Water-Quality Data from 2002 to 2003 and 

Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of 

Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, California

By Lorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, Debra S. Curry, Stewart A. Rounds, and 

Micelis C. Doyle

In cooperation with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5255

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Flint, L.E., Flint, A.L., Curry, D.S., Rounds, S.A., and Doyle, M.C., 2005, Water-Quality Data from 2002 to 2003 and 

Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5255, 77 p. 
iii

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

Objective ............................................................................................. 3

Approach ............................................................................................. 3

Model Development .............................................................................. 4

Water Quality ............................................................................................. 4

Data Collection and Analysis ..................................................................... 4

Continuous Monitoring ..................................................................... 4

Klamath River Locations ............................................................... 7

Water Temperature ............................................................... 7

Dissolved oxygen .................................................................. 11

Lost River Locations .................................................................. 28

Monthly Water-Quality Sampling ............................................................ 29

2002 Sampling Program ............................................................... 29

Klamath River Locations ......................................................... 29

Lost River Locations ............................................................ 33

2003: Parcel-Tracking Study on the Klamath and Shasta Rivers .................. 33

Klamath River Parcel Tracking ...................................................... 34

Shasta River Parcel Tracking ......................................................... 36

Sediment Oxygen Demand Study on the Shasta River ................................. 36

Procedure .............................................................................. 38

SOD Results .............................................................................. 38

Relevance of Water-Quality Observations to 2002 Fish Kill on the Klamath River ... 40

Model Code Selection and Analysis .................................................................. 40

Model Description: SIAM ........................................................................ 40

Model Description: WQRRS; RMA2; RMA11 ................................................... 41

Model Description: CE-QUAL-W2 ............................................................... 42

Model Application and Data Gaps ..................................................................... 42

Potential Data Sources ........................................................................... 43

Meteorological Data ........................................................................ 43

Stream Shading .............................................................................. 45

Vertical Reservoir Profiles .................................................................. 45

Summary ................................................................................................... 45

Selected References .................................................................................... 46

Appendix 1. Continuous dissolved oxygen, water temperature, ph, and specific conductance 

data measured at USGS sites in 2002 and 2003. ............................................. 49

Appendix 2. Methodology for correcting continuous dissolved oxygen data from USGS datasonde sensors and associated data uncertainty. .......................................... 58

Theory and Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen ................................................ 58

USGS Protocols for Collecting, Processing, and Reporting Continuous Dissolved 

Oxygen Data .............................................................................. 58

Collecting Field Measurements of Dissolved Oxygen .......................................... 58
iv

Data-Processing Procedures ..................................................................... 59

Uncertainty in Dissolved Oxygen Data ......................................................... 59

Dissolved Oxygen Data for the Shasta River, 2002–2003 ....................................... 59

Appendix 3. Sources of meteorological data and locations of active and inactive stations in and 

around the Lower Klamath River Basin. ...................................................... 66

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing location of Klamath River Basin, California, and water-quality 

monitoring sites ........................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Flow chart illustrating the elements of the modeling process ..................... 5

Figure 3. Graphs showing water temperatures at continuous monitoring stations along the 

Klamath River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ........................ 8

Figure 4. Graphs showing dissolved oxygen at continuous monitoring stations along the 

Klamath River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ........................ 9

Figure 5. Graphs showing measurements of water temperature and dissolved oxygen 

at continuous water-quality monitoring stations along the Shasta 

River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003 ............... 10

Figure 6. Graphs showing relation between water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) 

for continuous water-quality monitoring stations at in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003 ....................................... 11

Figure 7. Graphs showing discharge for seven USGS streamflow gaging stations on 

the Klamath, Trinity, and Shasta Rivers in the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

California, 2002 and 2003 ............................................................... 22

Figure 8. Graphs showing water temperature and dissolved oxygen at continuous 

water-quality monitoring stations at TULE and HATFIELD on the 

Lost River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 ..................... 28

Figure 9. Graphs showing monthly water-quality sampling data for July, August, and 

September 2002 for six sites on the Klamath River, one site on the Trinity River, 

three sites on the Shasta River, and two sites on the Lost River in the 

Lower Klamath River Basin, California ................................................ 30

Figure 10. Graphs showing monthly water-quality sampling data for July, August, and 

September 2002 for six sites on the Klamath River, one site on the Trinity River, 

three sites on the Shasta River, and two sites on the Lost River in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, California ......................................................... 31

Figure 11. Graphs showing onthly water-quality sampling data for July, August, and 

September of 2002 for six sites on the Klamath River, one site on the Trinity River, 

three sites on the Shasta River, and two sites on the Lost River in the 

Lower Klamath River Basin, California ................................................ 32

Figure 12. Graphs showing data from parcel-tracking study on the Klamath River, 

California, July 2003, and September 2003 for various constituents ............... 35

Figure 13. Graphs showing data from parcel-tracking study on the Shasta River in lower 

Klamath River Basin, California, June 2003, and August 2003 for various 

constituents .............................................................................. 37

Figure 14. Map showing meteorological stations in and around the Klamath River Basin 

in Oregon and California ............................................................... 44
v

Figure A1-1. Measured continuous data of water temperature and specific conductance 

in left column, and dissolved oxygen and pH in right column for 2002 and 

2003 for stations at KLAMATH, HOOPA, (ORLEANS, SEIAD, WALKER, 

EDGEWOOD, YREKA, IRONGATE, SHOVEL, TULE, and HATFIELD .................. 50

Figure A2-1. Measured continuous data of dissolved oxygen with initial edited record, 

computed record, and saturated values for 2002 and 2003 for USGS sites 

and YREKA ................................................................................. 62

Tables

Table 1. Station location and measurement periods for continuous monitoring 

stations in the lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003 ............ 6

Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 

12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California .............................. 12

Table 3. Water-quality data from Lagrangian parcel-tracking study in 2003 on 

the Shasta River and Klamath River in the Lower Klamath River 

Basin, California ........................................................................... 23

Table 4. Locations of sites used to measure sediment oxygen demand on the 

Shasta River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ........................ 38

Table 5. Measured sediment oxygen demand rates and sediment characteristics 

at sites on the Shasta River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ...... 39

Table A2-1. Corrections and shifts made to dissolved oxygen data, and comments 

on site visits to the EDGEWOOD station on the Shasta River in the 

Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002−2003 .................................... 61

Table A3-1. Active National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations recording through 

2003 in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ..................... 67

Table A3-2. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) surface airways stations in or 

around the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ................................. 69

Table A3-3. Inactive National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations in or around 

the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ............................................. 70

Table A3-4. California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) reference 

evapotranspiration stations locations within or around the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, California ......................................................... 74

Table A3-5. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) weather stations in 

or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, California .............................. 74

Table A3-6. Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS)locations in and around 

the Lower Klamath River Basin, California ............................................. 75
vi

Conversion Factors and Abbreviations

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

gram (g) 0.0353 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

grams per day (g/day) 0.0353 pound avoirdupois per day (lb per day)

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb)

kilogram per day (kg/day) 2.205 pound avoirdupois per day (lb per day)

kilometer 0.6214 mile

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3) 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 4.800 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.6093 kilometer (km)

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: 

 °C= (°F-32)/1.8

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 

1929 (NGVD of 1929).

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Abbreviations

BOD biochemical oxygen demand 

CBOD carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System

DEM digital elevation model

DO dissolved oxygen

EDNA elevation derivatives for National application

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

g/m2/day gram per square meter per day

mm millimeter

mm Hg millimeter of Mercury

NCDC National Climatic Data Center
vii

NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NTU nephelomatric turbidity units

NWIS National Water Information System

RAWS Remote Automated Weather Stations

SOD sediment oxygen demand

SOD20 sediment oxygen demand values corrected to 20°C

TOC total organic carbon

TMDL total maximum daily load

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WQRRS Water Quality for River-Reservoir System

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

Water-Quality Data from 2002 to 2003 and Analysis of Data 

Gaps for Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads in 

the Lower Klamath River Basin, California

By Lorraine E. Flint, Alan L. Flint, Debra S. Curry, Stewart A. Rounds, and Micelis C. Doyle

Abstract 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected waterquality data during 2002 and 2003 in the Lower Klamath 

River Basin, in northern California, to support studies of river 

conditions as they pertain to the viability of Chinook and Coho 

salmon and endangered suckers. To address the data needs of 

the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for 

the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, 

and pH were continuously monitored at sites on the Klamath, 

Trinity, Shasta, and Lost Rivers. Water-quality samples were 

collected and analyzed for selected nutrients, organic carbon, 

chlorophyll-a, pheophytin-a, and trace elements. Sediment 

oxygen demand was measured on the Shasta River. Results of 

analysis of the data collected were used to identify locations 

in the Lower Klamath River Basin and periods of time during 

2002 and 2003 when river conditions were more likely to be 

detrimental to salmonid or sucker health because of occasional 

high water temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and conditions that supported abundant populations of algae and aquatic 

plants. The results were also used to assess gaps in data by 

furthering the development of the conceptual model of water 

flow and quality in the Lower Klamath River Basin using 

available data and the current understanding of processes that 

affect water quality and by assessing needs for the develoment 

of mathematical models of the system. The most notable gap 

in information for the study area is in sufficient knowledge 

about the occurrence and productivity of algal communities. 

Other gaps in data include vertical water-quality profiles for 

the reservoirs in the study area, and in an adequate understanding of the chemical oxygen demands and the sediment oxygen 

demands in the rivers and of the influence of riparian shading 

on the rivers. Several mathematical models are discussed in 

this report for use in characterizing the river systems in the 

study area; also discussed are the specific data needed for the 

models, and the spatial and temporal data available as boundary conditions. The models will be useful for the future development of TMDLs for temperature, nutrients, and dissolved 

oxygen and for assessing the role of natural and anthropogenic 

sources of heat, oxygen-producing and -consuming substances, and nutrients in the Klamath, Shasta, and Lost Rivers.

Introduction

The study area is the Lower Klamath River Basin and 

for this study includes the Klamath River and the Lost River 

systems in northern California (fig. 1). The 2001 and 2002 

droughts in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California, 

along with Federal legal requirements regarding water use, 

resulted in a scarcity of water available both for agricultural 

use and for maintenance of water levels necessary to sustain 

threatened and endangered fish populations in the Klamath 

Basin. Low streamflows and agricultural return flows with 

concurrent high water temperatures, excess nutrients, and 

decreased dissolved oxygen may have contributed to a large 

die-off in September 2002 of Chinook salmon, and some Coho 

salmon, a threatened anadromous fish.

Three rivers in the Lower Klamath River Basin (fig. 1) 

are listed on California’s 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies 

(California Environmental Protection Agency, accessed April 

2004):

• The Lost River, owing to high water temperatures and 

excess nutrients that may be impairing the beneficial 

uses of the water body.

• The Klamath River, owing to high water temperatures, 

low dissolved oxygen, and excess nutrients.

• The Shasta River, which flows into the Klamath River, 

owing to high water temperatures and low dissolved 

oxygen.

Placement of a water body on the 303(d) List triggers 

action for developing a pollution control plan, called Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), for that water body and the 

associated pollutant/stressor on the list. The TMDL serves as 

the means to attain and maintain water-quality standards for 

the impaired water body. 
Figure 1. Location of Klamath River Basin, California, and water-quality monitoring sites. 

������

����������

�����

������������

���������������

�����

����

����

�������������

�����������������������������

�������

����

�����

�������

����

������������������� �����

���������

��������

�����

����

�����������

������� ����

�

������� �����

���� �����

������ �����

������� ����� ������ �����

�����

���� ������� �����

������� �����

����� �����

������

����������

�����

�������

�������

�����

������

��������

��������

����� ����

����

��������

������

��������

�������

����������

�������������������

��������������

��������������������������

�

�

�� �� ��

�� �� ��������

����������

��� ��� ��� ���

��

��

��

��

2 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
The development of a TMDL is a long-term process. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(NCRWQCB), collected and analyzed water-quality and 

streamflow data to support that process for water bodies in the 

Lower Klamath River Basin.

Objective

The objective of this study is to collect and analyze 

water-quality data in order to provide hydrologic and waterquality information needed to develop TMDLs for the 

Klamath and the Lost Rivers. These data are being used for 

several purposes, including

• Characterizing the water quality of the Klamath and the 

Lost Rivers and identifying changes or trends in water 

quality over time—especially as related to land use and 

river modifications

• Providing specific data for water-quality models that 

will be used to develop TMDLs for water temperature, 

nutrients, and dissolved oxygen (DO)

• Identifying specific existing or emerging water-quality 

problems

• Developing analytical tools to support characterization of past or possible future conditions in these river 

systems

• Identifying data gaps and additional assessments and 

analyses needed to develop TMDLs

The purpose of this report is to summarize data collected 

during 2002 and 2003 and to identify gaps in information and 

additional water-quality investigations to support a more complete understanding of water-quality dynamics of the lower 

Klamath River. The report describes specific approaches for 

evaluating spatial and temporal variations in water quality and 

discusses data necessary in the development of a waterquality model of the Klamath River between Upper Klamath 

Lake and the Pacific Ocean, including that section of the Lost 

River from the California border to where the river flows into 

the Klamath River. Such a model can be used to assess

• Natural and anthropogenic sources and sinks of heat, 

DO, and nutrients

• Additional data needs (identification of data gaps) 

through model sensitivity analysis (such as the sensitivity of water temperature to shading), or needs for 

identifying, through additional monitoring or sampling, 

tributaries that affect water quality 

• Gaps in the understanding of processes contributing to 

water quality through model sensitivity analysis (such 

as the role of attached algae in primary production of 

oxygen and carbon dioxide or the influence of sediment oxygen demand on DO) 

This report presents the water-quality studies undertaken 

by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Lower Klamath River 

Basin, data collection methods and results for the Trinity, 

Klamath, Shasta, and Lost Rivers, the parcel-tracking study 

on the Klamath and Shasta Rivers, and the sediment oxygen 

demand study on the Shasta River. It also discusses and compares various models being considered for use in the basin, 

potential sources of data for those models, and existing gaps 

in the currently available data. Also included is a discussion 

of the methodology for correcting dissolved oxygen data from 

DataSonde sensors and the associated data uncertainty, using 

the data collected at sites on the Shasta River in 2002 and 

2003 as an example (appendix 2). 

Approach

Several approaches can be used to evaluate the quality 

and quantity of existing hydrologic and water-quality data and 

to identify additional data needs for better understanding of 

the river systems in the Lower Klamath River Basin. As a calibrated mathematical model is necessary for scenario development in the future preparation of TMDLs for the Klamath and 

Lost Rivers, it was decided to evaluate the data from a modeling perspective. This report provides an analysis of the data in 

the absence of a model, and in order to adequately evaluate the 

data and gaps in the data, includes a philosophical approach 

to modeling, and discusses the reasons why the integration of 

data collection and modeling would provide a better solution 

to determining data gaps and data adequacy. In the context of 

the available data, an analysis of potentially useful models for 

future development of TMDLs is included, along with possible 

sources for the additional data necessary to apply such models.

Sufficient data are currently available for rivers in the 

Lower Klamath River Basin to construct a conceptual and 

mathematical model that can be used to better evaluate where 

additional data are needed. The philosophical modeling 

approach used for this study provided a theoretical basis for 

evaluating the features, processes, and hydrological events 

in the river system that most influence the constituents being 

considered for the TMDLs. A numerical or process model 

developed using only the existing data could be used to 

develop TMDLs for this basin, but because of uncertainties 

associated with many of the parameters that are required as 

input, it is encouraged that the data gaps identified in this 

report be filled to provide a rigorous and defensible model. 

It is through the interactive process of data collection, data 

analysis, and model sensitivity analysis that a nexus can be 

achieved between a sufficiency of high-quality data and an 

adequate understanding of water-quality processes. Only then 

can sufficient data be acquired and an accurate and reliable 

model built to provide a foundation for preparing TMDLs. 

Introduction 3
Model Development

Models representing natural systems generally are composed of two parts: a conceptual model and a mathematical 

model (Hsieh and others, 2001). In general terms, a conceptual 

model is qualitative and is expressed by ideas, words, and 

figures. A mathematical model is quantitative and is expressed 

as mathematical equations. The two are closely related. In 

essence, the mathematical model results from translating the 

conceptual model into a well-posed mathematical problem that 

can be solved.

A key component to assessing data gaps is the integration of the available data and of information on the natural 

processes contributing to water quality into conceptual and 

mathematical models of a river system. When developed and 

supported by field data, models can be effective tools for 

understanding complex phenomena and for making informed 

predictions for a variety of future scenarios. However, model 

results are always subject to some degree of uncertainty owing 

to limitations in field data and incomplete knowledge of 

natural processes contributing to water quality. 

To put the modeling development and implementation into a conceptual framework, the modeling process can 

be viewed as an iterative sequence of actions that includes 

(1) identifying a site-specific problem; (2) conceptualizing 

dominant features, processes, and hydrologic events; (3) 

implementing a quantitative description of each process; (4) 

collecting and assimilating field data, and using those data to 

calibrate the model and to evaluate its predictive capabilities; 

and (5) developing predictions for use in resolving the identified problem. This process is illustrated by the flow chart in 

figure 2. Once the problem has been established, the next goal 

(fig. 2) is to assess the available site-specific data. The following section describes the data collected by the USGS during 

2002 and 2003 and provides preliminary analyses of that data. 

Water Quality

Data collection was done at Klamath River and Lost 

River locations. There was continuous monitoring of dissolved 

oxygen, water temperature, specific conductivity, and pH for 

both 2002 and 2003. Monthly sampling for water-quality constituents was done in 2002 and parcel-tracking and sediment 

oxygen demand studies were conducted in 2003. Between 

June and November 2002, the USGS began using automated 

continuous monitors to determine water quality at 12 surfacewater stations in the Lower Klamath River Basin: 6 stations 

on the Klamath River; 3 stations on the Shasta River, and 1 

station on the Trinity River (the Shasta River and the Trinity River drain into the Klamath River); 1 station on the Lost 

River upstream of Tule Lake; and 1 station on the Lost River 

downstream from Tule Lake (fig. 1). The HATFIELD station 

represents water input from the upper Lost River system into 

Tule Lake, and the TULE station represents water that has 

moved through Tule Lake to be pumped westward into Lower 

Klamath Lake

In 2003, the stations on the Lost River (HATFIELD and 

TULE) and the Trinity River (HOOPA) were discontinued and 

an additional station was added on the Shasta River (HWY3). 

These 10 stations were monitored from April through November 2003. Monthly discrete/instantaneous samples for selected 

nutrient and trace element analyses were collected at the 10 

monitoring stations in July, August, and September of 2002. 

In 2003, in order to get a better understanding of how waterquality processes changed between the various reaches of the 

Shasta River and Klamath River, a parcel-tracking (Lagrangian 

sampling) study was conducted during June and August at stations on the Klamath River, and during July and September at 

stations on the Shasta Rivers, where the same waterquality constituents were collected. A study also was conducted at six sites on the Shasta River to investigate sediment 

oxygen demand (SOD).

Data Collection and Analysis

Water-quality data have been collected by various agencies in the Klamath Basin for nearly 20 years. Because of the 

recent assignment of impairments on the Klamath, Shasta, and 

Lost Rivers, the USGS collected additional data in 2002 and 

2003 for the purpose of supplying the NCRWQCB with information necessary for them to develop a TMDL and a Water 

Quality Management Plan for the Lower Klamath Basin. 

Continuous Monitoring

Continuous water-quality monitoring instruments were 

installed at 12 locations in June and July 2002 (fig. 1; table 1). 

All the hourly data that had quality-control checks are shown 

in subsequent figures. The complete data set is archived in the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) California District National 

Water Information System (NWIS) database. An additional 

site was installed in the Shasta River near Hwy 3 in April 

2003 (HWY3); the HOOPA, TULE, and HATFIELD stations 

were discontinued after the 2002 season. Multi-parameter 

water-quality instruments from Yellow Springs Instruments, 

model 6920, were used to collect DO (mg/L), water temperature (o

C), specific conductance (μS/cm), and pH on an hourly 

basis. Standard USGS protocols were used for site selection, 

verification of the representativeness of a stream cross section, 

cleaning and calibration of probes, quality assurance procedures, and the shifting of data to account for measured biofouling and instrument drift. These protocols are documented 

by Wagner and others (2000); some are also documented in 

a USGS National Field Manual by Wilde and Radtke (1998). 

Instrument maintenance was done approximately biweekly. A 

detailed accounting of station maintenance and data analysis, 

along with an assessment of the uncertainty in the DO data for 

the Shasta River, is included in appendix 2. 

4 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Figure 2. Flow chart illustrating the elements of the modeling process. 

��������

����������

������

���������

���������

�������������

�����

����������

������������������

����������

�������

���������

�������

������������

����

�����������������

���������

����������

������

������������ �����

�������� �����

������������

����� �����������

����������������������

��������������������

���������������������

�������������

���������������������

�����������

����������������

����������

�����������������������

������������������

�������������

���������������

����� ����

����������

��������

Water Quality 5
Abbreviated

station name Station name Station ID Latitude Longitude

Drainage 

area

(mi2

)

Location Measurement periods

2002 2003

KLAMATH Klamath R. near Klamath 11530500 41.5143

−124.0004 12,100 0.2 mi upstream from Turwar Creek 7/10/02 

−

11/1/02

4/29/03 

−

11/30/03

HOOPA Trinity R. at Hoopa 11530000 41.0499

−123.6720 2,853 Hoopa Valley Indian Res. 0.1 mi 

upstream from Supply Creek

6/27/02 

−

10/28/02

ORLEANS Klamath R. at Orleans 11523000 41.3034

−123.5345 8,475 Orleans, 25 ft upstream from highway 

bridge

6/27/02 

−

11/5/02

4/29/03 

−

11/30/03

SEIAD Klamath R. near Seiad Valley 11520500 41.8537

−123.2323 6,940 0.4 m upstream from Bittenbender Creek 6/28/02 

−

11/5/02

4/29/03 

−

11/30/03

WALKER Klamath R. at Walker Bridge near 

Klamath R.

11517818 41.8376

−122.8645 5,885 1 mi downstream from Grouse Creek 6/28/02 

−

11/5/02

4/29/03 

−

11/30/03

YREKA Shasta R. near Yreka 11517500 41.8229

−122.5956 793 Shasta R. just upstream of confluence 

with Klamath R.

6/29/02 

−

11/6/02

5/14/03 

−

11/30/03

HWY3 Shasta R. at Hwy 3 near Montague 11511705 41.7268

−122.5584 676 Shasta R. at Hwy 3 4/10/03 

−

11/30/03

MONTAGUE Shasta R. near Montague 11517000 41.7090

−122.5381 673 1 mi below Little Shasta R. 6/26/02 

−

11/6/02

4/11/03 

−

11/30/03

GRENADA Shasta R. near Grenada 11516880 Not defined 6 mi upstream from Montague, at Hwy 

A

−2

EGEWOOD Shasta R. near Edgewood 11516750 41.4713

−122.4409 70 0.8 mi downstream from Beaughton 

Creek

6/26/02 

−

11/6/02

4/11/03 

−

11/30/03

IRONGATE Klamath R. below Iron Gate Dam 11516530 41.9279

−122.4442 4,630 0.1 mi downstream from Bogus Creek, 

0.6 mi downstream from Iron Gate Dam

6/26/02 

−

11/6/02

5/15/03 

−

11/30/03

SHOVEL Klamath R. above Shovel Creek 

near Copco

11510990 41.9724

−122.2020 4,164 0.1 mi upstream from Shovel Creek 7/20/02 

−

11/6/02

4/30/03 

−

11/30/03

TULE Tule Lake Canal at Sheepy Ridge 

Pumping Station near Hatfield

11488510 41.9247

−121.5661

 0.8 mi downstream from Tule Lake 

Sump

7/19/02 

−

10/1/02

HATFIELD Lost River near Hatfield 11488495 41.9539

−121.5033

 0.9 mi upstream from Tule Lake Sump 7/18/02 

−

9/19/02

Table 1. Station location and measurement periods for continuous monitoring stations in the lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003. [Stations are listed in order from the mouth of the Klamath River upstream. The Shasta River near Grenada site (GRENADA) that was used in the parcel tracking study is included to provide location information. ID, U.S. Geolological Survey station identification number; Latitude and longitude are referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD83; ft, foot; mi, mile; mi2, square miles; latitude and longitude in decimal degrees; R., River; 

 , no drainage area information available]

6 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Additional water-quality data are available on various 

websites. Compiling and reviewing this additional data might 

be useful to the TMDL process. A compilation of all other 

non-USGS data is not available at this time, but this process 

should be established as soon as possible for development of 

the TMDL. The database should include quality-control information on all data, as well as on the sources of the data.

Klamath River Locations

Continuous monitoring stations were installed at seven 

locations between Iron Gate Dam and the mouth of the 

Klamath River. Fall-run Chinook salmon spawn in the main 

stem Klamath River in a 13-mile reach from Iron Gate Dam 

to the mouth of the Shasta River (Leidy and Leidy, 1984). The 

range of the spawning area for Coho salmon is not as well 

defined for the Klamath River Basin but they are much less 

prevalent. Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead currently are raised 

at the hatchery at the Iron Gate Dam (fig.1). 

