian River apply to Big Sulphur Creek, these objectives may not be attainable for this tributary because dissolved-solids and specific-conductance values are deter mined from natural sources: geology and geothermal activity. If such objec tives apply to Mark West Creek, attainment of these objectives for this creek will probably depend on the capacity of the creek to recover from the effect of wastewater discharged during low-flow seasons prior to 1978.
During the 1977 low-flow season, nonattainment of pH and dissolved-oxygen objectives was also more prevalent and probably was also caused by lower than normal streamflows. The nitrite and nitrate objective was not exceeded at any of the stations during this study.
The turbidity objective is difficult to interpret because the phrase "naturally occurring background levels" is not defined. For this study, the maximum turbidity values observed at each station during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow season were selected as the maximum, naturally occurring background level for the low-flow season (table 6). Such an interpretation is reason able, considering no wastewater was discharged to the Russian River during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons and streamflows ranged from much lower to much higher than normal during the 1977 and 1978 water years, respectively.
Using this interpretation means that during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow season observed turbidity values at each station were less than or equal to the maximum limit. Hence, all stations were in accordance with turbidity objectives during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. The main human activ ities that could have caused nonattainment of turbidity objectives during previous low-flow seasons were wastewater discharges into the Russian River and its tributaries and gravel excavation.
59
TABLE
7.
- Stations where State
water-quality objectives were not
attained,
1973-78
low-flow se
ason
s
[Exp
lana
tion
: X,
objective exceeded,
firs
t number is
number of
times
objective exceeded,
second number is
number of
sa
mple
s, dash in
dica
tes
station not
sampled fo
r property or
constituent, blank indicates objective not
exceeded]
Property or
constituent an
d objective
Feca
l _
. ...
_.
.
, c
. .
. ,
, .
,. Specific
Dissolved
u St
atio
n number
coli
form
,
pH
, ,
conductance
oxyg
en
and
name
bacteria
J0
1973
1146
1000
11462000
11462050
11462690
11463000
11463150
1146
3210
11463400
J1463500
11463680
11464010
11465400
11466800
11466850
1146
7000
11467002
11467006
11467210
90-
90-
Me-
per-
Me-
per-
Mini-
Me-
Mini-
Maxi-
dian
cent
dian
cent
mum
dian
mum
mum
value
value
Russian River near Ukiah ___
_ __
__
East Fork Russian River
- -
- -
near Ukiah
Russian River at
Ukiah ___
_ __
__
Russian River at
Hopland ___
_ __
__
Russian River near ______
Cloverdale
Russian River at
Preston ___
_ __
__
Big
Sulphur Creek
at mouth ___
_ __
__
near Cloverdale
Russian River at
Asti ___
- __
__
Russian River at
________
Geyserville
Russian River at
Alexander
Valley Road Bridge
Russian River at
-
-Healdsburg
Russian River at
Wohler
Bridge
Mark West Creek
near
XXX
X 8/
11
XMirabel Heights
Russian River at
Mirabel
- -
1/30
Heights
Russian River near
___
_ __
__
Guerneville
Russian River at
-
2/30
Johnson's Beach
Russian River at
Vacation
- -
4/30
Beach
Russian River at
Duncan
- -
3/29
1/
30Mills
Nitr
ite
.?n(
* Turbidity
nitr
ate
Jas
N
Maxi
mum _
-
- - - _ - - -
8/29
3/29
-
4/30
TABLE
7.
- St
atio
ns wh
ere
State
wate
r-qu
alit
y ob
ject
ives
were no
t at
tain
ed,
1973
-78
low-flow seasons Continued
Property or co
nsti
tuen
t an
d objective
,_,_.,
, . ,
. Specific
Dissolved
St
atio
n nu
mber
co
lifo
rm
r ,
pH
, ,
conductance
oxygen
and
name
bacteria
1974
11461000
1146
2000
11462050
1146
2690
1146
3000
1146
3150
1146
3210
1146
3400
11463500
11463680
1146
4010
1146
5400
1146
6800
1146
6850
1146
7000
11467002
11467006
1146
7210
90-
90-
Me-
per-
Me-
per-
Mini-
Me-
Mini
- Maxi-
dian
cent
dian
cent
mum
dian
mum
mum
valu
e va
lue
Russian River
near Ukiah XX-
- --
--
East Fork Russian River
near Ukiah
Russian River at
Ukiah
- -
- -
- -
Russian River at
Hopland
- -
- -
- -
Russian River near
___
_ __
_ _
Cloverdale
Russian River at
Preston
X ______
Big
Sulphur Creek
at mouth
- -
- -
- -
near Cl
over
dale
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Asti
X ______
Russian River at
______
Geys
ervi
lle
Russ
ian
Rive
r at Al
exan
der XX
- -
Valley Road Bridge
Russian River at
-
-Healdsburg
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Wohler
XX
- -
Bridge
Mark West Creek
near
XXX
X 8/19
Mirabel Heights
Russian River
at Mirabel XX
- -
Heights
Russian River near
Guer
nevi
lle
Russian River at
X
- -
Johnson's Beach
Russian River at
Vacation XX
- -
Beach
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Du
ncan
X
X 1/
26Mills
Nitrite
.fnd
. Turbidity
nitrate
as N
Maxi
mum .
- - --
- - - _
23/26
9/26
2/26 -
1/26
4/26
TABL
E 7.
- Stations wh
ere
State
wate
r-qu
alit
y ob
ject
ives
were no
t attained,
ON
1973-78
low-flow seasons Continued
Property or
co
nsti
tuen
t an
d objective
, ,
. ,.
Specific
Dissolved
St
atio
n number
coliform
, pH
, _
. conductance
oxygen
and
name
bacteria
1975
1146
1000
11462000
11462050
1146
2690
1146
3000
1146
3150
1146
3210
1146
3400
11463500
11463680
11464010
1146
5400
11466800
1146
6850
1146
7000
11467002
1146
7006
1146
7210
90-
90-
Me-
per-
Me
- per-
Mini
- Me
- Mi
ni-
Maxi-
dian
cent
dian
cent
mu
m dian
mum
mum
valu
e va
lue
Russ
ian
River
near Ukiah
3/24
East Fo
rk Russian
River
near Uk
iah
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Ukiah
1/42
Russ
ian
River
at Hopland
Russ
ian
River
near
_ -
- -
--
--
Clov
erda
leRussian
River
at Preston
Big
Sulphur
Creek
at mouth
X X
near Cl
over
dale
Russian
Rive
r at
Asti
Russian
River
atGe
yser
vill
eRu
ssia
n River
at Al
exan
der
Vall
ey Road Bridge
Russ
ian
River
atHe
alds
burg
Russ
ian
River
at Wo
hler
1/
45Bridge
Mark W
est
Cree
k near
XXX
X
9/45
Mirabel
Heig
hts
Russ
ian
River
at Mi
rabe
lHe
ight
sRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
near
Guer
nevi
lle
Russ
ian
River
atJohnson's
Beach
Russ
ian River
at Va
cati
onBeach
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Du
ncan
1/
45Mills
Nitrite
.an(
* Turbidity
nitr
ate
as N
Maxi
mum
7/39
14/3
9
20/39
30/39
-
30/39
6/39
29/3
926/39
30/44
26/45
10/45
-
3/45
2/45
9/45
TABLE
7.
- Stations where
State
water-quality objectives we
re not
attained,
U>
1973
-78
low-flow seasons Continued
Property or
co
nsti
tuent
and
objective
o,.
. .
, -,
. r
Specific
Dissolved
7T
Stat
ion
numb
er
coliform
, pH
, ,
conductance
oxygen
and
name
bacteria
1976
1146
1000
1146
2000
1146
2050
1146
2690
1146
3000
1146
3150
1146
3210
1146
3400
1146
3500
1146
3680
L1464010
1146
5400
1146
6800
1146
6850
1146
7000
1146
7002
1146
7006
1146
7210
90-
90-
Me-
per-
Me-
per-
Mini-
Me-
Mini-
Maxi-
dian
cent
dian
cent
mum
dian
mu
m mu
mva
lue
value
Russ
ian
Rive
r ne
ar Uk
iah
X X
1/11
East
Fo
rk Ru
ssia
n Ri
ver
near Uk
iah
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Ukiah
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Ho
plan
dRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
near
_____
_Cloverdale
Russ
ian
River
at Pr
esto
nBi
g Su
lphu
r Creek
at mouth
XX
- -
near
Cloverdale
Russ
ian
River
at Asti
Russ
ian
River
at
- -
Geys
ervi
lle
Russ
ian
River
at Al
exan
der
1/11
Vall
ey Ro
ad Br
idge
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
- -
Heal
dsbu
rgRu
ssia
n River
at Wo
hler
Brid
geMark We
st Creek
near
X
X X
X -
-Mi
rabe
l He
ight
sRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
at Mi
rabe
lHe
ight
sRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
near
Guerneville
Russian River
at
- -
John
son'
s Be
ach
Russ
ian
Rive
r at Vacation
Beac
hRu
ssia
n River
at Du
ncan
Mills
Nitr
ite
.?n(
* Tu
rbid
ity
nitr
ate
as N
Maxi
mu
m
5/11 -
4/11
2/11
4/11
3/10
5/11
3/11
3/11 - 1/11
1/11
TABLE
7.
- St
atio
ns wh
ere
Stat
e water-quality objectives we
re not
attained,
1973
-78
low-flow seasons Continued
Feca
l St
atio
n number
coliform
and
name
bacteria
1977
1146
1000
1146
2000
1146
2050
1146
2690
1146
3000
1146
3150
1146
3210
1146
3400
11463500
1146
3680
1146
4010
1146
5400
11466800
1146
6850
1146
7000
1146
7002
1146
7006
1146
7210
90-
Me-
per-
dian
ce
ntva
lue
Russ
ian
River
near
Uk
iah
East
Fo
rk Ru
ssia
n Ri
ver
near Uk
iah
Russ
ian
Rive
r at Ukiah
Russ
ian
River
at Ho
plan
dRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
near
Cloverdale
Russ
ian
River
at Pr
esto
nBi
g Su
lphu
r Cr
eek
at mouth
near Cloverdale
Russ
ian
River
at Asti
Russ
ian
River
atGe
yser
vill
eRu
ssia
n River
at Alexander
Valley Ro
ad Br
idge
Russ
ian
River
atHealdsburg
Russ
ian
River
at Wohler
Bridge
Mark West Creek
near
X
XMi
rabe
l He
ight
sRu
ssia
n Ri
ver
at Mi
rabe
lHe
ight
sRu
ssia
n River
near
Guerneville
Russian River at
John
son'
s Beach
Russ
ian
River
at Vacation
Beac
hRu
ssia
n River
at Du
ncan
Mills
Property or co
nsti
tuen
t
Spec
ific
Di
ssol
ved
conductance
oxygen
90-
Me-
per-
Mi
ni-
Me
dian
cent
mum
dian
valu
e
X X
4/11
X
X
X X X 1/22
X X X
X X
11/16
X
X 1/22
X 2/27
X 2/22
X X X
1/22
and
obje
ctiv
e
Nitr
ite
pH
.f1"*
Turbidity
* ni
trat
eas N
Mini
- Ma
xi-
Maxi
mum
mum
mum
2/10
1/21
2/21
10/2
2
3/22
3/21
2/21
6/21
3/15
2/22
6/27
3/22
3/22
5/22
TABLE
7.
- Stations where
State
water-quality objectives were no
t attained,
1973
-78
low-
flow
seasons Continued
Station number
and
name
Fecal
coliform
bacteria
Property or
constituent
and
objective
Specific
cond
ucta
nce
Diss
olve
d oxygen
pH
90-
90-
Me-
per-
Me-
per-
dian
cent
dian
cent
value
value
Mini
mum
Me
dian
Mini-
Maxi
mum
mum
Nitrite
and
nitrate
as N
Maxi
mum
Turb
idit
y
1978
11461000
11462000
1146
2050
11462690
1146
3000
1146
3150
11463210
11463400
1146
3500
1146
3680
11464010
11465400
11466800
11466850
11467000
11467002
11467006
11467210
Russian River near Ukiah
East Fork Russian River
near Uk
iah
Russian River at
Ukiah
Russian River at
Hopland
Russian River near
Cloverdale
Russian River at
Preston
Big
Sulp
hur
Cree
k at
mo
uth
near Cloverdale
Russian River at
Asti
Russian River at
Geys
ervi
lle
Russian River at
Alexander
Valley Road Bridge
Russian River at
Healdsburg
Russian River at
Wohler
Bridge
Mark
West
Creek
near
XMirabel Heights
Russian River at
Mirabel
Heig
hts
Russian
Rive
r near
Guer
nevi
lle
Russian River at
Johnson's
Beac
hRussian River at
Vacation
Beach
Russian River at
Duncan
Mills
X 3/16
4/15
1/21
1/17
2/17
X X
10/19
3/19
2/19
1/21
1/21
X X
10/20
X
1/18
Aquatic Community Metabolism
Aquatic community metabolism is related to primary productivity (the rate of formation of organic substances by producer organisms) and respiration (the rate of breakdown of organic substances to oxidation products, particularly carbon dioxide by consumer and producer organisms to obtain energy for life processes). Information about aquatic community metabolism for the Russian River is important because nuisance growths of algae (the principal components of the aquatic community responsible for primary productivity) have occurred in the past. Knowledge about the relative amounts of primary production and respiration in the Russian River during the low-flow season can help determine the general trophic (nutritional) status of the river, the propensity for nuisance algal growths to occur, and the likelihood of dissolved-oxygen reduction to levels, below which certain aquatic species die.
