U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
NAVAJOLAKE
MNE COUNTY
UTAH
EPA EGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No,
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
NAVAJOLAKE
MNE COUNTY
UTAH
EPA REGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No, 848
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
UTAH STATE DIVISION OF HEALTH
AND THE
UTAH NATIONAL GUARD
OCTOBER, 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 and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
IV. Water Quality Summary 4
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)], 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.
-------
iii
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
luent 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 Surveys reviewed
the preliminary reports, and provided critiques most useful in
the preparation of this Working Paper series.
ffejor 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-
y 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
Navajp
Newcastle
Otter Creek
Panguich
Pelican
Pineview
Piute
Porcupine
Powel1
Pruess
Sevier Bridge
Starvation
Steinaker
Tropic
Utah
Mil lard 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
Garfield, Kane, San
Juan, UT; Coconino, AZ
Mi Hard
Juab, Sanpete
Duchesne
Uintah
Garfield
Utah
Box Elder
-------
37°33'-
Utah
X
NAVAJO LAKE
Lake Sampling Site
Drainage Area Boundary
Land Subject to Inundation
zKm.l
j
-------
NAVAJO LAKE
STORE! NO. 4911
I. INTRODUCTION
Navajo Lake has no defined tributaries or outlet. Therefore, this
report pertains only to the lake sampling data.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate this shallow, spring-fed alpine lake
is oligotrophic. However, the occurrence of submerged macrophytes
throughout the entire lake reported by Survey limnologists is more
indicative of mesotrophy.
Navajo Lake ranked second in overall trophic quality when the
27 Utah lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared using
a combination of six parameters*. Seven of the water bodies had
less and one had the same median total phosphorus, one had less
and three had the same median orthophosphorus, none of the others
had less but ten had the same median inorganic nitrogen, and three
had less mean chlorophyll a_. The Secchi disc was clearly visible
on the bottom of the lake (3.4 - 3.7 m) at both sampling stations
and times.
No depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred at either
sampling station or time; however, the maximum depth sampled was
only 2.4 meters.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results are not considered representative of
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
conditions in the lake because of significant changes in nutrients
in the samples from time of collection to the beginning of the
assays.
The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation in August and
phosphorus limitation in September.
-------
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Morphemetry:
1. Surface area: 2.50 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 3.7 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 7.3 meters (?--maximum depth sounded 1n Survey
was 3.7 meters).
4. Volume: 9.250 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 33.8 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 26.2 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Sudweeks, 1975.
* See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
4
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Navajo Lake was sampled two 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 two
depths at two stations on the lake (see map, page v). During each
visit, a single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was
composited from the stations for phytoplankton identification and
enumeration; and during both visits, a single 18.9-liter depth-inte-
grated sample was composited for algal assays. Also each time, a
depth-integrated sample was collected from each of the stations for
chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum depths sampled were 2.4 meters
at station 1 and 2.1 meters at station 2.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and are
summarized in the following table.
-------
A. SUMVARr OF PnYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOK NAVAJO LAKE
STOKET COOE 4911
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY
CNOCTVY
PH (STANi JNITS)
TOT ALK ,C;/L)
TOT P i_)
ORTHO P >»r,/L)
N02*N03 i»r,/L)
AMMONIA (»T;/L)
KJEL N (M\/L)
INORG N "G/L)
TOTAL N ("VL)
CHLRPYL A (UG/D
SECCHI (M»JEWS)
1ST SAMPLING ( 8/13/75)
3 SITES
RANGE
17.3 -
9.0 -
118. -
9.1 -
67. -
J.014 -
J.004 -
).020 -
).020 -
).500 -
J.040 -
).5?0 -
2.0 -
2ND SAMPLING ( 9/25/75)
2 SITES
17.7
9.2
121.
9.1
74.
.017
.007
.020
.020
.600
.040
.620
2.2
•»«««»<
MEAN
17.5
9.0
119.
9.1
70.
0.015
0.005
0.020
0.020
0.550
0.040
0.570
2.1
>«»»»««<><
MEDIAN
17.5
9.0
119.
9.1
69.
0.015
0.005
0.020
0.020
0.550
0.040
0.570
2.1
»«»«»»«
rfANGE
15.9
9.4
78.
9.5
57.
0.015
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.0<+0
0.420
1.7
3.4
- 16.0
9.8
80.
9.6
67.
- 0.019
- 0.003
- 0.020
- 0.020
- O.tOO
- 0.040
- 0.420
2.1
3.4
MEAN
15.9
9.5
80.