Temperature requirements vary with life stage: adult 

(migration and spawning), egg incubation and larvae, and 

juvenile rearing. Optimum temperatures for adult Chinook 

salmon are roughly 6 °C to 14°C, and excessive temperatures may arrest fish migration, predispose adults to disease, 

accelerate or retard maturation, and generally provide stress 

to the fish. Temperatures exceeding 21°C arrest the migration 

of spawning adult Chinook salmon and cause mortality when 

the temperature is exceeded for extended periods. Thus, 21°C 

is considered the maximum temperature threshold. Chinook 

salmon become susceptible to lethal diseases when temperatures attain 16°C (Deas, 2000). The spawning Coho salmon 

have an acute response to water temperatures exceeding 

25.8°C (Deas, 2000). The acute minimum threshold for DO 

for salmonid populations occurs at levels of 4.25 mg/L or less, 

with initial oxygen distress occurring at 6 mg/L (Davis, 1975) 

and chronic stress occurring at 7 mg/L (Campbell, 1995). The 

water-quality objectives for salmonids for the Karuk Tribe of 

California, who occupy much of the land bordering the lower 

one-third of the Klamath River, include acute minimum DO 

levels of 6 mg/L and minimum levels during salmonid egg 

incubation of 9 mg/L (Karuk Tribe of California, 2003). The 

NCRWQCB water-quality objectives define minimum levels 

of DO as 7.0 mg/L for tributaries to the Klamath River and 

8.0 mg/L for the Klamath River mainstem (Deas, 2000).

Data collected from the 12 stations in 2002 and from the 

10 stations in 2003 are illustrated in appendix 1. These stations 

are located from the mouth of the Klamath River upstream to 

the Lost River. Time gaps in the data for these stations generally were due to equipment failure or to extreme biofouling of 

the DO sensor. A more direct comparison of the data is shown 

in figure 3 for water temperature and in figure 4 for DO for 8 

stations: 6 stations along the Klamath River, as well as the 1 

station (HOOPA) on the Trinity River and 1 station (YREKA) 

on the Shasta River, both of which drain into the Klamath 

River.

Water Temperature

Water temperatures (fig. 3A and B) for the stations closest to the mouth of the Klamath River show less variation 

among stations and on a daily basis than temperatures farther 

upstream. The SHOVEL station (fig. 1), above the Copco 

Reservoir, generally had the coolest water temperatures, never 

rising above 25°C, and never above 22°C during August, possibly because of cool ground-water accretions in the Klamath 

River between this station and the Keno Dam below Lower 

Klamath Lake (Rykbost, 2001). Once the water travels through 

the Copco and the Iron Gate Reservoirs and is released 

from the Iron Gate Reservoir, the diurnal variation is greatly 

reduced. In 2002, the diurnal variation generally exceeded the 

daily maximum temperatures only at the SHOVEL station and 

only by about 1°C, except in the fall when heat stored in the 

reservoir water was still having an effect at IRONGATE. In 

2003, the diurnal variation at SHOVEL was larger, with daily 

maximum temperatures often exceeding those at IRONGATE. 

The water flowing into the Klamath River from the 

Shasta River, measured just upstream on the Shasta River at 

the YREKA station, had large diurnal fluctuations and the 

highest temperatures along the Klamath River system, reaching nearly 30°C in mid July (fig. 3A). Mid-August daily maximum temperatures reached 27°

C. Temperatures at the YREKA 

station exceeded the 21°C maximum threshold for salmonid 

stress (Deas, 2000) on a daily basis for nearly the entire period 

between early July and mid September 2002. Farther downstream at the WALKER station, the downstream station of an 

in-between reach that only minor tributaries flow into, had 

measured water temperatures that were similar to those at the 

IRONGATE station; however, variations in daily temperatures 

at the WALKER station were greater. The water temperature at 

WALKER also exceeded the 21°C salmonid maximum stress 

threshold for all July and most of August. The water temperature at SEIAD, farther downstream, is very similar to that at 

WALKER. The temperature at ORLEANS was within the 

same range as that at SEIAD, had very little daily variation, 

and exceeded the 21°C threshold throughout July and August. 

The Trinity River delivers cooler water to the Klamath River, 

as indicated by a lower water temperature at KLAMATH during July. The temperature at KLAMATH exceeded the 21o

C 

salmonid threshold for all of July and August 2002.

Water-temperature data for the stations along the Shasta 

River for 2002 and 2003 (fig. 5A) show that diurnal temperatures exceeded the 21°C salmonid threshold for the entire 

summer season (through September) of both 2002 and 2003. 

In 2002, the diel variation at the EDGEWOOD station, 

upstream of Lake Shastina, was larger than that at the other 

two stations (MONTAGUE and YREKA). In 2003, the three 

stations downstream from Lake Shastina (MONTAGUE, 

HWY3, and YREKA) had similar water temperatures throughout the summer season, with slightly higher temperatures at 

the YREKA station. The water temperatures at EDGEWOOD 

were lower than the temperatures at the other three stations 

for the entire 2003 measurement period, although the diurnal 

temperature also exceeded 21°C in mid July.

Water Quality 7
Figure 3. Water temperatures at continuous monitoring stations along the Klamath River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

California. A, 2002. B, 2003.

�����������

�������

���������������������

�������

�����

������

��������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������������

��������

������

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����

����

���� ���� ����� �����

���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����� ����� �����

�������������������������������������

8 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Figure 4. Dissolved oxygen at continuous monitoring stations along the Klamath River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California. A. 2002. B. 2003.

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�����������������������������������������

���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����

���� ���� ����� �����

���� ���� ���� ���� ����

����

���� ����� �����

�����������

�������

���������������������

�������

�����

������

��������������������

��������

������

���������������������������������

��������������������������������

Water Quality 9
Figure 5. Measurements of (A) water temperature and (B) dissolved oxygen at continuous water-quality monitoring stations along 

the Shasta River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003.

�

����� ����� ����� ����� �����

����

����

����� ����� ����� �����

����� ����� ����� ����� �����

����

����� ����� ����� �����

����� ����� ����� ����� �����

����

����� ����� �����

����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ���� ���� ����� ����� �����

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�����������

�����

����

��������

��������

���������������������������������������

��������������������������������������

10 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
���������������� ����������

�����������

��������������

����������

����������������

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

� �� �� ��

�����������������������������������������

����������

��������

���������

��������������������������������������

Figure 6. Relation between water temperature and dissolved 

oxygen (DO) for continuous water-quality monitoring stations 

at in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003. 

A, KLAMATH; B, SEIAD; and C, SHOVEL.

Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved oxygen data for stations along the Shasta River 

for 2002 and 2003 (fig. 5B) show that during mid summer concentrations frequently dipped below the chronic level acceptable for salmonid health. The YREKA station had the smallest 

diurnal variation in DO, and the stations at MONTAGUE and 

EDGEWOOD had the largest. In addition, the large daily 

variations in DO and the frequent occurrence of supersaturated 

conditions are indicative of the presence of a strong influence 

of photosynthesis and respiration by algae and (or) aquatic 

plants at these sites.

Although the solubility of DO is such that DO and water 

temperature should be negatively correlated, relations between 

these two constituents at most of the stations on the Klamath 

River do not follow the dictates of solubility because of the 

influence other processes, such as algal photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition. Figure 6 illustrates the variation in 

the relation by showing DO data from three stations compared 

with water temperature and the calculated solubility (DO 

saturation calculated on the basis of barometric pressures in 

table 2). The region above and to the right of the line of solubility represents measurements when photosynthetic processes 

dominate the DO balance, and the region below and to the 

left of the line of solubility (saturation) represents measurements taken at periods of time when sediment oxygen demand 

(SOD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) dominate the 

DO balance. The relation of DO to water temperature at the 

SHOVEL station was affected somewhat by photosynthetic 

processes between October and November. The SEIAD station 

was affected by algal photosynthesis and respiration between 

July and September and was not affected or only slightly 

affected between April and June. Data from the KLAMATH 

station, which had the smallest range in water temperature, 

showed the least effects owing to DO solubility. 

The DO figures (fig. 4A and B) show the chronic (7 mg/

L) and acute (4.25 mg/L) minimum thresholds for salmonids 

(Davis, 1975). Beginning upstream, the DO at the SHOVEL 

station, although extremely variable on a daily basis, never fell 

below the chronic threshold for salmonids in 2002. The relation between water temperature and DO at this location best 

represents a condition where flow is stable and relatively cool, 

and nutrient loads are low enough to not substantially influence the algal production that influences DO levels (fig. 6). 

Water Quality 11
Abbreviated

station name Date Time

Instantaneous

discharge 

(ft3/s)

[00061]

Turbidity 

(NTU)

[99872]

Barometric 

pressure 

(mm Hg)

[00025]

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

[00300]

Dissolved 

oxygen

(percent 

saturation)

[00301]

pH,

(field

standard units)

[00400]

Specific 

conductance, 

unfiltered 

water 

(μS/cm)

[00095]

Water 

temperature

(°C)

[00010]

Alkalinity,

water disrict 

fet lab (mg/L 

as CaCO3

)

[29801]

KLAMATH 7/15/02 1255 3020 2 760 8.2 94 8.4 170 22.0 75

8/20/02 1400 2110 2.1 764 9.2 103 8.7 178 21.0 839/24/02 1340 2030 E1.6 758 9.0 100 8.6 183 20.0 E82

HOOPA 7/9/02 1155 1010 1 750 8.1 94 8.6 149 22.0 68

8/12/02 1350 707 1.6 745 9.2 112 7.7 142 24.0 689/16/02 1130 631 0.7 750 9.8 106 7.5 145 18.5 E67

ORLEANS 7/9/02 1520 1820 0.8 747 8.9 105 8.3 180 22.5 77

8/13/02 1055 1260 1.8 745 7.5 91 8.1 194 24.0 849/16/02 1525 1290 1.1 747 10.4 116 8.4 193 19.5 E85

SEIAD 7/10/02 0840 1200 1.1 722 8.6 105 8.3 224 22.5 90

8/13/02 1550 774 2.7 722 8.7 114 9.8 207 26.0 879/17/02 0800 844 1.4 720 8.5 95 7.8 205 18.0 E88

WALKER 7/10/02 1315 1010 2.4 712 8.8 111 8.6 218 23.5 85

8/14/02 1020 758 4.2 713 8.1 99 8.3 202 22.0 889/17/02 1245 832 1.8 712 11.2 128 8.4 200 18.5 E85

YREKA 7/10/02 1645 21 2.6 735 7.1 98 8.6 590 30.0 280

8/14/02 1340 17 3.8 702 9.4 124 8.4 642 25.0 3109/17/02 1515 24 1.1 703 9.4 110 8.5 627 19.0 E304

MONTAGUE 7/11/02 1130 38 2.3 692 8.2 106 8.4 516 23.0 234

8/15/02 0925 25 2.9 693 7.2 86 7.9 503 19.0 2339/18/02 1615 33 2.9 696 11.0 130 8.3 522 19.0 E246

Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California.[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; <, actual values are less than the values shown; 

, no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

12 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Abbreviated

station name Date Time

Instantaneous

discharge 

(ft3/s)

[00061]

Turbidity 

(NTU)

[99872]

Barometric 

pressure 

(mm Hg)

[00025]

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

[00300]

Dissolved 

oxygen

(percent 

saturation)

[00301]

pH,

(field

standard units)

[00400]

Specific 

conductance, 

unfiltered 

water 

(μS/cm)

[00095]

Water 

temperature

(°C)

[00010]

Alkalinity,

water disrict 

fet lab (mg/L 

as CaCO3)

[29801]

EDGEWOOD 7/11/02 1330 9 1.6 682 7.5 108 8.9 238 28.0 120

8/15/02 1130 12 2.8 680 9.9 127 8.0 219 22.0 1119/19/02 0815 12 1.6 685 10.4 106 7.7 201 11.5 E104

IRONGATE 7/11/02 0820 897 1.7 700 7.1 86 8.4 209 20.5 80

8/14/02 1610 665 3.4 702 9.9 122 8.7 182 21.5 819/18/02 0845 773 1.7 703 8.7 99 8.1 183 17.5 e77

SHOVEL 7/2/02 1225 414 3 688 9.0 111 9.0 149 20.5 67

8/20/02 1125 428 1.9 690 9.9 111 8.4 176 16.0 809/19/02 1315 706 2.7 693 10.0 110 8.3 226 15.5 e84

TULE 8/19/02 1445 151 11 654 9.2 120 9.8 570 20.5 137

9/19/02 1630 219 6.5 655 11.3 145 9.5 530 20.0 E141

HATFIELD 7/18/02 1315 52 5.8 655 9.7 137 8.2 167 25.0 72

8/19/02 1305 126 4.5 654 6.9 89 7.2 220 20.0 1929/19/02 1345 207 4.9 658 9.4 115 7.6 253 18.0 E114

Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; , no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Water Quality 13
Abbreviated

station

Name

Date Time

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, dissolved

Nitrogen, ammonia + 

organics, dissolved

Nitrogen, NO2 + NO3

,

dissolved

Total inorganic 

nitrogen

(mg/L

as N)

Nitrogen/

orthophosphate

(N/PO4

)

Orthophosphate, 

dissolved

(mg/L

as P)

[00671]

 (mg/L

as N)

[00608]

 (kg/d

as N)

 (mg/L

as N)

[00623]

 (kg/d

as N)

(mg/L

as N)

[00631])

(kg/d

as N)

KLAMATH 7/15/02 1255 <0.015 <110.8 0.11 813 E0.009 67.0 0.024 E1.2 E0.02

8/20/02 1400 <0.015 <77.4 0.18 929 <0.013 <67.0 0.028





9/24/02 1340 <0.015 <74.5 0.18 894 E0.009 45.0 0.024 0.8 0.03

HOOPA 7/9/02 1155 <0.015 <37.1 E0.05 124 0.011e 27.0 0.026 <1.3 <0.02

8/12/02 1350 <0.015 <26.0 <0.1 <173 <0.013 <23.0 0.028 <1.4 <0.029/16/02 1130 <0.015 <23.2 E0.05 77 <0.013 <20.0 0.028 <1.4 <0.02

ORLEANS 7/9/02 1520 <0.015 <66.8 0.21 935 <0.013 <58.0 0.028 0.7 0.04

8/13/02 1055 <0.015 <46.2 0.29 894 <0.013 <40.0 0.028 0.7 0.049/16/02 1525 <0.015 <47.3 0.33 1,042 <0.013 <41.0 0.028 0.4 0.07

SEIAD 7/10/02 0840 <0.015 <44.0 0.39 1,145 <0.013 <38.0 0.028 0.4 0.08

8/13/02 1550 <0.015 <28.4 0.54 1,020 <0.013 <25.0 0.028 0.3 0.119/17/02 0800 E0.01 20.7 0.51 1,050 0.069 140.0 0.079 0.7 0.12

WALKER 7/10/02 1315 <0.015 <37.1 0.48 1,186 <0.013 <32.0 0.028 0.3 0.1

8/14/02 1020 0.017 31.5 0.59 1,090 0.115 213.0 0.132 1.1 0.129/17/02 1245 E0.011 22.4 0.55 1,120 0.127 259.0 0.138 1.0 0.14

YREKA 7/10/02 1645 0.03 1.5 0.52 27 0.016 0.80 0.046 0.2 0.29

8/14/02 1340 E0.01 0.4 0.59 25 <0.013 <0.50 0.023 0.1 0.329/17/02 1515 E0.009 0.5 0.47 28 0.015 0.90 0.024 0.1 0.26

MONTAGUE 7/11/02 1130 E0.009 0.8 0.33 31 <0.013 <1.2 <0.022 0.1 0.16

8/15/02 0925 <0.015 <0.9 0.22 14 <0.013 <0.80 <0.028 0.2 0.159/18/02 1615 <0.015 <1.2 0.18 15 <0.013 <1.0 <0.028 0.2 0.16

Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California

Continued.

[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; 

, no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; 

kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

14 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Abbreviated

station

Name

Date Time

Nitrogen, 

ammonia, dissolved

Nitrogen, ammonia + 

organics, dissolved

Nitrogen, NO2 + NO3,

dissolved

Total inorganic 

nitrogen

(mg/L

as N)

Nitrogen/

orthophosphate

(N/PO4)

Orthophosphate, 

dissolved

(mg/L

as P)

[00671]

 (mg/L

as N)

[00608]

 (kg/d

as N)

 (mg/L

as N)

[00623]

 (kg/d

as N)

(mg/L

as N)

[00631])

(kg/d

as N)

EDGEWOOD 7/11/02 1330 E0.009 0.2 0.32 6.7 E0.012 0.30 E0.021 0.3 0.07

8/15/02 1130 <0.015 <0.4 0.23 6.8 <0.013 <0.40 <0.028 0.6 0.059/19/02 0815 <0.015 <0.4 0.16 4.7 <0.013 <0.40 <0.028 0.5 0.06

IRONGATE 7/11/02 0820 0.032 70.2 0.54 1,190 0.073 160.0 0.105 1.0 0.11

8/14/02 1610 0.039 63.5 0.66 1,070 0.131 213.0 0.17 1.7 0.19/18/02 0845 0.027 51.1 0.55 1,040 0.214 405.0 0.241 1.6 0.15

SHOVEL 7/2/02 1225 0.018 18.2 0.47 476 0.466 472.0 0.484 3.7 0.13

8/20/02 1125 0.013 13.6 0.44 461 0.200 210.0 0.213 1.9 0.119/19/02 1315 E0.009 15.5 0.76 1,310 0.211 365.0 0.22 1.8 0.12

TULE 8/19/02 1445 E0.013 4.8 1.8 670 <0.013 <4.8 0.026 0.9 0.03

9/19/02 1630 0.02 10.7 1.9 1,020 <0.013 <7.0 0.033 1.7 0.02

HATFIELD 7/18/02 1315 0.036 4.6 0.95 120 0.277 35.2 0.313 1.3 0.24

8/19/02 1305 0.078 24.0 0.98 302 0.385 119.0 0.463 1.9 0.249/19/02 1345 0.069 35.0 0.95 481 0.294 149.0 0.363 1.4 0.26

Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; , no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Water Quality 15
Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California

Continued.

[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; 

, no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Site Date Time

Orthophosphate Phosphorus total

Total 

organic 

carbon 

Pheophytin-a

phytoplankton 

Chlor-a phytoplankton 

chromoflurom 

(kg/d

as P)

(mg/L

as P)

[00665]

(kg/d

as P)

(mg/L

as C)

[00680]

(kg/d

as C)

 (μg/L)

[62360] (g/d) (μg/L) [70953] (g/d)

KLAMATH 7/15/02 1255 150 E0.03 220 1.7 13,000 0.9 7,000 2.9 21,000

8/20/02 1400

 E0.03 150 2.4 12,000 2.2 11,000 2.3 12,000

9/24/02 1340 150 E0.05 250 4.3 21,000 2.8 14,000 2.8 14,000

HOOPA 7/9/02 1155 <50 <0.06 <150 0.8 2,000 0.3 700 0.2 500

8/12/02 1350 <35 <0.06 <100 0.9 1,600 0.3 500 0.2 3009/16/02 1130 <31 <0.06 <90 1.2 1,900 0.8 1,000 0.4 600

ORLEANS 7/9/02 1520 E180 E0.05 220 2.7 12,000 0.7 3,000 0.7 3,000

8/13/02 1055 120 0.06 190 4 12,000 3.1 9,600 2.3 7,1009/16/02 1525 220 0.1 320 4.1 13,000 2.6 8,200 1.9 6,000

SEIAD 7/10/02 0840 230 0.1 290 5.7 17,000 2.5 7,300 1.3 3,800

8/13/02 1550 210 0.15 280 6.5 12,000 5.2 9,800 3.2 6,1009/17/02 0800 250 0.14 290 6.2 13,000 11.2 23,100 6 12,000

WALKER 7/10/02 1315 250 0.14 350 6.5 16,000 2.7 6,700 2.1 5,200

8/14/02 1020 220 0.16 300 7.1 13,000 8.1 15,000 9.3 17,0009/17/02 1245 290 0.17 350 7 14,000 7.3 15,000 5.2 11,000

YREKA 7/10/02 1645 15 0.35 18 7.3 380 3.8 200 2.1 110

8/14/02 1340 13 0.34 14 7.9 330 2.5 100 1.6 709/17/02 1515 15 0.27 16 10.6 620 3.4 200 1.7 100

MONTAGUE 7/11/02 1130 15 0.19 18 3.4 300 1.7 200 1.0 100

8/15/02 0925 9 0.16 9 2.9 200 1.2 100 0.4 09/18/02 1615 13 0.16 13 5.0 400 1.1 100 0.4 0

16 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

CaliforniaContinued.[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; , no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Site Date Time

Orthophosphate Phosphorus total

Total 

organic 

carbon 

Pheophytin-a

phytoplankton 

Chlor-a phytoplankton 

chromoflurom 

(kg/d

as P)

(mg/L

as P)

[00665]

(kg/d

as P)

(mg/L

as C)

[00680]

(kg/d

as C)

 (μg/L)

[62360] (g/d) (μg/L) [70953] (g/d)

EDGEWOOD 7/11/02 1330 2 0.10 2 4.4 100 4.2 100 2.6 100

8/15/02 1130 2 0.07 2 3.9 100 4.7 100 6.5 2009/19/02 0815 2 0.08 2 4.1 100 8.6 300 6.0 200

IRONGATE 7/11/02 0820 240 0.15 330 6.3 14,000 2 4,400 3.6 7,900

8/14/02 1610 160 0.17 280 10.3 17,000 2.8 4,600 40.4 65,7009/18/02 0845 280 0.16 300 6.4 12,000 5 9,500 8.4 16,000

SHOVEL 7/2/02 1225 130 0.15 150 4.6 4,700 4.5 4,600 2.5 2,500

8/20/02 1125 120 0.12 130 5.1 5,300 3.6 3,800 2.7 2,8009/19/02 1315 210 0.15 260 9.1 16,000 10.4 18,000 6.4 11,000

TULE 8/19/02 1445 11 0.24 89 29.8 11,000 8.3 3,100 37.2 13,700

9/19/02 1630 11 0.24 130 28.5 15,000 25.9 13,900 45.5 24,400

HATFIELD 7/18/02 1315 31 0.32 41 11.4 1,500 31.6 4,020 22.8 2,900

8/19/02 1305 74 0.29 89 11.2 3,500 9.3 2,900 5.0 2,0009/19/02 1345 130 0.31 160 11.2 5,700 17.3 8,760 27.0 14,000

Water Quality 17
Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California

Continued.

[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; 

, no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Site Date Time

Aluminum, 

dissolved 

(μg/L)

[01106]

Antimony, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01095]

Arsenic, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01000]

Barium, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01005]

Beryllium,

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01010]

Cadmium, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01025]

Chromium, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01030)

Cobalt, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01035]

Copper, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01040]

KLAMATH 7/15/02 1255



















8/20/02 1400



















9/24/02 1340 <1 <0.05 3 14.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.08 0.7

HOOPA 7/9/02 1155



















8/12/02 1350



















9/16/02 1130 1 0.09 2 14.0 0.06 0.04 <0.8 0.04 0.5

ORLEANS 7/9/02 1520



















8/13/02 1055



















9/16/02 1525 1 E0.05 3 14.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.1 0.8

SEIAD 7/10/02 0840



















8/13/02 1550



















9/17/02 0800 2 E0.04 4 10.0 <0.06 <0.04 2.4 0.13 1.2

WALKER 7/10/02 1315



















8/14/02 1020



















9/17/02 1245 2 E0.04 5 8.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.13 0.6

YREKA 7/10/02 1645



















8/14/02 1340



















9/17/02 1515 1 0.09 6 42.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.19 1.0

MONTAGUE 7/11/02 1130



















8/15/02 0925



















9/18/02 1615 <1 E0.04 7 29.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.09 0.7

18 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; , no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Site Date Time

Aluminum, 

dissolved 

(μg/L)

[01106]

Antimony, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01095]

Arsenic, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01000]

Barium, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01005]

Beryllium,

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01010]

Cadmium, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01025]

Chromium, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01030)

Cobalt, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01035]

Copper, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01040]

EDGEWOOD 7/11/02 1330         

8/15/02 1130         9/19/02 0815 1 0.07 2 7.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.09 0.7

IRONGATE 7/11/02 0820         

8/14/02 1610         9/18/02 0845 2 E0.03 5 7.0 <0.06 <0.04 <0.8 0.11 0.8

SHOVEL 7/2/02 1225         

8/20/02 1125         9/19/02 1315 2 0.05 6 7.0 <0.06 E0.03 <0.8 0.15 0.8

TULE 8/19/02 1445         

9/19/02 1630 2 0.16 9 11.0 <0.06 E0.02 <0.8 0.2 1.7

HATFIELD 7/18/02 1315  0.04 1 0.3 0.2 0.3 11.4 31.6 22.8

8/19/02 1305  0.08 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 11.2 9.3 5.09/19/02 1345 3 0.07 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 11.2 17.3 27.0

Water Quality 19
Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California

Continued.