Changes in dissolved-oxygen concentration in water over a diel (24-hour period) can be used to estimate aquatic community metabolism because oxygen is produced during photosynthesis and utilized during respiration. The rate of change of dissolved oxygen per unit area of aquatic environment is related to primary productivity and respiration by the equation (Greeson and others, 1977, p. 269):
Q = P-R±D + A where
Q = rate of change (gain or loss) of dissolved oxygen per unit area (net primary productivity),
P = rate of gross primary productivity per unit area,
R = rate of oxygen utilization (respiration) per unit area,
D = rate of oxygen uptake or loss by diffusion per unit area,depending on whether the water is undersaturated or oversaturated with oxygen with respect to the air, and
A = rate of supply of oxygen from drainage accrual.
To obtain an estimate of community metabolism in the Russian River during the low-flow season, a diel study was done during August 1977 at two stations: Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680) and Russian River near Guerneville (11467000). The diel study involved continuously monitoring water temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen using multi- electrode water-quality monitors. The electrodes were submersed in the water at the centroid of flow and mid-depth with an electrical cable connecting them to a readout module placed on the river bank. Electrode readings displayed on the readout module were recorded at 15-minute to 2-hour intervals. At the start of the study, electrodes were calibrated onsite. At the start and periodically throughout the study, electrode readings were compared to portable meter readings taken at a number of points across the flow width. Electrode and meter readings were the same. Water-discharge measurements were made at the start and end of the study. Water discharge, based on these measurements at both stations, varied little, throughout the study.
66
Data from the diel study at both stations were analyzed using a Fortran computer program (Primary Production, J330) developed by Stephens and Jennings (1976). The single-station option of the program was used which calculates daytime net production, night respiration, and 24-hour community metabolism for flowing water at a single location. Diffusion was expressed as a coef ficient and was calculated according to the Bennett and Rathbun (1972) method using average water depth and velocity. The arithmetic difference between daytime net production and night respiration was 24-hour community metabolism (equivalent to Q in the equation previously given).
This approach to computing community metabolism assumes: (1) incoming water has a metabolic history similar to outflowing water; (2) reaeration is constant over a 24-hour period; (3) a known or no horizontal exchange of oxygen; (4) production only occurs during daytime, whereas, night changes in dissolved oxygen (after correcting for diffusion) are because of respiration; and (5) a sufficient plant biomass exists to create a daytime increase in dissolved oxygen due to photosynthesis. In addition, no assumption about daytime respiration is made; that is, it is not assumed that daytime respi ration is equal to night respiration, thus, gross primary productivity cannot be calculated. Furthermore, at the stations studied there should be little or no turbulence and any accrual or loss of water must be known. These assump tions and requirements seem to have been satisfied for the two stations studied: river characteristics upstream of these stations were similar to those at the stations, streamflow was nearly constant and nonturbulent through out the study, there was little or no cross-sectional variation in properties monitored (indicating a well-mixed condition), and a sufficient plant biomass was present to provide a daytime increase in dissolved oxygen due to photo synthesis (fig. 29).
Diel community metabolism values computed for the stations Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680) and Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) were -11.14 and -12.21 g 02/(m2 /d), respectively. The P/R (Production/Respiration Ratio) values for these stations were -0.20 and -0.85, respectively. These values show that more respiration than production occur red at both stations during the diel study. In other words, some photo- synthetic production of oxygen occurred, but it was not sufficient to offset respiration. Thus, either the oxygen demand of the water or the oxygen demand of the biota and sediment was high. The latter seems more likely because COD values were usually low (<15 mg/L) throughout the main stem of the Russian River during the 1977 low-flow season.
These results indicate that heterotrophic (oxygen utilizing) aquatic communities predominate at both stations studied. In addition, depletion of dissolved oxygen to levels deleterious to some aquatic plants and animals appears to be a likely possibility, especially in pooled sections of the river where reaeration is less. But, the likelihood of nuisance algal growths occurring, given the persistence of conditions during the diel study, appears to be low.
67
DIF
FU
SIO
N C
OR
RE
CT
ED
RA
TE
OF
OX
YG
EN
CH
AN
GE
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
RD
ISS
OLV
ED
OX
YG
EN
SA
TU
RA
TIO
N,
IN P
ER
CE
NT
DIS
SO
LV
ED
OX
YG
EN
, IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R LIT
ER
oo
c: 30 I o
_
K)
^
K> OI
O
O C
K)
3
O
p
pCD
CO
P
Pb)
Ln
P
P
p
o
'.&>
co
ro
'->P
o
o
'_»
P
P
ro
coP
O
)-e>
o
I i
zzzzzzzzzzz
I i
I
ON
CD
C
3) I O
i§
pH
, IN
U
NIT
SS
PE
CIF
IC C
ON
DU
CT
AN
CE
, IN
M
ICR
OM
HO
S
PE
R C
EN
TIM
ET
ER
A
T 2
5°
CE
LS
IUS
WA
TE
R T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
, IN
D
EG
RE
ES
CE
LS
IUS
CO M
-^
O
CD
J_
__
__
__
I__
__
__
I
Changes in the properties monitored during the diel study are shown in figure 29. For all properties except specific conductance, the values in creased during daylight hours and decreased during the night. In a stream whose water quality is controlled by microbial processes, these are the usual diel patterns observed because of the daylight (increased productivity and solar heating) to darkness (decreased productivity and heat loss) cycle. Dissolved-oxygen changes had greater amplitude at Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680) than at Russian River near Guerneville (11467000) indicating a more dynamic aquatic community existed at the upstream station (11463680). Dissolved-oxygen values during most of the daylight period were greater at the upstream station. At the upstream station, daylight dissolved- oxygen sometimes exceeded 100 percent saturation resulting in positive values for diffusion corrected rate of change of dissolved oxygen (fig. 29). At night, dissolved-oxygen values at the upstream station (11463680) were usually less than those at the downstream station (11467000). Changes in specific conductance and pH followed similar patterns at both stations.
Periphyton
Periphyton is the community of microorganisms that is attached to or lives upon submerged objects in water. This definition of periphyton includes bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and rotifers, but periphyton usually consists primarily of algae. Periphyton is discussed separately from other properties and constituents in this report because samples were obtained only during 1977 and 1978, and then a maximum of 2 samples per station per year were collected. Periphyton is important to study in the Russian River because dislodged peri- phytic algae contribute significantly to the amount of floating algae present in the water during low-flow seasons and attached algae probably account for much of the primary production in the Russian River. Samples were collected to provide an estimate of seasonal and yearly changes in periphyton composition and cellular contents. Because the length of exposure (colonization period) varied, results are expressed on a weight/area/day basis to provide values comparable between years, between seasons, and among stations (table 8).
As shown in table 8 and figure 30, the biomass chlorophyll-a ratio, AI (autotrophic index), was markedly greater during 1977 than during 1978. Figures 31 and 32 and table 8 show that this difference in AI was due to appreciably greater chlorophyll-^ values during 1978; organic weight (biomass) values do not appear to be much different during 1977 and 1978. During 1977, AI values were greater than 500 with most values considerably larger than 1000, which means that the periphyton was predominantly composed of organisms not having chlorophyll (for example, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and rotifers) and (or) that an appreciable amount of nonliving organic matter was present. If the latter was the case, the source of the nonliving organic matter was not the water because the water at all stations except Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights (11466800) was nearly always low in turbidity (<10 NTU) and organic matter (COD values <20 mg/L) during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. AI values are usually between 50 and 100 for water not receiving waste material (clean-water streams) (Weber, 1973). Yet, for the Russian River during 1977, chlorophyll-a values were very low (<0.I(mg/m2 )/d) and organic weight values were not particularly high. The primary determinant of the high AI values during 1977 was the low chlorophyll-a values, not high organic weights.
70
AI values during 1978 were seldom greater than 1000 with most values less than 500 (fig. 30). These values were closer to those expected for clean-water streams and indicate that algae were more prevalent in the periphyton during 1978 and were probably the predominant organisms when AI values were less than 100. Streamflows were greater during 1978 than 1977 (figs. 10 and 11). This might be the reason for the difference in composition of the periphyton during those years. Greater Streamflows during the rainy season would probably result in more organic material being deposited on the streambed and thus increase nutrient availability to algae. Also, and probably more important, greater Streamflows during the 1978 low-flow season would make more habitat available for periphyton (more streambed covered by water) and because of greater water depth, the likelihood of excessive light exposure (photooxidation) suppressing periphyton growth would be less.
Seasonal differences in periphyton chlorophyll-a and organic weight are hard to determine because of the number of missing values. Early and late summer chlorophyll-^ values generally appear to be similar, whereas early and late summer organic weights generally appear to be different (figs. 31 and 32). This indicates that during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons, the algal por tion of the periphyton was more stable than the heterotrophic portion of the periphyton in the Russian River.
Chlorophyll-a., organic weight, and AI values did vary from station to station, but no consistent pattern was apparent during 1977 and 1978.
All algae contain chlorophyll-a., but green algae and euglenophytes also contain chlorophyll-b. Thus, the ratio between chlorophyll-^ and chlorophyll-b can help to determine the proportion of green algae and euglenophytes in peri phyton. The ratio of chlorophyll-a to chlorophyll-b during 1978 generally was about twice that of 1977 (table 8), indicating that green algae and (or) euglenophytes composed a lesser portion of the periphyton during 1978 than during 1977. Early and late summer ratios were generally similar, indicating that the proportion of green algae and (or) euglenophytes in the periphyton did not change during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. Ratios are low (£5.00) at Russian River at Ukiah (11462050), Russian River at Hopland (11462690), Russian River at Wohler Bridge (11465400), and Russian River at Johnson's Beach (11467002). This indicates that green algae and (or) euglenophytes were significant components of the periphyton at these stations.
71
TABL
E 8.
- Pe
riph
yton
-cel
lula
r co
nten
ts
Stat
ion
number
1146
1000
1146
2000
1146
2050
1146
2690
1146
3000
1146
3150
1146
3210
1146
3400
1146
3500
1146
3680
Stat
ion
name
Russian River
near
Ukiah.
East Fo
rk Ru
ssia
n River
near
Ukiah.
Russ
ian
River
atUkiah.
Russ
ian
River
atHo
plan
d.
Russ
ian
River
near
Clov
erda
le.
Russ
ian
River
atPreston.
Big
Sulp
hur
Cree
k at
mouth
near
Cl
over
dale
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Asti.
Russ
ian
River
atGe
yser
vill
e.
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Alexander
Valley
Road
Bridge
Date
Days
polyethylene
of
strip
exposure
retr
ieve
d
June
July
Oct.
June
Sept.
Sept.
June
Sept.
Oct.
June
Sept
.
June
Sept.
July
June
Sept
.Ju
ly
Sept.
July
Oct.
June
Sept
.July
Oct.
June
Sept.
July
Oct.
June
Sept
.Ju
lyOct.
21,
19,
12,
21, 8, 12,
21, 8, 12, 3, 8, 2, 8, 6, 22,
27,
18, 7, 6, 12, 2, 7, 6,
12, 2, 7, 6, 13,
23, 7, 7,
11,
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1977
1977
1977
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1978
1978
40 34 31 40 29 77 40 29 31 22 29 21 29 21 42 48 33 29 22 30 22 29 22 30 22 29 22 30 43 29 23 29
Orga
nic
weig
ht
((mg/m^/d)
36.8
135 19.4
83.0
51.4
14.3
57.8
341.4
11.3 --
167
136
338 56.2
85.7
56.2
78.8
30.0
545
140
--44
5 17.9
96.7
368
283
236
633 59.1
317
161 70.7
Chlorophyll-a
((mg/m
2)/d)
0.00
0.164
.219
.007
.010
.025
.018
.003
.007
.000
.007
.015
.023
1.02 .011
.014
.839
.031
2.43 .757
.023
.002
.007
1.44 .023
.024
.841
1.25 .014
.066
1.34
1.43
Biom
ass
Chlorophyll-b
(organic
Chlo
roph
yll-
a ((
mg/m
2)/d)
weig
ht)
Chlo
roph
yll-
b Chlorophyll-a
rati
o ratio
0,00
2.0
20.0
43
.001
.000
.009
.028
.002
.004
.000
.006 _-
.000
.167
.027
.004
.094
.002
.000
.083
.027
.002
.000
.050
.009
.003
.034
.273
.005
.000
.130
.121
__82
7 88
12 4 3107 1
24
9 14 7 3
268 2
16 11 4 4
,340
,967
570
,300
,610
,662 -_
,200
,137
,800 55
,826
,930 94
967
225
185 --
,800
,627 67
,200
,570
281
505
,233
,842 120 49
__8.20
5.09
7.00 --
2.78 .64
1.50
1.75
1.17 __ --
6.11 .41
3.5
8.93
15.5
0 --9.12 .85
1.00 --
28.80
2.56
8.00
24.7
44.58
2.80 --
10.31
11.82
TABL
E 8.
- Pe
riph
yton
cellular contents Continued
-J
OJ
Stat
ion
number
1146
4010
1146
5400
1146
6800
1146
6850
1146
7000
1146
7002
1146
7006
1146
7210
Stat
ion
name
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Heal
dsbu
rg.
Russ
ian
Rive
r at
Wohler Br
idge
.
Mark West Cr
eek
near
Mira
bel
Heights.
Russ
ian
River
atMi
rabe
l Heights.
Russ
ian
Rive
r ne
arGuerneville.
Russ
ian
River
atJo
hnso
n's
Beach.
Russ
ian
River
atVacation Beach.
Russ
ian
River
atDu
ncan
Mills.
nean
Stan
dard error
of mean-
Numb
er of sa
mple
s---
----
Date
Days
polyethylene
of
strip
expo
sure
retrieved
June
Sept.
July
Oct.
May
Sept.
July
July
July
Oct.
May
July
Oct.
July
Sept.
Oct.
Sept.
May
July
Sept.
