U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
HOVEYLAKE
POSEY COUNTY
INDIANA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 329
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
HOVEYLAKE
POSEY COUNTY
INDIANA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 329
O
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
AND THE
INDIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1976
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Indiana Study Lakes iv
Sections
L. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 2
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 3
V. Literature Reviewed 7
VI. Appendices 8
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning {§303(c)>, water
quality criteria/standards review {§303(c)>, clean lakes {§314(a,b)>,
and water quality monitoring {§106 and §305(b)} activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, I). S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Indiana State Board of
Health for professional involvement, to the Indiana National
Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey,
and to those Indiana wastewater treatment plant operators who
provided effluent samples and flow data.
The staff of the Division of Water Pollution Control, Indiana
State Board of Health, provided invaluable lake documentation and
counsel during the Survey, reviewed the preliminary reports, and
provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this Working
Paper series.
Major General Alfred F. Ahner, Adjutant General of Indiana,
and Project Officers Lt. Colonel Charles B. Roberts (Retired)
and Colonel Robert L. Sharp, who directed the volunteer efforts
of the Indiana National Guardsmen, are also gratefully acknowledged
for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF INDIANA
LAKE NAME
Bass
Cataract
Crooked
Dallas
Geist
Hamilton
Hovey
James
James
Long
Marsh
Mississinewa
Maxinkuckee
Monroe
Morse
01 in
Oliver
Pigeon
Syl van
Tippecanoe
Versailles
Wawassee
Webster
Westler
Whitewater
Winona
Witmer
COUNTY
Starke
Owen, Putnam
Steuben
LaGrange
Hamilton, Marion
Steuben
Posey
Kosciusko
Steuben
Steuben
Steuben
Grant, Miami, Wabash
Marshall
Brown, Monroe
Hami1 ton
LaGrange
LaGrange
Steuben
Noble
Kosciusko
Ripley
Kosciusko
Kosciusko
LaGrange
Union
Kosciusko
LaGrange
-------
HOVEY LAKE
STORE! NO. 1849
I. INTRODUCTION
Hovey Lake was included in the National Eutrophication Survey as a
water body of interest to the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Agency.
Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and this report re-
lates only to the lake sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data show that Hovey Lake is eutrophic. Of the 27
Indiana water bodies sampled in 1973, it ranked 22nd in overall
trophic quality when compared using a combination of six param-
eters*. Eighteen of the water bodies had less median total
phosphorus, 23 had less median orthophosphorus, 16 had less
median inorganic nitrogen, all of the others had less mean
chlorophyll a^ and all had greater mean Secchi disc transparency.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Hovey Lake was phos-
phorus limited at the time the sample was collected (05/11/73).
However, the lake data indicate nitrogen limitation in August
and October.
* See Appendix A.
-------
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry*:
1. Surface area: 0.98 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 1.2 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 15.5 meters.
4. Volume: 1.194 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: unknown.
B. Precipitation**:
1. Year of sampling: 111.2 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 100.1 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
* Winters 1975.
** See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976",
-------
3
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Hovey Lake was sampled three times during the open-water season
of 1973 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from
a number of depths at one station on the lake. During each visit,
a single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was collected
for phytoplankton identification and enumeration, and a similar
sample was taken for chlorophyll ^analysis. During the first visit,
a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was collected for algal
assays. The maximum depth sampled was 2.7 meters.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C>
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMOI
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
ORTHO P (MG/L)
N02»N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L>
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N (MG/L)
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 5/11/73)
1 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
15.3 - 17.9 16.2 15.5
7.8 - 8.0 7.9 7.9
300. - 300. 300. 300.
7.6 - 7.6 7.6 7.6
76. - 77. 76. 76.
0.056 - 0.062 0.059 0.060
0.021 - 0.024 0.022 0.022
1.000 - 1.010 1.007 1.010
0.040 - 0.080 0.060 0.060
0.300 - 0.600 0.400 0.300
1.050 - 1.080 1.067 1.070
1.300 - 1.610 1.407 1.310
1.6 - 1.6 1.6 1.6
0.5 - 0.5 0.5 0.5
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR HOVEY LAKE
STORET CODE 1849
2ND SAMPLING ( 8/11/73)
1 SITES
RANGE
30.1
7.4
437.