[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; 

, no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Site Date Time Manganese, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01056]

Mercury, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[71890]

Mercury, total 

recoverable 

(μg /L)

[71900]

Molybdenum, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01060]

Nickel, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01065]

Selenium, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01145]

Silver, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01075]

Zinc, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01090]

Uranium, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[22703]

KLAMATH 7/15/02 1255



















8/20/02 1400



















9/24/02 1340 3 E0.01 <0.01 0.6 2.43 E1 <1 1 0.07

HOOPA 7/9/02 1155



















8/12/02 1350



















9/16/02 1130 0.9 E0.01 E0.01 0.5 1.55 <2 <1  0.06

ORLEANS 7/9/02 1520



















8/13/02 1055



















9/16/02 1525 2.5 <0.01 <0.01 0.8 2.28 <2 <1  0.11

SEIAD 7/10/02 0840



















8/13/02 1550



















9/17/02 0800 7.2 0.01 0.02 1.0 1.36 <2 <1  0.12

WALKER 7/10/02 1315



















8/14/02 1020



















9/17/02 1245 6.1 E0.01 E0.01 1.0 1.00 <2 <1  0.13

YREKA 7/10/02 1645



















8/14/02 1340



















9/17/02 1515 9.7 0.04 0.05 1.0 5.05 <2 <1  0.72

MONTAGUE 7/11/02 1130



















8/15/02 0925



















9/18/02 1615 4.7 E0.01 <0.01 0.8 3.13 <2 <1  0.72

20 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Table 2. Water-quality data collected in July, August, and September 2002 for 12 sites in the Lower Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[See table 1 for full station name and figure 1 for station location; E indicates value is estimated. Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mm Hg, millimeters of mercury; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS /cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; kg/d, kilograms per day; <, actual values are less than the values shown; , no data; N/PO4, ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphate; mg/L, milligrams per liter; kg/d, kilograms per day; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Site Date Time Manganese, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01056]

Mercury, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[71890]

Mercury, total 

recoverable 

(μg /L)

[71900]

Molybdenum, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01060]

Nickel, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01065]

Selenium, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01145]

Silver, 

dissolved 

(μg /L)

[01075]

Zinc, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[01090]

Uranium, 

dissolved

(μg /L)

[22703]

EDGEWOOD 7/11/02 1330         

8/15/02 1130         9/19/02 0815 3.7 <0.01 <0.01 0.5 9.28 <2 <1  0.07

IRONGATE 7/11/02 0820         

8/14/02 1610         9/18/02 0845 7.3 E0.01 <0.01 1.0 0.80 <2 <1  0.10

SHOVEL 7/2/02 1225         

8/20/02 1125         9/19/02 1315 4.9 E0.01 <0.01 1.7 0.92 <2 <1  0.17

TULE 8/19/02 1445         

9/19/02 1630 2.6 E0.01 E0.01 7.9 2.21 <2 <1  0.49

HATFIELD 7/18/02 1315         

8/19/02 1305         9/19/02 1345 35.5 <0.01 E0.01 1.6 1.46 <2 <1  0.22

Water Quality 21
����

��

���

�����

������

�������

��� ��� ���� ���� ����

���������� ������������������������

����

��

���

�����

������

�������

��� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� ����

�

�

�������

���������������������

�������

�����

��������������������

�����������������������

��������

�����������

Figure 7. Discharge for seven USGS streamflow gaging stations on the Klamath, Trinity, and Shasta Rivers in the Lower Klamath 

River Basin, California, 2002 and 2003.

Streamflow is regulated in all but the smallest subbasins 

throughout the study area. The effects of regulation are most 

obvious at IRONGATE on the Klamath River and at HOOPA 

on the Trinity River (fig. 7). The greater short-term variability 

of flow at MONTAGUE and YREKA on the Shasta River 

represents a more natural regime. Estimation of natural flow, 

encompassing both seasonal and daily variations, is beyond 

the scope of this study but is under investigation by others 

(Perry and others, 2004). The stations downstream from the 

Iron Gate Reservoir on the Klamath River show changes in the 

release rates from the Iron Gate Dam that occurred as a reduction in discharge on July 11 and July 31, 2002, and July 10, 

2003, and increased discharge on September 1 and September 

27, 2002, and August 1, September 1, and September 21, 

2003. Figure 7 shows the effects of the dam release rates at 

seven streamflow-gaging stations on the Klamath, Trinity, and 

Shasta Rivers. Discharge was typically higher at all stations 

in 2003 than in 2002. Variations in the DO concentration at 

IRONGATE may be related to reservoir DO conditions that 

are accentuated by the change in discharge. DO fluctuations 

were smaller in 2003 than in 2002 for all stations throughout 

most of the measurement period, probably because of the 

increased discharge. 

22 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Table 3. Water-quality data from Lagrangian parcel-tracking study in 2003 on the Shasta River and Klamath River in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, California

[Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used 

to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; −, no drainage area information available; <, actual value less than the value shown; °C, degrees celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; , no data; CaCO3

, calcium carbonate; acre-ft, acre-feet; e indicates value is estimated; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

DO at the YREKA station on the Shasta River was low 

at times, below the chronic minimum of 7 mg/L for salmonids through more than half of July of both 2002 and 2003 

(fig. 4, tables 2 and 3). Although the low DO water from the 

Shasta River flows into the Klamath River, the flows were 

too low to greatly affect the DO at the downstream WALKER 

station, which had DO values above the chronic threshold 

through July. Few data, however, were available for the 

WALKER station for August and September 2002. Values 

for the SEIAD station remain above the chronic minimum 

threshold for the entire 2002 season but decreased to below 

the chronic minimum in both July and September 2003. DO at 

the ORLEANS station never decreased below either minimum 

threshold. Some of the highs and lows in DO that occurred at 

the YREKA station were visible in the data from the SEIAD 

and the ORLEANS stations, yet the patterns do not extend all 

the way downstream to the KLAMATH station. These patterns 

may be due partly to climatic patterns that influence algal 

activity. DO at the HOOPA station was above the minimum 

thresholds. However, DO at the KLAMATH station was lower 

than at any other station downstream from the WALKER station for several periods between July and September of 2002, 

reaching or falling just below the chronic minimum threshold. 

DO concentration at the KLAMATH station was similar to 

that at the ORLEANS station in 2003, which was a higher 

discharge year. 

Abbreviated

 station 

name. Station ID Date Time

Instantaneous 

discharge 

(ft3/s)

[00061]

Drainage 

area 

(mi2)

Turbidity 

(NTU)

[99872]

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

[00300]

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(percent 

saturation)

[00301]

pH, field

(standard 

units)

[00400]

Specific 

conductivity, field 

(μS/cm)

Shasta River

Grenada 11516880 6/17/03 0840 103 2.7 6.8 83 8.0 426

Montague 11517000 6/17/03 1150 73 673 5.3 8.7 109 8.3 479

Hwy3 11517015 6/17/03 1435 81 676 2.0 9.9 129 8.4 484

Yreka 11517500 6/17/03 1815 103 793 2.1 8.8 121 8.8 494

Grenada 11516880 8/19/03 0830 83 -- 2.1 6.6 77 7.9 426

Montague 11517000 8/19/03 1120 64 673 3.6 8.9 110 8.2 490

Hwy3 11517015 8/19/03 1250 59 676 4.3 10.0 127 8.4 498

Yreka 11517500 8/19/03 1820 62 793 3.7 7.3 97 8.8 530

Klamath River

Irongate 11516530 7/14/03 0810 747 4,630 1.9 8.6 105 8.2 198

Walker 11517818 7/14/03 1940 933 5,885 2.0 8.4 107 8.8 220

Seiad 11520500 7/15/03 0630 1,110 6,940 1.3 7.8 94 8.3 224

Orleans 11523000 7/16/03 0650 2,510 8,475 2.3 8.6 98 8.2 177

Klamath 11530500 7/17/03 0910 4,680 12,100 1.0 8.5 94 8.2 161

Irongate 11516530 9/15/03 0800 1,190 4,630 4.1 7.0 82 8.4 160

Walker 11517818 9/15/03 1930 1,410 5,885 3.2 8.8 102 8.5 186

Seiad 11520500 9/16/03 0650 1,370 6,940 3.6 8.7 95 8.1 200

Orleans 11523000 9/17/03 0720 1,990 8,475 4.4 9.4 100 8.3 189

Klamath 11530500 9/18/03 0920 3,110 12,100 2.3 9.4 97 8.1 168

Water Quality 23
Abbreviated

 station 

name. Station ID Date Time

Water 

temperature

(oC)

[00010]

Hardness, 

unfiltered 

(mg/L as 

CaCO3)

Calcium, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00915]

Magnesium, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00935]

Potassium, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00935]

Sodium, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00930]

Sodium, 

percent in 

equivalents of 

major 

cations

[00932]

Shasta River

Grenada 11516880 6/17/03 0840 19.6 170 21.1 27.6 2.35 27.7 26

Montague 11517000 6/17/03 1150 21.0 180 24.0 30.3 2.78 31.7 27

Hwy3 11517015 6/17/03 1435 23.0 180 23.8 30.0 2.87 31.7 27

Yreka 11517500 6/17/03 1815 26.0 200 28.1 31.8 2.86 31.7 25

Grenada 11516880 8/19/03 0830 18.2 170 22.7 26.8 2.55 27.7 26

Montague 11517000 8/19/03 1120 21.0 190 27.5 29.8 3.10 32.1 26

Hwy3 11517015 8/19/03 1250 22.0 200 28.1 30.4 3.12 33.0 26

Yreka 11517500 8/19/03 1820 25.5 210 31.8 32.8 3.30 34.2 25

Klamath River

Irongate 11516530 7/14/03 0810 21.5 65 13.4 7.73 3.03 16.3 34

Walker 11517818 7/14/03 1940 24.0 15.3 9.63 2.85 16.6 31

Seiad 11520500 7/15/03 0630 22.0 86 16.9 10.6 2.25 13.4 25

Orleans 11523000 7/16/03 0650 21.5 74 16.0 8.19 1.47 8.18 19

Klamath 11530500 7/17/03 0910 20.0 70 15.5 7.59 .91 5.25 14

Irongate 11516530 9/15/03 0800 19.5 55 11.5 6.43 2.54 13.2 33

Walker 11517818 9/15/03 1930 19.5 12.7 8.21 2.55 14.1 31

Seiad 11520500 9/16/03 0650 17.5 74 14.4 9.22 2.47 13.9 28

Orleans 11523000 9/17/03 0720 18.0 75 15.6 8.69 1.99 11.3 24

Klamath 11530500 9/18/03 0920 17.0 76 15.9 8.77 1.34 7.59 18

24 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.

Table 3. Water-quality data from Lagrangian parcel-tracking study in 2003 on the Shasta River and Klamath River in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used 

to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; −, no drainage area information available; <, actual value less than the value shown; °C, degrees celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; , no data; CaCO3

, calcium carbonate; acre-ft, acre-feet; e indicates value is estimated; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; μg/L, micrograms per liter]
Abbreviated

 station 

name. Station ID Date Time

Alkalinity,

water, 

filtered, 

field (mg/L 

as CaCO3)

[39086]

Bicarbonate, water, 

filtered, 

field 

(mg/L)

[00453]

Carbonate, 

water, 

filtered, 

field 

(mg/L)

[00452]

Chloride, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00940]

Fluoride, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00950]

Silica, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00945]

Sulfate, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[00945]

Shasta River

Grenada 11516880 6/17/03 0840 194 231 2 15.1 0.2 54.8 5.6

Montague 11517000 6/17/03 1150 263 314 3 18.3 .2 53.7 6.5

Hwy3 11517015 6/17/03 1435 227 268 4 18.4 .3 53.8 6.5

Yreka 11517500 6/17/03 1815 238 269 10 18.3 .3 49.0 7.6

Grenada 11516880 8/19/03 0830 188 227 <1 15.8 .3 57.7 5.8

Montague 11517000 8/19/03 1120 216 260 2 19.2 .3 57.3 6.2

Hwy3 11517015 8/19/03 1250 238 286 2 20.6 .3 57.3 6.4

Yreka 11517500 8/19/03 1820 240 280 6 21.6 .3 51.0 7.7

Klamath River

Irongate 11516530 7/14/03 0810 100 122 <1 4.25 <0.2 28.1 13.3

Walker 11517818 7/14/03 1940 88 104 2 5.37 <.2 27.2 11.9

Seiad 11520500 7/15/03 0630 94 114 1 5.48 <.2 23.9 10.5

Orleans 11523000 7/16/03 0650 86 104 <1 3.78 <.2 19.8 7.0

Klamath 11530500 7/17/03 0910 72 87 <1 2.87 <.2 16.2 5.7

Irongate 11516530 9/15/03 0800 76 92 1 3.88 <.2 37.5 6.3

Walker 11517818 9/15/03 1930 78 94 1 5.21 <.2 36.1 6.4

Seiad 11520500 9/16/03 0650 76 92 1 5.65 <.2 34.4 6.5

Orleans 11523000 9/17/03 0720 90 109 <1 5.23 <.2 29.2 5.9

Klamath 11530500 9/18/03 0920 78 95 <1 3.87 <.2 21.4 5.4

Water Quality 25

Table 3. Water-quality data from Lagrangian parcel-tracking study in 2003 on the Shasta River and Klamath River in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used 

to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; −, no drainage area information available; <, actual value less than the value shown; °C, degrees celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; , no data; CaCO3

, calcium carbonate; acre-ft, acre-feet; e indicates value is estimated; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; μg/L, micrograms per liter]
Abbreviated

 station 

name. Station ID Date Time

Residue on 

evaporation, 

dried at 

180 C, water, 

filtered 

(mg/L)

[70300]

Ammonia 

plus organic 

nitrogen, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L as N)

[00608]

Ammonia, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L as N)

Nitrite plus 

nitrate, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L as N)

[00631]

Orthophosphate, 

water, 

filtered 

(mg/L as P)

[00671]

Total

phosphorus, 

water, 

unfiltered 

(mg/L)

[00665]

Shasta River

Grenada 11516880 6/17/03 0840 275 0.23 <0.015 <0.022 0.14 0.15

Montague 11517000 6/17/03 1150 289 .33 <.015 <.022 .14 .17

Hwy3 11517015 6/17/03 1435 300 .35 <.015 <.022 .15 .17

Yreka 11517500 6/17/03 1815 309 .36 <.015 <.022 .15 .17

Grenada 11516880 8/19/03 0830 270 .20 <.015 <.022 .15 .17

Montague 11517000 8/19/03 1120 302 .30 <.015 <.022 .17 .19

Hwy3 11517015 8/19/03 1250 317 .38 <.015 <.022 .14 .17

Yreka 11517500 8/19/03 1820 335 .41 <.015 <.022 .16 .19

Klamath River

Irongate 11516530 7/14/03 0810 150 0.53 0.014 0.125 0.1 0.12

Walker 11517818 7/14/03 1940 139 .49 <.015 .013 .1 .11

Seiad 11520500 7/15/03 0630 140 .35 <.015 .038 .07 .08

Orleans 11523000 7/16/03 0650 120 .16 <.015 <.022 .03 .04

Klamath 11530500 7/17/03 0910 100 .10 <.015 <.022 .01 .02

Irongate 11516530 9/15/03 0800 130 .61 .009 .317 .12 .16

Walker 11517818 9/15/03 1930 147 .58 .010 .285 .12 .16

Seiad 11520500 9/16/03 0650 141 .55 .008 .257 .11 .16

Orleans 11523000 9/17/03 0720 136 .36 <.015 .018 .06 .11

Klamath 11530500 9/18/03 0920 122 .17 <.015 <.022 .03 .06

26 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.

Table 3. Water-quality data from Lagrangian parcel-tracking study in 2003 on the Shasta River and Klamath River in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used 

to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; −, no drainage area information available; <, actual value less than the value shown; °C, degrees celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; , no data; CaCO3

, calcium carbonate; acre-ft, acre-feet; e indicates value is estimated; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; μg/L, micrograms per liter]
Abbreviated

 station 

name. Station ID Date Time

Total 

nitrogen, 

water,

 filtered 

(mg/L)

[00602]

Organic

carbon, 

water,

unfiltered 

(mg/L)

[00680]

Pheophytin-a, 

phytoplankton (μg/L)

[62360]

Chlorophylla, phytoplankton, 

chromatographicfluorometric 

method (μg/L)

[70953]

Iron,

water, 

filtered 

(μg/L)

[01046]

Manganese, 

water, filtered (μg/L)

[01056]

Shasta River

Grenada 11516880 6/17/03 0840 3.7 4.6 1.7 9 3.4

Montague 11517000 6/17/03 1150 5.6 2.9 .9 12 9.2

Hwy3 11517015 6/17/03 1435 4.5 2.1 .7 10 12.4

Yreka 11517500 6/17/03 1815 5.1 1.1 .4 9 3.7

Grenada 11516880 8/19/03 0830 4.1 3.7 1.0 8 2.9

Montague 11517000 8/19/03 1120 5 1.5 .7 12 5.7

Hwy3 11517015 8/19/03 1250 5.7 1.6 .9 11 7.2

Yreka 11517500 8/19/03 1820 6.7 2.7 .9 7 6.6

Klamath River

Irongate 11516530 7/14/03 0810 0.65 6.9 3.8 5.8 24 3.2

Walker 11517818 7/14/03 1940 6.2 1.6 .8 23 5.4

Seiad 11520500 7/15/03 0630 .39 4.8 2.6 1.2 20 4.5

Orleans 11523000 7/16/03 0650 2.3 1.5 .8 14 1.4

Klamath 11530500 7/17/03 0910 1.5 .6 .9 8 1.1

Irongate 11516530 9/15/03 0800 .93 8.5 3.8 6.8 21 2.4

Walker 11517818 9/15/03 1930 8.8 4.2 5.0 21 4.8

Seiad 11520500 9/16/03 0650 .80 7.6 5.5 5.0 24 4.2

Orleans 11523000 9/17/03 0720 8.1 5.7 9.7 19 1.8

Klamath 11530500 9/18/03 0920 3.2 2.5 6.2 11 1.3

Water Quality 27

Table 3. Water-quality data from Lagrangian parcel-tracking study in 2003 on the Shasta River and Klamath River in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[Parameter code, in brackets, is a 5-digit number from the U.S. Geological Survey computerized data system, National Water Information System (NWIS), used 

to uniquely identify a specific constituent or property. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; mg/L, milligrams per 

liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; −, no drainage area information available; <, actual value less than the value shown; °C, degrees celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; , no data; CaCO3

, calcium carbonate; acre-ft, acre-feet; e indicates value is estimated; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; μg/L, micrograms per liter]
�����������

���� �����������������������������������

��������

�

��

��

��

��

��

����� ��

����������

�� ������� �������

�

�

��

��

��

��

����� ����� ����� ����� ����� �����

���������� �������

�� ���������� ��� �����

�

�

����

Figure 8. (A) Water temperature and (B) dissolved oxygen at continuous water-quality monitoring stations at TULE and HATFIELD on the Lost River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002.

Lost River Locations

Two species of suckers are endangered in the Lost 

River. These fish require less oxygen than salmonids, but DO 

concentrations of less than 2.4 mg/L are considered lethal to 

suckers (Rykbost, 2001). Water temperatures of greater than 

31 to 33 oC are considered above the maximum threshold for 

suckers in the Klamath Basin (National Research Council, 

2004). Water-quality constituents are being measured at the 

HATFIELD station, which is located on the Lost River where 

it drains into Tule Lake, and at the TULE station, which is 

located at the exit of the lake where water is pumped from 

Tule Lake into Lower Klamath Lake.

Water temperature and DO for the Lost River stations are shown in figure 8. Water temperatures were above 

21oC for most of July and August, extending above 25oC on 

several days. Water temperatures at the Lost River stations 

were nearly always higher than those at the SHOVEL station (fig. 3A). Daily concentrations of DO were extremely 

variable at the HATFIELD station, but were relatively low at 

the TULE station. Although the record for the HATFIELD 

station has large gaps, variations in the weekly or bi-weekly 

concentrations were quite large, indicating the influences 

of a complex system at this site (fig. 8). The DO concentrations at the HATFIELD station were below the lethal limit 

for suckers on most days during the period of record; the DO 

concentrations at the TULE station also were problematic for 

fish health. These wide variations in DO concentrations at the 

Lost River sites reflect the complex interaction of nutrient and 

sunlight availability, algal productivity, and biologic and sediment oxygen demand in the Lost River and Tule Lake, where 

water has a much longer average residence time than in any 

of the Klamath River reaches. Trends in the DO data for the 

SHOVEL station (fig. 4A), the closest station to receive water 

flowing from Tule Lake, are similar to those for the stations on 

the Klamath River, indicating very different influences of flow 

and other factors on DO between the stations in the two river 

systems. Information on water-quality conditions in the stretch 

of river between the Upper Klamath Lake and the SHOVEL 

station would help clarify the relative importance of the 

processes affecting DO in the reach upstream of the SHOVEL 

station.

28 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Monthly Water-Quality Sampling

Water-quality samples were collected at 12 stations each 

month from July through September 2002 using an equaldischarge increment depth-integrated method at five centroids 

across the stream cross section; all data that were collected 

and analyzed are given in table 2 according to standard USGS 

procedures and quality-control protocols used at the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory. In 2003, the datacollection approach was changed to a parcel-tracking study 

to determine physical and chemical changes to a “parcel” of 

water as it moved downstream (the Lagrangian approach) from 

IRONGATE to the estuary at the mouth of the Klamath River 

at the KLAMATH station and from the GRENADA station to 

the YREKA station on the Shasta River. 

The existing Water Quality Control Plan for the North 

Coast Region (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 

Plan, accessed April 2002) includes no direct guidelines for 

nutrient concentrations, except that “waters shall not contain 

biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote 

aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance 

or adversely affect beneficial uses.” The range in allowable pH 

is 7.0 to 8.5 for the Klamath, Trinity, and Shasta Rivers and 

7.0 to 9.0 for Tule Lake and the Lost River. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has a “desired goal,” 

rather than a criterion, of 0.1 mg/L for total phosphorus for the 

prevention of plant nuisances in streams (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1986). Furthermore, the USEPA’s desired 

goal for total phosphorus should not exceed 0.05 mg/L in any 

stream at the point where it enters any lake or reservoir nor 

0.025 mg/L within the lake or reservoir.

In 2001, the USEPA developed recommended nutrient 

criteria for rivers and streams of 13 aggregate ecoregions in 

the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2002). The USEPA’s recommended ecoregional nutrient criteria represent conditions of surface waters that have minimal 

impacts caused by human activities. The criteria are suggested 

baselines. California and the Regional Technical Advisory 

Group: National Nutrient Development, Region 9, are in the 

process of refining these ecoregional criteria. The USEPA’s 

recommended total phosphorus and total nitrogen criteria for 

ecoregion II, which includes the Klamath and Lost Rivers, 

are 0.01 and 0.12 mg/L, respectively (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2002), as well as a recommended level of 

chlorophyll-a of no more than 1.08 μg/L. The interpretation of 

the measured nutrient data for the Lower Klamath River Basin 

is based on these recommendations, as well as on our experience and observations of conditions that likely may cause 

nuisance levels of algae or that may adversely affect beneficial 

uses of the water.

2002 Sampling Program

Klamath River Locations

Selected data from the monthly water-quality sampling 

that occurred in July, August, and September 2002, are shown 

in figures 9, 10, and 11. All the hourly data for which quality-assurance checks were completed are shown in the figures. 

The complete data set is archived in the California District 

NWIS database. Figure 9 shows discharge, DO, turbidity, 

conductivity, alkalinity, water temperature, and pH. The data 

are presented in groups of three with each bar representing 

the data for each month for that station. Turbidity was somewhat elevated in August at the IRONGATE, YREKA, and 

WALKER stations, but diminished downstream. Conductance 

and alkalinity were very high at the YREKA station for all 3 

months (consistent with the continuously monitored data for 

that station, see appendix 1), confirming the relative hardness 

of the water in the Shasta River compared with that in the rest 

of the Klamath River drainage, which may be related to the 

effects of irrigation and evaporation, as well as the geology of 

the Shasta River Basin. The hardness of the water provides a 

buffering capacity for specific conductivity in the Shasta River 

that doesn’t extend downstream in the Klamath River because 

of the small contribution of water from the Shasta River. The 

pH was high at all stations, but reached a peak in August at the 

SEIAD station at pH 9.8, which is above the recommended 

maximum of pH 8.5. There is no apparent relation between 

this high value of pH with any other constituents, and although 

it had the potential to influence ammonia toxicity, the filtered 

ammonia levels at this location were very low. These values 

are not inconsistent with the continuously collected data for 

these sites, many of which exceeded the 8.5 maximum on 

the Klamath River at many times throughout the 2002 season 

(appendix 1).

Concentrations of nitrogen constituents were low at 

all the stations measured, with the possible exception of the 

those at WALKER, IRONGATE, SHOVEL, and HATFIELD 

stations (fig. 10; table 2). The total nitrogen concentrations 

for the SHOVEL and HATFIELD stations could be considered a concern. Concentrations of orthophosphate were high 

enough to promote a nuisance level of algae at most sites, and 

concentrations at the SEIAD, WALKER, YREKA, MONTAGUE, IRONGATE, SHOVEL, and HATFIELD stations 

were high enough to be considered “excessive.” Levels of 

in-stream soluble phosphate greater than 0.025 mg/L contribute to a saturation of algal growth (Bothwell, 1989), levels at 

these sites approached or exceeded this concentration for the 

sampling dates in 2002. Concentrations of orthophosphate 

at the upstream stations, particularly concentrations at the 

HATFIELD station on the Lost River and at the YREKA station on the Shasta River, were large enough to be considered 

hypereutrophic, similar to concentrations in Upper Klamath 

Lake where hypereutrophic conditions occurred at these 

levels (Boyd and others, 2002), whereas concentrations at the 

KLAMATH, HOOPA, ORLEANS, and TULE stations 

Water Quality 29
Figure 9. Monthly water-quality sampling data for July, August, and September 2002 for six sites on the Klamath River, 

one site on the Trinity River, three sites on the Shasta River, and two sites on the Lost River in the Lower Klamath River 

Basin, Califonia. A. Instantaneous discharge, dissolved oxygen (DO), and turbidity, and B. Specific conductance, alkalinity, water temperature, and pH.