July
1, 7,25,
11,
25,
28, 7, 1, 7, 11,
24, 6, 11,
21, 6, 11,
20,
31,
18,
20, 6,
1977
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1978
1978
1977
1978
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1978
1977
1978
1977
1978
1977
1978
22 29 19 29 15 51 23 22 23 29 14 21 30 38 29 30 43 22 33 43 21
Orga
nic
weight
((mg/m
5)/
d)
--345
184 63.8
393 33.3
82.6
47.8
138
307
176
370
__81
.4297 14.6 --
93.9 69.5
30.0
178
154 30.5
33.1
23 24
Chlo
roph
yll-
a Ch
loro
phyl
l-b
((mg
/m2)/d)~
((mg/m
2)/
d)
0.005
.000
1.62
1.57 .005
.005
.232
.009
.428
.321
.024
1.58 .620
.052
.059
1.25 .022
.000
.165
.002
.093
0.01
6.819
.003
.137
29 24
0.003
.000
.117
.120
.003
.001
.084
.004
.110
.045
.006
.123
.055
.032
.002
.105
.006
.000
.025
.000
.017
0.006
.076
.002
.013
28 24
Biom
ass
(org
anic
Ch
loro
phyl
l-a
weig
ht)
Chlorophyll-b
Chlo
roph
yll-
a ratio
ratio -- -- 114 41
85,510
6,43
9356 -- 112
429
12,680 111
597 --
1,37
223
8
653 --
568
32,860 321
30,200
427
13,350 120 21 24
1. 13.
13. 1. 5, 2. 2. 3. 7. 4. 12.
11. 1.
29.
11. 3. 6. 5. 4, 9. 1. 1.
20 22
.67 -- .85
.08
.67
.00
.76
.25
.89
.13
.00
.85
.27
.62
.5 .90
.67 -- .60 -- .47
.72
.59
.52
.42
AUTOTROPHIC INDEX
STATION*NUMBER 11461000
11462000
11462050
11462690
1 1463000
11463150
11463210
11463400
11463500
1 1463680
5 11464010
ID 11465400mw 11466800 o
I 11466850 ^ 1 lAKinnn
<g 11467002
5' 11467006
1 11467210 o3- <! +
O
3
c 11461000
^ 11462000 o = 11462050
5- 11462690Q.
x 11463000
11463150
11463210
1 1463400
11463500
1 14OoOoU
11464010
11465400
11466800
1 1466850
11467000
11467002
11467006
11467210
_, c
a i § I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1No value No value
No value
No value
No value
No value No value
No value No value
No value No value^^^^^^
No value^^~^]
No value No value No value
No value
No value
No value No value
No value
No value
^~¥
No value
i
No value
No value No value
No value
No value . ,i i i i l i l i 1 l 1 1 i l i 1 i 1 l l l i l l l l
S i 3 0 C 3 O C
§ § i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
m
m
3J
(O--j
2Hm 3J
3J
(O
00
D 1X
> > r-H 3 >m |- 2
£ 2 5 2 C
m 1 2 3) m
3)
i l i l I i i 1 1 i I i i i i i l
-n
c3DmCO'I
o3" O>
</>5" o to 5'3-
-» O 3O
O 0 o3"
Q)
STATION NUMBER 11461000
11462000
11462050
11462690
11463000
11463150
11463210
11463400
11463500
11463680
11464010
1 1465400
11466800
11466850
1 1467000
11467002
11467006
11467210
11461000
11462000
11462050
1 1462690
11463000
11463150
11463210
11463400
11463500
11463680
11464010
11465400
11466800
11466850
11467000
11467002
11467006
11467210
8 § P g I -»_*_» O C
0.000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N^value^^^^^^^ <
^^^^^^^ n i " - " U 1 m 30.000 X ^
.,., __ 1 -I -n > -n
No value ^ <2 iJ j
l 3) m
i
. ~l
Tooo^^^^^
,No value
No value
-.,-, - 'No value
^^io.ooo No value No value
§
No value £! ^^_^*^^
No value ^ 1 >No value 2) No value _,
No value So
No value
1
i^^^l
No value
No valuei
No value No value
No value
No value1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
bb
U
<
600
O DC £
550
DC LU H
500
DC
450
D £>
400
DC LU W
35°
2 DC
30
0
i|
250
Z K.
20
0
I Lu
15
0§ O 2
100
I
50
WA
TE
R Y
EA
R
19
77
_
r
-*J
III
o> O Z0
^£8
8 S
8L
JU
J Q
Q
Q
(Q
C
O ,_
CM
CM
CN
^
CD
CD
CD
CO
-,
11 1
°n °
at
1-1 10> lo o z
o> o
>3
3
(D
(D
]o o
22
QJ
QJ
Q)
fl>
O
J 0
}.-
33
3
_
3 3
_3
(0
(0
(D
(D (0
(D
OO
O
OO
O
Z Z
Z
[-j Z
Z Z
WA
TE
R Y
EA
R
1978
^ 10)
0
)0
)0
)
O) B
0)
3
^
3D
_3
3
co
co
co c
o H
co H
co
j
EX
PL
AN
AT
ION
i
EA
RL
Y S
UM
ME
R
1 1
LA
TE
SU
MM
ER
- -
I,o> 3
(D O Z
- - __
0)
CU ^1 O
0
)
-3-=
! B
i_
CO
CO ^1
CO
CD
o o |o
|o
zz|z
|zO
OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
CN
CD
O
OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
OO
OC
NC
DO
om
»-o
oco
»- o
oin
oo
o»
-
ooino)om
»-oooO
'-ooinooO
'-O
'-C
N^fin
CD
O'^
OO
OO
OO
OC
N
OO
OC
DO
'-C
N'i-in
CD
O'a
-O
OO
OO
OO
CN
CO
CD
CD
tD
CD
CD
cO
CD
C
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
C^ ^
^
^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^
^
CO
Z I-,-*-*-*-,-,-*-.-*-,-
i-
r- ,-,-,-<
-<
-
r-
r-
r-
r- rr-rrri-ri-^i-rr-
r-
T-
FIG
UR
E 3
2. - C
hang
es \
n pe
riphy
ton
orga
nic
wei
ght.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
During the low-flow season (May to October), water quality and streamflow in the Russian River basin were studied during water years 1973 through 1978 to document water-quality and streamflow conditions in the basin and to determine the extent and cause(s) of any water-quality impairment. The most important factors affecting surface-water quality and streamflow in the Russian River basin during the 1973-78 low-flow seasons were wastewater dis charges, their abatement beginning in 1975, and the drought during 1976 and 1977.
During the 1974 low-flow season, concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria, at most sampling stations, were not in accordance with water-quality objectives. Fecal-coliform bacteria, nitrate, ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and orthophosphorus decreased markedly after 1974, coinciding with the imple mentation of regulations stipulating no discharge of wastewater during the low-flow season. After 1974, water-quality objectives for fecal-coliform bacteria were met at all stations except Mark West Creek near Mirabel Heights (11466800). Until 1978, the Mark West Creek drainage continued to receive wastewater during the low-flow season from the basin's principal urban area, Santa Rosa and nearby communities.
Rainfall and streamflows in the Russian River basin were much less than normal during the drought (water years 1976 and 1977). The effect of the drought on the flow of the Russian River was more evident in the lower part of the basin (near Guerneville) than it was in the upper part of the basin (near Ukiah) where flows are regulated by Coyote Dam.
Abnormally low rainfall and streamflows in the basin during the drought resulted in some improvement in water quality. Generally, turbidity and inorganic and organic nitrogen were least during the 1977 low-flow season.
Deleterious effects of the drought on the quality of surface water in the basin were increases in specific conductance and pH and decreases in dissolved oxygen that, at most stations, resulted in these water-quality properties not being in accordance with water-quality objectives during the 1977 low-flow season.
Water releases from Lake Mendocino compose most of the flow of the Russian River during the low-flow season. These releases appear to influence specific conductance, total nitrate, turbidity, and phytoplankton values in the Russian River because the patterns of yearly change in values of these water-quality properties and constituents were similar to those in water releases from Lake Mendocino. However, concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria, total ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and dissolved orthophosphorus in the Russian River do not appear to be influenced by water releases from Lake Mendocino because the patterns of yearly change in values of these water- quality properties and constituents were not similar to those in water releases from Lake Mendocino.
A large increase in phytoplankton occurred from 1976 to 1977. This increase in phytoplankton probably was due to a reduction in water turbidity and streamflow during that time.
77
During the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons, the flow of the Russian River was variable and did not follow a consistent pattern. This was due to vari able water releases from Lake Mendocino to meet the variable water needs of downstream users.
During the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons, the temperature of release water from Lake Mendocino increased. This probably resulted from a greater contribution of warm water from the epilimnion (upper zone in a stratified water body) to release water, as the reservoir was drawn down during the low-flow season.
Fecal-streptococcal bacteria concentrations increased during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. Fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations were less than fecal streptococcal bacteria concentrations and increased only slightly or did not increase during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons.
During the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons, turbidity, total ammonia plus organic nitrogen, and total nitrite plus nitrate values generally decreased. The similarity in the pattern of nitrogen and turbidity changes during 1977 and 1978 suggests that organic and inorganic nitrogen in the Russian River are associated with suspended matter.
Algal growth in the Russian River depends on the amount of nitrogen in the water and is not limited by the amount of phosphorus in the water. Decreases in algal growth potential during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons generally correspond to decreases in nitrogen. Algal growth potential did not follow the pattern of dissolved orthophosphorus concentrations that changed only slightly during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons. Correlation coef ficients between algal growth potential and total nitrite plus nitrate were greater than or equal to 0.95. Correlation coefficients between algal growth potential and dissolved orthophosphorus were zero or negative.
During the 1977 low-flow season, the extent of the periphytic community and, hence, oxygen production were regulated by streamflow. At Russian River near Guerneville (11467000), dissolved oxygen changed from a high of 164 percent saturation in May 1977 when the flow was 39.0 ft 3 /s to 82 percent saturation in June 1977 when the flow was 22.6 ft 3 /s. During this period of unusually low streamflows, changes in streamflow greatly affected the amount of streambed under water and the amount of light reaching the submerged streambed. Photoinhibition may occur when too much light reaches periphyton. Also, physical aeration of the water was reduced at lower streamflows.
During this study, basin geomorphology, diversion of water and diversion impoundments, recreational impoundments and associated human activities, land use (other than wastewater discharges), and tidewater had little effect on the low-flow water quality of the Russian River. Only in reach type 1 (from Mirabel Park to Jenner) did basin geomorphology appear to affect water quality. Less riverbed gradient, slower flows, and more pools in this reach of the river probably helped to promote phytoplankton growth, therefore, greater phytoplankton counts were observed in this reach of the river than in others. Water diversion did decrease the flow of the river, but water-quality changes were limited to increased pH and water temperatures resulting from water impoundment behind the inflatable dam near the Ranney collectors. The only effect of recreational impoundments on water quality appeared to be a slight increase in fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations downstream of some of these impoundments. Water-contact recreation in the vicinity of these impoundments was probably responsible for the observed increased fecal- coliform bacteria concentrations.
78
Big Sulphur Creek and Mark West Creek did affect water quality of the Russian River during the low-flow season. Specific conductance and pH values of the Russian River were greater downstream of Big Sulphur Creek. Dissolved- solids and specific-conductance values of this creek are determined by geology and geothermal activity. Greater pH values in Big Sulphur Creek than in the Russian River probably were due to the lesser flows and turbidity and greater nitrate concentrations. These conditions enhance algal growth and increase pH as a result of C02 uptake. Specific-conductance values and concentrations of orthophosphorus and phytoplankton in the Russian River were greater downstream of Mark West Creek. Due mostly to the influence of wastewater discharges, Mark West Creek had greater values of most water-quality properties and constitutuents than did the Russian River.
The West Fork of the Russian River had no effect on water quality of the main stem because its flow composed a very small proportion of the flow of the main stem during the low-flow season.
During the low-flow season, local climatic conditions have an important impact on the water temperature of the Russian River. As cold water released from Lake Mendocino proceeds downstream, it is markedly warmed in climatic areas receiving little ocean influence. Releases of cold bottom water from Lake Mendocino probably maintain downstream water temperatures within the range of tolerance of certain aquatic organisms (for example, salmon and trout), inhibit aquatic community respiration, and minimize nuisance growths of phytoplankton and periphyton.
Results of the diel study indicate that in the Russian River during the low-flow season, photosynthetic production of oxygen is not sufficient to offset respiration. Thus, depletion of dissolved oxygen to levels deleterious to some aquatic plants and animals appears to be likely. The section of the river most likely to be affected is the reach downstream of Mirabel Park that has the least gradient, slowest water velocities, most pooled sections, and, therefore, least potential for reaeration by physical mechanisms such as diffusion. The likelihood of nuisance algal growths occurring appears to be low if the heterotroph-dominated aquatic community that was present during the diel study persists. This conclusion is supported by periphyton data that indicate periphyton at most stations during the 1977 and 1978 low-flow seasons was dominated by organisms not having chlorophyll.
79
EVALUATION OF DATA-COLLECTION PROGRAM
The data-collection program used in this study consisted of scheduled sampling and special monitoring (diel study) during that part of each year in which streamflow and water quality are most likely to impact beneficial water uses; that is, the low-flow season. Data collected were useful for document ing streamflow and water-quality conditions in the basin and for determining the extent and cause of water-quality impairment.
Because the water quality of the Russian River has markedly improved as a result of controlling the primary cause of water-quality impairment in the basin (discharge of wastewater during the low-flow season) the primary reason for continuing data collection has been eliminated. Nevertheless, some data collection could be done to alert water managers to changing streamflow and water-quality conditions.
Adequate areal coverage could be provided by measuring streamflow and sampling at East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000), Russian River at Alexander Valley Road Bridge (11463680), and Russian River near Guerneville (11467000). These stations are at key locations on the Russian River (reser voir release, boundary between mostly agricultural and mostly urban areas, and high recreational-use area, respectively). The properties and constituents, and sampling frequencies used in this study would be sufficient to alert water managers to changing water-quality conditions.