8.0
141.
0.868
0.037
0.150
0.130
3.600
0.280
3.750
206.7
0.2
- 30.1
7.4
- 437.
8.0
- 141.
- 0.868
- 0.037
- 0.150
- 0.130
- 3.600
- 0.280
- 3.750
- 206.7
0.2
MEAN
30.1
7.4
437.
8.0
141.
0.868
0.037
0.150
0.130
3.600
0.280
3.750
206.7
0.2
MEDIAN
30.1
7.4
437.
8.0
141.
0.868
0.037
0.150
0.130
3.600
0.280
3.750
206.7
0.2
3RD SAMPLING (10/19/73)
1 SITES
RANGE MEAN MEDIAN
19.0 - 19.0 19.0 19.0
11.4 - U.4 11.4 11.4
«•»»•« -a««»«»*»******»*»**»*o
8.6 - 8.6 8.6 8.6
116. - 116. 116. 116.
0.702 - 0.702 0.702 0.702
0.042 - 0.042 0.042 O.A42
0.130 - 0.130 0.130 0.130
0.090 - 0.090 0.090 0.090
5.400 - 5.400 5.400 5.400
0.220 - 0.220 0.220 0.220
5.530 - 5.530 5.530 5.530
44.5 - 44.5 44.5 44.5
0.2 - 0.2 0.2 0.2
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
05/11/73
08/11/73
10/19/73
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
05/11/73
08/11/73
10/19/73
Dominant
Genera
1. Flagellates
2. Asterionella sp.
3. Dinobryon sj3.
4. Lyngbya sp.
5. Raphidiopsis sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Oscillator!a sp.
2. Pennate diatoms
3. Anabaenopsis sp.
4. Cryptomonas sp.
5. Merismopedia sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Raphidiopsis sp.
2. Oscillatoria sp.
3. Stephanodiscus sp.
4. Pennate diatoms
5. Merismopedia sp.
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
1
1
1
Algal Units
per ml
8,416
226
181
181
136
498
9,638
70,272
27,787
12,685
6,846
4,632
32.417
154,639
35,107
24,575
21,064
18,477
5,543
28,163
131,929
Chlorophyll a_
(yg/l)
1.6
206.7
44.5
-------
6
Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.)
Control 0.015 0.980 4.7
0.050 P 0.065 0.980 14.7
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.065 1.980 15.7
1.0 N 0.015 1.980 5.1
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Hovey Lake was moderately high at the time the assay
sample was collected. The results also indicate that the
lake was phosphorus limited at that time. Note that the
yield increased three-fold with the addition of phosphorus
alone; but with the addition of only nitrogen, the yield
was not significantly greater than the control. However,
the lake data indicate nitrogen limitation in August and
October (the mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios
were 7/1 and 5/1, respectively, and nitrogen limitation
would be expected).
