PHASE I
CLEAN LAKES STUDY
DIAGNOSTIC AND FEASIBILITY REPORT
ON
MANTUA RESERVOIR
NOVEMBER 15,1998
MOUNTAINLAND ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
BEAR RIVER ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
AND
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
-------
& 33 3
00^
PHASE I
CLEAN LAKES STUDY
DIAGNOSTIC AND FEASIBILITY REPORT
ON
MANTUA RESERVOIR
By
Raymond M. Loveless
Mountainland Association of Governments
Provo, Utah
Roger Jones
Bear River Association of Governments
Logan, Utah
and
Dave Wham
Project Officer
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
November 15,1998
This study was conducted in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII.
Grant # CL998069-01
U S EPA Region 8 Library
80C-L
999 18th SI , Suiic 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded in part by the USEPA under grant
number CL998069-01. It has been subject to the agencies peer review and administrative review,
and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the agency nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
II. BACKGROUND
Lake History 2-1
Public Access and Public Users 2-2
Land Ownership 2-2
Population 2-4
Soils and Geology 2-4
Basin Hydrology 2-5
Point Sources 2-5
Nonpoint Sources 2-6
Justification for Diagnostic and Feasibility Study 2-7
III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Monitoring Sites 3-1
Procedure 3-1
Sampling Schedule 3-3
Parameters Measured 3-3
Laboratory Analysis 3-4
IV. WATER QUALITY EVACUATIONS - Watershed
Groundwater 4-1
Surface Water 4-5
Point Sources of Pollution 4-8
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 4-9
Natural Sources of Pollution 4-12
Water Quality Loadings 4-12
V. WATER QUALITY EVALUATIONS - Reservoir
Reservoir Profile 5-1
Analysis 5-8
Trophic State Index (TSI) 5-11
VI. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Macrophytes 6-1
Phytoplankton 6-1
Chlorophyll-a 6-2
Coliforms and Benthos 6-2
ii
-------
VII. SEDIMENT EVALUATION
Metals 7-1
Nutrients 7-2
Sediment - Phosphorus Relationships 7-2
VIII. RECREATION / SOCIO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Recreation Impacts 8-1
Economic Significance 8-6
IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Advisory Committee 9-1
Media Reports 9-2
X. QUALITY ASSURANCE /QUALITY CONTROL 10-1
XI. RESTORATION FEASIBILITY AND ALTERNATIVES
Feasibility 1 l-l
Alternative - Reservoir Measures 11-1
Alternatives - Watershed Techniques 11-5
Alternatives Recommended for Restoration 11-7
Benefits of Implementation 11-7
Post-Operation Maintenance 11-8
XII. LITERATURE CITED 12-1
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A - Botanical Assessment of Mantua Reservoir A-l
APPENDIX B - Phvtoplankton Floras from Mantua Reservoir B-l
APPENDIX C - Quality Assurance Memorandum C-l
APPENDIX D - Water Quality Data Sheets D-l
TABLES
Table
Number Page
11.1 Distance of Major Population Center fro Mantua Reservoir 2-2
11.2 Census Estimates for Box Elder County 2-4
IV. 1 Classification of Waters in Mantua Reservoir 4-2
IV.2 Utah Water Quality Standards for Mantua Reservoir 4-2
IV.3 Physical and Chemical Analysis of Mantua Reservoir Watershed (Groundwater) . . 4-3
in
-------
IV.4 Nutrient Analysis of the Mantua Reservoir Watershed (Groundwater) 4-4
IV.5 Metal Analysis of Maple Creek Above Mantua Reservoir 4-6
IV.6 Physical and Chemical Analysis of Mantua Reservoir Watershed 4-7
IV.7 Nutrient Analysis of Mantua Reservoir Watershed 4-8
IV.8 Loading Values for Mantua Reservoir Total Phosphorus, Dissolved
Total Phosphorus and Nitrate 4-14
V.l Metal Analysis of Mantua Reservoir 5-8
V.2 Chemical Analysis of Mantua Reservoir 5-9
V.3 Nutrient Analysis of Mantua Reservoir (Surface) 5-10
V.4 Nutrient Analysis of Mantua Reservoir (Bottom) 5-10
V.5 Mantua Reservoir Chlorophyll-a Data (ug/L) 5-12
VII. 1 Metal Analysis of Sediments 7.1
VII.2 Nutrient Analysis of Sediments 7.2
VIII. 1 Regional Recreational Opportunities 8.1
XI. 1 Comparison of Lake Restoration and Management Techniques for
