U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
HUNTINGTDN U\KE
BEFY COUNTY
UTAH
EPA REGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No, 840
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
ON
HIMINGTON LAI€
UTAH
EPA mm vni
WORKING PAPER No, 840
THE COOPERATION OF THE
UTAH STATE DIVISION OF HEALTH
AND THE
UTAH NATIONAL GUARD
NOVEMBER, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreward ii
List of Utah Study Lakes and Reservoirs iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake end Drainage Basin Characteristics 2
IVo Watar Quality Summary 3
V. Literature Reviewed 7
VI. Appendices 8
-------
ii
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, 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(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)]j clean lakes [§314(a,b)j,
and-water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
11 i
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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Utah Department of Social
Services and the Utah Department of Natural Resources for pro-
fessional involvement, to the Utah National Guard for conducting
the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to those Utah
wastewater treatment plant operators who voluntarily provided
effluent samples and flow data.
The staffs of the Bureau of Water Quality of the Division
of Health and the Division of Wildlife Resources provided inval-
uable 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 Maurice L. Watts, the'Adjutant General of Utah,
and Project Officer Lt. Colonel T. Ray Kingston, who directed the
volunteer efforts of the Utah National "Guardsmen, are also grate-
fully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES AND RESERVOIRS
STATE OF UTAH
NAME
Bear
Deer Creek
Echo
Fish
Flaming Gorge
Huntington
Joes Valley
Lower Bowns
Lynn
Minersville
Moon
Navajo
Newcastle
Otter Creek
Panguich
Pelican
Pineview
Piute
Porcupine
Powell
Pruess
Sevier Bridge
Starvation
Steinaker
Tropic
Utah
Willard Bay
COUNTY
Rich, UT; Bear Lake, ID
Wasatch
Summit
Sevier
Daggett, UT;
Sweetwater, WY
Emery
Emery
Garfield
Box Elder
Beaver
Duchesne
Kane
Iron
Piute
Garfield
Uintah
Weber
Piute
Cache
Garffeld, Kane, San
Juan, UT; Coconino, AZ
Mi Hard
Juab, Sanpete
Duchesne
Uintah
Garfteld
Utah
Box Elder
-------
c..
\
i /
s /
\ \
HUNTINGTON LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
f
^•\
\ V
\
•-...A-
39*21'•*
|
\|
39»20'
Utah
Map Location
\
\
\
\
111*58'
111*57'
\.
\
V
nrse' '••«
39*1 y-
-------
HUNTINGTON LAKE
STORE! NO. 4907
I. INTRODUCTION
Huntington Lake was Included in the National Eutrophication Survey
as a water body of interest to the Utah Bureau of Environmental Health.
Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and this report
relates only to the lake sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Huntington Lake is early meso-
trophic. It ranked fourth in overall trophic quality when the
27 Utah lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared
using a combination of six parameters*. Six of the water
bodies had less median total phosphorus, eight had less and
one had the same median dissolved orthophosphorus, none had
less and ten had the same median inorganic nitrogen, two had
less mean chlorophyll a_, and eight had greater roean Secchl
disc transparency.
Survey limnologists noted submerged macrophytes on each
sampling occasion.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Because of nutrient changes in the samples, the algal assay
results are not considered representative of conditions in the
lake at the times the samples were collected. The lake data
indicate nitrogen limitation at all sampling times.
* See Appendix A.
-------
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
j.j,
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 0.93 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 5.2 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 17.0 meters.
4. Volume: 5.982 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 24.7 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 26.2 centimeters.
t Table of metric equivalents—Appendix B.
•H- Sudweeks, 1975.
* See Working Paper No. 175, "... Survey Methods, 1973-1976",
-------
3
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Huntlngton Lake was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1975 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each
time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from
a number of depths at a single station on the lake (see map, page v).
During each visit, a depth-integrated (4.6 in or near bottom to sur-
face) sample was collected for phytoplankton identification and
enumeration, and a similar sample was collected for chlorophyll a^
analysis. During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter depth-
integrated samples were collected for algal assays. The maximum
depth sampled was 6.1 meters.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and are
summarized iR'the following table.
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR HUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVOIR
STORET CODE 4907
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
iORTHO 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)
1ST SAMPLING ( 5/13/75)
1 SITES
RANGfc. MEAN MEDIAN
10.3 - 11.8 11.1 11.2
8.8 - 9.7 9.? 9.3
382. - 399. 392. 394.