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Winters, John, 1975. Personal communication (lake morphometry),
IN Div. Water Poll. Contr., Indianapolis.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO bE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
1805
1811
1817
1827
182«
1829
1836
1837
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1R55
1856
1857
LAKE NAME
CATARACT LAKE
GEIST RESERVOIR
JAMES LAKE
MISS1SSINEWA RESERVOIR
MONROE RESERVOIR
MORSE RESERVOIR
WAWASFE LAKE
WE8STER LAKE
WHITEWATER LAKE
WINONA LAKE
WESTLER LAKE
*1TM£R LAKE
LAKE MAXINKUCKEE
TIPPECANOE LAKE
DALLAS LAKE
OLIN LAKE
OLIVER LAKE
SYLVAN LAKE
HOVEY LAKE
VERSAILLES LAKE
BASS LAKE
CROOKED LAKE
LAKE JAMES
LONG LAKE
PIGEON LAKE
MARSH LAKE
HAMILTON LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.058
.074
.024
.107
.025
.084
.012
.025
.084
.035
.035
.035
.020
.019
.029
.012
.009
.170
.062
.139
.040
.019
.016
.204
.058
.093
.033
MEDIAN
1NORG N
1.660
1.080
1.030
2.400
0.325
3.325
0.210
0.790
1.620
1.250
0.860
0.900
0.220
0.195
0.830
1.460
0.920
0.130
1.050
1.090
0.250
0.120
0.190
1.920
1.945
0.270
0.720
500-
MEAN SEC
466
472
434
473
438
473
364
431
470
444
427
440
400
391
413
403
392
469
489
482
471
410
352
442
442
451
413
.667
.500
.000
.444
.823
.222
.500
.000
.167
.667
.125
.333
.400
.500
.333
.333
.000
.833
.333
.000
.375
.111
.444
.667
.667
.333
.167
MEAN
CHLOHA
10
45
11
15
6
56
5
11
33
11
10
11
5
6
10
4
3
47
84
25
29
5
4
16
11
J4
17
.744
.950
.533
.778
.947
.167
.000
.500
.083
.211
.712
.917
.483
.050
.067
.867
.767
.480
.267
.078
.367
.578
.856
.100
.900
.467
.450
15-
MIN DO
15
11
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
IS
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
7
14
7
15
15
15
15
15
15
.000
.600
.000
.000
.000
.000
.600
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.900
.800
.800
.600
.500
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
MEUIAN
DISS ORTnO
0.01 J
0.009
O.OOrt
0.029
0.00'
0.009
0.003
0.005
0.012
0.011
0.013
0.011
0.003
0.005
0.014
0.003
0.004
0.017
0.024
0.019
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.150
0.015
0.055
0.018
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES *ITH HIGHE« VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
IH05
1811
1817
1827
1828
1829
1836
1837
1R39
18<>0
1841
1842
1843
1844
18*5
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
LAKE NAME
CATARACT LAKE
GEIST RESERVOIR
JAMES LAKE
MISSISSlNErfA RESERVOIR
MONROE RESERVOIR
MORSE RESERVOIR
WAWASEE LAKE
WEBSTER LAKE
WHITEWATER LAKE
WINONA LAKE
WESTLER LAKE
WITHER LAKE
LAKE MAXINKUCKEE
TIPPECANOE LAKE
DALLAS LAKE
OLIN LAKE
OLIVER LAKE
SYLVAN LAKE
HOVEY LAKE
VERSAILLES LAKE
BASS LAKE
CROOKED LAKE
LAKE JAMES
LONG LAKE
PIGEON LAKE
MAWSH LAKE
HAMILTON LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
37
27
73
12
67
23
94
67
19
50
50
50
77
85
62
94
100
4
31
8
42
81
88
0
37
15
58
( 9)
( 71
I 19)
< 3)
( 17)
( 6)
I 24)
( 17)
( 51
( 12)
( 12)
( 12)
( 20)
( 22)
( 16)
( 24)
( 26)
( 1)
( 8)
( 2)
< 11)
( 21)
< 23)
( 0)
( 9)
( 4)
( 15)
MEDIAN
INORG N
15
35
42
4
69
0
85
62
19
27
54
50
81
88
58
23
46
96
36
31
77
100
92
12
8
73
65
< 41
( 9)
( 11)
( 1)
I 18)
I 0)
( 22)
( 16)
( 5)
( 7)
( 14)
( 13)
( 21)
( 23)
( 15)
( 6)
( 12)
( 25)
( 10)
I 8)
( 2U)
( 261