�

��

���

�����

������

�

�

�

��

���������

���������

����������������

�

���

���

���

���

�

��

��

��

��

�����������

����������

�����������������

��

�������������������

���������������

������� ���� ���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

���

����

����

���

����

�����������

�����

�������

�����

������

�����

��������

��������

��������

������

����

��������

��������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������

���������������������

�������������������

������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������

probably were low enough to limit further algal growth. Concentrations of total phosphorus exceeded the recommended 

level of 0.01 mg/L for Ecoregion II, the Klamath River Basin, 

at all stations. 

Loads were calculated using measured discharge (table 2) 

and concentrations for the nitrogen and phosphorus species, 

total organic carbon, chlorophyll-a, and pheophytin-a, and 

are presented in figure 11 along with the nitrogen:phosphorus 

ratio. The mass ratio of total inorganic nitrogen to orthophosphorus in algae is about 7, much higher than the maximum 

3.7 and median 1.0 measured in the 2002 monthly samples. 

Thus it is clear there is no P limitation on phytoplankton/algal 

growth. This is not necessarily true for blue-green algae such 

as Aphanizomenon flos-aquae which are fixed to atmospheric 

nitrogen and are predominant in the Iron Gate and Copco 

Reservoirs. Benthic algae such as Cladophora spp. reside 

throughout the mainstem Klamath River. Reducing phosphorus inputs would affect algal biomass only under conditions 

where sufficient reduction takes place to make phosphorus 

a growth-limiting constituent (Lee and Jones, 1991). The 

required reduction of phosphorus to restrict algal growth 

would be difficult given its high concentration in the natural environment of this basin. The concept of using limiting 

nutrients to manage eutrophication in the Klamath River Basin 

is questionable. 

The Iron Gate Reservoir has more than twice the load 

of ammonia + organic nitrogen, although less nitrates and 

nitrites, as that at the SHOVEL station (fig. 11). This is also 

reflected at the WALKER station on the Shasta River, which 

contributes very little nutrient load. Indicators of phytoplankton biomass, chlorophyll-a and pheophytin-a in the Shasta and 

Trinity Rivers suggest that these constituents did not 

30 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
�����

����

���

�

��

���������������������������������

�������������������������������������

����������������������������

�

���

���

���

���

��������������������

���

�

��

���

��������������������������

���������������������������������������

����������������������������������������

��������������������������

�����������������������

�����������������

�����������������������

�

�

�

���������������������������������

�����������������������

���������������������������������������������

�������

�����������

�����

�������

�����

������

�����

��������

��������

��������

������

����

��������

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

���

����

����

���

����

Figure 10. Monthly water-quality sampling data for July, August, and September 2002 for six sites on the 

Klamath River, one site on the Trinity River, three sites on the Shasta River, and two sites on the Lost River in the 

Lower Klamath River Basin, California. A. Nitrogen, B. Phosphorus constituents, and C. Total organic carbon (TOC), 

and phytoplankton indicators pheophytin-a and chlorophyll-a, calculated as concentrations.

contribute appreciably to the loads in the Klamath River. Biomass loads of chlorophyll-a and pheophytin-a were somewhat 

higher at the SHOVEL station in September as was ammonia 

+ organic nitrogen. There was a peak in chlorophyll-a (40.4 

μg/L, 65,700 g/day; table 2) at the IRONGATE station in 

August and a relatively high value (9.3 μg/L, 17,000 g/day; 

table 2) at the WALKER station, but it is not clear if this 

would have been partially responsible for the elevated pH at 

the SEIAD station that month. There were somewhat high 

loads of phytoplankton indicators present at the KLAMATH 

station in July and September, with low values being transmitted from upstream. The high phytoplankton loads could have 

contributed to the low DO concentration in the water during 

this time. Further analysis and modeling would be needed to 

integrate all factors responsible for phytoplankton growth and 

DO into the interpretation of cause or source, and to evaluate other possible sources between the ORLEANS and the 

KLAMATH stations.

Water Quality 31
���

���

���

���

���

�

���

���

���

���

�����

�����

�����

���

���

���

���

�

�

�

�

�����

������

������

������

������

�

�

�

�

�����������������������������

���������������

��������������������

����������

��������������������

�

�

�

�

�����������������

��������������������

���������������������������������

��������������������

�������

�����

�������

�����

������

�����

��������

��������

��������

������

����

��������

���������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��

����������������������������

��������������������

��������������������������

���������������������������������������

����������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������

����������� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

���

����

����

���

����

Figure 11. Monthly water-quality sampling data for July, August, and September of 2002 for six sites on the Klamath River, 

one site on the Trinity River, three sites on the Shasta River, and two sites on the Lost River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California. 

A. Nitrogen phosphorus ratio, B. Nitrogen and C. Phosphorus constituents, and D. Total organic carbon (TOC), and phytoplankton 

indicators pheophytin-a and chlorophyll-a, calculated as loads.

32 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Lost River Locations

Figures 9, 10, and 11 and table 2 show selected waterquality data for August and September for the TULE station 

and for July, August, and September for the HATFIELD 

station. The HATFIELD station represents water input from 

the upper Lost River system into Tule Lake, and the TULE 

station represents water that has moved through Tule Lake to 

be pumped westward into Lower Klamath Lake. Turbidity and 

conductivity were particularly high at the TULE station, as 

was pH, which exceeded 9.5 both months; this is verified in 

the continuous monitor data. A pH of 9.0 is the maximum pH 

standard for these sites; the measured pH of >9.5 is considered 

lethal to suckers, as is the measured DO concentration of < 2.4 

mg/L (K. Rykbost, Oregon State University, written commun., 

2001). Both of these conditions existed for a good portion 

of the summer at TULE. The HATFIELD station typically 

contributes water with low DO (appendix 1), which is not 

apparent from the monthly sampling data because of the large 

diurnal variations. Ammonia + organic nitrogen was greater 

than 1 mg/L at the TULE station and was just below that at the 

HATFIELD station, although the other nitrogen constituents 

were low (table 2). Phosphorus values were high at the HATFIELD station, and total organic carbon was quite elevated 

at the TULE station, nearly 30 mg/L, which was one-third 

higher than that at the HATFIELD station (fig. 10). Very large 

concentrations of the phytoplankton indicators were found 

at both sites, although total loads were higher at the TULE 

station than at the HATFIELD station. The evidence of algal 

communities is supported by the concentrations of orthophosphate (ortho P) and total phosphorus (P) at the TULE station, 

which indicates that an abundance of algae grow in Tule Lake, 

using up most of the available phosphorus in the process. On 

the other hand, the concentration of total P at the HATFIELD 

station indicates that streamflow at this station delivers a large 

amount of orthophosphate to Tule Lake (orthophosphate concentration was 80 percent of the total P). Data for the TULE 

station show that orthophosphate was only 10 percent of the 

total P, again indicating that the phosphorus has been incorporated into algal biomass in Tule Lake. Table 2 also shows the 

trace elements and metals for all stations; concentrations of 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, and manganese are notably high at the HATFIELD station.

2003: Parcel-Tracking Study on the Klamath and Shasta 

Rivers

In 2003, the NCRWQCB requested that the data collection approach be changed from the fixed interval (Eulerian) 

sampling used in 2002 to a parcel-tracking (Lagrangian) 

method in 2003. By using a parcel-tracking approach, a particular “parcel” of water can be followed downstream, and the 

changes in the physical, chemical, and hydrologic characteristics with location can be evaluated. This approach can provide 

information regarding the locations or reaches that have conditions contributing to the changes in measured constituents. 

Lagrangian sample sets can be more useful than Eulerian data 

for identifying in-stream processes and, thus, for constructing 

transport models (Battaglin and others, 2001). 

The request for parcel-tracking sampling came from 

the NCRWQB in the spring of 2003. Because the data were 

needed in 2003, there was not ample time to perform a 

tracer study to estimate time of travel. Estimates of time of 

travel from the release at Iron Gate Dam to the mouth of the 

Klamath River were instead based on analyses of the changes 

in the stage height caused by a change in release flows in 

2002 recorded at the IRONGATE station. Abrupt changes in 

discharge recorded at IRONGATE can be seen in the downstream discharge records. For example, the decrease in flow 

at IRONGATE on July 10, 2002, is seen at SEIAD 23 hours 

later, at ORLEANS 47 hours later and at KLAMATH 73 

hours later. The monitoring site at WALKER has no flow 

gage, so the travel time was estimated as half the travel time 

between IRONGATE and SEIAD, as it is approximately half 

way between the two gage sites. Average times of travel were 

estimated using the decreases in flow on July 10 and July 31 

and the increases on August 31 and September 27, 2002, the 

months that sampling would be done in 2003.

Water Quality 33
Similarly, time of travel on the Shasta River was estimated using the timing of the change in stage height due to 

operations at Dwinnell Dam, and the travel time to the HWY3 

sampling site estimated as half the time from the MONTAGUE gage to the YREKA gage. Average times of travel 

were estimated using the decreases in flow on June 12 and 

August 16, and the increases on June 5 and August 26, 2002, 

the months that sampling would be done in 2003. 

This method gives only rough estimates of travel times 

in the rivers. As flow increases, so does the velocity of the 

water, and therefore, travel times are reduced, but this was not 

accounted for in the estimates of travel times for this study. 

This was the case in the Klamath River where there was 

significantly more water in the system in 2003 than in 2002. 

For most of 2003, the release from Iron Gate Dam was 40 to 

60 percent higher than in 2002. In July the 2003 release fell 

below that of 2002, but in August the release was increased to 

around 1,190 ft3/s, so that the 2003 release was again around 

50 percent greater than the 2002 release. For most of 2003, 

discharge at Klamath ranged from 180 to 220 percent of the 

discharge recorded in 2002. During the third week of July 

through the third week of August, the flow dropped to around 

130 percent. During the third week of August, the Iron Gate 

Dam release was increased; releases from Lewiston Dam on 

the Trinity River also were increased for the specific purposes 

of helping maintain flow and lowering water temperatures 

for the fall run of salmon in the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, and for the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s White Dear Skin Boat 

Dance. The increase in flow in the Trinity River resulted in 

an increase in discharge of about 180 percent of that in 2002 

at the KLAMATH station on the Klamath River; the increase 

lasted through the middle of September when it then decreased 

to about 130 percent of that in 2002. This change in flow 

regime could not be anticipated, therefore, no compensation 

could be made for the shorter travel times than those estimated 

from the 2002 data. 

A comparison of the monthly data collected in 2002 with 

the data collected during the 2003 parcel-tracking study in 

the Klamath and Shasta Rivers (table 3) indicates that most 

constituents were at comparable levels in 2002 and 2003 at all 

sites. Notable exceptions include flow, as discussed above, and 

nitrate + nitrite. Nitrate + nitrite concentrations in September 

2003 were more than twice those measured in September 2002 

for all five stations on the Klamath River.

Klamath River Parcel Tracking

Figure 12 shows selected data from the parcel-tracking 

sampling on the Klamath River. In July 2003, the concentrations of most of the constituents decreased as the water moved 

downstream. In general, it is hard to infer processes underlying changes in temperature and dissolved oxygen since they 

fluctuate diurnally. Owing to the travel time in the Klamath 

River, IRONGATE, SEIAD, and ORLEANS were sampled 

before 8:00 a.m., when one would expect the coolest water 

temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen, while KLAMATH 

was sampled after 9:00 a.m., when water temperature and 

photosynthesis were increasing. WALKER was sampled at 

7:30 p.m., when even higher water temperatures and dissolved 

oxygen were expected. In addition, the Shasta River, which 

usually has warmer, more alkaline water, discharges just above 

the WALKER sampling site, which complicates the interpretation of the changes in the various constituents between 

IRONGATE and WALKER beyond that of the diurnal fluctuations. However, because there is no data from the Shasta 

River at the time of the Klamath River sampling, its relative 

contribution could not be determined.

Results of the parcel-tracking sampling does lend credence to the inference made in the prior discussion of the 2002 

data that the discharge of the Shasta River has a noticeable 

effect on the water quality at WALKER, but that the effect 

does not extend downstream. Nitrate + nitrite, pheophytin-a,

and chlorophyll-a concentrations decreased appreciably from 

the concentrations at IRONGATE, increased at SEIAD, and 

then decreased as the water moved downstream. The water 

temperature leaving IRONGATE was 21.5οC. The temperature rose to 24ο

C at WALKER, and then decreased steadily 

until it reached 20οC at KLAMATH. Also specific conductivity, carbonate, and pH also were higher at WALKER than at 

IRONGATE.

Specific conductivity, carbonate, bicarbonate, and alkalinity all remained high or increased at SEIAD (fig. 12) indicating that the Scott River may also contribute to the buffering 

capacity of the Klamath River. The temperature dropped 2οC 

between WALKER and SEIAD, indicative of the lower water 

temperature contributed by the Scott River and (or) cool 

ground-water accretion between those sampling points. The 

SEIAD site had the highest concentrations of pheophytin-a

and chlorophyll-a below IRONGATE. This and the large fluctuations of DO (6.4–11.5 mg/L; fig. 4B) shown in the continuous record during this time indicate a good amount of algae at 

this site.

The water-quality comparison for September 2003 was 

quite different. Specific conductivity, carbonate, bicarbonate, and alkalinity concentrations were lower at IRONGATE, 

but they increased as the water moved downstream, until the 

confluence of the Trinity. Total organic carbon, ammonia 

+ organic nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, DO, pheophytin-a, and 

chlorophyll-a were higher in 2003 than in 2002, and remained 

higher, and in some cases, increased as the water moved 

downstream. The nutrients obviously supported an increased 

biomass downstream; chlorophyll-a increased from about 5

to 6 μg/L to 9.7 μg/L at ORLEANS. Pheophytin-a increased 

from 3.8 μg/L at IRONGATE to 5.7 μg/L at ORLEANS.

The addition of Trinity River water between ORLEANS 

and KLAMATH is apparent in many ways besides flow: total 

organic carbon, pheophytin-a, chlorophyll-a, orthophosphate, 

phosphorus, and ammonia + organic nitrogen were all notably less at KLAMATH than at ORLEANS. In addition, pH, 

temperature, and turbidity also decreased, which improved the 

habitat for salmonids.

34 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
������������������������

�

���������������

�������� ������� ����� ������� �������

�������� ������� ����� ������� �������

�������� ������� ����� ������� �������

�������� ������� ����� ������� �������

�������� ������� ����� ������� ��������������� ������� ����� ������� �������

����������������������������

����������

�

�������������������������

���������

�������������������������

����������

����������������������

���������

���������������������������������� �� �

�����������

����������������������������

�������������������������

����������

�����������

���������

��

��������

��

��������

������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������

�������������������

�����������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������

�������������������

�

���������������������

�

���������������������

��� ����� � ������ � ����

��� ����� � ������ � ����

����������������������������������������

���������������������������������� �� �

�����������

����������������������������

����������������������������������������

�����������������������������

������������������������ ����������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������

�

���������������

����������������������������

����������

�

�������������������������

���������

������������������������

Figure 12. Data from parcel-tracking study on the Klamath River, California. A. July 2003, and B. September 2003 for various constituents. Turbidity is in nephalometric turbidity units, conductivity is in microsiemens per second, discharge is in cubic feet per second, water temperature (Temp) is in degrees Celsius, pheophytina (Pheo) and chlorophylla (Chl) are in micrograms per liter, alkalinity, total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved oxygen (DO), total phosphorus (P), orthophosphate (OrP), ammonia plus organic nitrogen (NHOrN), and nitrite plus nitrate (NO2+3) are in milligrams per liter.

Water Quality 35
Shasta River Parcel Tracking

Figure 13 shows selected data from the parcel-tracking 

sampling on the Shasta River. The timing of the sampling 

on the Shasta River caused more difficulty with respect to 

interpretation of temperature and dissolved oxygen data than 

it did for the Klamath River. GRENADA was sampled at 

8:40 a.m., MONTAGUE at 11:50 a.m., HWY3 at 2:35 p.m., 

and YREKA at 6:15 p.m. for both sampling runs. The results 

of the June sampling discharge measurements show that the 

flows at GRENADA and YREKA were the same, but that flow 

between these two stations was considerably less. Alkalinity, 

turbidity, pH, conductance, total organic carbon, and ammonia 

+ organic nitrogen increased significantly between GRENADA and MONTAGUE. Conductance, ammonia + organic 

nitrogen, and water temperature continued to increase as the 

water moved downstream, but the pheophytin-a and chlorophyll-a decreased. This pattern of changes in constituents, as 

well as the increase in concentration of nitrogen and carbon 

constituents, is consistent with the incidence of agricultural 

diversions and lower quality return flows. The considerably 

higher conductance, pH, and concentrations of nitrogen and 

carbon constituents were maintained in August, although the 

discharge at all sites was lower.

On the basis of this parcel-tracking study alone, it is 

difficult to draw specific conclusions about the changes in 

chemistry, water temperature, and biomass without additional 

information. Some general statements can be made, however. 

The water quality in the Shasta River is noticeably different from that of the Klamath River. The water quality of the 

Shasta River, however, does not account for all of the changes 

in the Klamath River between IRONGATE and WALKER; 

the concentration of DO in the water at IRONGATE in September 2003 was 7.0 mg/L, the concentration at WALKER 

was 8.8 mg/L, but the continuous monitoring indicates that 

the concentration in the Shasta River at about that time was 

around 9.0 mg/L. The increase in flow between IRONGATE 

and WALKER is only 15 percent, so it seems unlikely that a 

DO concentration of 9.0 mg/L could cause such an increase. 

Likewise, the decrease in temperature between WALKER and 

SEIAD probably cannot be explained by the small contribution of flow from the Scott River. The significant variability in 

DO at SEIAD also points to the need for further investigation 

in that area of the river. The decreases in nitrogen and phosphorus from WALKER to KLAMATH suggest a significant 

amount of uptake by a population of attached algae. In order 

to increase understanding of the changes in water quality in 

the Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam to the mouth, it would 

be necessary to conduct a much more rigorous study of parcel 

tracking that would include the effects of diurnal fluctuations 

and changes in flow between sampling sites. Such a study 

would include implementing dye or tracer tests to accurately 

determine the travel times between sites, and thus sampling 

the tributaries at the appropriate time to accurately represent 

travel time, and initiating the sampling at several times during 

the day to characterize the diurnal effects.

A comparison of the 2002 data collected during monthly 

sampling with data collected during the 2003 parcel-tracking 

study in the Klamath and Shasta Rivers (table 3) indicates that 

most of the constituents were at comparable levels for the 2 

years for all sites. Notable exceptions include discharge and 

nitrate. Discharge at the IRONGATE station in July 2003 was 

747 ft3/s, which was lower than the 2002 discharge of 897 

ft3/s, but it was higher between the SEIAD and the ORLEANS 

stations (1,400 ft3/s) and between the ORLEANS and the 

KLAMATH stations (2,170 ft3/s) resulting in a discharge of 

4,680 ft3/s at the KLAMATH, which was 150 percent of that 

in July 2002. In September 2003, discharge at the IRONGATE 

station was 1,190 ft3/s, much higher than 773 ft3/s in 2002. In 

2003, the reach between the WALKER and the SEIAD stations had reduced flows indicating a losing reach; nevertheless, 

discharge at the KLAMATH station was again 150 percent of 

that in 2002 (3,110 ft3/s compared with 2,030 ft3/s) because of 

the relatively large increases between the SEIAD, ORLEANS, 

and KLAMATH stations. Nitrate concentrations in September 

2003 were more than twice those measured in September of 

2002 for all five stations on the Klamath River.

Sediment Oxygen Demand Study on the Shasta 

River

Sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is the rate of DO loss 

from a water body through its uptake and consumption by 

biotic or abiotic reactions in surficial sediments. In most river 

systems, such oxygen consumption is dominated by microbially mediated decomposition processes. In other words, 

organic materials in the water body’s sediments decompose; 

that process requires oxygen to proceed, and the oxygen is 

supplied from the overlying water. In streams with an abundance of sedimentary organic material from soil erosion or 

an accumulation of plant and algal detritus, SOD can be an 

important part of the stream’s DO budget. Field observations 

of sediment accumulation and low DO levels measured by the 

authors indicate that some reaches of the Shasta River may 

have a significant SOD; as a result, an investigation was initiated to measure that rate.

The rate of SOD was measured at six sites in two reaches 

of the Shasta River (table 4). These sites were chosen because 

they are located in a reach of the Shasta River with measured 

low DO (appendix 2) and observed accumulation of fine sediment and plant detritus. Other considerations for site selection 

included access, type of stream substrate, and the amount of 

macrophyte (aquatic plant) growth.

36 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
�����������������������

�

������������������

����������

��

������������������

��������������

�

������������������

��������������

�

����������

��

�

������������������

�

��������

������

�

��������

������

��� ����� � ����

��� ����� � ����

��

����������

��

����������

�������������������������

����������������������� ������������������������������������������������ �������������������������

������� �������� ���� �����

������� �������� ���� �����

������� �������� ���� ����� ������� �������� ���� �����

������� �������� ���� �����

������� �������� ���� �����

�������������������������

����������

�����������

�����������

���������

�������������������������

����������

�����������

���������

���������������������������������� �� �

�����������

����������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������

�������������������

�����������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������

�������������������

����������������������������������������

���������������������������������� �� �

�����������

����������������������������

����������������������������������������

� ��� ��� ������� ������� �� �� ��

��� ��� ��� � � ��� ����� ��� � ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ���� �� �� �

� ��� ��� ������� ������� �� �� ��

��� ��� ��� � � ��� ����� ��� � ���� ��� ��� ��� �� ���� �� �� �

Figure 13. Data from parcel-tracking study on the Shasta River in lower Klamath River Basin, California. 

A. June 2003, and 

B. August 2003 for various constituents. 

Turbidity is in nephalometric turbidity units, conductivity is in microsiemens per second, discharge is in cubic feet per second, water temperature (Temp) is in degrees Celsius, pheophytina (Pheo) and chlorophyll-a (Chl) are in micrograms per liter, alkalinity, total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved oxygen (DO), total phosphorus (P), orthophosphate (OrP), ammonia plus organic nitrogen (NHOrN), and nitrite plus nitrate (NO2+3) are in milligrams per liter.

Water Quality 37
Table 4. Locations of sites used to measure sediment oxygen demand on the Shasta River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California.

[Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Site Name Latitude Longitude Location description

Shasta River upstream of Montague−

Grenada Road

41.7081 N −122.5378 W 100−200 meters upstream of bridge

Shasta River downstream of Montague−

Grenada Road

41.7114 N −122.5422 W Approximately 400 meters downstream from 

bridge

Shasta River near Hwy 3site A 41.7183 Ν −122.5533 W Approximately 1 kilometer upstream of bridge; 

200−300 meters upstream of pump house on 

right bank

Shasta River near Hwy 3site B 41.7158 N −122.5517 W 50−100 meters upstream of site A, at bend in 

river

Shasta River near Hwy 3site C 41.7272 N −122.5569 W 100−200 meters downstream from bridge

Shasta River near Hwy 3site D 41.7269 N −122.5578 W 25−50 meters upstream of site C

Procedure

Sediment oxygen demand rates were measured with insitu chambers, as previously described by Murphy and Hicks 

(1986), Caldwell and Doyle (1995), Rounds and Doyle (1997), 

and Doyle and Rounds (2003). These chambers allow a known 

volume of water to be isolated above a known area of stream 

sediment. The DO concentration in that isolated water then is 

monitored over the course of at least 2 hours. Measurements 

typically are performed with three such chambers at each 

site to assess the variability of the site’s SOD. In addition, a 

fourth chamber with a sealed bottom to exclude interaction 

with stream sediments is used to assess the level of oxygen 

loss owing to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the water 

column. The measured oxygen loss rate in each of the three 

SOD chambers, once corrected for the effects of BOD, is a 

direct measurement of the site’s SOD rate. Final SOD rates are 

corrected to 20°C (SOD20) and reported as a loss rate in grams 

of oxygen per square meter per day (g/m2/d). Details of the 

procedures were documented previously by Rounds and Doyle 

(1997). An estimate of the SOD rate at any temperature is then 

given by

 SODT = SOD20 × 1.065(T-20)

where SODT is the SOD rate at temperature T (°C).

To measure SOD rates with this type of in-situ chamber, 

(1) the stream must be deep enough (> 0.4 meters ) to submerge the chamber, (2) the sediments must be fine enough to 

allow the chamber’s cutting edge to seat and seal to the stream 

bottom, and (3) the stream’s DO concentration must be high 

enough (> 4 mg/L, approximate) to provide a measurable 

loss rate and a stable aerobic environment for the sediment’s 

microbial community.

Those reaches of the Shasta River where the SOD rate 

was measured had a productive population of attached algae 

and an abundance of rooted aquatic plants (macrophytes). 

Both the algae and the macrophytes produce DO through 

photosynthesis. In order to measure the effects of only SOD 

(and BOD), it was important to exclude these oxygen producers from the SOD measuring chambers, either by prudent 

site selection or by physical removal of these plants prior to 

chamber deployment.