9.6
61.
0.017
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.420
1.9
3.4
MEDIAN
15.9
9.5
80.
9.6
59.
0.017
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.420
1.9
3.4
3RD SAMPLING
0 SITES
MEAN
MEDIAN
««««»» —»««««««««»««*•«««»»»««
—«««»«««»«««»«»«»»»*«««
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
08/13/75
09/25/75
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
08/13/75
09/25/75
Dominant
Genera
1. Flagellates
2. Kirchneriella sp.
3. Chroomonas (?) SJD.
4. Cryptomonas sp.
5. PerldiniimTsp.
Other genera
Total
1. Kirchneriella s£.
2. Tetraedron sp.
3. Cosmarium sp.
4. Oocystis "sp.
5. Elakatothrix
Other genera
S£.
Total
Station
Number
1
2
1
2
Algal Units
per ml
1,204
262
105
79
52
104
1,806
437
312
156
156
62
33
1,156
Chlorophyll a
(yg/1)
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.7
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
The results of the algal assays are not considered represent-
ative of conditions in the lake because of changes in nutrients in
the samples from the time of collection to the beginning of the
assays.
The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation in August and phos-
phorus limitation in September. The mean inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus ratios were 8 to 1 in August and 20 to 1 in Sep-
tember.
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Sudweeks, Calvin K., 1975. Personal communication (lake morphometry),
UT Bur. of Env. Health, Salt Lake City.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO Bl UGEC IK RANKINGS
LA.<£
C03E
4901
4902
4903
4904
49os
4906
4937
4908
4909
4910
49 ii
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
5605
LAKE NAME
LAKE POWELL
BEAR LAKE
LOWER BONN'S RESERVOIR
DEEft CREEK RESERVOIR
ECHO RESERVOIR
LYNN RESERVOIR
FISH LAKE
HUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVO
JOE'S VALLEY RESERVOIR
MINERSVILLE RESERVOIR
MOON LAKE
Miv'AJO LAKE
NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR
PANflUITCH LAKE
PELICAN LAKE
PINEVIEW RESERVOIR
PIUTE RESERVOIR
PORCUPINE RESERVOIR
PRUESS RESERVOIR (GARRIS
SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR
STARVATION RESERVOIR
STEINAKER RESERVOIR
TROPIC RESERVOIR
UTAH LAKE
WILLARD BAY RESERVOIR
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
0.057
0.026
0.016
0.011
C.021
0.132
0.044
0.011
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.410
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*
363.000
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
16.222
5.675
1.844
7.200
72.012
7.567
2.500
15-
MIN oo
13.800
9.200
9.400
14.600
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 ORTriO 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
-------
OF LAKES *I7ri HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES UlTH HIGriLK VALUES)
L.4
( 19)
( 19)
< 5)
( 7)
( 6)
( 16)
< 16)
( 15)
< 11)
( 19)
( 19)
( 19)
( 19)
( 16)
< 14)
( 4)
( 8)
( 10)
< 9)
< 2)
( 19)
( 19)
< 13)
( 3)
( ID
( 0)
500-
MEAN
81
96
85
42
19
58
100
69
62
27
73
77
46
15
50
35
38
8
31
0
23
65
88
54
4
12
92
SEC
( 21)
( 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
CHLOriA
73 <
100 <
65 <
35 «
50 <
8 (
23 (
92 1
85 <
12 1
77 1
88 I
27 1
31 1
4 1
54 1
58 1
15 1
38 1
69 1
19 i
62 <
96 i
46 i
0 <
42 i
81
19)
26)
i 17)
: 9)
; 13)
: 2>
: 6>
; 24)
: 22)
I 3)
I 20)
I 23)
I 7)
[ 8)
I 1)
I 14)
I 15)
I 4)
[ 10)
I 18)
! 5)
[ 16)
[ 25)
1 12)
( 0)
( ID
( 21)
15-
MIN 00
15 (
77 <
73 (
0 (
12 (
62 1
62 1
96 I
46 <
85 1
69 I
100 I
19 1
54 1
8 i
90 I
4 1
38 1
33 1
81 i
33 I
23 i
27 i
90 i
42 *
50
62
4)
20)
: 19)
: o)
! 3)
! 15)
: is)
: 25)
: 12)
E 22)
[ 18)
E 26)
E 5)
E 14)
t 2)
I 23)
I 1)
E 10)
E 8)
I 21)
E 8)
I 6)
I 7)
( 23)
( ID
( 13)
( 15)
MEDIAN
OISS ORTMO P
42 (
90 <
50 <
58 (
13 <
4 <
79 (
69 1
96 (
0 1
100 I
85 <
27 1
8 1
23 i
73 1
58 <
46 <
19 1
37 1
37 i
79 i