( 24)
( 3)
( 2)
( 19)
( 17)
500-
MEAN SEC
31
15
S8
8
54
12
96
62
23
38
65
50
85
92
69
81
88
27
0
<•
19
77
100
44
44
35
73
( 8)
I 4)
( 15)
< 2)
( 14)
( 3)
( 25)
( 16)
< 6)
( 10)
( 17)
( 13)
( 22)
( 24)
( 18)
( 21)
( 23)
( 7)
( 0)
( 1)
( 5)
( 20)
( 26)
( 11)
( 11)
I 9)
( 19)
MEAN
CHLOHA
62
12
50
38
73
4
88
54
19
58
65
42
85
77
69
92
100
8
0
27
23
81
96
35
46
15
31
( 16)
I 3)
( 13)
( 10)
( 19)
( 1)
( 23)
( 14)
I S)
( 15)
( 17)
( 11)
< 22)
I 20)
( 18)
I 24)
I 26)
( 2)
( 0)
( 7)
( 6)
( 21)
( 25)
( 9)
I 12)
( 4)
( 8)
15-
MIN 00
35
92
35
35
J5
35
85
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
73
79
79
96
88
100
35
35
35
35
35
35
( 0)
( 24)
( 0)
( 0>
( U)
( 0)
< 22)
( 0)
< 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 0)
( 19)
( 20)
( 20)
( 25)
( 23)
I 26)
I 0)
( 0)
( 0)
I 0)
( 0)
( 0)
ME01 AN
DISS OBTHO P
37
62
65
a
69
58
98
81
42
52
37
52
98
85
31
92
88
23
12
15
46
75
75
0
27
4
19
( 9)
I 16)
( 17)
( 2)
< 18)
( 15)
( 25)
( 21)
( 11)
( 13)
( 9)
< 13)
( 25)
( 22)
( 8)
( 24)
( 23)
( 6)
( 3)
( 4)
( 12)
( 19)
( 19)
( 0)
( 7)
1 1)
I 5)
1NJEX
NU
<>11
243
323
105
367
132
b<»6
361
157
260
306
279
461
462
324
455
501
237
177
173
307
449
486
126
HI
177
281
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 1836 »AHASEE LAKE 546
2 1847 OLIVER LAKE 501
3 1853 LAKE JAMES 486
4 1844 TIPPECANOE LAKE 462
5 1843 LAKE MAXINKUCKEE 461
6 1846 OLIN LAKE 455
7 1852 CROOKED LAKE 449
8 1828 MONROE RESERVOIR 367
9 1837 HE8STE* LAKE 361
10 1845 DALLAS LAKE 324
11 1817 JAMES LAKE 323
12 1851 BASS LAKE 307
13 1841 KESTLER LAKE 306
14 1857 HAMILTON LAKE 281
15 1842 WITMER LAKE 279
16 1840 MINONA LAKE 260
17 1811 GEIST RESERVOIR 243
18 1848 SYLVAN LAKE 237
19 1805 CATAkACT LAKE 217
20 1855 PIGEON LAKE 197
21 1856 MARSH LAKE 177
22 1849 HOVEY LAKE 177
23 1850 VERSAILLES LAKE 173
24 1839 HH1TEKATER LAKE 157
25 1829 MORSE RESERVOIR 132
26 1854 LONG LAKE 126
27 1827 MISSISSINEWA RESERVOIR 105
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
-4
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 76/03/30
184901
37 49 15.0 087 57 16.0 3
HOVEY LAKE
18129 INDIANA
052192
11EPALES 2111202
0013 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/11
73/08/11
73/10/19
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/11
73/08/11
73/10/19
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 30 0000
10 30 0005
10 30 0009
12 15 0000
12 30 0000
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
10 30 0000
10 30 0005
10 30 0009
12 15 0000
12 30 0000
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
17.9
15.5
15.3
30.1
19.0
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.062
0.060
0.056
0.868
0.702
00300 00077 00094
DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
18 300
8.0 300
7.8 300
7.4 6 437
11.4 8
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
1.6
206.7
44.5
00400
PH
SU
7.60
7.60
7.60
8.00
8.60
00410 00610
T ALK NH3-N
CAC03 TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
76 0.040
76 0.060
77 0.080
141 0.130
116 0.090
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.300
0.300
3.600
5.400
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
1.010
1.010
1.000
0.150
0.130
-
00671
PHOS-OIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.021
0.024
0*022
0.037
0.042
------- |