Control of Nuisance Aquatic Weeds 11.2
FIGURES
Figure
Number Page
I.1 Location Map 1-2
II. 1 Land Ownership Map 2-3
III. 1 Monitoring Sites Map 3-2
IV. 1 Potential Pollution Sources 4-10
IV.2 Land Use Map 4-11
V.l Mantua Reservoir - North Arm Temperatures and DO Profiles 5-2
V.2 Mantua Reservoir - South Arm Temperatures and DO Profiles 5-4
V.3 Mantua Reservoir - Above Dam Temperatures and DO Profiles 5-6
VIII. 1 Regional Recreation Opportunities Map 8-2
VII.2 Local Recreation Opportunities Map 8-3
iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An EPA Clean Lakes Study, Phase I: Diagnostic/Feasibility study for Mantua Reservoir,
in Box Elder County, Utah is documented in this report. Mantua Reservoir is a eutrophic lake
which is subject to excessive macrophyte and algal growth from year to year due to high levels
of nutrients, primarily phosphorus, which enters the lake from several sources. Mantua
Reservoir is a small, shallow urban lake located within the community of Mantua, Utah. The
reservoir is the headwater of Big Creek which is tributary to the Bear River. Water in the
reservoir is used for recreation, fishing, and agriculture. Uses of the water become impacted
during summer months when the reservoir becomes over-grown with macrophytes and algae.
The project was undertaken by Bear River Association of Governments, Mountainland
Association of Governments, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to assist
Mantua City and Brigham City to restore the uses of the lake. The study was funded by USEPA
and the Thiokol Corporation. A local steering committee was organized to assist in the
development of the study.
The study included water quality monitoring, nutrient loadings, identification and
mapping of macrophytes, analysis of reservoir-bottom sediments, and the development of
alternatives to deal with associated problems.
Possible reductions of phosphorus and the percent of reduction possible in the Mantua
Reservoir watershed include:
1. Elimination of the Pump Station (25%).
2. Changes of operation at the Mantua Fish Hatchery (30%).
3. Sedimentation basin above the Box Elder Creek Diversion (10%). In addition to
the reduction of phosphorus, this sedimentation basin could reduce the sediment
load by as much as 47 tons.
4. Introduction of Grass Carp to control in-reservoir aquatic vegetation.
5. Local ordinances to protect water quality.
6. Public Education.
Additional practices which can be implemented include some possible changes in
farming practices along the east side of the reservoir. An occasional drawdown of the reservoir
to allow freezing of the sediments to kill rooted vegetation.
v
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Mantua Reservoir is a small urban reservoir with a surface area of 554 acres located in
East Box Elder County, Utah, and within the community of Mantua (Figure J.J). From its
inception, water provided an important resource for Mantua. In large part, Mantua was settled
due to the adequate flow of water from a series of springs and nearby creeks. From early times
these springs and creeks were tapped for irrigation use for Mantua itself as well as neighboring
Brigham City. Early records indicate the water from this valley was divided between Mantua
and Brigham City. The reservoir was built in Mantua Valley in the early 1960's.
The population of Box Elder County in 1994 was 37,987 people, with 735 being residents
of Mantua. According to 1990 figures, the land area of Mantua covers 2.5 square miles with a
density of 266 persons per square mile. Between 1970 and 1980, Mantua grew at a rate of 17.2
percent. Between 1980 and 1990, the City experienced a 37.4 percent rate of growth. The
majority of the Box Elder County population resides within 15 miles of the reservoir. Because of
the natural beauty of the reservoir and surrounding environs, it has become a focal point of the
city. Though no homes are built on the shoreline of the reservoir, residential development
surrounds the reservoir on three sides.