At the two sites near the Montague-Grenada Road, 

macrophytes were less abundant which allowed suitable sites 

for chamber deployment without having to remove any plant 

material. At all sites near Highway 3, however, macrophytes 

were abundant and had to be removed from the site before 

each chamber was deployed. The tops of the plants were 

removed by cutting them off near their base, taking care not to 

disturb the plants’ roots or the site’s sediments. In this manner, 

the plant’s production of DO was eliminated without disturbing the sediments or any respiration processes in the plant’s 

roots. Such measures may introduce additional uncertainty 

into the SOD measurement, but it was the only way to collect 

such a measurement in areas dominated by macrophytes.

At each SOD measuring site, samples also were collected 

to roughly characterize the organic content and particle size 

of the stream sediments. Samples were analyzed for percent 

organic content (loss on ignition [Fishman and Friedman, 

1989]) and for the size fraction finer than 63 microns (Guy, 

1969) by the USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory sediment 

laboratory.

SOD Results

DO loss rates were measured in the SOD chambers. The 

loss rates were corrected for the effects of BOD (“blank corrected”) and adjusted to a rate at 20°C. These rates, as well as 

the results from the sediment analyses, are shown in table 5. 

The measured SOD20 rates range from 0.1 to 2.3 g/m2/d with a 

median of 1.5 g/m2/d. The organic-matter content and particle 

size analyses don’t appear to correlate well with the measured 

SOD rate; the lack of such a correlation was also observed by 

Caldwell and Doyle (1995) for the lower Willamette River in 

Oregon and by Wood (2001) for the Upper Klamath and the 

Agency Lakes in Oregon. Knowing the amount of organic 

material present is useful, but that information does not provide insight into how fast that material might decompose. The 

SOD measurement is necessary to provide that rate.

38 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Table 5. Measured sediment oxygen demand rates and sediment characteristics at sites on the Shasta River in the Lower Klamath 

River Basin, California.

[m, meters; SOD, sediment oxygen demand, blank-corrected; SOD20, sediment oxygen demand corrected to a temperature of 20°C; g/m2/d, grams per square 

meter per day; %, percent; , no measurement]

Site Date Replicate Water depth

(m)

SOD rate at 20°C

(SOD20, g/m2/d)

Sediment characteristics

Organic content

(loss on ignition)

(percent)

Percent finer than

 63 microns

(percent)

Shasta River upstream of Montague−

Grenada Road

8/12/03 1 0.9 2.0 2.3 5.7

2 0.8  1.4 3.2

3 0.7 1.0 1.7 3.3

Shasta River downstream from Montague−

Grenada Road

8/12/03

1 0.7 1.6 4.8 5.0

2 0.6 0.5 7.5 54.3

3 0.5 1.0 4.1 2.4

Shasta River near Hwy 3site A 8/13/03

1 0.9 1.5 2.6 2.1

2 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.8

3 0.8 0.1 1.5 1.6

Shasta River near Hwy 3site B 8/13/03

1 0.9 1.3 1.4 3.3

2 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.3

3 0.8 1.7 1.5 2.9

Shasta River near Hwy 3site C 8/14/03

1 0.4 2.1 0.9 0.7

2 0.5  1.2 8.9

3 0.4 2.3 0.8 2.3

Shasta River near Hwy 3site D 8/14/03

1 0.6 1.8 6.5 29.9

2 0.7  3.4 48.9

3 0.7 2.3 6.3 44.4

A SOD rate of 1 to 2 g/m2/d is indicative of a system 

with organic material that is decomposing at a moderate 

rate. Similar rates have been measured in many other stream 

systems having a moderate amount of organic material in silty 

sediments that are not heavily affected by pollution (Murphy 

and Hicks, 1986; Rounds and Doyle, 1997). A moderate SOD 

rate indicates that the decomposing organic matter is neither 

extremely labile nor extremely refractory. 

Some reaches of the Shasta River do not accumulate 

sediment; those reaches may have a gravelly or cobbly bottom 

and little to no SOD. For those reaches that do accumulate 

sediment, however, an SOD of 1.5 g/m2/d can represent a 

significant loss mechanism for DO. This is especially true for 

streams that are relatively shallow. The amount of DO that can 

be consumed by SOD over the course of a day is a function 

of stream depth and is calculated as the SOD rate in g/m2/d 

divided by the stream depth in meters. So, a stream having an 

SOD rate of 1.5 g/m2/d can reduce stream concentrations by 

1.5 mg/L of DO to SOD over the course of 1 day if the SOD is 

acting on a water column that is 1 meter deep. The concentration reduction increases to 3.0 mg/L if the stream is only 0.5 

meters deep. Many of the sites where SOD was measured in 

the Shasta River are relatively shallow (table 5) and SOD is 

therefore more likely to overwhelm other processes and to be a 

significant loss mechanism for DO in those reaches.

A complete assessment of the factors affecting DO in 

the Shasta River, though, needs to include more than just a 

measurement of SOD. Judging from the abundant levels of 

attached algae and rooted plants in the Shasta River, the effects 

of photosynthetic production and plant respiration also will 

contribute a lot to the DO budget. The effects of plant photosynthesis and respiration can be estimated using the SOD rate, 

estimates of BOD and the rate of oxygen exchange between 

the river and the atmosphere, and the analysis of continuous 

DO measurements from one or more locations. Such an analysis would be a logical next step in any assessment of DO in 

the Shasta River.

Water Quality 39
Relevance of Water-Quality Observations to 2002 

Fish Kill on the Klamath River

Conclusions made by the California Department of 

Fish and Game in a preliminary analysis of the cause of the 

September 2002 fish kill near the mouth of the Klamath River 

(State of California, 2003) noted that the kill was the result of 

a combination of high densities of adult fish (due to low flows 

and possibly inadequate fish passage) and warm water-temperature conditions typical at that time of year. These conclusions 

were supported by an analysis of hydrologic conditions in the 

Klamath River Basin prior to the die-off (Lynch and Risley, 

2003); the conclusions indicate that low streamflow and high 

water temperature contributed to the pathogenic infections 

that killed the fish. The September 2002 flow releases from 

the Iron Gate Dam were among the four lowest flows recorded 

since 1960, and the numbers of returning fall Chinook salmon 

were at average or above average levels. The September 2002 

flows also were the lowest since the major storm events in 

1997 and 1998 that may have caused aggraded channel conditions that threaten fish passage. 

On the basis of an analysis of long-term water temperatures in the nearby Rogue River Basin and air temperatures 

within the Klamath River Basin, it was concluded that the 

water temperatures in September 2002 in the Lower Klamath 

River were probably above average (Lynch and Risley, 2003). 

Indeed, daily minimum water temperatures at ORLEANS, 

upstream of the fish die-off reach, remained above 18oC 

between September 1 and 24, 2002, which was a level at 

which disease rates in salmonids can be severe (Lynch and 

Risley, 2003). Measurements of DO were not analyzed in 

reports by either the State of California (2003) or Lynch and 

Risley (2003), but it is likely that the extended period of low 

DO measured in August and September of 2002 for this crrent 

study contributed to the fish kill by increasing the stress that 

could result in disease in salmonids. Given these results, it 

seems as though a combination of factors, including elevated 

temperature and phytoplankton indicators, contributed to the 

low DO values.

Model Code Selection and Analysis

The step following data collection and analysis in the 

iterative conceptual and numerical model development process 

is to use the available data to continue the development of 

the conceptual model of the Klamath River system (fig. 2). 

There have been many investigations over the years to evaluate water quality and fish habitat in this basin. These studies 

have contributed to the development of conceptual models of 

the system from various perspectives and levels of detail and 

scale. At least two different mathematical models (Deas, 2000; 

Campbell and others, 2001) have been used to simulate many 

of the interacting processes in the Klamath River. Results of 

these efforts and of future studies should be used to complete 

the conceptual model of processes and will require additional 

information and data and a variety of experts who can look 

at different parts of the river system (physics, chemistry, and 

biology).

The evaluation, testing, and implementation of a conceptual model using a mathematical model are the next steps in 

characterizing a natural river system. Several mathematical 

codes have been used to develop existing mathematical models 

of the rivers in the Klamath Basin, some of which were evaluated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(Wells, 1995) for the Klamath River. Three model codes were 

analyzed for this current study of the Klamath River to aid 

in determining where there are gaps in data and where data 

are inadequate for developing TMDLs. The codes are from 

existing mathematical models of the Klamath River: the SIAM 

model suite (Bartholow and others, 2003), the WQRRS, 

RMA2, and RMA11 models (Deas, 2000), and the CE-QUALW2 (Cole and Wells, 2002). The model using SIAM and the 

model used by Deas (2000) were calibrated for the Klamath 

River. PacifiCorp, the firm responsible for operation of the 

Iron Gate Reservoir, is using the CE-QUAL-W2 model code 

for their analysis for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) relicensing; this model code also was selected by the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to model the 

Klamath River between the Link River and the Keno Dam 

(Scott Wells, Portland State University, written commun., 

1995). Most recently, Deas completed work using two model 

codes: the CE-QUAL-W2 model for the Iron Gate Reservoir, 

and the RMA2 and RMA11 models for the Klamath River 

below the reservoir (Matt St. John, North Coast Regional 

Water Quality Control Board, written commun., 2003). It is 

important to match up the data needs of the model intended for 

use with the available data. 

Model Description: SIAM

SIAM is a management interface to several underlying 

models. Campbell and others (2001) and Hanna and Campbell 

(2000) applied SIAM to MODSIM, a network water-quantity simulation program (John W. Labadie, MODSIM-DSS; 

accessed August 3, 2004) to simulate streamflow, and to HEC5Q, a one-dimensional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

program (Environmental Software and Services, accessed 

August 3, 2004) to simulate water quality. The work concentrated on temperature and DO as calibration variables. 

MODSIM was used to simulate monthly mean streamflows through the river system. For dam operations and longterm simulations (many seasons), a monthly time step can 

meet most needs for the purposes of modeling water supply. 

However, simulating monthly flow data when the time frame 

for water-quality problems is hourly to weekly may not be the 

best practice. It is unclear whether this resulted in any major 

problems in model calibration or performance.

HEC-5Q is a one-dimensional water-quality model that 

utilizes the flow simulation capabilities of HEC-5. HEC-5 

40 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
simulates multiple purpose, multiple reservoir systems in 

essentially any stream tributary configuration using a variable 

computational interval. It can simulate the longitudinal dimension in riverine reaches, or the vertical dimension in reservoirs 

where it is necessary to capture the effects of stratification on 

water quality. The model simulates one or the other dimension, 

not both. So, in a long reservoir where the retention time is 

long relative to the time scale of water-quality problems, HEC5Q does not simulate any important longitudinal processes in 

the reservoir and will introduce some numerical dispersion 

in the longitudinal dimension. Water entering the head of the 

reservoir is immediately mixed into the appropriate model 

layer in the reservoir, and those layers extend from the head of 

the reservoir to the dam. So, if the time-varying nature of the 

inputs to the head of the reservoir is important, the simulations will smear signals in the reservoir and result in longitudinal numerical dispersion. Numerical dispersion also can 

be significant if the residence time is longer than the model 

time-step. HEC-5Q was run by Campbell and others (2001) 

using a daily time step, and outputs were stated to represent 

daily means. If the water-quality standards are written for 

daily maximum water temperatures or for daily minimum DO 

concentration, the model needs to be able to produce information on time scales of less than 1 day. In addition, if the reservoir residence times are less than 1 day, it is possible to induce 

significant numerical dispersion in the model results. HEC-5Q 

cannot simulate or use information regarding the amount of 

topographic or riparian shading of the stream channel. Shading 

was not considered, yet increased or restored riparian shading on stream-water temperature is often an important effect 

that must be evaluated by regulatory agencies when setting 

a TMDL for water temperature. If a mathematical model is 

used to help understand the dynamics and spatial variations in 

water temperature in the Klamath River, it will be necessary 

for the model to address the effects of shading. In general, the 

algorithms used to simulate heat exchange processes in the 

HEC-5Q model are sufficient for basic applications, but many 

of these processes are not simulated explicitly.

Dissolved oxygen can be simulated in HEC-5Q as a 

balance among inflows, outflows, reaeration (exchange with 

the atmosphere), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD decomposition of organic materials in the water column), sediment 

oxygen demand (SOD—decomposition of organic materials 

in the surficial sediments), photosynthesis (primary production by algae and (or) aquatic plants), respiration (by algae, 

plants, and bacteria), and ammonia nitrification (microbially 

facilitated conversion to nitrate). These typically are the most 

important components of the DO budget for most rivers and 

reservoirs. DO solubility is a strong function of water temperature; that effect appears in the implementation of reaeration 

algorithms in the model. Field verification of reaeration coefficients generally is advised if this appears to be a dominant 

process. The HEC-5Q model appears to include all the necessary processes for simulating DO. Use of the HEC-5Q model 

to improve understanding of the water quality of the Klamath 

River may not be the best overall choice though because of its 

limitation to one dimension in the reservoirs in this system, 

reservoirs that have the potential to influence the water quality 

in the streams.

Considering the difficulty of simulating a complex system with less than a full complement of simulated processes, 

USGS researchers (Hanna and Campbell, 2000; Campbell, 

2001; Bartholow and others, 2003) were able to use SIAM 

to simulate daily mean water temperature over a several year 

period for the Seiad Valley with an average error of about 

1.5 to 2°C and corresponding errors in predictions of lows in 

DO concentrations in flows below Iron Gate Dam of approximately ± 4 to 5 mg/L. Any failure in their efforts to simulate 

DO is indicative of a lack of data and a lack of quantification 

of those processes affecting DO. 

Model Description: WQRRS; RMA2; RMA11

The Water Quality for River-Reservoir System 

(WQRRS), a Corps of Engineers computer package preceding HEC-5Q, simulates the water quality in a reservoir and 

the hydraulics of a river and the water quality of that river 

(Environmental Software and Services, accessed August 3, 

2004). The WQRRS package consists of the programs Stream 

Hydraulics Package (SHP), WQRRSQ, and Reservoir Water 

Quality (WQRRSR) that interface with each other. The SHP 

and the Stream Water Quality (WQRRSQ) programs simulate 

flow and water-quality conditions for stream networks that can 

include branching channels and islands. The WQRRSR program is a one-dimensional model used to evaluate the vertical 

stratification of physical, chemical, and biological parameters 

in a reservoir. The SHP provides a range of optional methods 

for computing discharges, velocities, and depths as a function 

of time and location in a stream system. The hydraulic computations can be performed using either input stage-discharge 

relations, hydrologic routing, kinematic routing, steady-flow 

equations, or the full unsteady-flow St. Venant equations 

(finite-element method). The WQRRSR and the WQRRSQ 

programs provide capabilities for analyzing temperature and 

more than a dozen chemical, physical, biological, and organic 

constituents. WQRRS simulates the vertical distribution of 

thermal energy and chemical and biological materials in a 

reservoir through time. A reservoir is conceptualized as a 

vertical sequence of horizontal layers with thermal energy and 

materials uniformly distributed in each layer. The distribution 

of inflows among the horizontal layers is based on density 

differences. The model simulates the dynamics of more than 

a dozen water-quality variables, computing both in-pool and 

downstream release magnitudes. 

RMA2 is a two-dimensional, depth-averaged, finite-element hydrodynamic numerical model (Boss, International; 

accessed August 3, 2004). Water-surface elevations and horizontal velocity components are computed for subcritical and 

turbulent flows. Both steady and transient (dynamic) problems 

can be analyzed. 

Model Code Selection and Analysis 41
RMA11 is a finite-element water-quality model for simulation of three-dimensional estuaries, bays, lakes, and rivers 

(Boss, International; accessed August 3, 2004). It can simulate one- and two-dimensional applications and is designed 

to accept input of velocities and depths either from text files 

or from output files produced by the two-dimensional hydrodynamic model RMA2 or by the three-dimensional stratified 

flow model RMA10. 

Deas (2000) used the WQRRS model to simulate temperature, DO, pH, alkalinity, conductivity, pollutants, and 

nutrients in the Iron Gate Reservoir. He modeled the Klamath 

River from the Iron Gate Dam to the USGS gage at SEIAD 

using the RMA2 model to simulate the hydrodynamics of the 

river, and the RMA11 model to simulate water quality. The 

details of the modeling efforts are described in Deas (2000).

These three components of a river system, hydrodynamics, water quality, and reservoir dynamics, may also be simulated separately, as was done by Deas (2000) in his Klamath 

River application. This model assumes a one-dimensional 

system, which when applied to a reservoir is prone to numerical dispersion in the longitudinal direction, as is the HEC-5Q 

model. It takes into account the effects of mass transport 

owing to outflow, and it can model many different water-quality constituents.

Model Description: CE-QUAL-W2

CE-QUAL-W2 (W2) is a water-quality and hydrodynamic model in two dimensions (longitudinal-vertical) for rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs, and river basin systems (Cole 

and Wells, 2002). W2 simulates basic eutrophication processes, such as temperature-nutrient-algae-DO-organic matter 

and sediment relations. This model is supported by the Corps 

of Engineers, Waterways Experiments Station, Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. The current model release (v3.1) enhancements 

were developed under research contracts between the Corps 

and researchers at Portland State University.

W2 simulates longitudinal-vertical hydrodynamics 

and water quality in stratified and non-stratified systems. It 

includes the simulation of nutrient and DO dynamics and biomass, and sedimentation of multiple algal groups, epiphyton/

periphyton, in addition to carbonaceous biochemical oxygen 

demand (CBOD), nutrients, DO, pH, general water-quality 

constituents, internal dynamic pipe/culvert flow, hydraulic 

structures (weirs, spillways), and a dynamic shading algorithm 

based on topographic and vegetative cover. These more complex functions mean that W2 requires more computer power 

and is more difficult to use in optimization.

In contrast to the other models, W2 requires much 

more input data. Basic data needs for W2 include stream and 

reservoir geometric data, initial conditions, inflows, outflows, 

meteorological and water-quality data, as well as a substantial number of hydraulic and kinetic rates and parameters. A 

detailed list is available in the model’s user manual (Cole and 

Wells, 2002). 

Model Application and Data Gaps

To better understand DO in the Klamath River and its 

reservoirs, it is important to understand which parts of the DO 

budget are most important in each part of the basin. Certainly 

inputs, outputs, reaeration, and BOD must be included, and 

BOD appears to be large and important in the reaches just 

downstream from Upper Klamath Lake. The relative importance of algae and SOD, however, are not known specifically 

yet, but, on the basis of the data included in this report, are 

suspected to be significant. To adequately evaluate the effects 

of algae, an effort should be made to collect additional data 

to simulate these effects in a model. Note, however, that if the 

algae in the Klamath River downstream from IRONGATE are 

predominantly the attached varieties (periphyton)growing in 

riverine reaches attached to the stream's rocky substrate rather 

than floating downstream with the waterthen any simulation 

of those algae-related processes will be a difficult task. Few 

models address the effects of attached algae directly; among 

the models described here, only W2 has a simple set of algorithms that can be used to estimate the dynamics of periphyton. It is a much easier task to simulate the types of algae that 

float downstream with the water, as model calibration can rely 

on measurements of chlorophyll-a and other indicators present 

in the water. Coastal rivers almost always have a measurable 

community of attached algae in the summer. Decomposing 

algae (periphyton and phytoplankton combined) is likely a 

large component of any BOD other than that contributed from 

agricultural drain sources.

USGS researchers (Hanna and Campbell, 2000; Campbell, 2001; Campbell and others, 2001) indicate that water 

temperature in many streams is largely a result of climatic and 

streamflow conditions. Human-related factors that appear to 

be important are the presence of dams, the operation of those 

dams, and any disturbances to the stream’s riparian vegetation. 

Those human-related factors are small (but measurable), however, compared to the effects of climate and streamflow.

In terms of DO, model simulations indicate that the large 

BOD loads from the Upper Klamath Lake and from the various agricultural return flows in Oregon are major influences 

on DO in the upper reaches of the Klamath River, extending 

to the Iron Gate Dam. Preliminary SOD data from stations 

on the Klamath River downstream from the Upper Klamath 

Lake support the conclusions from the model simulations, 

showing the rates to be significant, though potentially less 

important than those for BOD. Ammonia nitrification does not 

appear to have much influence in most of the Klamath River 

downstream from Keno, although some high concentrations 

have been recorded at Keno, which probably were due to high 

concentrations present just downstream from Upper Klamath 

Lake. 

42 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
The effects of photosynthesis and respiration on DO in 

the reservoirs and the riverine reaches of the Klamath River, 

although evident qualitatively in the data presented in this 

report, have yet to be quantified numerically. Certainly, the 

nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations appear to be high 

enough to support a significant population of algae. Depending on the health of the Aphanizomenon population swept 

downstream from Upper Klamath Lake to the reservoirs, these 

algal-related processes could have impacts on the processes 

occurring in those reservoirs. A substantial population of 

attached algae also may thrive in parts of the river downstream 

from the IRONGATE station and needs to be investigated. 

Reaeration is always an important process; at times, it can be 

a significant part of the DO budget for both the reservoirs and 

the riverine reaches.

Some obvious gaps in data that need to be filled in order 

to better understand the relative importance of the various 

processes that affect DO in the reservoirs and in the riverine 

reaches include

• BOD dataIt is imperative to measure BOD at 

various locations in the river system and at important 

inflow boundaries. If possible, the CBOD rate also 

should also be measured.

• Algae dataA better understanding is needed of 

the types and populations of algae (periphyton and 

phytoplankton) in the reservoirs and in the riverine 

reaches, unless another source of data is available, to 

determine if the Aphanizomenon in the reservoirs are 

thriving or slowly dying as they are swept downstream from Upper Klamath Lake. It also is necessary to determine if algal growth is limited by the 

nitrogen or phosphorus levels, to measure primary 

productivity, and to assess the adequacy of available 

nutrient data. 

• SOD dataSOD can be a dominant process. The 

USGS Oregon District measured SOD rates in the 

Klamath River downstream from Upper Klamath 

Lake in March 2003. The data, which were provisional at the time of this study, are available at 

http://oregon.usgs.gov/projs_dir/lake_ewauna_sod/

rate_table.html (accessed on February 6, 2004). The 

Upper Klamath Lake study supported the importance of the SOD process and is also shown to be 

important in the Shasta River study discussed in this 

report. The prevalence of the SOD process needs to 

be evaluated throughout the Klamath River system, 

but most importantly in reaches with lower levels of 

DO.

Additional data needs, beyond those mentioned above, 

include

• Meteorological data: air temperature, dew point temperature (or relative humidity), wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, and solar radiation. These data are 

needed on an hourly basis from both coastal and inland 

areas if models require that these data to be used on 

time intervals of less than 1 day. 

• Shading data for stream channels: Topographicshading data are easily derived from digital elevation 

model (DEM) data. Riparian-shading data can be estimated or collected in the field. Some field data will be 

necessary to evaluate current shading conditions. 

• Vertical reservoir profiles: The balance among processes in the Copco and Iron Gate Reservoirs is almost 

certainly different than that in the flowing reaches of 

the Klamath River, and understanding that balance is 

important to understanding the downstream effects of 

the reservoirs. Even for simple models, water temperature and DO profiles are necessary. PacifiCorp, the 

company operating the Iron Gate and Copco Dams for 

electricity generation, may have collected these profiles to support modeling they did to be relicensed by 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

If profiles are not available, then at the minimum, 

monthly or twice-monthly water-temperature and DO 

profiles are needed; obtaining profiles throughout the 

year would result in a more complete understanding 

of the seasonal processes. Such profiles are useful for 

calibrating models of reservoirs that are stratified. For 

more complex models, vertical profiles of pH, conductivity, chlorophyll-a, total organic carbon, soluble 

reactive phosphorus, total phosphorus, nitrate + nitrite 

nitrogen, and ammonia nitrogen would be useful, 

particularly if CE-QUAL-W2 is used to model the 

reservoir/river system. 

Potential Data Sources

Meteorological Data

The meteorological data necessary for any water-quality 

model are available from a variety of sources for many stations 

in the Klamath River Basin (fig. 14). For this current study, 

all relevant current and historical data (through 2001) were 

compiled from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) 

for multiple locations and multiple datasets in and around the 

Klamath River Basin (station locations are shown in fig. 14; 

appendix 3, tables A3-1, A3-2, and A3-3). The NCDC data 

include precipitation, snowfall, maximum and minimum daily 

air temperature, wind speed, wind direction, dew point temperature, and total sky cover.

Hourly data for Tule Lake are available from the California Department of Water Resources and from the University 

of California, Davis (station locations are shown in fig. 14; 

appendix 3, table A3-4). These data, from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS; California 

Department of Water Resources, accessed February 6, 2004), 

include hourly measurements of potential evapotranspiration, 

Model Application and Data Gaps 43
Figure 14. Meteorological stations in and around the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California.

������

����������

����������

�����

����

�����

������� ���� �����

����

�����

�������

����

�������������

���������������������

�����������

������� �����

����� ���� ������� �����

������� �����

����� �����

����������������������

�����������������

���������������������

�������������������

����������

����������������

������������������

�

�

�� �� ��

�� �� ��������

����������

��������

����

��������

�����

�����

�����

������

������

�������

�������

��������

��������

�������

����

������� �����

������ ����� �������

����

������� ����

�

������

����������

44 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
precipitation, solar radiation, vapor pressure, air temperature, 

wind speed, and wind direction, as well as daily measurements 

of potential evapotranspiration, solar radiation, minimum and 

maximum air temperature, and average vapor pressure.