In addition, diel and other special studies could be done to quantify the likelihood of dissolved-oxygen depletion and nuisance algal growths in sensi tive reaches of the river, especially the low-gradient, slow-water-velocity reach downstream of Mirabel Park.
One or two key stations, East Fork Russian River near Ukiah (11462000) and (or) Russian River near Guerneville (11467000), could be sampled during the high-flow season for the properties and constituents sampled for during the low-flow season. Data provided by this sampling would be helpful in documenting high-flow water quality and its effect, if any, on low-flow water quality.
80
SELECTED REFERENCES
American Public Health Association and others, 1971, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater [13th ed.]: New York, American Public Health Association, 874 p.
----- 1976, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater [14th ed.]: Washington, D.C., 1193 p.
Bennett, J. P., and Rathbun, R. E. , 1972, Reaeration in open-channel flow: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 737, 75 p.
Blake, M. C., Jr., Smith, J. T. , Wentworth, C. M., and Wright, R. H. , 1971, Preliminary geologic map of western Sonoma County and northernmost Marin County, California: U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Geological Survey open-file map, 5 maps.
Brown, Eugene, Skougstad, M. W. , and Fishman, M. J., 1970, Methods for collec tion and analysis of water samples for dissolved minerals and gases: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter Al, 160 p.
California Department of Public Health, 1971, Collection, storage, transporta tion, and pretreatment of water and wastewater samples: 15 p.
California Department of Water Resources, 1968, Russian River watershed water quality investigation: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 143-4, 281 p.
----- 1975, Evaluation of ground water resources--Sonoma County: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118-4, v. 1: Geologic and hydro- logic data, 177 p.
California Department of Water Resources, 1976, Development and implementation of a coordinated statewide monitoring program Task 3, Primary surface water quality monitoring network design: Report to State Water Resources Control Board, 56 p., 4 appendices.
----- 1980, Water action plan for the Russian River service area: 138 p. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, 1975,
Bacterial quality of the Russian River, Sonoma and Mendocino Counties,California: 17 p., 4 appendices.
----- 1976, Bacterial quality of the Russian River, Sonoma and MendocinoCounties, California: 33 p., 4 appendices.
California State Water Resources Control Board, 1975a, Program for waterquality surveillance and monitoring in California: 138 p.
----- 1975b, Water quality control plan report North coastal basin: Part 1, 62 p., part 2, 121 p.
Carter, R. W., and Davidian, Jacob, 1968, General procedure for gaging streams: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 3, Chapter A6, 13 p.
Dixon, W. J. , and Massey, F. J. , 1969, Introduction to statistical analysis: New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 638 p.
Fox, K. F., Jr., Sims, J. D. , Bartow, J. A., and Helley, E. J. , 1973, Prelim inary geologic map of eastern Sonoma County and western Napa County, California: U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 483, 4 maps.
81
Geldreich, E. E., 1966, Sanitary significance of fecal coliforms in the envi ronment: U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 119 p.
Greeson, P. E., Ehlke, T. A., Irwin, G. A., Lium, B. W., and Slack, K. V., 1977, Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic biological and microbiological samples: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water- Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter A4, 332 p.
Helwig, J. T., and Council, K. A., eds., 1979, SAS user's guide: Raleigh, N.C., SAS Institute, Inc., 494 p.
Hoadley, A. W. , 1968, On the significance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in surface waters: New England Water Works Association Journal, v. 82, no. 2, p. 99-111.
Rantz, S. E., 1969, Mean annual precipitation in the California Region: U.S. Geological Survey Basic-Data Compilation, 1 map.
Skougstad, M. W., Fishman, M. J., Friedman, L. C., Erdmann, D. E., andDuncan, S. S., 1979, Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Chapter Al, 626 p.
Stephens, D. W. , and Jennings, M. E. , 1976, Determination of primary produc tivity and community metabolism in streams and lakes using diel oxygen measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Computer Contribution, 100 p.
Stephens, M. A., 1974, Use of Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-Von Mises, and relat ed statistics without extensive tables: American Statistical Association Journal, v. 69, p. 730.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975, Russian River basin study: Plan of study, 54 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1927-78, Climatological data for California, annual summary: Various pagination.
Weber, C. I., 1973, Recent developments in the measurement of the response of plankton and periphyton to changes in their environment, in Bioassay techniques and environmental chemistry: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., p. 119-138.
82
FIGURES 19-21, 23, 25-28
81
EXPLANATION
^ -^^STATIONS HAVING LIKE VALUES(A) or (§X\(NA) NORMAL DISTRIBUTION HYPOTHESIS NOT ACCEPTED; NA or NR^(NR) NORMAL DISTRIBUTION HYPOTHESIS NOT REJECTED
13 NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
I
MAXIMUM VALUE
-OUTLIER
-POSSIBLE OUTLIER
-75TH-PERCENTILE VALUE
-ARITHMETIC MEAN 2
-MEDIAN
-25TH-PERCENTILE VALUE
-MINIMUM VALUE
©or (B) Indicate stations having like values of the property or constituent compared as determined by a Kruskal-Wallis test when data for one or more of the stations compared are not a random sample from a normally distributed population and by a one-way analysis of variance test when data for all stations compared are random samples from normally distributed populations. Ninety-five percent confidence level used for all tests
NA Hypothesis that data are a random sample from a normally distributed population isnot accepted at the 95-percent confidence level based on the Shapiro-Wilk W-statistic when the number of observations is less than or equal to 50 and based on a modified version of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov D-statistic when the number of observations is greater than 50
NR Hypothesis that data are a random sample from a normally distributed population isnot rejected at the 95-percent confidence level based on the Shapiro-Wilk W-statistic when the number of observations is less than or equal to 50 and based on a modified version of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov D-statistic when the number of observations is greater than 50
* Outlier: Value is greater than 75th percentile or less than 25th percentile by more than 3 times the interquartile range (75th percentile minus 25th percentile)
+ Possible outlier: Value is greater than 75th percentile or less than 25th percentile by more than 1.5 times the interquartile range
1 Where maximum and (or) mean value extends beyond the grid area, the values are indicated by Max and Mean
2 Geometric mean for pH
85
co
ST
RE
AM
FL
OW
,IN
C
UB
IC
FE
ET
p
H,
INT
UR
BID
ITY
, IN
D
IS
SO
L V
ED
-OX
YG
EN
C
HE
MIC
AL O
XY
GE
NW
AT
ER
T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
, N
EP
HE
LO
ME
TR
1C
S
AT
UR
AT
ION
, D
EM
AN
D,
PE
R
SE
CO
ND
S
TA
ND
AR
D U
NIT
S
IN
DE
GR
EE
S1200
"-1
*"=
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
600
50
0
40
0
300
200
100
0
- __
® N
A
_N
R
42
4 2 >
-T _ i o CO CM CO
I 0
0 o CO co
NA
53
~
@)
NA
42
- H
f - _ - i- - _* T
i £.
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n
/j>.
NA
^
52
~
._
(A)
(A)
^N
A N
R
-
3?
1
1N
A ~
|~
|39
r~
|~] |
^ [
"ST
T^
i 1 1 -
* __
L+
_ - _
* * +
""" 3- _ _ - _ "
ou
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
10
CE
LS
IUS
T
UR
BID
ITY
U
NIT
S
IN
<D
_ _ - _ "
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O)
O
O
Oin
o
(o
o
in
cn
r*
CM
ro
n
r-3
co
CD
co
co
co
co
<D®
®N
45S
N 4R
2 -
+ -+
0
0o>
o
(O
OCN
CO
(0
(13
NR
4 -«
2 t- o 0 u fi 0 (0
-
NR
-
53
-i>- o
o c r3 (O
_ _ - _ "
OU
55
50
45
40 35
30 25
20
15
10 5 n
<2*>
NA
42
Max
70*
- _ _ - _N
A 42 1 4
-
IE
- _ _
NA
63
- -
» * ._
® NA
41
^tu
22
0
20
0
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
n
- -
(5)
NA
-
42 j I
O
0
0
0
Oen
o
o
o
o>
(O
o
in
o
<oCN
CO
CO
r-
CN
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
INP
ER
CE
NT
M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
PE
R
LIT
ER
® NA
42 I I 0 o o CO (0
(A
®l NA
42
)N
R45 I! :Er*
* * _ + ]- ! +
_ _
ou
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 5 n
- - _ _
NA
11
NR
11
®
_~
T
NR
1
£^-*-
- 2
o
o
o
o
o
o
at
oin CO CO
O
CO
Or»
CM
n
_ 2 0 o in CO CD
-
<§
NF
15 _ ) :?
- _ r 0 o o (D
11
46
26
90
- R
ussi
an
Riv
er
at
Hopla
nd (
fla
tla
nd
re
ach
-re
ach
ty
pe
2)
11463000 R
ussi
an
Riv
er
near
Clo
verd
ale
(m
ounta
inous
reac
h w
ith m
od
era
te g
rad
ien
t-re
ach
typ
e 3
)11463500 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Geys
erv
ille (f
latla
nd re
ach
-reach
typ
e 2
)11467000 R
ussi
an R
iver
near
Gu
ern
evi
lle (m
ounta
inous
reac
h w
ith
low
gra
die
nt-
reach t
yp
el)
FIG
UR
E 1
9. -
Com
paris
on o
f w
ater
qua
lity
and
stre
amflo
w a
mon
g st
atio
ns a
t lo
catio
ns r
epre
sent
ativ
e of
geo
mor
phic
rea
ch t
ypes
(co
mpa
rison
bas
edon
19
77 a
nd 1
978
wat
er y
ear
data
).
00
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IAA
ND
D
ISS
OL
VE
D
AL
GA
L G
RO
WT
H
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
N
PH
YT
OP
LA
N K
TO
NT
OT
AL
N
ITR
AT
E
OR
GA
NIC
N
ITR
OG
EN
O
RT
HO
PH
OS
PH
OR
US
, P
OT
EN
TIA
L,
IN
CO
UN
TS
, IN
N
UM
BE
RS
C
H L
OR
OP
H Y
LL
-.4
AS
N
, IN
M
ILLIG
RA
MS
A
S
N,
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
O
F C
EL
LS
IN
M
ICR
OG
RA
MS
PE
R
LIT
ER
1 .2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-® ®
N A
^ *^
21
NA
- -
2
- _ -*
-
-
I]
1
f-.
\B/
NA 21 """"a D
PE
R
LIT
ER
4
n
~
- -
NA
2
»
i
L-
0 t
en
o
o
o<o
o
m
cCM
CO
CO
f-
<o
<o
to
u<*
<*
<*
<st ) '
-
i . z
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 r
t
a 5®
29
NA
M
ax
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
LIT
ER
_
PE
R M
ILLIL
ITE
R
^
PE
R
LIT
ER
21
14*
~
- -
J-*
NA
21
® NR
21
r- -|
" -
«
.P
+
~ *"- - -
\
I"
[ -
O
O
O
Oen
o
o
ou>
o
in
oCM
CO
CO
f>
»CO
CO
CD
CO
<*
<* t t
1 .4. 1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 r\
~
~
~
- - r g)
NA
~~N
A
(g)
___
ou
55
50
45
40
35 30
25
20 15
10 5
n
""
-
~
(7&
~
NA
~
10
~ N
A ^
~
t?®
-
NA
MnT
*
^t\
i\j
22
00
20
00
1800
16
00
1400
12
00
10
00
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 f\
®I
NA
16
-11
Ma
x-j
NA
@
1100
06
Max +
N
R
4
2700+
u
7Rq6
^
-
-
-
.
- - ft
NR 11
,
"~
^
I
* I
19000
Me
an
16000.
Me
dia
n4
00
0~ -
. - - -
I £
.
11
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 f\
~ ~ - ~ - - - \
"oooo
"o
oo
o
"o
oo
o
w
o
cn
oo
o
en
o
o
o
cnooo
enco
o
m
o
co
o
in
o
to
o
in
o
<oojc
ocot^
C
MC
ocor^
CM
co
co
t>»
01
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD^
^
^
^
^t^t^t^t
t t t t
^
NA T =n o
o 0 CO (O <*
®
NA
10
^
NA 11 1-+ \ r-
*-¥-
_ - ~ ~ ~
8 8
u r (in o
0 t>
-D
(0r
<*
1146
2690
R
ussi
an
Riv
er a
t H
opla
nd (
flatla
nd
re
ach
-re
ach
typ
e 2
)11463000 R
ussi
an
Riv
er
near
Clo
verd
ale
(mo
un
tain
ou
s re
ach
with
mod
erat
e gra
die
nt-
reach
typ
e 3
)11463500 R
ussi
an R
ive
r at
Gey
serv
ille
(fla
tland r
each
-reach
typ
e 2
)11
4670
00 R
ussi
an R
ive
r ne
ar G
uern
evill
e (m
ounta
inous
reac
h w
ith l
ow
gra
die
nt-
reach
typ
el)
FIG
UR
E 1
9. -
Con
tinue
d.
60
0
ST
RE
AM
FL
OW
, IN
C
UB
IC
FE
ET
P
ER
S
EC
ON
D
SP
EC
IFIC
C
ON
DU
CT
AN
CE
,IN
M
ICR
OM
HO
S
PE
R
CE
NT
IME
TE
R A
T 25
Cp
H,
IN S
TA
ND
AR
D U
NIT
SW
AT
ER
T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
, IN
D
EG
RE
ES
C
EL
SIU
S
TU
RB
IDIT
Y,
IN
NE
PH
ELO
ME
TR
IC
TU
RB
IDIT
Y
UN
ITS
00
00
550 -
500
450
400
350
300
250 -
200
150
100
50 - - _ - -
CO co
N
~ §
-0 E CO
<D ^ O *
EJ
O
Cm
r
i-
r n
r
1C
(.fl-
*
N 4 4
A 2 -,
"* * *
At ' r
3 C C
M ^
T C
D «
T ^A
2 i ~~
co *-
co T3 § O
*-> O 2
B
) O
C
) O
C
r ^r
o
5 m
i
3 1C
I
r ^
<NX!