The reservoir is a cold water trout fishery, a bass fishery, and it is also used for other
water-based recreational sports. In addition to recreation, the water is stored and used for
agriculture and power generation. People who visit Mantua Reservoir are disappointed to find
that the reservoir has a serious problem related to water quality which has limited the beneficial
uses of the water.
The reservoir offers a rare opportunity in an urban setting to enjoy natures resources. The
reservoir has shown serious water quality problems over the past several years causing a
reduction in activities associated with the water. Many residents who live nearby complain about
the nuisance the reservoir has become. Macrophyte and algal growth severely limit its beneficial
uses. Besides being unsightly, the reservoir develops an odor during the late summer when the
aquatic vegetation begins to die and decompose.
In 1981-82 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality inventoried the water quality
of Utah lakes. Criteria was established and used to prioritize the lakes. Mantua Reservoir was
ranked number nine out of seventy lakes in the state for an overall need to improve the
reservoir's conditions. Over the years, the reservoir has become choked with macrophytes thus
limiting beneficial use of the water. In an effort to determine the sources of water quality
degradation, to prevent further deterioration, and to ultimately restore the lake, a Clean Lakes
314 Water Quality Study was jointly funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, Thiokol
Corporation, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Mountainland Association of
Governments, and the Bear River Association of Governments. Field and laboratory monitoring
of water quality in the lake
l-l
-------
Reservoir
Figure 1.1
Base Map
/\/ Contours
/\y Mantua
A/ Streams
/\y Roads
Water Bodies
560 Feet
Location Maps
-------
and watershed started in April 1994 and continued until May 1995. The objectives of the study
included:
1. Assess the water quality and trophic state of Mantua Reservoir.
2. Identify the causes of existing decline in water quality.
3. Evaluate possible solutions to existing or potential pollution problems.
4. Recommend the most feasible cost effective alternatives to restore or preserve the
quality of the reservoir.
5. Maximize the public benefits associated with water quality and restore the
beneficial uses of the water.
1-3
-------
II. BACKGROUND
A. Lake History
The community of Mantua was settled in 1863 but was considered part of Brigham City
which was settled in 1851. Mantua retained a representative on the Brigham City Town Board
until 1911 when Mantua was incorporated as a separate civil entity. Mantua, or "Little Valley"
as it is often called, was used to graze livestock belonging to the settlers. The original plan for
the community was to raise flax and hemp to provide cloth for the mills in Brigham City (Barker,
Personal Journal, no date). Unfortunately, the flax grown was too coarse for use in the
manufacture of cloth.
Brigham City is located about 5 miles west of Mantua and has a right to much of the
water which originates near Mantua. In Mantua there are six springs. In the north there are two,
the Hailing Spring and the Big Dam Spring. In the south there are three, the Upper and Lower
Maple springs, and the South Creek Spring. On the east there is one small spring just north of
the Knoll. The water was roughly divided in the early days between Mantua and Brigham City.
Mantua was to get 1/8 and Brigham City was to get 7/8 (Foote, I960).
In about 1960, Brigham City purchased land in Mantua for a reservoir. The Mantua Dam
was dedicated on June 17, 1962 (Foote, 1960). The reservoir has 554 acres of surface area and is
1,810 meters in length and 1,643 meters in width. The average depth is 4.3 meters. The
reservoir is primarily used for agricultural irrigation, contact and non contact recreation, fishing
and hunting. Early settlers dug canals and ditches from the creeks to the land to be irrigated.
About the same amount of land is irrigated today as was irrigated in the beginning. The same
ditches are being used today that were made at this early period.
