U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
IR3NCOUM1Y
UTAH
EPA REGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No, 849
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
-------
REPORT
ON
NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
IRONCQUNIY
UTAH
EPA REGION VIII
WORKING PAPER No, 849
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
UTAH STATE DIVISION OF HEALTH
AND THE
UTAH NATIONAL GUARD
SEPTEMBER., 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. Reservoir and Drainage Basin Characteristics 2
IV. Water 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)], 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.
-------
111
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 EUTROPHI CATION 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
Powel1
Pruess
Sevier Bridge
Starvation
Steinaker
Tropic
Utah
Willard Bay
COUNTY
Rich, UT; Bear Lake, ID
Wasatch
Summi t
Sevier
Daggett, UT;
Sweetwater, WY
Emery
Emery
Garfield
Box Elder
Beaver
Duchesne
Kane
Iron
Piute
Garfield
Uintah
Weber
Ptute
Cache
Garfteld, Kane, San
Juan, UT; Coconino, AZ
Mi Hard
Juab, Sanpete
Duchesne
Uintah
Garfield
Utah
Box Elder
-------
NEWCASTLE
RESERVOIR
X Lake Sampling Site
II Land Subject to Inundation
37039.—
1/2
i.Km.
1/4 1/2 Mi.
Scale
Utah
Map Location
\
37038-—i
113°32'
V
-------
NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
STORET NO. 4912
I. INTRODUCTION
Newcastle Reservoir 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 Newcastle Reservoir is eutrophic.
It ranked fifteenth in overall trophic quality when the 27 Utah
lakes and reservoirs sampled in 1975 were compared using a com-
bination of six parameters*. Twenty of the water bodies had
less median total phosphorus, 18 had less and one had the same
median orthophosphorus, none had less and ten had the same
median inorganic nitrogen, 19 had less mean chlorophyll a^, and
14 had greater mean Secchi disc transparency. Significant
depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred in August
(1.4 mg/1 at 9.4 meters).
Survey limnologists noted an algal bloom in progress in May.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Because of nutrient changes in the samples, the algal assay
results are not considered representative of conditions in the
reservoir at the times the samples were taken. The reservoir
data indicate nitrogen limitation in May and August and phosphorus
limitation in September.
* See Appendix A.
-------
III. RESERVOIR AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
4*4*
A. Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 0.66 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 7.2 meters.
3. Maximum depth: 23.5 meters.
4. Volume: 4.736 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; maximum depth from Ikner (1975).
* See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
3
IV. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Newcastle Reservoir 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 reservoir (see
map, page v). During each visit, a depth-integrated (4.6 m to surface)
sample was collected for phytoplankton identification and enumeration;
and a similar sample was taken for chlorophyll ^analysis. During
the first and last visits, an 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample
was collected for algal assays. The maximum depth sampled was 9.4
meters.
The sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
DISS OXY
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TUT P (MG/D
OHTHO P (MG/L)
N02*N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INORG N (MG/l.)
TOTAL N.(MG/L)
CMLRPYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (METEWS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLlMG ( 5/ 8/75)
1 SITES
RANGE
9.8 - 11.3
9.3 - 9.?
613. - 630.
8.6 - 8.6
?4B. - 258.
0.071 - 0.079
0.041 - 0.050
0.020 - O.C20
0.020 - 0.030
0.30U - o.eoo
0.040 - 0.050
o.3?o - o.e?o
16.1 - 16.1
0.9 - 0.9
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
STORET COOE 4912
2ND SAMPLING ( 8/13/75)
1 SITES
3RD SAMPLING < 9/26/75)
1 SITES
MEAN
10.?
9.?
621.
8.6
355.
0.074
0.044
0.030
0.02?
0.425
0.042
0.445
16.1
0.9
MEDIAN
9.9
9.2
621.
y.6
257.
0.072
0.042
0.020
0.020
0.300
0.040
0.320
16.1
0.9
RANbE
18.0
1.4
495.
8.0
180.
0.034
0.007
0.020
0.020
0.600
0.040
0.620
5.7
3.0
- 21.3
8.2
- 596.
8.6
- 186.
- 0.064
- 0.040
- 0.020
- 0.040
- 0,700
- 0.060
- 0.720
5.7
3.0
MEAN
20.3
4.8
559.
8.3
183.
0.048
0.016
0.020
0.030
0.650
0.050
0.670
5.7
3.0
MEDIAN
21.0
4.8
573.
8.3
182.
0.046
0.009
0.020
0.030
0.650
0.050
0.670
5.7
3.0
RANGE
17.8
7.0
528.
8.4
192.