Data were also compiled from the Solar and Meteorological Surface Observation Network, 1961–90 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy) (station 

locations are shown on fig. 14; appendix 3, table A3-5). These 

data were used to develop a detailed solar radiation model, 

SOLRAD (Flint and Childs, 1987) that includes a calibrated 

equation to relate minimum and maximum air temperature to 

percent cloud cover (Bristow and Campbell, 1984) (there is 

much more air temperature data for the study area than there 

is cloud cover data, which makes the air temperature/cloudcover relation useful for modeling the water temperatures in 

the basin). NREL data include hourly solar radiation, dewpoint temperature, air temperature, and cloud cover, as well 

as monthly measurements of ozone, precipitable water, and 

Ångstrom’s turbidity coefficient.

In addition, hourly data are available from a network of 

Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) managed by the 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) (station locations 

are shown on fig. 14; appendix 3, table A3-6). RAWS data 

include hourly measurements of air temperature, dew-point 

temperature (relative humidity), barometric pressure, precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction.

Another potential source of relevant meteorological data 

include Snotel weather stations managed by the WRCC. Data 

from all the sources described above should be evaluated 

before looking much further for additional sources. 

Stream Shading

The most recent 30-m digital elevation models (DEM) 

for California and Oregon, which were used for calculations 

of topographic shading, are the Elevation Derivatives for 

National Applications (EDNA) data sets developed by the 

USGS. Some modeling packages include their own algorithms to calculate shading, but the USGS computer program, 

SKYVIEW, calculates topographic shading and blocking 

ridges around each pixel in the DEM. This program also can 

be used to calculate the shading effects of riparian vegetation. The resultant analysis is used in the program SOLRAD 

to calculate solar radiation loads for each pixel in the DEM at 

any time step required. The program SOLRAD incorporates 

the most significant atmospheric parameters for calculating 

solar radiation (ozone, precipitable water, and Ångstrom’s Turbidity Coefficient). Minimum and maximum air temperatures 

are used in SOLRAD to estimate percent cloud cover when 

those data are not directly available for the site being modeled. 

SKYVIEW and SOLRAD model at point scales, river scales, 

or basin scales. When combined with air-temperature data, the 

model SOLRAD is converted to NETRAD to calculate the net 

radiation. This stand-alone analysis can be used to locate areas 

in the Klamath River Basin that would be most likely to cause 

increases in stream temperature owing to radiation loads. 

Vertical Reservoir Profiles

Some profiles of temperature and DO already exist for 

the reservoirs in the study area, and have been used to calibrate 

existing reservoir models (Deas, 2000). PacifiCorp currently 

(2004) is in the process of collecting additional profiles, which 

may be available to others for TMDL model development. 

Summary

The USGS investigated the water quality of the Lower 

Klamath River Basin in 2002 and 2003 in partnership with the 

California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

In an attempt to identify and fill data gaps and to better understand water-quality processes in the river system of this basin, 

several investigations were undertaken. Water-quality constituents were measured using continuous monitors, and monthly 

water-quality samples were collected and analyzed. Sediment 

oxygen demand rates were measured. Lastly, existing models 

were assessed, gaps in data were identified, and directions for 

future research were suggested for the purpose of developing 

TMDLs for the rivers in the Lower Klamath River Basin.

The USGS deployed 12 continuous water-quality monitors in the Lower Klamath River Basin between June and 

November 2002 to collect hourly measurements of water 

temperature, DO, pH, and specific conductance. Six stations 

were on the Klamath River, one station on the Trinity River, 

three stations on the Shasta River, and two stations on the 

lower Lost River. Similar data were collected at 10 locations 

between April and September 2003; 3 of the 12 monitoring 

stations were discontinued (stations on the Trinity and Lost 

Rivers) and one station was added on the Shasta River. Data 

from these stations indicated that water temperatures were 

higher than that desired for the protection of Chinook salmon 

at most stations during mid summer. Low DO concentrations, 

were shown to be problematic in the lower Lost River. Low 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations that were likely to be stressful to Chinook salmon also were measured at stations in the 

Shasta and Klamath Rivers. Dissolved-oxygen concentrations 

varied greatly over the course of a day at most sites. Measured 

pH values exceeded water-quality standards at many of the stations; the highest recorded values were in the Lost River.

 Monthly water-quality samples were collected at 12 

sites in July, August, and September of 2002 and analyzed for 

selected nutrients, organic carbon, chlorophyll-a, and trace 

metals. Ammonia concentrations were low at all the sites, and 

nitrate + nitrate concentrations were low downstream from 

the WALKER station and moderate upstream. Phosphorus 

concentrations at most sites upstream of the ORLEANS station, however, were typically greater than 0.1 mg/Llarge 

enough for the system to be classified as hypereutrophic with 

respect to phosphorus. Large populations of algae or aquatic 

plants could be supported in the Shasta River system and in 

Summary 45
the upper concentrations of phosphorus tended to decrease 

between the IRONGATE station and the KLAMATH station, 

the most downstream site, which may indicate the existence of 

a population of periphyton in that reach. 

Two Lagrangian parcel-tracking studies were done on the 

Klamath (July, September) and Shasta (June, August) Rivers 

in 2003. Data from these studies were similar to that collected during the monthly sampling study in 2002, although 

the levels of nitrate in the Klamath River were markedly 

higher in the reach extending from the IRONGATE station to 

the SEIAD station than during any of the previous sampling 

periods. Similar trends of decreasing nitrogen and phosphorus 

concentrations were measured in the reach extending from 

the IRONGATE station to the most downstream KLAMATH 

station, again indicating potentially significant uptake by 

periphyton.

Sediment oxygen-demand rates were measured at six 

locations in two reaches on the Shasta River during the summer of 2003. The rates of SOD at these sites were moderate 

(median rate of 1.5 g/m2/d); however, they were large enough 

for SOD to be a significant contributor in the loss of DO in 

the Shasta River, particularly for those shallow reaches that 

accumulate sediment and algal and plant detritus.

The process of determining and evaluating gaps in data 

using conceptual and mathematical models are discussed in 

this report. Several recent efforts to simulate water quality in 

the Klamath River also are discussed and evaluated. Learning 

from existing models is a good beginning to start understanding the most important influences on the water quality of a 

river system. Those models can be used to help identify gaps 

in both data and in the understanding of water-quality processes. Of the models evaluated, CE-QUAL-W2 may be best 

suited for further evaluations of the river systems in the Lower 

Klamath River Basin.

The appropriate and targeted use of modeling tools is one 

good method that can be used to lay the foundation for TMDL 

development, but additional data will likely be required before 

sufficiently robust and accurate predictive models can be constructed. Some data gaps are already known and are discussed 

in this report. Perhaps the largest data gap centers on algae 

both in the reservoirs and in the river downstream from the 

IRONGATE monitoring station. The gap in algae data includes 

unknowns regarding the types of algae present, the size, timing, and spatial distribution of algal communities, as well as 

their primary productivity and respiration rates. Additional 

data detailing the vertical water-quality profiles of DO and 

temperature for reservoirs in the Lower Klamath River Basin 

would be useful. More data are needed to define the BOD 

and SOD in the reservoirs and in the lower Klamath River. 

Information on the extent and importance of riparian shading 

is needed. These data gaps can be used to define additional 

studies needed to advance the understanding of water quality 

in the Klamath River, as well as to build tools that can be used 

to create a scientifically defensible framework for resource 

management and water-quality improvement.

Selected References

Bartholoma, S.D., 1997, User’s manual for the National Water 

Information System of the U.S. Geological Survey, chap. 3, 

Automated data processing system: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 97-635, 219 p.

Bartholow, J.M., J. Heasley, R.B. Hanna, J. Sandelin, M. Flug, 

S. Campbell, J. Henriksen, and A. Douglas, 2003, Evaluating water management strategies with the Systems Impact 

Assessment Model: SIAM, version 3: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Fort Collins Science Center Open File Report 03-

82, 127 p. 

Battaglin, W.A., Kendall, C., Chang, C.C.Y., Silva, S.R., 

Campbell, D.H., 2001, Chemical and isotopic evidence of 

nitrogen transformation in the Mississippi River, 1997-98: 

Hydrological Processes, v. 15, no. 7, p. 1285−1300.

Boss International, Enhanced RMA Models accessed August 

3, 2004, at http://hc-2.com/html/rma11.html.

Boyd, M., Kirk, S., Wiltsey, M., and Kasper, B., 2002, Upper

Klamath Lake Drainage Total Maximum Daily Load

(TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP): 

Portland, Ore., Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 188 p.

Bothwell, M.L., 1989, Phosphorus-limited growth dynamics 

of lotic periphyton diatom communities: areal biomass and 

cellular growth rate response: Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, v. 46, p. 1291−1301.

Bristow, K.L. and Campbell, G.S., 1984, On the relationship 

between incoming solar radiation and daily maximum and 

minimum temperature: Journal of Agriculture and Forest 

Meteorology 31:159−166.

Caldwell, J.M., and Doyle, M.C., 1995, Sediment oxygen 

demand in the lower Willamette River, Oregon, 1994: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

95-4196, 14 p.

California Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, State 

Water Resources Control Board, Final, 2002 Clean Water 

Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments: 

Region, accessed April 2004 at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/

tmdl/303d_lists.html

California Department of Water ResourcesFinal 2002 Cleas 

Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited 

Sigments, accessed April 2004, at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/

tmdl/303d_lists.html

Campbell, S.G., 1995, Klamath River Basin flow-related 

scooping study – Phase I, water quality: Study status report: 

Denver, Colo., National Biological Service.

46 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Campbell, S.G., 2001, Water quality and nutrient loading in 

the Klamath River between Keno, Oregon and Seiad Valley, 

California from 1996–1998: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 01-301, 55 p. + diskette.

Campbell, S.G., Hanna, R.B., Flug, M., Scott, J.F., 2001, 

Modeling Klamath River system operations for quantity 

and quality: J. Water Resources Planning and Management, 

Sept/Oct, p. 284−294.

Cole, T.M., and Wells, S.A., 2002, CE-QUAL-W2: A twodimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic water-quality model, version 3.1. Instruction Report EL-02-1: Washington, DC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 615 p.

Davis, J.C., 1975, Minimal DO requirements of aquatic 

life with emphasis on Cadagian species: a review: Journal of Fisheries Research Board Canada, v. 32, no. 12, 

p. 2295−2332.

Deas, M.L., 2000, Application of numerical water quality 

models in ecological assessment: Davis, Calif., University 

of California, Ph.D. dissertation, 400 p.

Doyle, M.C., and Caldwell, J.M., 1996, Water-quality, 

streamflow, and meteorological data for the Tualatin River 

Basin, Oregon, 1991–93: U.S. Geological Survey Open File 

Report 96-173, 49 p., CD ROM in pocket. 

Doyle, M.C., and Rounds, S.A., 2003, The effect of chamber 

mixing velocity on bias in measurement of sediment oxygen 

demand rates in the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03-4097, 16 p.

Environmental Software and Services, GAIA Model base: 

Accessed August 3, 2004, at http://www.ess.co.at/GAIA/

models/idro.htm

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments (3rd ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, p. 451.

Flint, A.L., and Childs, S.W., 1987, Calculation of solar radiation in mountainous terrain: Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, v. 40, p. 233−249.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, p. 18−30.

Hanna, R.B., and Campbell, S.G., 2000, Water quality 

modeling in the Systems Impact Assessment Model for 

the Klamath River Basin−Keno, Oregon, to Seiad Valley, 

California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99-113, 82 p.

Hem, J.D., 1989, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, 264 p. 

Hsieh, P.A., Bahr, J.M., Doe, T.W., Flint, A.L., Gee, G.W., 

Gelhar, Solomon, D.K, van Genuchten, M. Th., and Wheatcraft, S.W., eds., 2001, Conceptual Models of Flow and 

Transport in the Fractured Vadose Zone: Washington DC, 

National Academy Press, 374 p.

Karuk Tribe of California, 2003, Water year 2002 water 

quality monitoring report: Orleans, Calif., Department of 

Natural Resources.

Kelly, V.J., 1997, Dissolved oxygen in the Tualatin River, 

Oregon, during winter flow conditions, 1991 and 1992: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2465-A, 68 p.

Labadie, J.W., MODSIM-DSS: Water Resources and Water 

Rights Planning and Operations Decision Support System; 

Accessed August 3, 2004 http://modsim.engr.colostate.edu

Lee, G.F., and Jones, R.A., 1991, Regulating drinking water 

quality at the source: Presented at the University of California Water Resources Center Conference, Sacramento, Calif., 

April 3−4, handout.

Leidy, R.A., and Leidy, G.R., 1984, Life stage periodicities of 

anadromous salmonids in the Klamath River Basin northwest California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Ecological Services, Sacramento, Calif., April.

Lynch, D.D., and Risley, J.C., 2003, Klamath River Basin 

hydrologic conditions prior to the September 2002 die-off 

of salmon and steelhead: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigation Report 03-4099, 10 p.

Murphy, P.J. and Hicks, D.B., 1986, In-situ method for 

measuring sediment oxygen demand, in Hatcher, K.J., ed., 

Sediment oxygen demand—Processes, modeling, and measurement: Athens, Georgia, Institute of Natural Resources, 

University of Georgia, p. 307−322.

National Research Council, 2004, Endangered and threatened 

fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of decline and 

strategies for recovery: Washington DC, National Academies Press, 384 p.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2001, 

Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region 

accessed April 2002 at http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/ncc_

swrcb_ ncrwqcb_ 2001_ wqcontrolplan.pdf

Perry, T., Mull, T., Lieb, A., Harrison, A., Cohen, E., Rasmussen, J., and Hicks, J., 2004, Natural inflow to, natural losses 

from, and natural outfall of Upper Klamath Lake to the Link 

River and of Lower Klamath Lake to the Klamath River at 

Keno: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Reclamation BOR Technical Service Center, 151 p.

Selected References 47
Radtke, D.B., White, A.F., Davis, J.V., and Wilde, F.D., 1998, 

Dissolved oxygen, in Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., eds., 

1998, Field measurements, in National field manual for the 

collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, 

chap. A6.2, 38 p. 

Rounds, S.A., and Doyle, M.C., 1997, Sediment oxygen 

demand in the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon, 1992–1996: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97-4103, 19 p.

Rounds, S.A., Wood, T.M., and Lynch, D.D., 1999, Modeling 

discharge, temperature, and water quality in the Tualatin 

River, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2465-B, 121 p.

Stanley, D.L., Boozer, T.M., and Schroder, L.J., 1998, Summary of the U.S. Geological Survey National Field QualityAssurance Program from 1979 through 1997: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-392, 11 p.

State of California, Department of Fish and Game, 2003, September 2002 Klamath River Fish Kill: Preliminary analysis 

of contributing factors, January.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Quality Criteria 

for Water: Washington, DC, EPA 440/5-86-001, 398 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, National recommended water quality criteria: 2002: EPA-822-R-02-047, 

33 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, Water-quality data for the Nation, 

accessed March 14, 2003, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

qw

U.S. Geological Survey, Tualatin River at Oswego Diversion 

Dam (14207200), accessed April 2004 at http://or.water.

usgs.gov/cgi-bin/grapher/graph_setup.pl?site_id=14207200

Wagner, R.J., Mattraw, H.C., Ritz, G.F., and Smith, B.A., 

2000, Guidelines and standard procedures for continuous 

water-quality monitors: Site selection, field operation, calibration, record computation, and reporting: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4252, 

53 p. 

Weiss, R.F., 1970, The solubility of nitrogen, oxygen, and 

argon in water and seawater: Deep Sea Research, v. 17, 

no. 4, p. 721−735.

Wilde, F.D., and Radtke, D.B., eds., 1998, Field measurements, in National field manual for the collection of 

water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6 [variously paged].

Wood, T.M., 2001, Sediment oxygen demand in Upper 

Klamath and Agency Lakes, Oregon, 1999: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4080, 

13 p.

Wood, T.M., and Rounds, S.A., 1998, Using CE-QUAL-W2 

to assess the effect of reduced phosphorus loads on chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen in the Tualatin River, Oregon: 

In Proceedings of the First Federal Interagency Hydrologic 

Modeling Conference: U.S. Geological Survey, April 

19–23, Las Vegas, Nevada, p. 2-149–2-156. 

48 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Appendix 1. Continuous dissolved oxygen, water temperature, ph, and 

specific conductance data measured at USGS sites in 2002 and 2003.

Continuously measured water-quality data are presented 

graphically for all USGS water-quality sites on the Klamath, 

Trinity, Shasta, and Lost Rivers in the Lower Klamath River 

Basin for the 2002 and 2003 field seasons. Data include dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance. All the hourly data that completed quality-assurance 

checks are shown in figures A1-1a-h. The complete data set is 

archived in the California District NWIS database.

Appendix 1. 49
��

��

�

����

��

���������������

��

�

���������������

��

�

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

����

�

��

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��

����

����

�

����

��

���� ���� ��� ����

���� ����

���� ���� �����

����������������������������

������

��

������

��

������

��

��������

����

��������

����

��������

����

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

Figure A1-1. Measured continuous data of water temperature and specific conductance in left column, and dissolved oxygen and pH in right column for 2002 and 2003 for stations at (

A) KLAMATH, (

B) HOOPA, (

C) ORLEANS, (

D) SEIAD, (

E ) WALKER, (

F ) EDGEWOOD, (

G) MONTAGUE, (

H) HWY3, 

(I ) YREKA, (

J ) IRONGATE, (

K) SHOVEL, (L) TULE, and (

M ) HATFIELD.

50 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
��

��

�

��

��

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

��

��

�

��

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��

��

��

���������������

��

�

��

��

�

��

����

��

������������������

���

���

�

���� ���� ��� ����

���� ����

���� ���� �����

�������������������������

������

��

������

��

������

��

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

Figure A1-1.Continued.

Appendix 1. 51
Figure A1-1.Continued.

��

��

�

��

��

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ��� ����

���� ����

���� ���� �����

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

��

��

�

��

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��

��

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

��

��

�

��

����

��

������������������

���

���

�

���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �����

���������������������������������

������

��

������

��

������

��

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

52 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Figure A1-1.Continued.

��

��

�

��

��

��

���������������

���

�

��

��

�

��

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��

��

��

����������

���������

���

�

��

��

�

����

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ���� ���� ���

���� ����

���� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� �����

���������������������������

������

��

������

��

������

��

���

�����

���

�

����

���

������

�

���

�

����

���

������

�

���

�

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

Appendix 1. 53
Figure A1-1

Continued.

����

�

����

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���

���� ����

���� ���� ��� ���� �����

����

�

��

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��

����

���������������

��

�

����

�

����

��

���������������

��

�

����������������������������

������

��

������

��

������

��

��������

����

��������

����

��������

����

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

54 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Figure A1-1.Continued.

����

�

����

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���

���� ����

���� ���� ��� ���� �����

����

�

��

�������������������������������������

��

����������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������� ����

����

�

����

��

������������������������

������

��

������

��

������

��

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

������������������

���

���

�

������������������

���

���

�

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

Appendix 1. 55
��

��

�

����

��

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���

���� ����

���� ���� ��� ���� �����

����

�

��

�������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��

����

����

�

����

��

���������������������������������

������

����

�

������

����

�

������

����

�

��������

���

�

���

�����

���

�

���

�����

���

�

������������������

���

���

�

���������������

��

�

���������������

��

�

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

Figure A1-1.Continued.

56 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Figure A1-1.Continued.

������������������

������������������

���������������������

������������������������������

�����������������

�����������������������

��

����

�

����

��

���������������

��

�

���� ���� ���� ���� ���

���� ����

���� ���� ��� ���� ����� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� �����

���������

������

����

�

���

�����

����

�������������������������������������

����������������

��

�����������

Appendix 1. 57
Appendix 2. Methodology for correcting continuous dissolved oxygen data 

from USGS datasonde sensors and associated data uncertainty. 

58 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.

Continuous field measurement of dissoved oxygen (DO) 

is difficult because it requires frequent site visits to maintain 

and clean the probes (to remove biofouling) and to recalibrate 

the probes (to correct the sensor drift). Data, therefore, must 

be corrected to maintain the best accuracy according to field 

calibrations. The theory for measuring DO and the inherent 

errors associated with the measurements are discussed in the 

following section to illustrate the reliability of the DO data 

collected by the USGS and the accuracy of that data. USGS 

protocols for deploying and maintaining the probes and for 

processing the data and reporting it are briefly described with 

information excerpted from Wagner and others (2000). For 

further details on USGS protocols, see Wagner and others 

(2000), as well as publications by Radtke and others (1998) 

and Wilde and Radtke (1998). For information regarding 

supersaturated DO conditions, refer to studies of Oregon 

lakes and rivers by Doyle and Caldwell (1996), Kelly (1997), 

Rounds and others (1999), and Wood and Rounds (1998). 

Examples of data collected on the Shasta River for 2002 and 

2003 are used in this appendix to illustrate data uncertainty for 

the Lower Klamath River Basin.

Theory and Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen

The DO concentration in surface water is related primarily to atmospheric reaeration and photosynthetic activity 

of aquatic plants (Radtke and others, 1998). The range of 

observed DO in surface waters typically is from 2 to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at 20°C. The value for 100-percent 

saturation of DO decreases with increased temperature and 

salinity, and increases with increased atmospheric pressure. 

Occasions of excess oxygen (supersaturation) are related to 

extreme photosynthetic production of oxygen by aquatic plants 

as a result of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) enrichment, 

sunlight, and low-flow conditions. Occasions of saturated 

oxygen commonly are related to cascading flow conditions, 

both natural and artificial. DO may be depleted by inorganic 

oxidation reactions or by biological and chemical processes 

that consume dissolved, suspended, or precipitated organic 

matter (Hem, 1989). 

The most commonly used technique for measuring DO 

concentrations with continuous water-quality sensors is the 

amperometric method, which measures DO with a temperature-compensated polarographic membrane-type sensor. 

Although polarographic membrane-type sensors generally 

provide accurate results, they commonly are sensitive to water 

temperature and water velocity and are prone to fouling. 

Because the permeability of the membrane and the solubility 

of oxygen in water change as functions of water temperature, 

barometric pressure, and salinity, it is critical that the DO 

sensors be calibrated. DO sensors are prone to inaccuracies 

from algal fouling, sedimentation, low velocity, and very high 

velocities. They also undergo drift in the electronics, and can 

be subjected to leakage of the membrane. For a complete 

discussion of DO sensor calibration, DO measurement, and 

instrument and data limitations, refer to Radtke and others 

(1998).

USGS Protocols for Collecting, Processing, and 

Reporting Continuous Dissolved Oxygen Data

YSI 6920 multiparameter datasondes were used to collect 

continuous DO measurements for this current study of the 

Lower Klamath River Basin. Standard USGS protocols were 

followed for the collection of continuous DO data, calibration 

of probes, and correction and reporting of data (Wilde and 

Radtke, 1998).

Collecting Field Measurements of Dissolved 

Oxygen

Maintenance frequency of DO sensors generally is 

governed by the fouling rate, and this rate varies by sensor type, hydrologic environment, and season. In addition to 

fouling problems, physical disruptions (such as pump failure, 

recording equipment malfunction, sedimentation, electrical 

disruption, debris, or vandalism), or battery failure may cause 

additional site visits. 

During a site visit the sensor is inspected to provide the 

final quality control for the interval of water-quality record 

since the last service visit and the initial quality control for 

the next interval of water-quality record and to verify that the 

sensor is working properly. This is accomplished by recording the initial sensor readings, servicing the sensors, recording 

the cleaned-sensor readings, performing a calibration check of 

sensors at 100 percent oxygen saturation in air saturated with 

water vapor, and, if the readings of the DO sensor are outside 

the range of acceptable difference of ± 0.3 mg/L, recalibrating 

the sensor. The difference between the initial sensor reading 

and the cleaned sensor reading is the sensor error resulting 

from fouling during the preceding interval; the difference 

between the calibration-check reading and calibrated-sensor 

reading is a result of electronic drift. The tasks during a site 

visit are performed in sequence so as to properly distinguish 

errors in sensor measurement that are due to fouling from 

those that are due to electronic drift.
Data-Processing Procedures

The initial data evaluation serves as a check of the success of the transfer of raw data collected in the field (instrument readings) to the database at the office and provides the 

opportunity to evaluate obviously erroneous data, such as data 

recorded while the sensor was out of the water during a site 

visit. The data are then corrected, if necessary, for changes that 

occurred in the sensor during the service interval as a result of 

biofouling or electronic drift. Corrections to compensate for 

both of these types of measurement error are applied independently and are based on the quality-control information 

collected in the field during site visits, as described previously. 

In general, both types of corrections are applied when the 

measurement errors exceed ± 0.3 mg/L. 

The degree of fouling is determined from the difference 

between sensor measurements before and after the sensors are 

cleaned in the field and is assumed to occur linearly with time 

between the sensor checks. A second calibrated instrument is 

brought into the field to measure any simultaneous changes in 

conditions so that an environmental change during servicing 

is not mistakenly attributed to fouling. A calibration drift is an 

electronic drift in the equipment from the last time it was calibrated and is determined by the difference between what the 

cleaned sensor reads in air saturated with water vapor and the 

100 percent saturation concentration of oxygen in water at the 

ambient temperature and barometric pressure. If the deviation 

from calibration is within the manufacturer’s calibration 

criteria for the sensor, then no sensor drift is indicated. Electronic drift is assumed to occur at a constant rate across the 

service interval. If the sensor readings exceed the shift criteria 

of 0.3 mg/L, then the correction is linearly interpolated over 

the time between calibration checks. 