Following is a physical summary and Morphometry of Mantua Reservoir:
Location Box Elder County
Latitude 41ฐ 30'12"
Longitude
Township
Range
Section
Major Hydrologic Basin
Elevation
Maximum Surface Area
Maximum Volume
Mean Depth
Maximum Depth
Length
Width
Shoreline Length
Major Inflows
9N
1W
22,23
1,572 m (5,159 ft)
224 ha (554 acres)
12,887,997 m3 (10,450 acre-ft)
4.3 m (14 ft)
6.1 m (20 ft)
1,810 m (5,937 ft)
1,643 m (5,390 ft)
3,400 m(ll,155 ft)
Bear River
Dam Creek, Upper and Lower Maple Creek
Big Creek
11 1ฐ 55' 57"
Outlet
2-1
-------
The average flow from Mantua Reservoir into Big Creek was 20.5 CFS during the study
period.
B. Public Access and Public Uses
The reservoir shoreline is 100% publicly owned and administered by Brigham City
Corporation. Public accessibility is 100%. Mantua Reservoir is accessible to motorists via US
Highway 89 through either Brigham City, Utah to the West, or Logan, Utah from the Northeast
{Table 11.1).
TABLE 11.1
DISTANCE OF MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS
FROM MANTUA RESERVOIR
City
Via
Distance
Miles
Brigham City
US-89
5
Logan
US-89
20
Salt Lake City
1-15, US-89
61
Ogden
1-15, US-89
26
Present lake uses include the following:
1. Recreation (motorized and non-motorized boating, water skiing, cold water
fishing, and warm water fishing)
2. Water storage for irrigation use and power generation
3. Waterfowl habitat and refuge.
4. Wetlands for birds and aquatic animals.
Improved water quality will result in enhanced recreation. Existing parks near the lake
will be better utilized. Increased levels of dissolved oxygen and reduced macrophyte
productivity will enhance usability by fishermen.
C. Land Ownership
Figure 11.1 shows that most of the land within the Mantua Reservoir watershed is
privately owned. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resource owns land where they operate a fish
hatchery. The U.S. Forest Service manages a small portion of land in the upper Box Elder Creek
drainage and also in the Clay Valley drainage.
2-2
-------
Land Ownership
jA/Mantua
XV Streams
/\y Roads
Water Bodies
Ownership
Forest Service
BB8I FS/Aquired Land
I 1 Private/FS
I I State Fish Hatchery
Reservoir
-------
D. Population
The population of Box Elder County and its cities is shown in Table II. 2. In 1994. the
population of Box Elder County was 37,987. Brigham City is the largest city in Box Elder
County with a population of 16,618 in 1994. Other small communities near Brigham City, as
well as Mantua, constitutes at least 50% of the population of the County which is located close to
Mantua and has easy access to the reservoir. Brigham City is only 5 miles west of Mantua.
Mantua had a population of 735 in 1994.
TABLE 11.2: CENSUS ESTIMATES FOR BOX ELDER COU1N
TY
1990 Cen
Ccn 90
Cen 91
Cen 92
Cen 93
Cen 94
Est 96*
Bear River City town
700
700
707
718
725
745
768
Brigham City
15,644
15,676
15,906
16,196
16,357
16,618
17,139
Corinne city
639
641
646
655
666
677
698
Devveyville town
318
320
324
337
337
327
337
Elwood town
575
576
580
588
598
607
626
Fielding town
422
424
421
447
444
475
490
Garland city
1,639
1,643
1,657
1,682
1,711
1,740
1,795
Honeyville city
1,112
1,111
1,125
1,098
1,096
1,177
1,214
Howell town
237
237
239
242
246
250
258
Mantua town
665
668
679
710
719
735
758
Perry city
1,211
1,214
1,176
1,204
1,363
1,388
1,431
Plymouth town
267
263
267
262
286
286
295
Portage town
218
219
214
217
219
217
224
Snowville town
251
258
215
222
220
199
205
Tremonton city
4,262
4,271
4,301
4,360
4,428
4,495
4,636
Willard city
1,298
1,301
1,311
1,329
1,351
1,372
1,415
Unincorporated Co.