0.033
0.002
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.420
15.6
1.5
- 18.5
8.4
- 538.
8.5
- 196.
- 0.045
- 0.005
- 0.020
- 0.040
- 0.500
- 0.060
- 0.520
- 15.6
1.5
MEAN
18.1
7.5
534.
8.5
194.
0.040
0.003
0.020
0.025
0.425
0.045
0.445
15.6
1.5
MEDIAN
18.1
7.3
535.
8.5
195.
0.040
0.003
0.020
0.020
0.400
0.040
0.420
15.6
1.5
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
05/08/75
08/13/75
09/26/75
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Stephanodiscus sp.
Nitzschia sp.
Chroomonas sp.
Glenodinium sp.
Sc breeder i a sp.
Total
Elakatothrix s£.
Cyclotella sp.
Oocystis sp.
Endorina sp.
Total
Asterionella sp.
Oocystis sp_.
Fragilaria sp.
Synedra sp.
Aphanizomenon sp_.
Other genera
Algal Units
per ml
6,117
1,001
278
56
56
7,508
1,771
227
91
45
2,134
3,798
1,825
831
592
543
1,043
2. Chlorophyll a_ -
Sampling
Date
Total
Station
Number
8,632
Chlorophyll a
(yg/i)
05/08/75 1 16.1
08/13/75 1 5.7
09/26/75 1 15.6
Limiting Nutrient Study:
Significant nutrient changes occurred in the assay samples
during shipment from the field to the laboratory, and the results
-------
6
are not considered representative of conditions in the reservoir
at the times the samples were taken (05/08/75 and 09/26/75).
The reservoir data indicate nitrogen limitation in May and
August and phosphorus limitation in September (the mean inorganic
nitrogen/dissolved orthophosphorus ratios were 1/1, 3/1, and 15/1,
respectively).
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Ikner, James, 1975. Personal communication (reservoir morphometry),
U.S. Geol. Surv., Salt Lake City.
Sudweeks, Calvin K., 1975. Personal communication (reservoir mor-
phometry). UT Bur. of Env. Health, Salt Lake City.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN BANKINGS
LAKE
CODE. LAKE NAME
LAKE POWELL
4901 BEAR LAKE
49U2 LOMER BOMN'S RESERVOIR
4903 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
490* ECHO RESERVOIR
4905 LYNN RESERVOIR
4906 FISH LAKE
4907 HUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVO
4908 JOE'S VALLEV RESERVOIR
4909 HINERSVILLE RESERVOIR
4910 MOON LAKE
4911 NAVAJO LAKE
491* NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
4913 OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR
4914 PAN8UITCH LAKE
4915 PELICAN LAKE
4916 PINEVIEW RESERVOIR
4917 PIUTE RESERVOIR
4918 PORCUPINE RESERVOIR
4919 PRUESS RESERVOIR (G ARRIS
4930 SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR
4921 STARVATION RESERVOIR
4933 STEINAKER RESERVOIR
4923 TROPIC RESERVOIR
492* UTAH LAKE
4925 WILLARO BAY RESERVOIR
5605 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
C.132
0.044
0.011
MEDIAN
INOSG 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
339.830
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
7.567
2.500
15-
MIN 00
13.300
9.200
9.400
14.600
14.000
10.400
10.400
7.300
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
MEOiAN
OISS ORTMO 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 OF LAKES «UTH HIGHER VALJES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHEK VALUES)
CODE LAKE NAME
0*08 LAKE POWELL
4901 8EAR LAKE
<«902 LOWER BOtoN«S RESERVOIR
4903 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
4904 ECHO RESERVOIR
4905 LYNN RESERVOIR
4906 FISH LAKE
4907 HUNTINGTON NORTH RESERVO
4908 JOE'S VALLEY RESERVOIR
4909 MINERSVILLE RESERVOIR
4910 MOON LAKE
4911 NAVAJO LAKE
4912 NEWCASTLE RESERVOIR
4913 OTTER CREEK RESERVOIR
4914 PANBUITCH LAKE
4915 PELICAN LAKE
4916 PINEVIEW RESERVOIR
4917 PIUTE RESERVOIR
4918 PORCUPINE RESERVOIR
4919 PRUESS RESERVOIR (GARRIS
4920 SEVIER BRIDGE RESERVOIR
4921 STARVATION RESERVOIR
4922 STEINAKER RESERVOIR
4923 TROPIC RESERVOIR
4924 UTAH LAKE
4925 HILLARO BAY RESERVOIR
5605 FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR
MEDIAM
TOTAL P
96
90
46
42
31
8
62
77
81
0
100
69
23
15
12
37
50
27
58
19
54
73
85
65
4
37
90
( 25)
( 23)
( 1?)