8.5 - 8.5 8.5 8.5
300. - 204. 202. 203.
0.013 - 0.017 0.015 0.015
0.012 - 0.014 0.013 0.012
0.020 - 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.030 - 0.040 0.033 0.030
0.200 - 0.400 0.300 0.300
0.050 - 0.06C 0.053 0.050
0.220 - 0.420 0.320 0.320
1.9 - 1.9 1.9 1.9
3.0 - 3.0 3.C 3.0
2ND SAMPLING ( 8/12/75)
1 SITES
RANGE
19.6 - 20.2
8.0 - 8.2
438. - 441.
8.5 - 8.6
152. - 160.
0.013 - 0.016
0.002 - 0.005
0.020 - 0.020
0.020 - 0.020
0.400 - 0.400
0.040 - 0.040
0.420 - 0.420
2.7 - 2.7
2.7 - 2.7
MEAN
19.8
8.1
440.
8.6
156.
0.014
0.004
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.420
2.7
2.7
MEDIAN
19.7
8.0
440.
8.6
155.
0.013
0.004
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.420
2.7
2.7
3RD SAMPLING ( 9/24/75)
1 SITES
HANGE MEAN MEDIAN
18.2 - 18.3 18.3 18.3
7.2 - 8.2 7.7 7.6
329. - 341. 334. 331.
8.5 - 8.5 8.5 8.5
160. - 306. 209. 161.
0.012 - 0.019 0.015 0.013
0.002 - 0.010 0.005 0.004
0.020 - 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.020 - 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.400 - 0.600 0.467 0.400
0.040 - 0.040 0.040 0.040
0.420 - 0.620 0.487 0.420
1.1 - 1.1 1.1 1.1
2.4 - 2.4 2.4 3.4
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
C.
Sampling
Date
05/13/75
08/12/75
09/24/75
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
Dominant
Genera
1. Ankistrodesmus sp.
2. Chroomonas (?) sp.
3. Cryptomonas sp.
4. Synedra sp.
Total
1. Cyclotella sp.
2. Aphanocapsa sp.
3. Achnanthes sp.
4. Crucigem'a sp.
5. Cryptomonas sp.
Total
1. Cryptomonas sp.
2. Chroomonas (?) sp_.
3. Mallomonas sp.
Total
Station
Number
Algal Units
per ml
182
182
91
45
500
47
39
31
31
16
164
333
133
33
499
Chlorophyll a
05/13/75 1 1.9
08/12/75 1 2.7
09/24/75 1 1.1
Limiting Nutrient Study:
Significant nutrient changes occurred in the samples during
shipment to the laboratory, and the algal assay results are not
considered indicative of conditions in the lake at the times the
samples were taken (05/13/75 and 09/24/75).
-------
6
The lake data Indicate nitrogen limitation at each sampling
time; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen/orthophosphorus ratios
were 10/1 or less, and nitrogen limitation would be expected.
-------
V LITERATURE REVIEWED
Sudweeks, Calvin K., 1975. Personal communication (lake rnor-
phometry). UT Bur. of Env. Health, Salt Lake City.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
8
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
-v i "•>?,'«•» ^ A -Klj
LAKE JATA TO Bi' US£0 IN RANKINGS
v-*.i^c
CODc LAKE NAriE
G40d LAKE POWELL
4«*01 BEAR LAKE
4902 LOWER BOtfN'S RESERVOIR
4903 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
<*904 ECHO RESERVOIR
4,05 LYNN RESERVOIR
490fc FISH LAKE
4907 HUNTINC,TON NORTH RESERVO
4938 JOE'S VALLEY RESERVOIR
4909 MINcRSVlLLE RESERVOIR
4910 MOON LAKE
4911 NAVAJO LAKE
4912 NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
4913 OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR
4914 PAr.'SUlTCH LAKE
4915 PELICAN LAKE
4916 PINEVIEW RESERVOIR
4917 PIUT£ RESERVOIR
491S PORCUPINE RESERVOIR
4919 PRUESS RESERVOIR (GARRIS
4920 SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR
4921 STARVATION RESERVOIR
4922 STEINAKER RESERVOIR
4923 TROPIC RESERVOIR
4924 UTAH LAKE
4925 WILLARD BAY RESERVOIR
5a05 FLAMING.GORGE RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.010
0.011
0.031
0.038
0.047
0.121
0.023
0*013
0.012
0.192
0.008
0.016
0.051
0.067
0.071
0.044
0.028
0.047
0.025
Oc057
0.026
0.016
0.011
0.021
0.132
0.044
0.011
MEDIAN
INORG N
Q.410 •
0.040
0.040
0.215
0.170
0.200
0.040
0.040
0.045
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.300
0.150
0.110
0.140
0.355
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.320
0.060
0.690
500-
MEAN SEC
339.630
253.167
336.000
430.333
450.333
417.667
152.000
392.000
400.000
445.000
381.000
368.000
428.667
453.667
426.500
438.500
435.083
482.625
440.000
491.000
449.778
394.583
316.750
425.000
490«583
457.182
285.636
MEAN
CHLORA
3.081
0.945
5.567
9.078
6.967
39.600
12.483
1.900
2.483
33.583
2.700
2.000
12.467
11.767
45.950
6.350
5.692
25.329
7.860
4.533
18.222
5.675
1.844
7.200
72.012
7.5£7
2.500
15-
MIN DO
13.800
9.200
9.400
14.800
14.000
10.400
10.400
7.800
11.200
8.600
9.600
6.000
13.600
10.600
14.200
8.400
14.600
11.600
12.400
8.800
12.400
13.200
12.600
8.400
11.400
11.000
. 10.400.