Systematic adoption of a standardized final dataevaluation process, including maximum allowable limits and 

publication criteria, are used by USGS District offices and 

have established quality-control limits to be used when shifting data. These commonly are referred to as “maximum allowable limits.” If the sum of the absolute value of the fouling and 

calibration shifts is greater than the maximum allowable limit, 

the data are not published. For DO, the maximum allowable 

limit is 2.0 mg/L; this is considered a minimum standard for 

quality. USGS Districts are encouraged to establish stricter 

requirements. Even with the establishment of maximum 

allowable limits, professional judgment is required by a 

hydrographer when processing data. 

Uncertainty in Dissolved Oxygen Data 

Although DO probes are designed to operate linearly, 

biofouling with time may not be a linear function. To the best 

of our knowledge, few studies have been conducted to measure rates of biofouling and (or) instrument drift, and it is not 

clear exactly how a biofilm growing on the DO sensor affects 

DO levels, although it likely varies depending on numerous 

factors, including photo-intensity, time of day, temperature, 

etc. Given the uncertainties in the effect of biofouling on DO 

data, it is the practice of the USGS to apply a time-prorated 

linear data correction to DO data that show biofouling and 

instrument drift and to report the recorded levels of DO with a 

qualitative rating of the data. Various arguments can be made 

to support a nonlinear variation with time. Unfortunately, the 

only way to select among the many possible approaches to 

correcting DO data for biofouling is to make an additional 

measurement in the middle of the time interval. That measurement would require an additional site visit, but the incremental 

cost of the site visit would be small. The record would be 

processed as two intervals with linear corrections.

Dissolved Oxygen Data for the Shasta River, 

2002–2003

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured continuously at three locations on the Shasta River between June 

and November 2002 and at four locations between April and 

September 2003 (table A2-1). To illustrate the methods used to 

process the data, the following data and calculations are shown 

(fig. A2-1): (1) field data from the initial data evaluation, 

which were used to check the success of the transfer of raw 

field data (instrument readings) to the office database and to 

provide an initial check for evaluating and correcting erroneous data; (2) computed data following corrections for biofouling and instrument drift; and (3) DO at saturation calculated 

from measured water temperature and atmospheric pressure 

(average values were based on measurements during site visits) (fig. A2-1). Generally, corrections for biofouling and drift 

are evident as decreases in the computed data, but occasionally it is evident as increases. There generally are large diurnal 

fluctuations in the data in mid to late summer, especially at 

the three upstream sites, EDGEWOOD, MONTAGUE, and 

HWY3 where the water is shallower and more slowly moving. 

For purposes of example, the site at EDGEWOOD was 

chosen as providing the dataset with the most uncertainty, as 

this site has the slowest moving water and, therefore, generally has the most occurrences of extreme conditions of high or 

low DO, and the most biofouling. EDGEWOOD has site visits 

noted on figure A2-1. The probe deployed at that station in 

2002 was at the bottom of an approximately 50-m long riffle. 

In 2003, the monitor was relocated to above the riffle. Corrections were made following site visits owing to biofouling in 

2002, and to biofouling and drift in 2003, as noted in 

table A2-1. Calibrations and field checks with a hand-held 

meter were performed monthly in 2002, and at every site visit 

in 2003, with the exception of one visit in October when a 

hand-held meter was not used. Corresponding corrections and 

shifts to the data can be seen as linear prorated changes. 

Although the measured DO values commonly exceed 

the solubility of DO, indicating supersaturated conditions, the 

entire diurnal cycle was supersaturated only three times during 24-hour periods: in August (possibly owing to periphyton 

Appendix 2. 59
bloom/die off) and in October 2002 at the YREKA station 

and in October 2002 at the EDGEWOOD station. The record 

for the EDGEWOOD station in October 2002 is of particular interest because the diurnal fluctuations in DO exceeded 

saturated conditions on a 24-hour basis for nearly a month. 

A comparison of this occurrence with occurrences at other 

sites where DO has been studied indicates that supersaturated 

conditions for extended periods of time do occur occasionally. Studies of the Tualatin River and of the Upper Klamath 

Lake in Oregon (Wood and Rounds, 1998; Rounds and others, 

1999; U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Klamath Lake data, 

accessed March 26, 2004) indicate it is not unusual for this 

to occur, particularly in a system with little turbulence, few 

waterfalls or riffles, and an abundance of algae. These conditions are prevalent in the Shasta River which has an abundance 

of rooted aquatic plants in addition to a substantial population 

of attached algae. As long as conditions are favorable for the 

continued growth of the algae and aquatic plants, they can 

easily produce sufficient DO by photosynthesis to offset any 

consumptive processes and any losses to the atmosphere. 

Studies show that supersaturation is an annual occurrence 

in many systems in Oregon. For example, the continuous DO 

record for a station on the Tualatin River (established in 1991) 

(Doyle and Caldwell, 1996; U.S. Geological Survey, Tualatin 

River data, accessed April 2004) shows that supersaturated 

conditions occurred annually at this station for 24-hour periods 

extending from 1 to 6 weeks. In 1992, supersaturated conditions persisted for a month at a time for several periods, and at 

saturations as high as 250 percent, even though that river has a 

TMDL meant to protect it from low DO conditions. Dissolved 

oxygen at shallow locations in the Upper Klamath Lake often 

exceeded 100 percent saturation values throughout the diel 

cycle for several days at a time between May and October of 

2002 and 2003 (U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Klamath Lake 

data, accessed April 2004). 

These comparisons give some credence to the data collected at the EDGEWOOD site; however, the site visit record, 

which was carefully scrutinized, indicates that although the 

meter was calibrated during the October visit, the only visit 

during the extended supersaturated period, there was no independent check of the meter for DO using a hand-held meter. 

This increases the uncertainty of this data for that period by 

not providing a means for defense; therefore, the computed 

data for EDGEWOOD for the period September 19, 2002, 

through November 6, 2002, have been removed from the 

dataset, although the original edited data remains. This is also 

true, but to a lesser degree, for the data from the YREKA site 

during August and September 2002, when there coincidentally 

was no independent check of the meter for DO during the field 

visit, and the subsequent visit indicated a failed sensor. As a 

result, the computed data for YREKA for the period of August 

14, 2002, to September 17, 2002, have been removed from the 

dataset, while the original edited data remain.

There are many uncertainties associated with the DO data 

particularly the DO data for the Shasta River in particular. At 

the beginning of the 2002 field season, field crews unfamiliar 

with the collection of continuous DO data were trained in the 

USGS procedures decribed by Wagner and others (2000). 

In 2002, YSI 6920 multiparameter sondes having probes for 

measuring DO, pH, and specific conductance/water temperature were rented from the USGS Hydrologic Instrumentation 

Facility. There were numerous battery failures and other problems with the probes, in addition to the expected biofouling. 

Drift corrections were not made in 2002, but field calibrations 

were done and sensors were replaced as necessary (approximately monthly). In 2003, new instruments were obtained and 

more frequent field visits were made (table A2-1). In addition 

to corrections for biofouling, drift corrections were made and 

DO sensors were replaced as needed following inspections and 

calibrations in 2003 (approximately every 2 weeks). 

Uncertainties in the DO data collected continuously in 

the field can be exemplified by the data collected in the Shasta 

River in 2002 and 2003. USGS field protocols were followed 

more rigorously in 2003 than in 2002, with more frequent site 

visits, field calibrations, and sensor replacements, thus providing more certainty in the data between visits. In addition, 

both biofouling and drift corrections were made in 2003. Data 

obtained during obvious probe failure, membrane leakage, 

or battery failure were removed in the initial data review, but 

more frequent site visits and probe inspections in 2002 could 

have provided more confidence in the data collected between 

site visits and in the field calibrations. In general, uncertainties 

governed by probe behavior due to biofouling and drift were 

consistently corrected for when deviations from the field calibrated values exceeded 0.3 mg/L but no more than 2.0 mg/L, 

except for the values collected at the EDGEWOOD station on 

August 18, 2003, and September 30, 2003, which were corrected by −2.2 and −2.4 mg/L, respectively. Careful inspection 

of other constituents, including coincident water temperature, 

pH, and specific conductance, as well as discharge, although 

not necessarily at the identical location, and specific consideration of individual site characteristics, weather conditions, 

nutrients, and the presence of algal and macrophyte populations would assist in the interpretation of the adequacy and 

uncertainty of the DO data at these sites. 

Locations of active and inactive meteorological stations, 

type of data, and period of record are given in table A3-1

Locations of active and inactive meterorological stations type 

of data, and period ofrecord are given in table A3-1 through 

A3-3 for the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations, in table A3-4 for the California Irrigation Management 

Information System (CIMIS) stations, and in table A3-5 for 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) stations, 

and in table A3-6 for the Remote Automated Weather Station 

(RAWS) sites. 

60 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Table A2-1. Corrections and shifts made to dissolved oxygen data, and comments on site visits to the EDGEWOOD station on 

the Shasta River in the Lower Klamath River Basin, California, 2002-2003.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Date 

Correction

due to

biofouling

(mg/L)

Correction

due to drift

(mg/L)

Total

correction Comments

6/25/2002 Sonde deployed

7/11/2002 −8.6 Heavy algal growth on probe, fouling correction beyond 

allowable limit.

8/1/2002 7/16/02−8/1/02 battery failure

8/2/2002 0.0

8/15/2002 −0.9 −0.9 8/4/02−8/15/02 battery failure

8/29/2002 0.0 8/18/02−8/29/02 faulty probe

9/19/2002 0.4 0.4

10/2/2002 −0.4 −0.4

10/16/2002 0.0 Cleaning visit only, no fouling correction needed

11/6/2002 0.7 0.7 Sonde removed for season

4/9/2003 0.0 Sonde deployed

4/25/2003 0.0 4/24/03−4/25/03 battery failure

5/13/2003 0.0 4/24/03 and 5/9/03−5/12/03 battery failure, new Sonde 

deployed

5/30/2003 −0.9 −0.9

6/16/2003 0.5 0.5

6/27/2003 0.0 no site visit

7/3/2003 2.0 2.0 no site visit 

7/9/2003 0.0 hole found in membrane, replaced probe. Drift correction 

applied 6/27/03−7/3/03. 7/3/03−7/9/03 drift correction 

beyond allowable limit

7/23/2003 0.0 7/9/03 − 7/10/03 new probe questionable, 7/23/03 hole found 

in membrane, no data published 7/3/03−7/22/03

8/5/2003 −0.5 −0.5

8/18/2003 −2.0 −0.2 −2.2

9/11/2003 −1.8 −1.8

10/1/2003 −0.2 −2.2 −2.4

10/23/2003 −0.1 −1.4 −1.5

11/14/2003 −0.9 −0.9

12/1/2003 −0.1 −1.6 −1.7 Sonde removed for season

Appendix 2. 61
62 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

��������

��� ���� ����

����

����

����

���� ���� ���� ���

���� �����

���� ����� ����

�����������

������

��������

���������������������������

Figure A2-1. Measured continuous data of dissolved oxygen with initial edited record, computed record, and saturated values 

for 2002 and 2003 for USGS sites on the Shasta River, (A) EDGEWOOD, (B) MONTAGUE, (C) HWY3, and (D) YREKA.
��������

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

�

�

�

��

��

��

�

�

�

��

��

��

���� ��� ����

����

����

����

���� ���� ��� ����

���� ��� ���� ���� ����

���� �����

�����������

������

��������

���������������������������

Figure A2-1.Continued.

Appendix 2. 63
Figure A2-1.Continued. �������������������� ��������������������

�

�

�

��

��

��

���� ���� ���� ��� ����

����

���� ��� ���� ����

�����������

����

������

��������

���������������������������

64 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Figure A2-1.Continued.

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

��������������������

�����

���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���

����

����

���� ���� ����� �����

���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ��� ���� ��� ����

�����������

������

��������

���������������������������

Appendix 2. 65
Appendix 3. Sources of meteorological data and locations of active and 

inactive stations in and around the Lower Klamath River Basin.

66 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.

Locations of active and inactive meteorological stations, 

type of data, and period of record are given in table A3-1

Locations of active and inactive meterorological stations type 

of data, and period ofrecord are given in table A3-1 through 

A3-3 for the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations, in table A3-4 for the California Irrigation Management 

Information System (CIMIS) stations, and in table A3-5 for 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) stations, 

and in table A3-6 for the Remote Automated Weather Station 

(RAWS) sites.
Table A3-1. Active National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations recording through 2003 in or around the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, California. 

[Stations measure precipitation, snow, maximum and minimum air temperature. Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate 

information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Station Id. Station name Elevation (meters) Latitude Longitude Begin date

California

29 ADIN RS 4,195.0 41.19639 −120.94722 7/1/1948

161 ALTURAS 4,400.0 41.49306 −120.55278 5/11/1931

738 BIG BAR 4 E 1,250.0 40.74028 −123.20806 7/1/1948

1149 BUCKHORN 3,800.0 40.86694 −121.84639 7/1/1948

1159 BUCKS CREEK P H 1,850.0 39.91778 −121.35111 7/2/1959

1214 BURNEY 3,198.0 40.88000 −121.67278 7/1/1948

1316 CALLAHAN 3,185.0 41.31111 −122.80444 7/1/1948

1476 CANBY 3 SW 4,310.0 41.42194 −120.90167 7/1/1948

1497 CANYON DAM 4,560.0 40.17056 −121.08861 7/1/1948

1606 CECILVILLE 2,310.0 41.14167 −123.13917 11/1/1954

1614 CEDARVILLE 4,670.0 41.53361 −120.17361 7/1/1948

1700 CHESTER 4,530.0 40.30333 −121.24222 7/1/1948

1886 COFFEE CREEK R S 2,500.0 41.08944 −122.70861 1/1/1998

1907 COLEMAN FISHERIES STA 420.0 40.40000 −122.14333 7/1/1948

1990 COPCO NO 1 DAM 2,703.0 41.97972 −122.33778 5/1/1959

2081 COVELO 1,410.0 39.81583 −123.24444 7/1/1948

2147 CRESCENT CITY 3 NNW 40.0 41.79583 −124.21472 7/1/1948

2402 DE SABLA 2,710.0 39.87389 −121.61722 7/1/1948

2504 DOYLE 4,240.0 40.02417 −120.10444 7/2/1948

2506 DOYLE 4 SSE 4,390.0 39.97167 −120.08278 7/1/1956

2574 DUNSMUIR TREATMENT PLAN 2,170.0 41.18333 −122.27361 7/1/1978

2910 EUREKA WFO WOODLEY IS 20.0 40.81056 −124.16028 7/1/1948

2964 FALL RIVER MILLS CSD 3,310.0 41.01611 −121.44250 7/1/1948

3157 FORT BIDWELL 4,500.0 41.85944 −120.15139 7/1/1948

3182 FORT JONES RANGER STN 2,725.0 41.60000 −122.84778 7/1/1948

3357 GASQUET RS 384.0 41.84528 −123.96500 7/1/1948

3614 GREENVIEW 2,820.0 41.55194 −122.92361 7/1/1948

3761 HAPPY CAMP RANGER STN 1,120.0 41.80417 −123.37583 1/8/1931

3791 HARRISON GULCH R S 2,750.0 40.36361 −122.96500 7/1/1948

3824 HAT CREEK 3,015.0 40.93167 −121.54333 7/1/1948

3859 HAYFORK 2 W 2,300.0 40.55250 −123.21222 7/1/1948

4374 JESS VALLEY 5,400.0 41.26833 −120.29472 8/1/1948

4577 KLAMATH 25.0 41.52167 −124.03167 7/1/1948

4683 LAKEHEAD 1,260.0 40.91083 −122.38833 6/1/1998

4838 LAVA BEDS NAT MONUMENT 4,770.0 41.74000 −121.50667 10/7/1959

5311 MANZANITA LAKE 5,750.0 40.54194 −121.57639 1/1/1949

5449 MC CLOUD 3,280.0 41.25139 −122.13833 7/1/1948

5941 MOUNT HEBRON RNG STN 4,250.0 41.78361 −122.04472 7/1/1948

5983 MOUNT SHASTA 3,590.0 41.32056 −122.30806 7/1/1948

6328 OAK KNOLL W C 1,980.0 41.83917 −122.85028 7/1/1948

6498 ORICK PRAIRIE CREEK PAR 160.0 41.36194 −124.01917 7/1/1948

6508 ORLEANS 400.0 41.30889 −123.53222 7/1/1948

6946 PIT RIVER P H 5 1,458.0 40.98694 −121.97722 7/1/1948

7085 PORTOLA 4,850.0 39.80528 −120.47194 7/1/1948

7195 QUINCY 3,420.0 39.93667 −120.94750 7/1/1948

7292 RED BLUFF AP 353.0 40.15194 −122.25361 11/1/1933

Appendix 3. 67
Table A3-1. Active National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations recording through 2003 in or around the Lower 

Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued. 

[Stations measure precipitation, snow, maximum and minimum air temperature. Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate 

information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Station Id. Station name Elevation (meters) Latitude Longitude Begin date

7293 RED BLUFF TREATMENT PLA 265.0 40.16222 −122.22028 5/1/2000

7298 REDDING CDF 502.0 40.51944 −122.29889 2/1/1998

7304 REDDING MUNICIPAL AP 497.0 40.51750 −122.29861 11/1/1986

7404 RICHARDSON GR ST PK 500.0 40.02556 −123.79194 11/9/1961

8045 SCOTIA 133.0 40.48333 −124.10389 1/9/1931

8135 SHASTA DAM 1,075.0 40.71417 −122.41611 7/1/1948

8163 SHELTER COVE AV 246.0 40.03306 −124.07278 9/1/1974

8490 STANDISH HICKEY ST PK 850.0 39.88028 −123.72639 5/1/1959

9026 TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY 1,860.0 40.72639 122.79472 8/1/1974

9053 TULELAKE 4,035.0 41.96000 −121.47444 1/1/1932

9351 VINTON 4,950.0 39.80556 −120.18583 3/1/1950

9390 VOLTA POWER HOUSE 2,220.0 40.45694 −121.86556 7/1/1948

9490 WEAVERVILLE 2,040.0 40.73500 −122.93917 7/1/1948

9621 WHISKEYTOWN RESERVOIR 1,295.0 40.61167 −122.52806 4/16/1960

9694 WILLOW CREEK 1 NW 461.0 40.94667 −123.63667 9/28/1968

9866 YREKA 2,625.0 41.70361 −122.64083 7/1/1948

Oregon

36 ADEL 4,583.0 42.17611 −119.89611 3/7/1956

217 APPLEGATE 1,282.0 42.24500 −123.17472 1/1/1979

304 ASHLAND 1,746.0 42.21278 −122.71444 7/1/1948

856 BLY 4 SE 4,560.0 42.36833 −120.96528 2/1/2000

1055 BROOKINGS 2 SE 46.0 42.02833 −124.24528 1/1/1931

1149 BUNCOM 1 NNE 1,949.0 42.19306 −122.99889 8/1/1948

1448 CAVE JUNCTION 1 WNW 1,280.0 42.17694 −123.67528 3/9/1962

1574 CHILOQUIN 7 NW 4155.0 42.65111 −121.94806 8/1/1980

3356 GOLD BEACH RANGER STN 50.0 42.40361 −124.42417 7/1/1948

3509 GREEN SPRINGS POWER PLA 2,435.0 42.12583 −122.54500 9/21/1960

4060 HOWARD PRAIRIE DAM 4,567.0 42.22917 −122.38139 9/21/1960

4133 ILLAHE 348.0 42.62861 −124.05750 7/1/1948

4403 KENO 4,116.0 42.12972 −121.92972 7/1/1948

4511 KLAMATH FALLS AG STA 4,092.0 42.16444 −121.75472 9/1/1949

4634 LAKE CREEK 2 S 1,865.0 42.39028 −122.62583 1/22/1955

4670 LAKEVIEW 2 NNW 4,778.0 42.21389 −120.36361 1/1/1928

5055 LOST CREEK DAM 1,580.0 42.67222 −122.67500 6/1/1970

5174 MALIN 5 E 4,627.0 42.00778 −121.31861 11/1/1968

5424 MEDFORD EXPERIMENT STN 1,457.0 42.29611 −122.87000 9/1/1937

5429 MEDFORD WSO AP 1,300.0 42.38917 −122.87139 1/1/1928

6426 PAISLEY 4,360.0 42.69222 −120.54028 7/1/1948

7391 RUCH 1,550.0 42.22306 −123.04722 4/1/1963

7668 SELMA 4 E 1,460.0 42.27528 −123.52806 2/1/1998

7698 SEXTON SUMMIT 3,832.0 42.60028 −123.36417 7/1/1948

8812 VALLEY FALLS 4,325.0 42.48444 −120.28222 11/1/1948

9390 WILLIAMS 1 NW 1,450.0 42.22833 −123.28583 12/13/1900

68 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
State Station name Elevation

(meters) Latitude Longitude

Period of record

Beginning

date

Ending

date

Stations with wind data

California MOUNT SHASTA 3,535 41.33250 −122.33278 4/1/1948 12/31/1963

California MOUNT SHASTA 3,535 41.33250 −122.33278 1/1/1964 9/13/1985

California RED BLUFF MUNICIPAL ARP 353 40.15194 −122.25361 1/1/1948 12/31/1963

California RED BLUFF MUNICIPAL ARP 353 40.15194 −122.25361 1/1/1964 8/24/1986

California RED BLUFF MUNICIPAL ARP 353 40.15194 −122.25361 3/1/1999 12/31/2003

Oregon MEDFORD ROGUE VALLEY IN 1,300 42.38917 −122.87139 1/1/1948 12/31/1963

Oregon MEDFORD ROGUE VALLEY IN 1,300 42.38917 −122.87139 1/1/1964 12/31/1997

Oregon MEDFORD ROGUE VALLEY IN 1,300 42.38917 −122.87139 1/1/1998 12/31/2003

Oregon SEXTON SUMMIT 3,832 42.60028 −123.36417 1/1/1948 12/31/1963

Oregon SEXTON SUMMIT 3,832 42.60028 −123.36417 1/1/1964 12/31/1988

Oregon SEXTON SUMMIT 3,832 42.60028 −123.36417 3/1/1999 12/31/2003

California REDDING MUNICIPAL ARPT 497 40.51750 −122.29861 9/1/1986 6/30/1996

California REDDING MUNICIPAL ARPT 497 40.51750 −122.29861 7/1/1996 12/31/2003

California ARCATA EUREKA ARCATA AP 200 40.97806 −124.10861 12/1/1949 12/31/1963

California ARCATA EUREKA ARCATA AP 200 40.97806 −124.10861 1/1/1964 1/31/2003

California ARCATA EUREKA ARCATA AP 200 40.97806 −124.10861 2/1/2001 8/31/2003

Stations with cloudiness data

California ARCATA EUREKA ARCATA AP 200 40.97806 −124.10861 7/1/1996 2/1/2003

Oregon MEDFORD ROGUE VALLEY IN 1,300 42.38917 −122.87139 3/1/1997 12/31/1997

Stations with dew point temperature data

California RED BLUFF MUNICIPAL ARP 353 40.15194 −122.25361 3/1/1999 12/31/2003

California REDDING MUNICIPAL ARPT 497 40.51750 −122.29861 7/1/1996 12/31/2003

California ARCATA EUREKA ARCATA AP 200 40.97806 −124.10861 7/1/1996 8/31/2003

Oregon MEDFORD ROGUE VALLEY IN 1,300 42.38917 −122.87139 7/1/1996 12/31/2003

Oregon SEXTON SUMMIT 3,832 42.60028 −123.36417 3/1/1999 12/31/2003

Stations with relative humidity data

California RED BLUFF MUNICIPAL ARP 353 40.15194 −122.25361 1/1/1948 12/31/2003

California REDDING MUNICIPAL ARPT 497 40.51750 −122.29861 9/1/1986 12/31/2003

California ARCATA EUREKA ARCATA AP 200 40.97806 −124.10861 12/1/1949 8/31/2003

California MOUNT SHASTA 3,535 41.33250 −122.33278 4/1/1948 9/13/1985

Oregon MEDFORD ROGUE VALLEY IN 1,300 42.38917 −122.87139 1/1/1948 12/31/2003

Oregon SEXTON SUMMIT 3,832 42.60028 −123.36417 1/1/1948 12/31/2003

Table A3-2. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) surface airways stations in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

California. 

[When station data collection formats change, the station records are closed and new records begin. See figure 14 for locations of stations. Latitude and longitude 

in decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Appendix 3. 69
Table A3-3. Inactive National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, California.