41
A f* i q 3 > 0 0 }
k
1 O in @ (C fl
-+
+ -
-, -
l^l>
U
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 0
- _ - _ -
N J9
NA
-
_
93
-
1|~
^
| [
1
-1- O
CT
-
CO
C 1C
I
^
«A 1 _ D N 0
C a-
NN
AN
A 1
4f "
i i L
j
LZj
1 1 -L f O
C O
C
CO
If «3
(i
fl-
^
N
1_
A 2 - f 3 + -* > 3 r
A
20
*-
NA
142
- ~
* * + +
nn I- -Lf
o
oo
w
§03
to
(C
<Ofl-
fl-
1^ 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
NA
^
(A)
92
^
NA
^ ~
~*N
A
NA
83 N
A^
117^_
1 I
1 1
I
ft S
F I
r^n
I
~H T
T?F
-I i ~
T _U
LI T
J-t
1 1 1
_
-
-_
_
o
o
o
o
o
oin
T-
o
o
o
in
<-
CN
fl-
*
00
00co
co
co
m
10
(D
CO
1C
1C
(D
CO
(0
^
^
^
^
^
^
iJA
32
30
28
26
24
22
20 18
16
14 12
10
_
NA
< ._
_j
_ |
-
"-
-
-
- _
+
O in 114631
® NR 2U
(i N 9
4
O
C*-
C
CN
* CO
C
(O
Cfl-
'3) R 5 » 3 0
D J
(A
NF
15 ~r 'o
o in (O
, N 12
1 -
5
j
-K- c C 1 I *
R 3 t_ -4 D 3 0
0 a-
N/
15 -» h
C ir a u u ^
-
) \_
5
-
~ _ -
-f
) i i r
bU 55
50
45
40 35
30
25
20 15
10 5 0
_ -
N
- _._
4 b C ir r u aA r*N 9
+ + +
+ » r '
L^
) C
> T
- C)
p3
Ur
^A r* N 9
* *
*
* *4
31
) C C
4 T
1 P
3 <J
t *
NR
119
A ^ -^^(
Aj
NA
,
+1
55
~
5l
+
*
+ +
*-1
*
* + + +
U
+
» ~H- i _L
3 0
C
3 0
C
r fl-
o
o in
«
D (D
«
t *t
*
(j N
-JJ
i
n 53
S0
0 3
U 3
Ut
*\) A V
- _ *-
*-
+-
+-
~] ) > 3 >
11463150
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
P
rest
on1
14
63
21
0 B
ig S
ulp
hur
Cre
ek
at m
ou
th
near
Clo
verd
ale
11463400 -
R
ussi
an
Riv
er
at
Ast
i1
14
65
40
0 - R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Wohle
r B
ridge
11466800 -
M
ark
Wes
t C
reek
ne
ar M
ira
be
l H
eig
hts
11466850
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
M
ira
be
l H
eig
hts
FIG
UR
E 2
0.-
Com
paris
on o
f w
ater
qua
lity
and
stre
amflo
w b
etw
een
trib
utar
y st
atio
ns a
nd m
ain-
stem
sta
tions
(c
ompa
rison
bas
ed o
n 19
73-7
8 w
ater
yea
r da
ta).
DIS
SO
LV
ED
-OX
YG
EN
S
AT
UR
AT
ION
, IN
P
ER
CE
NT
CH
EM
ICA
L O
XY
GE
ND
EM
AN
D,
IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
P
ER
L
ITE
RT
OT
AL
N
ITR
AT
E
AS
N
, IN
M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
PE
R
LIT
ER
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IA
AN
D
OR
GA
NIC
N
ITR
OG
EN
A
S
N,
IN M
ILLIG
RA
MS
P
ER
LIT
ER
CO
3OU
275
250
225
20
0
175
150
125
100
75
50 25
/^\
\°J
NR
49.
NR
1
42
-L
.
[J-i _w 1 1
0
O in T
CO to
_ _ -r 1 1
_1_ o CN CO to
N A 36
® NR
_
42
(6)
"T~
N
R
1 43
F|
1
Hri
VH
"1
iI
I_L
1 |
-
h
[
o
o
o
o
o
o^t
^t
COr>
m
to
to
to
to
^
-
&N
A
4 E-*
_ JP-
^ f.
1 Z
U
110
100
90
80 70
60
50
40
30
20 10 n
®^
NA 1
NR
11 i
~R
p
1 r*a D
a
NA 13 s>
10
NR
1
J
i
4
4
>
-j
- _ - \5/
, N
R 10"I
_^_
- _ _
Uty
i =
O
O
O
Oin
in
»-
o
c t0
r-
CD
^)
CM
'S0
Pt 1to
to
to
to
0
O
Oo
o
in
^ ur oo
oo
) (O
<O
to
(O
(O
1 ^ 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n
~
NA 83
-r*
N
A
--,
53
C
A)
NA
~~
+
100
- *
^y
V>*
.j.
_N
A
NA
H.G
UM
. fn
,
Q.
- $r
NA
+~ i »
Jg
Jc*
Ud
)0. -*_ * 3
v^ 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 f\
-
-
NA
74_
v^tX
-
_
NA
53
-
*
NA
NA
5
2
53
. *
^®
"I*
NA
-
~
*
88
1 +
*I* * *
+
~+®
+N
A_
-
*k
»
-T
EiE
3E
3E
*3-L
iio
oo
oo
o
oo
oo
oo
m
«-ooom
m
^
p
o
o
m§
( i8
00 (£(O
O(O
(O
(O
(O
to
to
to
to
to
to
11
46
31
50
Rus
sian
R
iver
at P
rest
on
11
46
32
10
-
Big
Su
lph
ur
Cre
ek
at
mo
uth
ne
ar C
love
rdale
11
46
34
00
Rus
sian
R
iver
at
Ast
i1
14
65
40
0 -
Rus
sian
R
ive
r a
t W
ohle
r B
ridge
11
46
68
00
- M
ark
Wes
t C
reek
near
Mira
be
l H
eig
hts
11
46
68
50
- R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Mira
be
l H
eig
hts
FIG
UR
E 2
0. -
Con
tinue
d.
FE
CA
L C
OLIF
OR
M
BA
CT
ER
IA(M
F),
IN
C
OL
ON
IES
P
ER
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
SI^
UU
1 100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100
N A 36
Ma
x
16000
~~
(§)
NA
(A
)(§
) i°
u
NA
~~ N
A
40
E
*
n
*?
42
-nk
NA
]j|
g
* * hi
NA
42 ~
rc
-* - - -
*
*_
i^\j\j
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
500
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 n
NA
41
_ - - -
NA
-
_
40
^^ <
W^
+ +
®
NA 36
Ma
x *
58
00 1®
-
^N
A4
2
NA
41
fcj
-*
^f H* 4
T
NA
42
^ _ - - -
*_
il*
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
oo
oo
it r ri ' r
1 0-
o
cV
*t
<o
ro
uj o
in
in
t-
cr
oo
oo
«-
CM
s >
co
co
n
n
r> c.
r
> uj
o
m00
00
1 CO
CD
cocococococo
(0
(o
co
co
co
co
FE
CA
L S
TR
EP
TO
CO
CC
AL
F
EC
AL C
OL
I F
OR
M
BA
CT
ER
IA
BA
CT
ER
IA (M
F),
IN
C
OL
ON
IES
(M
PN
) IN
C
OL
ON
IES
P
ER
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
PE
R
, 0'
0 M
ILLIL
ITE
RS
1200
FE
CA
L S
TR
EP
TO
CO
CC
AL
P
SE
UD
OM
ON
AS
AE
RU
GIN
OS
A,
BA
CT
ER
IA(M
PN
), I
N C
OL
ON
IES
IN
C
OL
ON
IES
P
ER
PE
R
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
11
00
10
00
900
80
0
700
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100
® NA
111
-
J-
-
NA
N
A1C
"C
19 4- IE
2
* * 3
¥ (E
N A
94
Max ^
,11
0
NA
101
Ma
x24C
* + + :0# * * * !1
°°(|
r>N
A98
Max
24C
00 - 1-
3
OO
OO
OO
in
«-
o
o
o
in»-
CM
X}-
5}-
00
00n
n
n
in
CD
co
CD
CO
CO
CD
CD
CD
1200
11
00
10
00
90
0
80
0
700
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100
1N
A
42
Ma
x j.
2200*
(§)
NA
51
M
ax
1600*
- - -
f-
*
*
~
* q^
*
N 3
NA
NA
92
5 1
49
* ~ :+ + F* *-
* q^
NA
50
_
$
9 *
ax$
00 M
e20 ^F
000
an 50
-
& MANY H q
1200
1100
1000
900
80
0
700
60
0
500
40
0
300
200
100
00
00
in
«-
o
or-
<N
*
^t
00
n
o
o
in
CD(D
<D
(D
<D
<D00
o
in0
0
00
NA
_ 2
5M
ax .
j.92(
_
Me
37
- - _
d00
, V^^
-
NA 25
5)N
A25
Max
33
00
an
00
'
be
* Z ^
<
be=
<L
NA 22
_
Max
.24
NA
24
M
17
* Z 5 J
ax j,
D
O*
Me
21
* * 1-
DO
O
_
an
00
NA 25
.
Z ^ - r
-* - * * ho
oo
oo
oin
t-
o
o
o
in
in
CDCD
co
^
^
11463150 - R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Pre
ston
11
46
32
10
Big
Su
lph
ur
Cre
ek a
t m
ou
th
near
Clo
verd
ale
11
46
34
00
R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Ast
i11465400 -
Rus
sian
Riv
er
at W
ohle
r B
ridge
11466800 -
Ma
rk W
est
Cre
ek n
ear
Mira
be
l H
eig
hts
11466850 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Mira
be
l H
eig
hts
FIG
UR
E 2
0. -
Con
tinue
d.
16
11463150
11463210
11463400
11465400
11466800
11466850
I I I I I I I II All values < 0.1 (18 observations) (>)
All values < 0.1 (17 observations) (>)
All values < 0.1 (18 observations)®
ra , . __ ic, z Lfl . + y. i00
HH I ' I + |
o ui o ui
± ± ± H ± ^ 11463150
CDCDCDCDCDCD * * M^imnCD CD ui co co co 1 146321000 00 -fc> -fc> NJ 'ui o o o -» ui 000000 1 1463400
I I I I I33 2 33 33 03 JJ 11465400 c c c (5 c E ^ E S w E 11466800
a5*^* H466850
<__<<-!<
KZZH-f®UI* * ^
I lo 1 ®T~MQ^@
ii- i~^ i i
-. - -i -i o - Q) 0) CD ^ Q)-* *- ~ rt o> "* ^ ^ iS § > *~ ? o m O m0)0 3" ' "* <£
S" -, to 30 2. ^ - 53 11463150I ro 5 2. 5. - 11463210
<§. ^-<g 3 -* tB (BCt I BJ 11463400
(B ~>
*§ £ 11465400
| 1 1466800
» 11466850
H-?®
-H
I i
O O O O O 0 O
11463150
1 1463210
11463400
1 1465400
11466800
11466850
i i i
HI is?
* i i i i i ii
ooiouiOuiOuii
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
* > 1^ ZfN
1 1 1 1 * \*^ 1 1
ooiouiomomc
1 1 1 1 1 II
~ ZO JQ
1 1 1 1 1 II
DISSOLVED
ORTHOPHOSPHORU
N MILLIGRAMS PER L
m JJ
nD
r
ALGAL GROW POTENTIAL, LIGRAMS PER
FH PHYTOPLANKTC N CHLOROPHYLLS
LITER MICROGRAMS PER I
JJ
ooooooooo ooooooooo
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1^ Z /r\
+ w w w w-Jt Ui^
^ ' MANY*
MANY*| |
HD
°5 0>£2^z/CN
MANY* g, §x J'^^ m S -a zw
01 ? 0 x ^ -
§5 MANV* o5">
tn S -a Z
MANY* S x *° >
HYTOPLANKT
IN NUMB
CELLS PER M
mo r~ z
m ^
SP
EC
IFIC
CO
ND
UC
TA
NC
E,
ST
RE
AM
FL
OW
, IN
M
ICR
OM
HO
S
WA
TE
R
TU
RB
IDIT
Y,
ININ
C
UB
IC
FE
ET
P
ER
C
EN
TI_
ME
TE
R
pH
, IN
T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
, IN
N
EP
HE
LO
ME
TR
1C
60
0
550
50
0
45
0
40
0
35
0
30
0
25
0
20
0
150
100
50
0
PE
R S
EC
ON
D
- - _
_
-
NA
-r-
{
- - -
NA
28
i7 r - - -
_--
O
O
Oo
o
in
o
o
o
f
CM
CNto
to
to
60
0
55
0
500
45
0
40
0
35
0
300
25
0
20
0
150
100
50
0
AT
25
- - _ -NR
28
-I
C
fe\
- - _ - -
®N
^J
~
-m-
NA
42
~
w-
-_LT
- i
-
o
o
o
o0
0
«-
CMto
to
^ id 162050
- - -
ST
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
AN
DA
RD
U
NI
- -®
®
~
NR
N
A2
5
39
t
I 6
3
I|(
~T
~
-yJLg-
- I
-
- - - - -
-
o
o
o
o
o
in
o
o
oT
- CN
CM
to
to
to
rs
DE34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
1B
16 14
12
10
EG
RE
ES
C
EL
SI
>-
_
NR 28
- -r
- - - -
® NA
67
^
j
-
t_
0
0
0
0
0
0t-
CN
to
to
- - _ -
NR
-
42
-
- - - -
--
090291
US
T
L
60
55
50
45
40 35
30
25 20
15
10 5 0
JR
BID
ITY
U
NIT
S
- - _ - -
NA
48
-
+N
A -
+ 4
2
NA
_
27 o
o
o
o
o
in
o
o
o«
- CN
CN
to
to
to
11461000 -
Rus
sian
R
ive
r ne
ar U
kia
h
(Wes
t F
ork
)11462000
Eas
t F
ork
Rus
sian
R
ive
r ne
ar U
kiah
(La
ke M
endoci
no r
elea
se)
11
46
20
50
Rus
sian
R
iver
at U
kia
h (m
ain
ste
m d
ow
nst
ream
of
fork
s)
FIG
UR
E 2
1. -
Com
paris
on o
f w
ater
qua
lity
and
stre
amflo
w b
etw
een
the
East
and
Wes
t Fo
rks
of t
he R
ussia
n R
iver
and
the
mai
n st
em
dow
nstre
am o
f th
e fo
rks
(com
paris
on b
ased
on
1977
and
197
8 w
ater
yea
r da
ta).