7,027
7,055
7,152
7,170
7,306
6.679
6,888
Box Elder County
36,485
36,577
36,920
37,437
38,072
37,987
39,177
1990 Ccn is for the 1990 Decennial Census for April I 1990
Ceil 90-Cen 94 and Est 96 are estimates for July 1 of that year
The county total is an official Census estimate. The city totals arc extrapolated estimates from Cen 94
E. Soils and Geology
Percent composition and description of principal subgroup soil associations represented
in the watershed include the following:
Percent Description
50% Aquic Calciustoll-type Calciaquolls-Fluvaquentic Haplustolls Association
contains mildly to strongly alkaline, silty clay loams which have low to
moderately high erodibility (K=.15 to .28) and very poor to moderately
2-4
-------
well drainage. Permeability is moderate to very slow. Runoff is medium
to ponded and sediment production is low. The hydrologic groups are
mainly C and D.
40% Calcic Haploxerolls-Calcic Argixerolls Association contains neutral to
strongly alkaline, cobbly silt loams and very cobbly loams which have
moderate to low erodibility (K=.24 to .28) and are well drained.
Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid. Runoff is medium to rapid
and sediment production is moderate to low. The hydrologic groups are
mainly B and C.
10% Calcic Argixerolls-Calcic Haploxerolls Association contains neutral to
strongly alkaline, silty, sand loams to silty clay loams with low to
moderately high erodibility (k. 17 to .37) and well to moderately well
drainage. Permeability is slow to rapid. Runoff is slow to rapid and
sediment production is moderate to low. The hydrologic groups are
mainly B and C.
F. Basin Hydrology
A man-made diversion from Box Elder Creek to Mantua Reservoir, and an intermittent
flow of water from Clay Valley during spring runoff are the only sources of water not originating
from groundwater. Both of these tributaries discharge into Maple Creek just above its inlet to
Mantua Reservoir. All other sources of water originate near the reservoir as springs. These
springs are then used for irrigation, fish production, and livestock watering. Two major springs
surface away from the reservoir and are the headwaters for Maple Creek, and Dam Creek. Other
springs surface near the reservoir or they enter the bottom of the reservoir directly.
Recharge to the groundwater is by (1) seepage from waterways and irrigated land, (2)
infiltration of precipitation on the unconsolidated soils of the valley, and (3) subsurface flow
from the bordering mountains.
The outlet of Mantua Reservoir is Big Creek. Big Creek is captured at the reservoir outlet
and is piped to Brigham City where it is used for electrical power generation and for irrigation.
The average flow of Big Creek during the study period was 21 cubic feet per second.
G. Point Sources
The Mantua Fish Hatchery is the only permitted point source of pollution that discharges
into tributary waters in the watershed of Mantua Reservoir. The fish hatchery is owned and
managed by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and they have a discharge permit from the
State of Utah to operate. An additional non-permitted point source of discharge to the reservoir
is a pump station on the northwest end of the reservoir. That source is a result of Brigham City
pumping agricultural runoff, which ponds around culinary well boxes, into the reservoir. No
2-5
-------
discharge permit exists for the pump station. Both of these sources contribute phosphorus to the
reservoir.
H. Nonpoint Sources
Sources of pollution which may enter the lake either directly from the land surface or
through groundwater include:
1. Urban Runoff
Urban runoff is defined as water that comes off lawns, rooftops, streets and other paved
areas during and after a rainstorm or as snow melt. As it travels across those surfaces, the
concentration of nutrients, sediments, metals, and other pollutants increase.
At the present time, there is no significant urban runoff that discharges into Mantua
Reservoir. An earthen dike surrounds the reservoir, and prevents almost all urban discharge from
entering the reservoir. One exception is the pump station where a small amount of runoff could
collect and be pumped into the reservoir. Compared to agricultural impacts at that pump station,
the urban component is insignificant. If at some point in time, the earthen dike is paved, or if a
paved parking lot is provided near the boat ramp, then there could be some runoff containing oil,
grease, nutrients and salt enter the reservoir.
2. Recreation areas
Recreational activities can contribute to the overall nutrient and sediment load to the
reservoir, but it is minimal at the present time. One single portable restroom facility is provided,
but it is separated from the reservoir by an earthen dike and any leakage from that facility would
not find its way into the reservoir. There are no parks or picnic areas located near the shoreline.