65 i
58 i
13 <
31
90
11)
i 23)
13)
i 14)
: 3)
: i>
: 20)
: }8>
: 25)
E 0)
E 26)
E 22)
1 7)
E 2)
I 6)
I 19)
I 14)
E 12)
E 5)
E 9)
[ 9)
C 20)
I 17)
( 14)
( 3)
( 8)
( 23)
INDEX
NO
311
540
406
196
152
163
391
46i
428
168
506
506
229
210
162
343
223
165
217
241
174
389
448
363
75
216
415
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 4901 8EAR LAKE 540
2 4911 NAVAJO LAKE 506
3 4910 MOON LAKE 506
4 4907 HUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVO 468
5 4922 STE1NAKER RESERVOIR 448
6 4908 JOE'S VALLEY RESERVOIR 428
7 5605 FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR 415
8 4902 LOWER UOWN'S RESERVOIR 406
9 4906 FISH LAKE 391
10 4921 STARVATION RESERVOIR 389
11 4923 TROPIC RESERVOIR 363
12 4915 PELICAN LAKE 343
13 0408 LAKE POWELL 311
14 4919 PRUESS RESERVOIR CGARRIS 241
15 4912 NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR 229
16 4916 PINEVIEW RESERVOIR 223
17 4918 PORCUPINE RESERVOIR 217
18 4935 WILLARO BAY RESERVOIR 216
19 4913 OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR 210
20 4903 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR 196
21 4920 SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR 174
22 4909 , MINERSVILLE RESERVOIR 168
23 4917 PIUTE RESERVOIR 165
24 4905 LYNN RESERVOIR 163
25 4914 PANQUITCH LAKE 162
26 4904 ECHO RESERVOIR 152
27 4924 UTAH LAKE 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 x8.107x!0= 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
-------
STOKtT RETRIEVAL OATE 76/08/12
491101
37 31 26.0 112 47 13.0 3
NAVAJO LAKE
UTAH
OATE
FROM
TO
75/08/13
75/09/25
TIME DEPTn
OF
JAY FEET
10 5S 0000
10 55 0008
16 55 0000
16 55 0007
00010
riATER
TEMP
CENT
17.3
17.4
15.9
15.9
00300 00077
DO TRANSP O
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L INCHES MI
9.2
9.0
9.4
9.8
132L
11EPALES 2111202
0012 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
94
TVY
MHO
118
118
80
80
00400
PH
SU
9.10
9.15
9.60
9.60
00410
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
67
69
58
67
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.600
0.400
0.400
00630
N02&N03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.020
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
00671
PhOS-DIS
ORTMO
MG/L P
0.004
0.007
0.002
0.003
00665
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
75/08/13 10 55 0000 0.017
10 55 0008 0.015
75/09/25 16 55 0000 0.018
16 55 0007 0.015
32217 00031
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A REMNING
UG/L PERCENT
2.0
2.1
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
L ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE
GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
-------
491102
37 31 22.C 112 47 52.0 3
NAVAJO LAKE
49025 UTAn
11EPALES 2111202
0011 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FROM
TO
75/08/13
75/09/25
DATE
FROM
TO
75/08/13
75/09/25
TIME DEPTH
OF
OAY FEET
11 10 0000
11 10 0007
16 30 0000
16 30 0007
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
11 10 0000
11 10 0007
16 30 0000
16 30 0007
00010
rtATER
TEMP
CENT
17.7
17.7
16.0
16.0
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.016
0.014
0.019
0.017
00300
DO
MG/L
9.0
9.0
9.4
9.6
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
2.2
1.7
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES MICROMHO
121
120
132 L 80
78
00031
INCDT LT
REMNING
PERCENT
00400 00410 00610
00625 00630
PH T ALK NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03
CAC03 TOTAL
SU MG/L MG/L
9.15 68 0.020K
9.10 74 0.020K
9.55 57 0.020K
9.55 60 0.020K
N N-TOTAL
MG/L MG/L
0.500 0.020K
0.500 0.020K
0.400 0.020K
0.400 0.020K
00671
PHOS-DIS
ORTHO
MG/L P
0.005
0.005
0.002K
0.002
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
L ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE
GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
------- |