CjO>
24
0
22
0 -
20
0 -
180 -
160
140 -
120 -
100
80
60 -
40
-
20 -
FE
CA
LD
ISS
OL
VE
D-
CH
EM
ICA
L
FE
CA
L C
OLIF
OR
M
ST
RE
PT
OC
OC
C A
L
PS
EU
DO
MO
NA
SO
XY
GE
N
OX
YG
EN
D
EM
AN
D,
BA
CT
ER
IA
(MF
),
BA
CT
ER
IA
(MF
),
AE
RU
GIN
OS
A,
SA
TU
RA
TIO
N,
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN
CO
LO
NIE
S
PE
R
IN
CO
LO
NIE
S
PE
R
IN
CO
LO
NIE
S
PE
IN
PE
RC
EN
T
PE
R
LIT
ER
100 M
ILLIL
ITE
RS
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
100 M
ILLIL
ITE
R
- _
®_
®
_ _ _N
R
(A)
27
NA
*
- -
42
N A
-. 43 T* 1
D1
L
T ~ _L-L*
+ g_ - -
OU
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 15
10 5 n
- _ _ -
NR
@
1 *
. N R 11 T
>o/
1N
R
1
mO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Uo
o
c
<-
CN
C10
(O
U
^
^
*1 o
o
in
3 0
O
O
^
«-
CN
C
N>
10
co
(ot
^
^
^
- _ _ - -
^«+
U
22
0
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 f\
_
_
_
_
_
_
® NA
42
® NA
~ 2
8-*
-
* J
NA
4
5
*
*-
^~ |-
^^*u
22
0
20
0
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
n
'
_
_
_
_
N A
~~
27
- -
NA
42
NA
_
45
^
4-
J|
B
1 ^U
U
1100
10
00
90
0
80
0
700
600
50
0
40
0
300
20
0
100 r\
(2 S>
(28 N
A
NA
-13
15
Max
Max
94
00
* 1700*
__
<
-
r
NA
15
]ri
_ _ - ]ooo
ooo
ooo
ooin
ooin
oom
oo
o
ooo
ooo
<-C
NC
N
«-C
NC
N
i-C
NC
N(Q
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
DC
DC
O^
^
^
^t
^
^
^
^
^
11
46
10
00
R
ussi
an
Riv
er
near
Uki
ah
(W
est
Fo
rk)
11
46
20
00
Eas
t F
ork
Rus
sian
R
ive
r ne
ar U
kia
h (L
ake
Me
nd
oci
no
rel
ease
)11462050
Rus
sian
R
iver
at U
kiah
(main
st
em d
ow
nst
ream
of
fork
s)
FIG
UR
E 2
1. -
Con
tinue
d.
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IAT
OT
AL
N
ITR
AT
E
AN
D O
RG
AN
IC
DIS
SO
LV
ED
A
LG
AL G
RO
WT
H
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
N
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
NA
S N
, IN
N
ITR
OG
EN
A
S N
, O
RT
HO
PH
OS
PH
OR
US
, P
OT
EN
TIA
L,
CO
UN
TS
, IN
C
HL
OR
OP
H Y
LL
-,4
,M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
NU
MB
ER
S
OF
C
EL
LS
IN
M
ICR
OG
RA
MS
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
L
ITE
R
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
LIT
ER
P
ER
M
ILL
ILIT
ER
P
ER
LIT
ER
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-
_
_
I
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
@)n
-^ N
»
50 i
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4 0.2 f
\
_ _v2
i)N
A
24^
Jf
- _ - _ - ®
*®
-u
R «
-T _
i *
in
^ -
1 .*
L
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
n
-
_
_ -
_
_
-
-
- ~NA
AN
AN
A~
10
18
18
i^ 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n
®
NR
10
_ ~ _ - - _N
R 7
"@
. bd
_
MA
~
10
_ -
--i~
-
£
itu
u
22
00
20
00
18
00
1600
1400
1200
10
00
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 f\
NA
-x-
11 Max
2900*
®(® >C
>
N
R
NX
7 11
- _ _
_
- -
.
. T
-
\ -
+
- _ -
n-
-I
2.2
2.0 1.8
1.6
1.4 1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 f
\
-
© NR
-
10
_@
TN
R N
Arh
6 1
0~J
T
"I
-f
T
- -
OO
O
OO
O
OO
O
OO
O
OO
O
OO
Oo
o
in
o
o
in
ooo
oo
o«-
<N
<N
-
O
l <N
CD
CD
(Q
CD
CD
C£ t
f "t
f "t
f **
*t
f "fl
ooin
ooin
ooin
o
cooo
oo
o
oo
o
oc
«-(N
(\
«-
(N
CN
«-
(N
(N
«-
ftO
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
C
DC
I * * *
* * *
* * *
*t
<:3 in
3 O
M (N
3 to
t *
11
46
10
00
R
ussi
an R
ive
r ne
ar U
kia
h
(Wes
t F
ork
)1
14
62
00
0
Eas
t F
ork
Rus
sian
R
ive
r ne
ar U
kiah
(La
ke M
endoci
no r
elea
se)
11
46
20
50
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
Uki
ah
(main
ste
m d
ow
nst
ream
o
f fo
rks)
FIG
UR
E 2
1.-
Con
tinue
d.
VO
1200
11
00
-
1000
-
900 -
80
0 -
70
0 -
60
0 -
50
0 -
40
0 -
30
0 -
20
0 -
100
ST
RE
AM
FL
OW
, S
PE
CIF
IC C
ON
DU
CT
AN
CE
,IN
C
UB
IC
FE
ET
IN
M
ICR
OM
HO
SP
ER
S
EC
ON
D
CE
NT
IME
TE
R
® NA
-
53
~
-
® NA
_
41
~
N
A
42
+
-
CO
r- -
i r>
"
0 E
CO
CO
It
0 z V
-
*
_
+- _
+
-
-- "
T
I^U
U
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 O
- - - ~
(3
PE
R
pH
, IN
TU
RB
IDIT
Y,
IN
DIS
SO
LV
ED
-OX
YG
EW
AT
ER
T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
, N
EP
HE
LO
ME
TR
1C
S
AT
UR
AT
ION
,A
T 2
5
C
ST
AN
DA
RD
U
NIT
S
IN
DE
GR
EE
S C
ELS
IUS
T
UR
BID
ITY
U
NIT
S
IN P
ER
CE
NT
&
- - - ~
_
NA
_
43^
(DC
D®
~M
A N
RN
A
43
43
~(
iWF
I l
-j-IL
.L.
i i
_
~~
NR
-
+ 5
3
^F 35
-t- f ~"
i^ 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 r\
aD<^i
NA^
52
-
^ ®
-1
®®
NA
N R
42^
~ 42
-y
-T+
1 F
i 1
-* * & +~
"ti
S."'
~ _ - - ^
~ _ - - ~
O4
32
30
28
26
24
22
20 18
16
14
12
1 n
- - - «".
_ - -
oo
oo
oooo
oooo
oo
o
in
o
oo
o
ifto
^
oo
o
to
^
an
in
to
r--
n
in
u
to
to
to
to
to
to
c> c
3 C
3 r-
3 U
) oo
o
in
c
) tO
^-
00
CM
in
to
r
3 to
to
to
u3 3 D
t
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
(/&
NR
43
NR
43
'
O
O00
O
to
<?n
in
to
to<*
*
® N R
'O
'43
NR
- --53
"i"
-*
- ~ _ -
- ~
\J\J
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 15
10 5 n
- ~
®
_
NA
41
- -
S£
\
NA
43
NA
-rt
"|ii
- - _ -
NA
63
| 1
£
* +
^T #
Jf r HI
^t\
J
22
0
20
0
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 rt
n \cy-
NA
42
® NA
43
~ "®®
NR
N
R~
42
43
1 1
_
1 1
1 r-
L
-0H
0F
i i i
-L
J-
r* - * - +~ _ 3-
-L+
-
"
OO
O
OO
O
OO
OO
in
o
oo
o
in
cS
O
CO
<*
00
Crv
n
in
to
r
to
to
to
to
to
tit
T»-
t t t
N
3 oo
o
in
o
3 tO
<
t 00
O
- FJ
m
to
r-
3 tO
tO
tO
tO
<* t
t
T»-
1146
3680
R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Ale
xander
Va
lley
Roa
d B
ridge
(up
stre
am o
f di
vers
ion
and
sum
mer
rec
reat
ion
impoundm
ents
) 11
4654
00 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Woh
ler
Brid
ge (
with
in d
iver
sion
im
po
un
dm
en
t)
1146
6850
R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Mira
bel
Hei
ghts
(w
ithin
div
ersi
on a
rea)
11
4670
00 R
ussi
an R
iver
nea
r G
uern
evill
e (d
owns
trea
m o
f di
vers
ion
area
)
FIG
UR
E 2
3. - C
ompa
rison
of
wat
er q
ualit
y an
d st
ream
flow
at
stat
ions
ups
tream
, in
, an
d do
wns
tream
of
prin
cipa
l wat
er d
iver
sion
rea
ch o
f riv
er(c
ompa
rison
bas
ed o
n 19
77 a
nd 1
978
wat
er y
ear
data
).
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IAA
ND
O
RG
AN
IC
DIS
SO
LV
ED
TO
TA
L N
ITR
AT
E
AS
N
, N
ITR
OG
EN
A
S
N,
OR
TH
OP
HO
RU
S,
IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
IN
M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
SP
ER
L
ITE
R
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
LIT
ER
6.0
5.5
-
5.0
-
4.5
-
4.0
-
3.5
-
3.0
-
2.5
-
2.0
-
1.5
-
1.0
-
0.5
-
ALG
AL G
RO
WT
H
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
NP
OT
EN
TIA
L,
CO
UN
TS
, IN
IN M
ILLIG
RA
MS
N
UM
BE
RS
O
F C
ELLS
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
M
ILL
ILIT
ER
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
NC
HL
OR
OP
HY
LL
-^,
IN M
ICR
OG
RA
MS
PE
R
LIT
ER
-
-
_ - _
_
-
NA
®
®
@
"||j|"
D.U
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
-
-
~
- _
_
-
® NA
-
29 -
~
_
,->.
NA
_
"Hii
D.U
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
_ -
"""
~~"
- _
_
-
-
-
- Tr??
£~
bU
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 15
10 5 r\
~
_ -
sz\
vy NA
- _ -
NA
NR
10
10"~
|
r SB
OO
OO
O
OO
O
OO
OO
O
Oco
o
in
o
co
o
m
o
co
o
m
o
co
o
(0
^
CO
O
(0
^t
CO
O
(D
^O
OO
(0
^
co
in
<o
r»
co
into
i^
co
in
<o
r»
co
in(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
(O
ID
ID
ID
tO
(O
(O
1 _/
-*
- _
NA
~
10 - -
* - 3?"
i z,u
uw
1 1,0
00
1 0
,00
0
90
00
80
00
70
00
60
00
50
00
40
00
30
00
20
00
10
00
_ - ~ - _ -
CD NA 11
Ma
x1500
CD NA 11
®~
NR
l~
l
- "
o
oin
o
CO
O(O
r«
(0
(0
11 L T.
® NA
16 Ma
x.£
1 1
OO
OO
° 75%i
19000
Me
an
16000-
. r
- - _ - - I
12
11
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
® NA
-
10
-
- ~~
®_
NA
11
- _ - -
~r
NA 11
® NA
11
I
_
I * hr
- -
- ~ - - _ - -
OO
OO
O
OO
Oco
o
m
o
co
o
m
o
ID
*J
CO
O
(D
^J
CO
Oco
mto
i^
co
mto
i^(0(0(0(0
(0(0(0(0
'*'*<
*
11
46
36
80
R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Ale
xander
Valle
y R
oad B
ridge (
upst
ream
of
div
ers
ion
and
su
mm
er
recr
eatio
n im
po
un
dm
en
ts)
11465400 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Wo
hle
r B
ridge (
with
in d
ivers
ion im
poundm
ent)
11466850 R
ussi
an
Riv
er
at
Mirabel
He
igh
ts (w
ith
in div
ers
ion a
rea)
1
14
67
00
0 R
ussi
an R
iver
near
Gu
ern
evi
lle
(dow
nst
ream
o
f div
ers
ion a
rea)
FIG
UR
E 2
3. -
Con
tinue
d.