MEDIAN
OISS ORTHO P
0.007
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.012
0.052
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.107
0.002
0.003
0.009
0.033
0.010
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.011
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.012
0.009
0.003
-------
PERCENT CF LAKES 8JTH HEGHER VALUES «NU;-;S£R CF LAKES KiYH HIGHER WALUESJ
LAKE
CODE LAK£: NAME
Cl4Ud LAKE FO«ELL
4901 BEAR LAKE
4902 LCMER BOri.Ni'S RESERVOIR
4903 OEER CREEK RESERVOIR
4904 ECHO RESERVOIR
4905 LYNN RESERVOIR
4906 FISH LAKE
4907 r.UNTINGTGN NORTH RESERVO
4903 JOE'S VALLEY RESERVOIR
4909 MINERSVILLE RESERVOIR
4910 MOON LAKE
4911 NAVAJO LAKE
4912 NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
4913 OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR
49-4 PAN^UITCH LAKE
4915 PELICAN LAKE
4916 PINEVIEW RESERVOIR
4917 PIUTE RESERVOIR
49IS PORCUPINE RESERVOIR
4919 PRUESS RESERVOIR (GARRIS
4920 SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR
4921 STARVATION RESERVOIR
4922 STEINAKER RESERVOIR
4923 TROPIC RESERVOIR
4924 UTAH LAKE
4925 d!LLARD BAY RESERVOIR
5&05 FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
96 <
90 (
46 <
42 1
31 f
8 1
62 1
77 1
81 I
0 1
100 1
69 1
23 1
15 I
12 1
37 (
50 I
27 1
53 1
19 (
54 (
73 (
85 <
65 <
4 1
37 (
90 <
1 25>
! 23)
I 12)
! 115
i a)
: 2J
! 16)
I 20)
I 21)
I 0)
: 26)
: 18)
[ 6)
[ 4)
; 3)
I 9)
1 13)
I 7)
t 15)
i 5)
I 14)
: 19)
: 22)
! 17)
! 1)
: 9)
! 23)
MEDIAN
INORG N
4
87
87
19
27
23
65
65
58
44
87
87
87
87
65
54
15
31
38
35
8
87
87
50
12
44
0
« u
< 19}
C 19)
« 5)
< 75
< 6;
( 161
( 16)
< 15)
< 11)
< 19)
( 19)
( 19)
( 19)
( 16)
< 14)
( 4)
( 8)
( 10)
( 9)
C 2>
( 19)
( 19)
( 13)
( 3)
< 11>
{ 0)
590-
MEAN SEC
31
96
35
42
19
58
100
69
62
27
73
77
46
15
50
35
38
8
31
0
23
65
88
54
4
12
92
( 2iS
« 25)
< 22)
( 11*
( 5)
( 15)
( 26)
( 18)
( 16)
( 7)
( 19)
< 20)
( 12)
< 4).
( 13)
( 9)
( 10)
( 2)
( 8)
( 0).