I 11)
( 8)
( 2)
( 16)
( 20)
( 21)
( 0)
< 26)
( 18)
( 6)
( 4)
( 3)
( 9)
( 13)
( 7)
( 15>
( 5)
( 14)
( 19)
( 22)
( 17)
( 1)
( 9)
( 23)
MEDIAN
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 (
1)
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-
MEflN SEC
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
( 21)
< 25)
( 22)
( 11)
( b)
< 15)
( 26)
( 18)
( 16)
( 7)
( 19)
( 20)
( 12)
( 4)
< 13)
( 9)
( 10)
« 2)
( 8)
( 0)
( 6)
( 17)
< 23)
( 14)
< 1)
( 3)
( 24)
MEAN
CHLOrtA
73
100
65
35
50
8
23
92
85
12
77
88
27
31
4
54
58
15
38
69
19
62
96
46
0
42
81
I 19)
( 26)
( 17)
( 9)
( 13)
( 2>
( 6)
( 24)
< 22)
( 3)
( 20)
< 23)
( 7)
( 8)
( 1)
( 14)
< 15)
( 4)
( 10)
( 18)
( 5)
( 16)
< 25)
( 12)
( 0)
< ID
( 21)
15-
MIN 00
15 (
77 (
73 (
0 (
12 (
62 (
62 (
96 (
46 (
85 (
69 (
100 (
19 (
54 (
8 (
90 (
4 (
38 (
33 (
81 (
33 (
23 (
27 (
90 (
42 (
50 (
62 (
4)
20)
19)
0)
3)
15)
15)
25)
12)
22)
18)
26)
5)
14)
2)
23)
1)
10)
8)
21)
8)
6)
7)
23)
ID
13)
15)
DISS 0
I 13)
( 1»>
I 3)
I 1)
( 20)
( 18)
I 25)
1 0)
I 26)
( 22)
I 7)
I 2)
I 6)
( 19)
I 14)
I 12)
[ 5)
[ 9)
I 9)
1 20)
I 17)
I 14)
: 3)
: 8)
; 23)
INJE*
311
5nO
406
196
152
163
391
460
42tt
168
506
506
229
210
162
343
223
105
217
241
174
389
448
363
7b
216
415
-------
LA
-------
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
-------
491201
37 39 00.0 113 31 00.0 3
NEWCASTLE «ESErtVOIR
49021 UTAH
11EPALES 760114 2111202
0034 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00
DATE
FPOM
TO
75/OS/08
75/03/13
75/09/26
DATE
FROM
TO
75/05/08
75/08/13
75/09/26
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 35
14 35
14 35
14 35
08 45
08 45
08 45
08 45
13 10
13 10
13 10
13 10
0000
0005
0015
0030
0000
0005
0020
0031
0000
0005
0015
0021
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 35
14 35
14 35
14 35
08 45
08 45
08 45
08 45
13 10
13 10
13 10
13 10
0000
0005
0015
0030
0000
0005
0020
0031
0000
0005
0015
0021
G0010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
11.3
9.9
9.9
9.8
21.3
21.3
20.7
18.0
18.5
18.2
18.1
17.8
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.079
0.071
0.072
0.073
0.035
o.osa
0.034
0.064
0.039
0.042
0.033
0.0*5
00300 00077 00094
DO T«AN(SP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
MG/L
9.
9.
9.
9.
7.
H.
1.
1.
a.
7.
7.
7.
32217
INCHES MICROMHO
2 34
2
2
2
6 120
2
8
4
4 60
6
0
0
00031
624
630
618
613
574
572
596
495
536
528
534
538
00400 0041C
PH T ALK
CAC03
SU
«. 60
8.60
8.60
8.60
8.60
8.10
8.60
8.00
8.50
8.50
8.45
8.50
MG/L
258
258
248
256
182
186
180
182
192
194
195
196
00610 00625
NH3-N TOT KJEL
TOTAL N
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.030
.020
.020K
.020K
.020K
.040
.020K
.040
.020K
.020K
.020K
.040
MG/L
0.800
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.700
0.700
0.600
O.feOO
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.500
CHLRPHYL INCDT LT
A
UG/L
16.
S.
15.
REMNING
PERCENT
i
7
6
00630 00671
N02&iM03 PrIOS-UIS
N-TOTAL ORTHO
MG/L MG/L P
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020*
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.020K
0.050
0.043
0.042
0.041
0.007
0.012
0.007
0.040
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.005
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE
LESS THAN INDICATED
------- |