Fishing and motor boating is allowed on the reservoir, but the macrophyte population, limits its
effective use. As a result, Mantua Reservoir is not a highly desired destination point. Willard
Bay, a large freshwater impoundment is located less than 10 miles away from Brigham City, and
thus attracts the majority of people seeking fishing and boating opportunities. There are,
however, a lot of waterfowl which use Mantua Reservoir, and they certainly contribute to the
nutrient load.
3. Agriculture
The quantity of nutrients in agricultural runoff is influenced by 1) the amount of nutrients
in the soil, 2) topography, 3) vegetative cover, 4) quantity and duration of runoff, 5) land use, and
6) cropping practices. Runoff from agriculture is a significant nutrient load to the reservoir.
There is one dairy located in the watershed and drains nutrient rich water into a ponded area
which is ultimately pumped into the reservoir when the water level in the pond rises. There are
three other livestock corrals located near tributaries which can contribute a lesser amount of
nutrients to the reservoir.
2-6
-------
Animal manure spread on steep farm ground during winter months can also contribute
nutrients to the reservoir. This can be a particular concern on the land directly east of the
reservoir. Fortunately, an irrigation ditch serves to capture the majority of any runoff from those
fields, and any runoff has to travel through that ditch and across additional farm land. If manure
is spread on frozen ground, and runoff occurs from melting snow, while the ground is still
frozen, then the possibility substantially increases that the nutrients will reach the reservoir.
During the study period, a number of horses were being pastured within the confines of
the earthen dikes which surround the reservoir. These horses had direct access to the reservoir.
No other livestock had direct access.
4. Septic Tanks
At the present time, septic tanks probably do not impact the water quality of Mantua
Reservoir. The majority of houses in Mantua are served by a sewage treatment facility. The
directional flow of groundwater is generally toward the west. If Mantua City were to allow
development to occur in the foothills east of the reservoir, and if septic tanks were the means for
sewage treatment, then they would likely be a source of pollution to the groundwater supply
which is predominantly located on the east side of the reservoir.
5. Hydrologic Modification
Box Elder Creek flows south and west of Mantua Reservoir. When the reservoir was
built in 1960, a diversion was constructed to bring high spring runoff flows into the reservoir to
assist in filling it. Upper Box Elder Creek only flows during spring runoff and is a source of
sediment to the reservoir. A detention basin was built just above the diversion to settle out some
of the sediments, however, it is in poor condition and needs to be worked on.
6. Natural Sources
Clay Valley drainage is located south and east of the reservoir. For a short period of time
in the spring, high loads of sediment from spring runoff may enter Maple Creek and ultimately
the reservoir. Groundwater sources east of the reservoir are high quality and do not appear to be
impacted from any source of pollution.
Wildlife in the area, particularly ducks and to a lesser degree big game animals, have an
impact on the water quality.
1. Justification for Diagnostic and Feasibility Study
The beneficial uses of Mantua Reservoir are negatively impacted during summer months
due to excessive growth of aquatic vegetation. In 1981, studies by the Utah Division of Water
Quality as part of their initial lake and reservoir classification and inventory study determined
Mantua Reservoir to be eutrophic.
2-7
-------
III. WATER QUALITY MONITORING
A. Monitoring Sites
Figure I1I.1 shows the location of all monitoring sites in the watershed and on the
reservoir. The Storet numbers on the map correspond to the Store! numbers listed below.