( 6)
< 17)
< 23)
( 14)
< 1)
( 3)
< 24)
MEAN
CHLORA
73
10®
65
35
S©
8
23
92
85
12
77
88
27
31
4
54
58
15
38
69
19
62
96
46
0
42
81
« 19)
« 26J
C 17>
« 9)
( 13)
( 25
« 6)
( 24)
< 22)
( 3)
( 20)
< 23)
< 7)
( 8)
( 1)
( 14)
C 15)
< 4)
( 10)
( 18)
( 5)
( 16)
( 25)
« 12)
( 0)
< 11)
( 21)
15-
MIN DO
IS
77
73
0
12
62
62
96
46
85
69
100
19
54
6
90
4
38
33
81
33
23
27
90
42
50
62
{ 45
< 20)
C 19)
( 0)
« 3)
< 15)
< 15)
( 25)
( 12)
( 22)
( 18)
( 26)
< 5)
( 14)
( 2)
( 23)
( 1)
( 10)
« 8)
( 21)
( 8)
( 6)
« 7)
< 23)
« 11)
< 13)
« IS)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
42 (
90 <
SO <
56 (
13 (
4 (
79 i
69 (
96 (
0 (
100 (
85 (
27 (
8 <
23 (
73 (
58 (
46 (
19 (
37 (
37 <
79 (
65 <
58 (
13 (
31 (
90 (
11)
23)
13)
14)
3)
1)
20)
18)
25)
0)
26)
22)
7)
2)
6)
19)
14)
12)
5)
9)
9)
20)
17)
14)
3)
3)
23)
INDEX
NO
311
540
406
196
152
163
391
468
428
168
506
506
229
210
162
343
223
165
217
241
174
389
448
363
75
216
415
-------
RANKED BY ZVDEX NOSS
LAKE CODE LAKE NAME
1 4901 SEAR LAKE
2 4911 NAVAJO LAKE
3 4910 MOON LAKE
4 4907 KUNTIN6TON NORTH RESERVO
5 4922 STEINAKER RESERVOIR
6 4908 JOE'S VALLEY RESERVOIR
7 5605 FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR
S 4902 LOnlER BOWN'S RESERVOIR
9 4906 FISH LAKE
10 <^)21 STARVATION RESERVOIR
ii 4923 TROPIC RESERVOIR
12 4915 PELICAN LAKE
13 0408 LAKE POSmELL
14 4919 PRUESS RESERVOIR tGARRIS
15 4912 NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
lo 4916 PINEVIEW RESERVOIR
17 4913 PORCUPINE RESERVOIR
ia 4925 fe'ILLARD BAY RESERVOIR
i9 4913 OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR
20 4903 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
21 4920 SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR
22 4909 HINERSVILLE RESERVOIR
23 4917 PIUTE RESERVOIR
24 4905 LYNN RESERVOIR
25 4914 PAKOUITCH LAKE
26 490<» ECHO RESERVOIR
27 4924 UTAH LAKE
INDEX NO
546
506
506
466
448
428
415
406
391
389
363
343
311
241
229
223
217
216
210
196
174
168
165
163
162
152
75
-------
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
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
bTORLT rtETrUF.VAL
E 7o/Cd/12
DATE
FROM
TO
75/05/13
7S/OS/12
75/09/24
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 45 0000
13 45 0005
13 45 0020
11 00 0000
11 00 0005
11 00 0011
U9 S5 0000
09 55 0005
09 >;5 0015
00010
•IATER
TEMP
CENT
11. d
11.2
10.3
19.6
20.2
19.7
18.3
18.3
18.2
00300 00077 OC094
00 TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MICROMHO
8.8
9.2
9.7
8.0
8.0
8.2
8.2
7.6
7.2
120
108
399
394
382
441
440
438
329
331
341
490701
3-3 20 33.0 110 56 4C.O 3
HUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVOIR
49015 UTAH
110691
11EPALES
2111202
0024 FEET DEPTH CLASS
00400
PH
SU
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.55
8.60
8.60
8.50
8.50
8. SO
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
203
204
200
160
152
155
306
160
161
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.600
0.400
0.400
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.012
0.014
0.012
0.005
0.004
0.002K
0.010
0.004
0.002
DATE
FROM
TO
75/05/13
75/08/12
75/09/24
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
13 45 0000
13 45 0005
13 45 0020
11 00 0000
11 00 0005
11 00 0011
09 <=5 0000
09 55 0005
09 55 OOlb
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.017
0.015
0.013
G.016
0.013
0.013
0.019
0.012
0.013
32217
CHLPPHYL
A
UG/L
1.9
2.7
1.1
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
K VuLUt KNOWN TO 8E
LESS Tn.\N INDICATED
------- |