ST
RE
AM
FL
OW
, IN
C
UB
IC
WA
TE
R T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
FE
ET
P
ER
S
EC
ON
D
pH
, IN
S
TA
ND
AR
D U
NIT
S
IN
DE
GR
EE
S C
EL
SIU
S1200
TU
RB
IDIT
Y,
IN
NE
PH
ELO
ME
TR
ICT
UR
BID
ITY
U
NIT
S
110
0
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
500
30
0
20
0
100
<D
NA
53
NA
4
3
-NA
42
_ ®
-£
N
A
39
11 10
NA
*y
52
NA
@
*"»N
A
O
O
O
CM
§,-
O
O
O
O
On
<*
r-
r-
10
10
10
101
<
*<
*<
*
o
o
oco
i-
o
(0
O
Oco
t
r>(0
10
10
32
30
28
26
24
22
20 18 16 14 12 10
_
NA
NR
NR
15
4
53N
R
42
NR
~
42 u
CH
EM
ICA
L O
XY
GE
ND
ISS
OL
VE
D-O
XY
GE
N
DE
MA
ND
, IN
S
AT
UR
AT
ION
, IN
P
ER
CE
NT
M
ILLIG
RA
MS
P
ER
L
ITE
R
22
0
20
0
180
160
140
120
100
-
80
60
-
40
20
11
0
100
90
80
70
60 50 40
30
20 10
O
O
O
CM
(O00
i-
O
O
O
(D
O
O
O
OCO
t
t"«
P»
P»IP
(D
CO
ID
(O
*f
-t
<»
*J
t
O
O
O
CM
10CO
<-
O
O
O
10
O
O
O
Oco
<*
f-
r>
r«
CO
(O
(O
(O
(O<»
<»
^f
^f
<»
O
O
O
CM
CDCO
i-
O
O
O
CD
O
O
O
OCO
<f
r f"«
f"«
f"«
CD
CD
CD
CD
CDt
<»
t
t
t
Co
mp
ariso
n
base
d on
1973-7
8 w
ate
r ye
ar
da
ta.
11463680
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
Ale
xan
de
r V
alle
y R
oa
d
Bridge
(upst
ream
o
f re
creatio
n im
po
un
dm
en
t)
11464010
Rus
sian
R
iver
at
Heald
sburg
(d
ow
nst
rea
m o
f re
cre
atio
na
l im
poundm
ent)
Co
mp
ariso
n
base
d on
19
77
and
1978 w
ate
r ye
ar
da
ta.
11467000
Rus
sian
R
ive
r ne
ar G
ue
rne
ville
(u
pst
rea
m o
f re
creatio
nal
imp
ou
nd
me
nt)
11467002
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
Johnso
n's
Bea
ch
(do
wn
stre
am
o
f re
cre
atio
na
l im
po
un
dm
en
t)
11467006
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
Vaca
tion
Bea
ch
(do
wn
stre
am
o
f re
creatio
nal
impoundm
ent)
FIG
UR
E 2
5. - C
ompa
rison
of
wat
er q
ualit
y an
d st
ream
flow
ups
tream
and
dow
nstre
am o
f re
crea
tiona
l im
poun
dmen
ts.
600
FE
CA
L C
OLIF
OR
MB
AC
TE
RIA
(M
F),
IN C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
100 M
ILL
IME
TE
RS
FE
CA
L S
TR
EP
TO
CO
CC
AL
BA
CT
ER
IA
(MF
),IN
C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S600
VO
00
550 -
500 -
450
400 -
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
550 -
500 -
450 -
® NA
N
A
43
42
400 -
NA
41
350 -
-
300 -
-
250 -
200 -
-
150 -
-
100 -
50 - - - ~
(l
dD
(3)N
A
NA
-42
42
M 6<!
NA
42
&N
A41
_ -
-* * * iC
# iax
M
0*
10
* NA
41
-
#
+
+ SE
ax 30
* - *
*~ __
+ 3"
2400
2200 -
- 2000 -
-
1800
- 1600 -
-
1400 -
-
1200 -
-
1000 -
-
800 -
600 -
400
-
200 -
O
O
O
CM
ID00
«-
O
O
O
ID
O
O
O
OPJ
^-
r>
r>
r>
10
10
10
10
10
FE
CA
L C
OLIF
OR
M
FE
CA
L S
TR
EP
TO
CO
CC
IB
AC
TE
RIA
(M
PN
),
BA
CT
ER
IA
(MP
N),
IN C
OLO
NIE
S
PE
R
IN C
OLO
NIE
S
PE
R100 M
ILLIL
ITE
RS
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
NA
100
Max
24000
- - -NA 9
- _ - - _
i^
9 -* # # * * 3E
-
®®
@-
NA
N
A N
A38
37
37
i
FN
-*-
* +
#-
+ -i
'
-*- - _ -
*_ _
af |^
O
O
O
CM
10
,14-U
U
22
00
20
00
18
00
16
00
14
00
1200
1000
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 0
® NA
1°
- - - _ - - _ '
<§> NA
50
* * * -J-
11
rt?>
NA 38
Max
32
*
i00
*
- - -
NA
-
3
NA
*38
~ ~
* * J_
4
r,
8 -»
- - _
*
-iJ
lr~
inU
Qt^
IMM
O
O
O
CM
10o
o«
-o
oo
co
«-
o
o
o
10
OO
OO
10O
OO
O
1010101010
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
600
PSE
UD
OM
ON
AS
AE
RU
GIN
OSA
,IN
C
OLO
NIE
S
PE
R100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
550 -
500 -
450 -
400 -
350
300 -
-
250 -
200
150 -
100
50 --
CMJ
4s
NA 24
M
70
7\
O/
NA
24
~M
13
-
I
00* 1C
dD NA
-
16
ax
M<
00
* 35
NA
1
NA 1
*
6 -* L5 -* +
9. =
ax*
DO
* - -
O
O00
i-
10
Oco
^-
10
1010
10
10
Co
mp
ariso
n
base
d o
n
1973-7
8 w
ate
r ye
ar
da
ta.
11463680
Rus
sian
R
ive
r at
Ale
xan
de
r V
alle
y R
oa
d
Bridge
(upst
ream
of
recr
ea
tion
al
imp
ou
nd
me
nt)
11464010 R
ussi
an R
ive
r a
t H
eald
sburg
(d
ow
nst
rea
m o
f re
cre
atio
na
l im
poundm
ent)
Co
mp
ariso
n
base
d on
1977 a
nd
19
78
wate
r ye
ar
da
ta.
11467000 R
ussi
an
Riv
er
near
Gu
ern
evi
lle (u
pst
ream
of
recr
eatio
nal
impoundm
ent)
1
14
67
00
2 R
ussi
an
Riv
er
at
Joh
nso
n's
Bea
ch
(do
wn
stre
am
of
recr
eatio
nal
impoundm
ent)
1
14
67
00
6
Rus
sian
R
iver
at
Va
catio
n
Bea
ch
(do
wn
stre
am
of
recr
eatio
nal
impoundm
ent)
FIG
UR
E 2
5.-
Con
tinue
d.
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IA A
ND
D
ISS
OL
VE
DT
OT
AL
N
ITR
AT
E
AS
N
, IN
O
RG
AN
IC N
ITR
OG
EN
A
S
N,
OR
TH
OP
HO
SP
HO
RU
S,
IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
PE
R
LIT
ER
IN
M
IL
LIG
R A
MS
P
E R
LIT
E R
M
l LLIG
RA
MS
P
ER
LIT
ER
6.0
| l
6.0
i I
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
NA
100 @
\-
~*N
A
100
(D
El
O
O
O
(N
CD
CO
«-
O
O
O
(O
OO
OO
CO
^
is
. is
, |s
,CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
^
^
^
^
^
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
NA
O
O
O
M
(O
CO
<-
O
O
O
(O
OO
OO
CO
^
is
. is
, is
,CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
'»'»'»'»'»
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
_N
A
60
NA
*58
AL
GA
L G
RO
WT
H
PO
TE
NT
IAL,
IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
P
ER
L
ITE
R
60 55
-
50 -
45 -
40
35 -
30 -
25
-
20
-
15 -
10 -
5 -
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
N
CO
UN
TS
, P
HY
TO
PLA
NK
TO
N
IN
NU
MB
ER
S
OF
C
H L
OR
OP
H V
LL-A
, IN
CE
LLS
P
ER
M
ILL
ILIT
ER
MIC
RO
GR
AM
S
PE
R
LIT
ER
O
o
oco
<-
O
(O
o
oCO
<»
is
.(O
(O
(O
t
*
"*
- - _
- - - _
<D($
\ N
A
fS\
1
NA
NAA
-^f
10 r
1 II
QB
5
A'
0 -»
0 -*
npn i
O
O
O
CNCO
«
- C
(D
OC
CO
^
rCD
CD
Cl3
C3
C-
r3
Cl3 3 3 *
*
t
*
v;
Nfy
A ! =B
(0 C C r Cl3 3 3 ^
-
h
-
22,0
00
20,0
00
18
,00
0
1 6
,000
14
,00
0
1 2,0
00
10,0
00
80
00
60
00
40
00
20
00 n
- - - - _ -
1N
A16 Max ^
1
1 0
00
0
| &
NA
72
-Tjf 1 z JJ
* Z
I
C
NA
11 Ma
90
1
IT
®IN
/
DU
^ 55
* -i-
Max
, 7
20
00+
X DD *
- - _ -
bd
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 15
10 5 n
-
-
- - _
_
\§)
NA
_
(D
11N
A
®T
-
NA
®
10
-NA
T
r-h
-
11
pL
""*®
M-
NA
,
-
11
r
3S
~ ~
~
O
O
O
(N
CD
OO
OM
CO
CO
'(O
(
CO
'(0
(-O
OO
C
Ot-O
OO
D
O
O
O
(O
OO
OO
t
IS.
IS.
|S,
CO
^
IS.
IS.
rs.
D
CD
(D
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD'»
'»
'»
'»
'»
*
^
^
^
^
Com
paris
on b
ased
on
1973
-78
wa
ter
year
dat
a.11463680 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Ale
xander
Va
lley
Roa
d B
ridge
(up
stre
am o
f re
crea
tion
imp
ou
nd
me
nt)
11464010 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Hea
ldsb
urg
(dow
nstr
eam
of
recr
eatio
nal
imp
ou
nd
me
nt)
Com
paris
on b
ased
on
1977
and
197
8 w
ate
r ye
ar d
ata.
11467000 R
ussi
an
Riv
er n
ear
Gue
rnev
ille
(ups
trea
m o
f re
crea
tiona
l im
po
un
dm
en
t)
11467002 R
ussi
an
Riv
er a
t Jo
hnso
n's
Bea
ch (
dow
nstr
eam
of
recr
eatio
nal
impoundm
ent)
11467006 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Va
catio
n
Bea
ch (
dow
nstr
eam
of
recr
eatio
nal
impoundm
ent)
FIG
UR
E 2
5. - C
ontin
ued.
ST
RE
AM
FLO
W,
SP
EC
IFIC
C
ON
DU
CT
AN
CE
, T
UR
BID
ITY
, IN
D
ISS
OL
VE
D-O
XY
GE
N
CH
EM
ICA
L O
XY
GE
NIN
C
UB
IC
IN M
ICR
OM
HO
S
PE
R
pH
, IN
N
EP
HE
LO
ME
TR
1C
S
AT
UR
AT
ION
, D
EM
AN
D,
INF
EE
T
PE
R
SE
CO
ND
C
EN
TIM
ET
ER
A
T 2
5°
C
ST
AN
DA
RD
U
NIT
S
TU
RB
IDIT
Y
UN
ITS
IN
P
ER
CE
NT
M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
PE
R
LIT
ER
I^U
U
11
00
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
o
50°
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 0
- - - -
NA
42
- - _
r i o 00 (O (O
_ - -
NA
41
-
t
. n
-
+
- - _ _
12
OO
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
700
60
0
500
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 n
_ -
-
NA
-
142
~
NA
141
-
1*
IP
|T|
T
~
1 -M-1
-#
-*
-
+ + _ _
-+
_
\\i 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n
_
_
NA
- m
1^
-T
- @
t -
T* i
_ - _
__
_
OU
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 5 n
_
NA
153
.X-N
.
(A)
NA
- - - -
o
o
o
o
oin
oo
in
SCO
OQ
n
«ooo
in
(O
0000
(O
<O
(O
<D
<D
<D
15
2^ * * + 1 1 1
-*
- -
#
-
#
-
+
-
+
_
' i
JLH
-
240
22
0
20
0
18
0
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 rt
_ - -
NR 42 : J 1
u
o
o
ooo
in
oo
(O
00
(On
<o
o
<D
<D
(O
NA
43
-
*
_
r-i
M T^ 1 -L
- - _ _
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 n
"
- -
® NA Y*
- _
® NR 10
.
* 5
- - _ _
o
o
oin
oo
m
00
(O
00(O
O
(O
(O
(O
(O
11463680 R
ussi
an R
ive
r at
Ale
xander
Valle
y R
oa
d B
ridge (a
gricu
ltura
l re
ach)
11466850
Rus
sian
R
iver
at
Mira
be
l H
eig
hts
(dow
nst
ream
of
prin
cip
al
urb
an a
rea
in
basi
n)
FIG
UR
E 2
6. -
Com
paris
on o
f w
ater
qua
lity
and
stre
amflo
w a
t a
stat
ion
in a
n ag
ricul
tura
l re
ach
with
a s
tatio
n in
a r
each
dow
nstre
am o
f an
urb
an a
rea
(com
paris
on b
ased
on
1973
-78
wat
er y
ear
data
).
