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 ------- |