[Stations measure precipitation, snow, and maximum and minimum air temperature. See figure 14 for locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in decimal 

degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Station

ID Station name Elevation(meters) Latitude Longitude

Period of record

Beginning

date

Ending

date

California

88 ALDERPOINT 459 40.18333 −123.61667 8/1/1948 5/31/1980

615 BEEGUM 1,289 40.35000 −122.86667 7/1/1948 7/9/1958

721 BETTS RANCH 2,651 41.81667 −122.50000 7/2/1948 1/31/1950

731 BIEBER 4,125 41.12083 −121.13472 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

870 BLACKS MOUNTAIN RANCH 5,604 40.73333 −121.25000 7/1/1948 7/31/1960

903 BLUE LAKE REDWOOD CREEK 981 40.91667 −123.81667 2/1/1956 8/31/1965

1080 BRIDGEVILLE 4 NNW 2,100 40.51944 −123.82167 6/1/1954 1/31/2001

1082 BRIDGEVILLE HANSON RANCH 2,602 40.55000 −123.81667 7/1/1948 10/31/1952

1161 BUCKS LAKE 5,203 39.90000 −121.20000 7/1/1948 12/31/1970

1215 BURNT RANCH 1 S 2,150 40.80000 −123.46667 11/1/1959 6/30/1989

1233 BUTLER VALLEY RANCH 420 40.76667 −123.90000 5/20/1970 4/30/1975

1420 CAMP LASSEN 4,304 40.10000 −121.53333 11/1/1948 11/15/1949

1475 CANBY 11SW 4,505 41.36667 −121.05000 5/1/1959 4/30/1971

1522 CARIBOU PH 2,992 40.08333 −121.15000 6/1/1959 6/30/1977

1607 CECILVILLE 5 SE 3,002 41.08333 −123.05000 6/1/1950 10/31/1954

1731 CHINA FLAT 600 40.86667 −123.58333 7/1/1948 6/30/1955

1799 CLEAR CREEK 981 41.71667 −123.45000 9/2/1960 6/30/1977

1805 CLEAR LAKE DAM 4,573 41.93333 −121.06667 1/1/1950 9/30/1954

1890 COHASSET 2,523 39.91667 −121.73333 11/2/1960 8/31/1961

1891 COHASSET 1 NNE 3,192 39.93333 −121.71667 1/1/1962 6/30/1977

1953 COLYEAR SPRINGS 3,304 40.05000 −122.68333 9/1/1960 3/31/1962

2027 CORNING HOUGHTON RANCH 487 39.90000 −122.35000 7/1/1948 5/31/1984

2084 COVELO EEL RIVER RS 1,514 39.82611 −123.08500 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

2148 CRESCENT CITY 7 ENE 120 41.79417 −124.08500 12/4/1951 6/30/2001

2149 CRESCENT CITY CAA AIRPO 56 41.78333 −124.23333 4/1/1950 12/31/1954

2150 CRESCENT CITY MNTC STN 49 41.76667 −124.20000 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

2218 CUMMINGS 1,289 39.83333 −123.63333 9/1/1949 6/30/1981

2269 DANA 2 SE 3,323 41.10000 −121.51667 5/1/1959 5/31/1976

2296 DAVIS CREEK 4,754 41.73333 −120.36667 5/1/1959 11/30/1969

2306 DAY 3,650 41.21222 −121.37417 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

2379 DELTA 1,171 40.95000 −122.41667 11/1/1975 5/31/1978

2572 DUNSMUIR 2,421 41.21667 −122.26667 7/1/1948 6/30/1978

2595 EAGLE LAKE STONE RANCH 5,135 40.50000 −120.65000 5/1/1959 3/31/1961

2749 ELK VALLEY 1,705 41.98750 −123.71750 7/1/1948 4/18/1976

2899 ETNA 2,950 41.45556 −122.89833 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

3020 FERGUSON RANCH 801 40.35000 −122.45000 1/1/1952 7/31/1967

3025 FERNDALE 8 SSW 1,450 40.50000 −124.33333 11/23/1959 12/31/1971

3030 FERNDALE 2 NW 10 40.60000 −124.28333 3/17/1963 9/30/1973

3087 FLEMING FISH & GAME 4,003 40.36667 −120.31667 6/1/1959 6/30/1977

3130 FOREST GLEN 2,339 40.38333 −123.33333 7/1/1948 7/18/1985

3151 FORKS OF SALMON 1,240 41.26667 −123.31667 9/1/1960 5/31/1972

3173 FORT DICK 46 41.86667 −124.15000 11/1/1951 12/31/1988

3176 FORT JONES 6 ESE 3,323 41.58333 −122.71667 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

3204 FORWARD MILL 3,304 40.43333 −121.73333 1/1/1952 5/31/1958

3242 FRENCH GULCH 1,102 40.70000 −122.63333 1/1/1952 11/30/1982

70 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Station

ID Station name Elevation(meters) Latitude Longitude

Period of record

Beginning

date

Ending

date

3320 GARBERVILLE 340 40.10000 −123.80000 11/1/1948 3/31/1985

3405 GIBSON HIGHWAY MNT STN 1,650 41.01667 −122.40000 4/1/1965 6/30/1977

3510 GOOSE LAKE WEST 4,892 41.86667 −120.50000 5/1/1959 12/31/1962

3564 GRASS LAKE HWY MNTC ST 5,092 41.63333 −122.20000 9/1/1960 11/30/1967

3621 GREENVILLE R S 3,560 40.14056 −120.94278 7/1/1948 12/21/2001

3647 GRIZZLY CREEK STATE PAR 410 40.48611 −123.90917 12/1/1979 9/30/2001

3817 HATCHET MOUNTAIN MNTNC 4,373 40.85000 −121.76667 2/19/1957 6/30/1960

3821 HAT CREEK EXPERIMENT ST 3,353 40.80000 −121.50000 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

3987 HILTS SLASH DISPOSAL 2,904 42.00000 −122.63333 7/1/1948 12/31/1984

4074 HONEYDEW 1 SW 370 40.23750 −124.13222 11/1/1959 9/30/1972

4082 HOOPA 361 41.05000 −123.66667 7/1/1948 12/31/1983

4084 HOOPA 2 SE 322 41.03333 −123.65000 11/1/1954 10/31/1967

4089 HOOPA 333 41.04833 −123.67778 1/1/1984 5/31/1987

4166 HUNTER DISTR GRAVES RC 771 40.18333 −122.55000 9/1/1960 9/30/1970

4191 HYAMPOM 1,275 40.61639 −123.45667 7/1/1948 10/26/2001

4202 IDLEWILD HWY MNTNC STN 1,250 41.90000 −123.76667 5/1/1959 6/30/1977

4255 INDIAN WELL HQS 4,774 41.71667 −121.50000 8/1/1948 12/31/1949

4274 INSKIP INN 4,823 40.00000 −121.53333 8/17/1948 4/30/1954

4544 KILARC PH 2,651 40.68333 −121.86667 5/1/1959 6/30/1977

4586 KNEELAND 2 2,661 40.66667 −123.91667 7/2/1948 9/30/1951

4602 KORBEL 151 40.86667 −123.95000 11/1/1959 12/31/1974

4675 LAKE CITY 4,613 41.63333 −120.21667 7/1/1948 10/11/1960

4690 LAKE MOUNTAIN 3,163 40.01667 −123.40000 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

4709 LAKESHORE 2 1,079 40.86667 −122.38333 7/1/1948 7/31/1972

4988 LITTLE VALLEY 4,173 40.88333 −121.18333 10/1/1960 1/31/1974

5093 LOOKOUT 3 WSW 4,183 41.20000 −121.20000 5/1/1963 5/31/1977

5131 LOS MOLINOS 220 40.01667 −122.10000 7/1/1948 11/30/1948

5231 MADELINE 5,325 41.01667 −120.50000 6/1/1959 2/28/1975

5244 MAD RIVER RANGER STN 2,675 40.45000 −123.53333 7/1/1948 9/30/1988

5623 MILFORD LAUFMAN RS 4,860 40.14139 −120.35333 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

5679 MINERAL 4,875 40.34583 −121.60917 7/1/1948 11/30/2001

5713 MIRANDA SPENGLER RANCH 361 40.20000 −123.76667 7/1/1948 8/31/1966

5785 MONTAGUE 5 NE 2,635 41.78056 −122.47167 7/1/1948 7/17/1952

5809 MONTGOMERY CREEK 2,103 40.81667 −121.93333 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

5940 MOUNT HEBRON 11 ESE 4,383 41.73333 −121.80000 5/1/1952 12/31/1960

5980 MOUNT SHASTA SKI BOWL 7,844 41.36667 −122.20000 12/11/1958 8/31/1964

6173 NEW PINE CREEK 2 E 5,292 41.98333 −120.26667 10/1/1960 5/31/1961

6329 OAK KNOLL R S NO 2 1,700 41.85000 −122.88333 1/1/1972 1/31/1998

6455 ONO 978 40.48333 −122.61667 1/3/1952 3/31/1984

6499 ORICK 10 SE 2,480 41.18333 −123.91667 11/1/1959 5/31/1963

6726 PASKENTA RANGER STN 755 39.88556 −122.54333 7/3/1948 10/31/2001

6761 PAYNES CREEK 1,841 40.33333 −121.90000 1/1/1952 3/31/1984

6944 PIT RIVER P H 1 2,880 41.00000 −121.50000 9/1/1972 8/31/1996

6975 PLATINA 2,260 40.36667 −122.88333 3/24/1962 4/30/1974

7088 PORTOLA 2 4,833 39.80000 −120.48333 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

7106 POTTERS SAWMILL 4,213 41.23333 −121.21667 5/1/1961 11/30/1962

Table A3−3. Inactive National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[Stations measure precipitation, snow, and maximum and minimum air temperature. See figure 14 for locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in 

decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Appendix 3. 71
Station

ID Station name Elevation(meters) Latitude Longitude

Period of record

Beginning

date

Ending

date

7197 QUINCY USFS HELIPORT 3,652 39.98333 −120.95000 9/1/1979 3/31/1981

7290 RED BLUFF 287 40.18333 −122.23333 7/1/1948 12/31/1948

7294 RED BLUFF NO 2 310 40.16333 −122.22806 2/1/1998 6/30/1999

7296 REDDING FIRE STN 2 581 40.58333 −122.40000 1/11/1931 4/30/1979

7300 REDDING FIRE STN 4 470 40.55000 −122.38333 5/1/1979 4/30/1987

7580 ROUND MOUNTAIN 2,103 40.81667 −121.93333 1/1/1952 6/30/1970

7581 ROUND MOUNTAIN 2,100 40.79556 −121.93500 7/1/1970 8/31/2000

7698 SALYER RANGER STN 620 40.88333 −123.58333 7/1/1948 11/30/1968

8025 SAWYERS BAR RS 2,169 41.30111 −123.13306 7/1/1948 4/30/1988

8074 SECRET VALLEY 4,442 40.50000 −120.26667 9/1/1962 2/28/1977

8075 SECRET VALLEY M S 4,662 40.66667 −120.25000 5/1/1959 3/31/1981

8162 SHELTER COVE 110 40.03333 −124.06667 11/11/1959 4/30/1974

8175 SHINGLETOWN 2 E 3,556 40.50000 −121.85000 11/1/1958 3/31/1984

8292 SLOAT 4,124 39.86667 −120.73333 7/1/1957 5/31/1958

8311 SMITH RIVER 3 WNW 30 41.95000 −124.20000 10/1/1956 11/30/1958

8346 SOMESBAR 1 W 522 41.38333 −123.48333 11/1/1954 10/31/1967

8472 SQUAW CREEK GS 1,302 40.88333 −122.10000 7/1/1948 1/31/1949

8487 STANDISH 1 E 4,032 40.36667 −120.40000 5/1/1961 4/30/1973

8521 STEELE SWAMP 4,554 41.86667 −120.95000 7/1/1948 4/30/1950

8544 STIRLING CITY R S 3520 39.90417 −121.52806 7/1/1948 8/31/1966

8701 SUSANVILLE 4,173 40.41667 −120.65000 6/17/1952 6/30/1964

8702 SUSANVILLE 2 SW 4,184 40.41667 −120.66306 1/10/1931 12/29/2001

8705 SUSANVILLE STATE RNG 4,193 40.40000 −120.66667 6/1/1949 9/30/1951

8860 TENNANT 4,754 41.58333 −121.91667 5/1/1952 8/31/1957

8873 TERMO 1 E 5,300 40.86667 −120.43333 8/1/1948 3/31/1999

8875 TERMO BRIN MARR 5,364 40.91667 −120.26667 3/1/1960 6/30/1963

9023 TRINITY CENTER RANGER S 2,303 41.00000 −122.68333 7/1/1948 9/30/1951

9024 TRINITY DAM VISTA POINT 2,503 40.80000 −122.76667 7/1/1959 12/31/1973

9056 TULELAKE 5 WSW 4,032 41.91667 −121.56667 7/1/1948 10/31/1957

9057 TULELAKE INSPECTION STN 4,413 41.60000 −121.20000 5/1/1959 7/31/1959

9083 TURNTABLE CREEK 1,070 40.76667 −122.30000 7/1/1948 10/31/1969

9177 UPPER MATTOLE 255 40.25000 −124.18333 7/1/1948 4/30/1986

9386 VOLLMERS 1,342 40.95000 −122.45000 7/1/1948 10/31/1975

9498 WEED 3,514 41.43333 −122.38333 7/1/1948 2/28/1957

9499 WEED FIRE DEPT 3,589 41.43333 −122.38333 4/18/1957 7/31/1989

9526 WENDEL 10 SE 4,042 40.26667 −120.06667 5/1/1959 6/30/1977

9540 WEST BRANCH 3,222 39.93333 −121.53333 7/1/1948 9/30/1952

9599 WESTWOOD 5,072 40.30000 −121.00000 7/1/1948 4/12/1953

9600 WESTWOOD 3 WSW 4,993 40.30000 −121.05000 4/16/1953 6/30/1957

9612 WHEELER 49 39.88333 −123.91667 1/1/1950 10/31/1959

9620 WHISKEYTOWN 1,089 40.63333 −122.55000 7/1/1959 4/14/1960

9691 WILLOW CREEK RANCH 5,203 41.83333 −120.75000 7/1/1964 8/31/1966

9867 YREKA RANGER STN 2,631 41.71667 −122.63333 5/21/1957 5/21/1957

Table A3−3. Inactive National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, CaliforniaContinued.

[Stations measure precipitation, snow, and maximum and minimum air temperature. See figure 14 for locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in 

decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

72 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
Station

ID Station name Elevation(meters) Latitude Longitude

Period of record

Beginning

date

Ending

date

Nevada

7261 SAND PASS 3,904 40.31667 −119.80000 1/1/1928 9/30/1971

8810 VYA 5,663 41.58333 −119.91667 9/1/1959 6/30/1980

Oregon

853 BLY RANGER STN 4,390 42.40000 −121.04583 2/1/1950 9/30/1951

854 BLY 3 NW 4,378 42.43333 −121.10000 4/1/1988 9/30/1997

1207 BUTTE FALLS 1 SE 2,500 42.53778 −122.55250 2/1/1950 3/31/1986

1571 CHILOQUIN 1 E 4,193 42.58333 −121.86667 7/1/1948 12/31/1979

1826 COPPER 1,903 42.03333 −123.13333 8/1/1948 9/29/1951

2018 DAIRY 4 NNE YONNA 4,154 42.26667 −121.46667 3/1/1949 2/28/1953

2928 FISH LAKE 4,642 42.38333 −122.35000 1/2/1933 11/10/1956

3022 FORT KLAMATH 7 SW 4,163 42.61667 −122.08333 3/3/1953 8/31/1965

3232 GERBER DAM 4,850 42.20500 −121.13139 7/1/1948 10/26/1956

3445 GRANTS PASS 930 42.42444 −123.32361 1/2/1928 11/30/2001

4135 ILLAHE 2 N 488 42.65000 −124.05000 3/6/1963 5/27/1967

4216 JACKSONVILLE 1,640 42.30000 −122.98333 7/2/1948 11/30/1948

4420 KERBY 1,270 42.21667 −123.65000 2/1/1950 9/30/1951

4506 KLAMATH FALLS 2 SSW 4,098 42.20083 −121.78139 1/1/1928 5/31/2001

4633 LAKE CREEK 3 NE 2,400 42.45000 −122.56667 3/1/1978 11/30/1995

4635 LAKE CREEK 6 SE 1,752 42.36667 −122.53333 7/1/1948 3/31/1953

4636 LAKE CREEK 1 E 1,550 42.42583 −122.62306 1/1/1996 5/31/1998

5505 MERRILL 2 NW 4,081 42.05000 −121.63333 6/1/1949 3/31/1968

5656 MODOC ORCHARD 1,220 42.45000 −122.88333 7/1/1948 4/30/1966

6027 NEW PINE CREEK 4,882 42.00000 −120.30000 11/10/1961 6/30/1972

6717 PLUSH 1 N 4,514 42.41667 −119.90000 7/2/1948 8/31/1961

7285 ROCKY POINT 3 S 4,154 42.43333 −122.08333 10/19/1966 10/31/1975

7354 ROUND GROVE 4,888 42.34139 −120.88944 7/1/1948 12/22/1998

7670 SELMA 4 W 1,503 42.28333 −123.70000 11/12/1960 5/31/1961

7850 SISKIYOU SUMMIT 4,485 42.08333 −122.56667 7/1/1948 9/18/1948

8007 SPRAGUE RIVER 2 SE 4,483 42.43056 −121.48917 5/28/1953 2/28/2001

8071 STAR RANGER STN 1,581 42.15000 −123.06667 7/1/1948 7/31/1948

8338 TALENT 1,552 42.25000 −122.80000 7/1/1948 11/10/1960

8818 VALLEY FALLS 3 SSE 4,583 42.45000 −120.25000 4/8/1965 2/28/1983

9604 YONNA 4,183 42.30000 −121.48333 7/1/1948 1/31/1949

Table A3−3. Inactive National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) stations in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

CaliforniaContinued.

[Stations measure precipitation, snow, and maximum and minimum air temperature. See figure 14 for locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in 

decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Appendix 3. 73
Station name Station Id County Elevation (meters) Latitude Longitude

 Gerber 8 Tehama 250 40.0450 −122.1640

 McArthur 43 Shasta 3,310 41.0650 −121.4540

 MacDoel 46 Siskiyou 4,254 41.7920 −122.0640

 Tulelake 48 Siskiyou 4,042 42.0030 −121.4270

 Buntingville 57 Lassen 4,005 40.2900 −120.4340

 Alturas 90 Modoc 4,405 41.4330 −120.4790

 Tulelake FS 91 Siskiyou 4,035 41.9590 −121.4710

 Gerber Dryland 108 Tehama 245 40.0430 −122.1620

Table A3-4. California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) reference evapotranspiration stations locations 

within or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, California.

[See figure 14 for locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American 

Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Table A3-5. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) weather stations in or around the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

California. 

[Stations measure hourly solar radiation, dewpoint temperature, air temperature, and cloud cover, and monthly ozone, precipitable water, and atmospheric 

turbidity. Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, NAD 83]

Station Latitude Longitude

Period of record

Beginning date Ending date

Arcata 40.9833 −124.1000 1/1/1960 12/31/1990

Medford 42.3667 −122.8667 1/1/1960 12/31/1990

74 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
State Station name Latitude Longitude

California COOSKIE M 40.25694 −124.26611

California GASQUET 41.84583 −123.97917

California MAPLE CRE 40.79639 −123.93667

California SCHOOL HO 41.13833 −123.90556

California YUROK 41.28972 −123.85750

California EEL RIVER 40.13833 −123.82361

California SHIP MTN 41.73583 −123.79167

California HOOPAH 41.04778 −123.67139

California BIG HILL 41.09750 −123.63583

California CRAZY PEA 41.99194 −123.60361

California ALDER POI 40.18667 −123.59028

California MAD RIVER 40.46333 −123.52389

California SRF01 POR 40.45222 −123.51778

California SOMES BAR 41.39000 −123.49583

California UNDERWOOD 40.72194 −123.49528

California SLATER BU 41.85861 −123.35250

California FRIEND MT 40.50500 −123.34167

California BIG BAR 40.74333 −123.25000

California BLUE RIDG 41.27333 −123.19000

California BLUE RIDG 41.26944 −123.18750

California BACKBONE 40.88917 −123.14222

California SAWYERS B 41.30028 −123.13222

California EEL RIVER 39.82528 −123.08250

California YOLLA BOL 40.33833 −123.06500

California COLLINS B 41.77500 −122.95028

California MENDOCINO 39.80750 −122.94500

California WEAVERVIL 40.73500 −122.94333

California QUARTZ HI 41.59972 −122.93278

California PATTYMOCU 40.28833 −122.87167

California KNF91 POR 41.60000 −122.85556

California OAK KNOLL 41.83861 −122.84889

California ARBUCKLE 40.39833 −122.83333

California ARBUCKLE 40.39833 −122.83333

California TRINITY C 40.67889 −122.83306

California LOWDEN 40.68944 −122.83139

California CALLAHAN 41.30750 −122.79583

California SCORPION 41.11167 −122.69667

California EAGLE PEA 39.92778 −122.65694

California R501 PORT 40.90222 −122.65139

California THOMES CR 39.86444 −122.60972

California OAK BOTTO 40.65056 −122.60556

California BRAZIE RA 41.68528 −122.59417

California WEED AIRP 41.47889 −122.45389

California SUGARLOAF 40.91667 −122.43833

California SIMS 41.07500 −122.37333

Table A3-6. Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS)

locations in and around the Lower Klamath River Basin, California. 

Appendix 3. 75
State Station name Latitude Longitude

California SIMS TEST 41.08083 −122.34694

California MT. SHAST 41.31556 −122.31556

California REDDING 40.51583 −122.29056

California CORNING 39.93889 −122.16972

California JUANITA L 41.78611 −122.00556

California OAK MOUNT 41.00639 −121.98333

California ASH CREEK 41.27694 −121.97944

California WHITMORE 40.62028 −121.90389

California VAN BREMM 41.64306 −121.79389

California COHASSET 39.87000 −121.76917

California LASSEN LO 40.34417 −121.71361

California LOWER KLA 41.99917 −121.70028

California zz LOWER 41.99889 −121.70000

California SOLDIER M 40.92583 −121.58556

California CARPENTER 40.06861 −121.58250

California MANZANITA 40.54000 −121.58028

California INDIAN WE 41.74167 −121.53833

California ROUND MOU 41.42722 −121.46389

California SUMMIT 40.50167 −121.42250

California LNF01 POR 40.69500 −121.35861

California MDF04 POR 41.62778 −121.29833

California TIMBER MO 41.62944 −121.29806

California LADDER BU 40.80722 −121.29667

California LNF02 POR 40.28333 −121.20000

California LNF03 POR 40.28333 −121.20000

California BLACKS MT 40.73139 −121.11833

California CHESTER 40.28972 −121.08528

California BOGARD R. 40.59806 −121.08306

California MDF06 POR 41.62500 −121.06778

California PNF21 POR 39.95556 −120.99222

California PNF22 POR 39.97333 −120.94194

California QUINCY RD 39.97333 −120.94194

California CASHMAN 40.00167 −120.91500

California WESTWOOD 40.30667 −120.90000

California GORDON 40.75861 −120.89611

California LNF05 POR 40.75861 −120.89611

California CANBY 41.43417 −120.86778

California RUSH CREE 41.29444 −120.86389

California MDF03 POR 41.82778 −120.86389

California GRASSHOPP 40.78278 −120.78167

California ASH VALLE 41.05194 −120.68611

California PNF14 POR 39.83333 −120.68056

California DEVILS GA 41.53000 −120.67139

California PIERCE 40.24611 −120.64222

Table A3-6. Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS)

locations in and around the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

CaliforniaContinued. 

[Stations measure hourly air temperature, dewpoint temperature, barometric 

pressure, precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction. See figure 14 for 

locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal 

coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, 

NAD 83]

76 Water-Quality Data and Analysis of Data Gaps for Development of TMDLs, Lower Klamath River Basin, Calif.
State Station name Latitude Longitude

California PNF11 POR 39.93417 −120.55111

California HORSE LAK 40.63056 −120.50278

California PNF12 POR 40.19306 −120.48778

California JUNIPER C 41.33222 −120.47250

California PNF13 POR 39.97611 −120.35611

California LAUFMAN 40.14167 −120.35333

California BLUE DOOR 41.05472 −120.33750

California RAVENDALE 40.73083 −120.31639

California BULL FLAT 40.48083 −120.11389

California DOYLE 40.02222 −120.10556

Nevada BARREL SP 41.91111 −119.93889

Oregon RED MOUND 42.12333 −124.30056

Oregon LAWSON 42.41667 −124.13333

Oregon QUAIL PRA 42.21667 −124.03333

Oregon BALD KNOB 42.70000 −124.03333

Oregon AGNESS 42.33028 −124.02222

Oregon ILLINOIS 42.11667 −123.66667

Oregon ONION MOU 42.30000 −123.40000

Oregon MERLIN SE 42.49472 −123.39722

Oregon PROVOLT S 42.28972 −123.23028

Oregon EVANS CRE 42.59778 −123.10333

Oregon STAR 42.15000 −123.06667

Oregon SQUAW PEA 42.06667 −123.01667

Oregon BUCKHORN 42.11972 −122.56333

Oregon ZIM 42.68889 −122.46833

Oregon DEAD INDI 42.28333 −122.31667

Oregon PARKER MO 42.10583 −122.27806

Oregon SELDOM CR 42.40750 −122.19139

Oregon CHILOQUIN 42.57694 −121.89361

Oregon CALIMUS 42.63139 −121.55972

Oregon GERBER RE 42.20556 −121.13889

Oregon STRAWBERR 42.18944 −120.84639

Oregon COFFEE PO 42.55000 −120.62000

Oregon SUMMIT 42.19889 −120.24556

Table A3-6. Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS)

locations in and around the Lower Klamath River Basin, 

CaliforniaContinued. 

[Stations measure hourly air temperature, dewpoint temperature, barometric 

pressure, precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction. See figure 14 for 

locations of stations. Latitude and longitude in decimal degrees. Horizontal 

coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983, 

NAD 83]

Appendix 3. 77