FE
CA
L C
OLIF
OR
M
FE
CA
L S
TR
EP
TO
CO
CC
AL
F
EC
AL
C
OLIF
OR
M
FE
CA
L S
TR
EP
TO
CO
CC
AL
P
SE
UD
OM
ON
AS
BA
CT
ER
IA (M
F),
B
AC
TE
RIA
(M
F),
B
AC
TE
RIA
(M
PN
),
BA
CT
ER
IA
(MP
N),
A
ER
UG
INO
SA
,IN
C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
IN
C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
IN
C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
IN
C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
IN
C
OLO
NIE
S P
ER
100 M
ILL
IME
TE
RS
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
100 M
ILLIL
ITE
RS
100 M
ILLIL
ITE
RS
100 M
ILL
ILIT
ER
S
1100
10
00
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100
_
_
_
NA
42
-
NA
42
i-*
_ - - -
*
+
1 <
1U
U
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 r\
_ _ - _ - - -
NA
42
^
-
NA
E
-* *
_ - _ - - -
#
,
H-,
! - 1
E:£
<1
*+U
U
22
00
20
00
1800
16
00
14
00
12
00
10
00
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 rt
NA
_
98
_
Max
24000*
-
NA 99
-
-* * * * *
_
*
- _ - - -
E3
= =
^*»
wu
22
00
20
00
1800
1600
14
00
1200
1000
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 / *
NA
50
_ - _ - - -
" <L& NA
50
Max
92000
* * * + H
_ -
* >. _
z
- - -
_ r
~i
\£.\J\J
1100
1000
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100 r\
<Lft
-
NA
24
Max
1300*
_ - _ - - -
_
@
-N
A 25
p &
<
_ - - -
*
ubt3
oo
oo
o
o
oo
o
ooo
in
o
(0
00
ClCO
(D
fD
in
oo
in
co
m
co
m3
00
CD
00
CD
00
CD
CO
1(0
CO
<O
P)(Q
P
)(O
(O
(O
CO
CO
(O
(O
(b(b
(DC
D
11
46
36
80
- R
ussi
an R
ive
r at
Ale
xan
de
r V
alle
y R
oa
d B
ridge (a
gricu
ltura
l re
ach
) 1
14
66
85
0
Rus
sian
R
iver
at M
ira
be
l H
eig
hts
(d
ow
nst
rea
m o
f princi
pal
urb
an a
rea
in
basi
n)
FIG
UR
E 2
6.-
Con
tinue
d.
6.0
5.5
-
5.0
-
4.5
-
4.0
-
3.5
-
3.0
-
2.5
-
2.0
-
1.5
-
1.0
-
0.5
-
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IA A
ND
D
ISS
OL
VE
D
AL
GA
L G
RO
WT
H
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
N
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
NT
AL N
ITR
AT
E
AS
N
, O
RG
AN
IC N
ITR
OG
EN
O
RT
HO
PH
OS
PH
O R
US
, P
OT
EN
TIA
L,
CO
UN
TS
, IN
C
HL
OR
OP
HY
LL
-,4
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
AS
N
, IN
M
ILLIG
RA
MS
IN
M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILLIG
RA
MS
N
UM
BE
RS
O
F C
ELLS
IN
M
ICR
OG
RA
MS
PE
R
- _ - -
LIT
ER
- _ _
NA
100
at
NA
100
. «.
- - " I;
K *
- - -
* -
+
o
o
co
m(O
CO
CO
(O
(O
(O
<*
<*
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
0
PE
R
LIT
ER
-
®
NA
87 .
V.
- - - -
®
NA 88
|
" %
L-
- - - - -
+ n
O
Oco
in
(O
CO
CO
(O
(O
(O<*
<*
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
PE
R
LIT
ER
-
_
_
NA
_
58
-
*
- _
NA
60
- -
c* $
1"
+
-
+
-
+
- -
»
o
oco
in
(O
CO
CO
(O
(O
(O<*
^t
60
55
50
45
40 35
30
25
20 15
10 5
0
PE
R
LIT
ER
-
NA
10
^
- - - - - -
^ (Q)
NA
r
10 'it
- - - - - -
IZ
0
0co
m
(O
00
CO
(O
(O
(O^t
<*
12
00
11
00
10
00
,
90
0
80
0
70
0
60
0
50
0
40
0
30
0
20
0
100
0
PE
R M
ILLIL
ITE
R
<2 N5 A
72 Max
15(
^(A
. \£
yN
A-
72
Max
24
- - - - - -
r~
DO
'
* z. *
()00
- _
z.
- - - - -
do
o
co
in(0
CO
CO
(O
(O
(O
<*
<*
12
11 10 9 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
PE
R
LIT
ER
-
-
NA
11
- - - - - -
i
* ir*
-
® NA 11 T
- -
9
» 0
0co
m
(O
CO
CO
(O
(O
(O<*
<*
11463680 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Ale
xander
Va
lley
Roa
d B
ridge
(agricu
ltura
l re
ach)
1 1
46
68
50
R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Mira
bel
Hei
ghts
(do
wns
trea
m o
f princi
pal
urba
n ar
ea i
n ba
sin)
FIG
UR
E 2
6. - C
ontin
ued.
SP
EC
IFIC
C
ON
DU
CT
AN
CE
, T
UR
BID
ITY
, D
ISS
OL
VE
D-O
X Y
GE
NIN
M
ICR
OM
HO
S P
ER
p
H,
IN
WA
TE
R T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
, IN
N
EP
HE
LO
ME
TR
1C
S
AT
UR
AT
ION
,C
EN
TIM
ET
ER
A
T 2
5°
C
ST
AN
DA
RD
U
NIT
S
IN
DE
GR
EE
S C
EL
SIU
S
TU
RB
IDIT
Y
UN
ITS
_
_ IN
P
ER
CE
NT
24
00
22
00
-
20
00
-
18
00
-
16
00
-
14
00
-
12
00
1000
80
0 -
60
0 -
40
0 -
20
0 -
NA
14
- _
NA
141
1 * # # * # *
<O
O
O
CN
12 11 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1
NA
NA
A
ii!j
i5+
-
- -
(D
O
0
r-
O
CN
34
32
30
-
28
26
24
22
20
18 16
14 12
10
NA
154NA
154
60 55 -
50 -
45 -
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15
10 -
5 -
aS NA
153
M
2(
- _
h
ax
30
*
*®
~
NA
153
*
*
+
-
<O
OO
r-
O
CN
220
-
200
180
160
-
140
120
-
100
80
60
-
40
20
(D
O
0
r-
O
CN
11467006 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Va
catio
n B
each
(up
stre
am o
f tid
ally
in
flue
nce
d r
each
) 11
4672
10 R
ussi
an
Riv
er a
t D
unca
n M
ills
(with
in t
ida
lly i
nflu
en
ced
rea
ch)
FIG
UR
E 2
7. -
Com
paris
on o
f w
ater
qua
lity
at a
sta
tion
in t
idal
rea
ch w
ith a
sta
tion
upst
ream
of
tidal
rea
ch (
com
paris
on b
ased
on
1973
-78
wat
er y
ear
data
).
TO
TA
L A
MM
ON
IA A
ND
D
ISS
OL
VE
D
AL
GA
L G
RO
WT
H
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
N
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
NT
OT
AL
N
ITR
AT
E
AS
N
, O
RG
AN
IC
NIT
RO
GE
N
OR
TH
OP
HO
SP
HO
RU
S,
PO
TE
NT
IAL,
CO
UN
TS
, IN
C
H L
OR
OP
H Y
LL
-A,
IN
MIL
LIG
RA
MS
A
S
N,
IN M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
IN M
ILLIG
RA
MS
IN
M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
NU
MB
ER
S O
F C
ELLS
IN
M
ICR
OG
RA
MS
PE
R L
ITE
R
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
L
ITE
R
PE
R
LIT
ER
P
ER
M
ILL
ILIT
ER
P
ER
LIT
ER
6.0
5.5
-
5.0
-
4.5
-
4.0
-
3.5
-
3.0
-
2.5
-
2.0
1.5
-
1.0
0.5
-_
_
_
_
®
~N
A100
- - "
NA
99 Cpe
-*
- -
b
b.U
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5 f
\
-
-
-
- -
-
I ® N
A f^
\ 8
7 ^
~-*
NA
"~
±-^
+
+
+
^ ^
'
b.u
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 1.5
1.0
0.5
f\
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
® NA
-
58
@
-~
~*N
A 58
--*
Jt
+
-
+
-
-
L S "
DU
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 15
10 5 /\
_ _ - - -
<R)
_ _ - -
N A
@
-
u
w
uto
o
to
o
to
o
O
«-
Or-
O
*-O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
r*-
^
^
^
^
^to
to
to
to
to
to
^
^
^
^
^
^
o
=E
+ N
A 10 *E
i "
^tu
u
22
00
20
00
18
00
1600
1400
1200
10
00
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 f\
1 NA
72
Max
-
72
00
0 n
_ - - -
r
_
o NA 71
_
Max
52
00
0
* Z _ 3
- -
* z 5- -
DU
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 5 /\
_
_
_
-
®
_
N
(§)
_
NA
11 - -
-
A
1 -*
- -
'
to
o
to
o
to
oc c r^ to <*
r C r a ^
O
r-
O
r-M
O
CM
O
CM
^ ^
^
^
^3
to
to
to
tot
<*
<*
<*
<*
11467006 R
ussi
an
Riv
er
at
Va
catio
n
Bea
ch
(up
stre
am
o
f tidally
in
flue
nce
d r
each
) 1
14
67
21
0
Rus
sian
R
iver
at
Du
nca
n M
ills
(with
in t
idally
in
flue
nce
d r
ea
ch)
FIG
UR
E 2
7. -
Con
tinue
d.
SP
EC
IFIC
ST
RE
AM
FL
OW
, C
ON
DU
CT
AN
CE
,IN
C
UB
IC
FE
ET
IN
M
ICR
OM
HO
S
PE
^R
pH
, IN
1200
11
00
1000
90
0
800
700
60
0
50
0
40
0
300
200
10
0 0 -
WA
TE
RT
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
,-^
PE
R S
EC
ON
D
CE
NT
IME
TE
R A
T 2
5
C
ST
AN
DA
RD
U
N I
TS
D
EC
RE
ES
C
ELS
IUS
NA
53^~
® NA
43
NA
42
+
NR
42 I
. . [E
~T
^
-1
-|
*
-
+_ -
"*"
-
IZU
U
11
00
1000
900
80
0
700
60
0
500
40
0
300
200
10
0 r\
- -
- - -
~
NR
~
53
-T-4
-
-
®N
A N
AN
A
42
43
-jr5S
[
_gS
i-
J - -
1 1.
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 n
NA 5
® ®
NR
NR
-
40
42N
A T
~"T
~
|
1
I^T
~^ C
1
^
- ~ -
-*-
* * +- - - - -
Jt
32
30
28
26
24 22
20 18
16 14 12
1 r\
-
®~
N
R -
^
53N
R N
A-
42
43
NR
42
- - -
OO
OO
O
OO
O
OO
OO
O
O«~
O
O>
O*~
O
O>
O*~
O(o
in
o
o
(om
oo
to
in
o
oCM
co
^t
r-~
CM
co
^fr
r >
CM
co
^t
r
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0(0(0(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
-j-
- T
-
- -p
-J
-
-
- -
OO
OO
0)
O
«-
O(0
in
o
oCM
co
^
r^(0
(0
(0
(0
11462690 R
ussi
an
Riv
er a
t H
opla
nd (
in c
lima
tic a
rea
mos
t is
olat
ed f
rom
oce
an i
nflu
ence
) 11463500 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Gey
serv
ille
(in c
lima
tic a
rea
with
little
oce
an i
nflu
ence
) 11464010 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Hea
ldsb
urg
(in c
lima
tic a
rea
with
mod
erat
e oc
ean
influ
ence
) 11467000 R
ussi
an
Riv
er n
ear
Gue
rnev
ille
(in c
limatic
are
a w
ith m
uch
ocea
n in
fluence
)
FIG
UR
E 2
8. - C
ompa
rison
of
wat
er q
ualit
y an
d st
ream
flow
am
ong
stat
ions
in d
iffer
ent
clim
atic
are
as o
f th
e ba
sin(c
ompa
rison
bas
ed o
n 19
77 a
nd 1
978
wat
er y
ear
data
).
AL
GA
L G
RO
WT
H
PH
YT
OP
LA
N K
TO
N
PH
YT
OP
LA
NK
TO
ND
ISS
OL
VE
D-O
XY
GE
N
PO
TE
NT
IAL,
SA
TU
RA
TIO
N,
IN2
40
22
0
20
0
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 0
_
PE
RC
EN
Tr+
f\
(£&
®1
NA
42
NR
-
NA
-
42 [j 1
- -
o co CN co
42 I O o IT ( > )
CD ^
NR 43 6r*
_
* *
_ + 3- L+- -
UW 55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 15
10 5 n
_ _ - _
IN
CO
UN
TS
, IN
CH
LO
RO
PH
YL
L-^
,M
ILL
IGR
AM
S
NU
MB
ER
S
OF
C
EL
LS
IN
M
ICR
OG
RA
MS
rPE
R
LIT
ER
PE
R M
ILL
ILIT
ER
P
ER
LIT
ER
_
NA
10
~N
A
0
0
o
o^
r**-
co
CD
j j I * o CD CN
NA
1
1 ®
~
T*N
A 10
iS
- -
I"
^*»
uu
22
00
20
00
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
80
0
60
0
40
0
20
0 n
_
® NR 1
1
® NA
11""
Max
27
00+
3
(A)
NA
11M
ax N
A~
20
0+ 1
6M
ax *
-10000
75%
_
I
19
00
0
Mean_
16
00
0
Media
n
4000_
"X
I
o
o
o
o
o
o
oO
«
- O
O
O
«
- O
in
o
cco
^
r-J co
in
o
c
CN
CO
^
r-3
CD
ID
CD
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
- - - _
1 £
.
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 f\
_ _ - _ - ^N
R
10 o O)
CN CO
(S N 1
' r) H 1 -f
NA
10
rz\
VG/
NA
O
O in CO CO
11 I
' I
_ " - _ - -
o
oT
- O
o
oCO
CO
1146
2690
R
ussi
an
Riv
er a
t H
opla
nd (
in c
limatic
are
a m
ost
isol
ated
fro
m o
cean
in
fluen
ce)
11463500 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Gey
serv
ille
(in c
lima
tic a
rea
with
little
oce
an i
nflu
ence
) 11
4640
10 R
ussi
an R
iver
at
Hea
ldsb
urg
(in c
limatic
are
a w
ith m
oder
ate
ocea
n in
fluence
) 11
4670
00 R
ussi
an
Riv
er n
ear
Gue
rnev
ille
(in c
lima
tic a
rea
with
muc
h oc
ean
influ
ence
)
FIG
UR
E 2
8. - C
ontin
ued.