1. Reservoir Sites
Location Storet Number
Above Dam 490044
Midlake South Arm 490045
Midlake North Arm 490046
2. Watershed Sites
Location Storet Number
Dam Creek AB Mantua Reservoir 490047
Mantua Fish Hatchery 490048
Mantua Fish Hatchery Inflow 490049
Dam Creek @ Source 490050
Maple Creek AB Reservoir 490051
Clay Valley Drainage AB Maple Creek 490052
West Flow from Maple Springs 490053
Box Elder Creek AB Maple Creek 490054
Bunderson Spring 490055
Pump Station AB Reservoir 490056
Box Elder Creek AB Diversion 490125
Big Creek BL Reservoir 490042
B. Procedure
The physical location of monitoring sites in the watershed was determined according to
their ability to measure background water quality compared to that entering the reservoir. Other
considerations included:
1. The location of known point source and nonpoint source pollution.
2. Groundwater quality.
3. Man-made diversions transporting water to the reservoir.
The monitoring sites providing background water quality data include Dam Creek @
source, Mantua Fish Hatchery inflow, Bunderson Spring, Box Elder Creek above the diversion,
and Clay Valley drainage. Box Elder Creek is an intermittent stream which flows only during
3-1
-------
Fisure III. 1
Pollution Monitoring n
Sites
E Monitoring Sites
/\/ Mantua
/\J Streams
Roads
Water Bodies
0 250 500 Feet
490047
490055
El 490046
Reservoir
ซ90056
490042
H 490044
0 490045
1490051
49005
0
490048
491304a.
490125
3-2
-------
spring runoff. Water is diverted via a man-made canal to Maple Creek. Clay Valley drainage
also flows for a very brief period during spring runoff, and flows into Maple Creek. During the
study period, it was apparent that a heavy flow of water came out of Clay Valley and entered
Maple Creek. However, the duration was very short and no water samples were obtained. The
other background sources are groundwater which constitutes the majority of flow entering the
reservoir. All other sources monitored were selected to provide data which could be used to
calculate the nutrient and sediment load of pollution entering the reservoir.
The location of monitoring sites in the reservoir was determined by the size and physical
attributes of the reservoir.
Reservoir sampling was conducted by personnel from Mountainland Association of
Governments with assistance by Craig Russell, a resident of Mantua. A Hydrolab was used to
measure temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. Dissolved nutrients and metals
were filtered with a peristaltic pump through a millipore filter (0.45 u). Chlorophyll a samples
were likewise filtered in the field, stored in a dark container and frozen. Lake samples below the
surface were collected using a Kemmerer Bottle. Water samples were refrigerated and
transported to the Utah Stale Department of Health Laboratory in Salt Lake City for analysis.
Watershed samples were collected by Mountainland Association of Governments.
Samples were collected on the same days as lake samples were obtained. A Hydrolab was used
to provide field data. Flow rates were calculated by using standard stream transects with depths
and velocities for open channels. Nutrient samples were filtered in the field. Samples were
refrigerated and transported to the Utah State Department of Health Laboratories in Salt Lake
City for analysis.
C. Sampling Schedule
Water samples were collected beginning in April 1994 and continuing through May 1995.
Samples were taken every two weeks during spring and summer (April through August), and
monthly from September through March.
D. Parameters Measured
1. Lake Sites
Physical
Temperature
Sp. Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
Secchi
Chemical
Nutrients: (T. P04,
T. Filterable P04
T.K.N.. N02 + N03,
Ammonia as N)
Biological
Chlorophyl a
Macrophyte diversity
Phytoplankton
-------
Metals: (Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Iron,
Silver, Manganese, Barium, Chromium, Selenium, Zinc)
Chemistry: (pH, Alkalinity, Suspended Solids, Calcium.
Potassium, T. Hardness, Magnesium, Sodium, Chloride, Sulfate)
2. Watershed Sites
Physical
Temperature
Sp. Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Flow
Chemical
Biological
None
Nutrients: (T. P04,
T. Filterable P04
T.K.N.. N02 + N03,
Ammonia as N)
Metals: (Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Iron,
Silver, Manganese, Barium, Chromium, Selenium, Zinc)
Chemistry: (pH, Alkalinity, Suspended Solids, Calcium,
Potassium, T. Hardness, Magnesium, Sodium, Chloride, Sulfate)
E. Laboratory Analysis
All water quality analysis, except physical parameters, was performed by the Utah
Department of Health Laboratory in Salt Lake City. Physical parameters were measured on-site
in the field.
3-4
-------
IV. WATER QUALITY EVALUATIONS - WATERSHED
The Utah State water quality classifications and standards for Mantua Reservoir are given
in Table IV. 1 and Table IV.2. The watershed produced an annual inflow to the reservoir during
1994 of about 14,000 acre feel. This consists of mountain stream inflow, groundwater, and
precipitation. Water quality samples collected in the watershed were analyzed in the laboratory
and the results were compared against the Utah State water quality classifications and standards
for metals, physical and chemical parameters, and nutrient concentrations.
A. Groundwater
Three sites representative of groundwater quality discharging into the reservoir were
monitored. Those sites include Maple Spring which is the source of water for the Mantua Fish
Hatchery and is located south of the reservoir. Bunderson Spring is located directly east of the
reservoir. Several springs are located in this same area, and are the source of water Brigham City
uses for part of their culinary supply. Those springs are collected and conveyed to Brigham City
through a pipeline which is under Mantua Reservoir. Other springs in the area flow into Mantua
Reservoir through springs located on the bottom of the reservoir. The source of Dam Creek is a
spring located at the north end of the reservoir.
1. Metals
No metals were monitored in groundwater.
2. Chemistry
Alkalinity, pH, TSS, calcium, potassium, total hardness, magnesium, sodium, chloride,
and sulfate were evaluated. Table IV 3 summarizes those parameters. None of these chemical
parameters in the groundwater exceed the state water quality standards for Mantua Reservoir's
designated use.
3. Nutrients
Total phosphorus, total filterable phosphorus, D-N02+N03, T.K.N., and ammonia as N
were evaluated. Table IV. 4 is a summary of the average value of each of these parameters at
each groundwater site evaluated. The highest total phosphorus concentration from the Maple
Creek spring was 0.046 mg/L. The highest total phosphorus concentration at the Dam Creek
Spring was 0.022 mg/1. However, Bunderson Spring exceeded the total phosphorus
concentration of 0.05 mg/1 on two occasions, with a high of 0.088 mg/1. Even though the nitrate
concentrations never exceeded standards, it was noted that the concentrations monitored at Dam
Creek were at least twice as high as the other two groundwater sites. It is not known what
causes that increase.
4-1
-------
TABLE IV. J
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS IN MANTUA RESERVOIR
Class 2B
Protected for secondary contact recreation such as boating, wading, or similar
uses.
Class 3A
Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life,
including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.
Class 4
Protected for agriculture uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.
TABLE IV.2
UTAH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR MANTUA RESERVOIR
Parameter
Units
2B
3A
4
Total Coliforms
#/100 ml
5000
Fecal Coliforms
#/100 ml
200
Min. Dissolved Oxygen
mg/1
5.5
6.5
PH
units
6.5-9.0
6.5-9.0
6.5-9.0
Max. Temperature
C
20
Arsenic
ug/1
360
100
Cadmium
ug/1
3.9
10
Chromium
ug/1
16
100
Copper
ug/1
18
200
Iron (Maximum)
ug/1
1000
Lead
ug/1
82
100
Mercury
ug/1
2.4
Selenium
ug/1
20
Silver
ug/1
4.1
Zinc
ug/1
120
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/1
1200
Nitrate as N
mg/1
4
4
Phosphate
mg/1
0.025
0.025
4-2
-------
TABLE IV.3
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR WATERSHED
(GROUNDWATER)
Storet
#
Temp
C
pH
DO
mg/1
Sp. Cond
umhos/cm
TSS
mg/1
D-Calcium
mg/1
D-Magnesium
mg/1
490049
8.7
7.6
8.2
355.2
<3.0
37.4
16.5
490055
14.8
7.7
7.9
425.2
<7.0
48.2
23.9
490050
12.7
7.7
10.6
448.3
<7.3
49.3
25.7
N
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
Mean
15.6
8.6
8.0
329
<6.8
27.9
17.2
Min
7.8
6.8
4.8
204
<3.0
30
12
Max
18.7
9.1
14.7
488
32
52
26
Storet
#
D-Potassium
mg/1
D-Sodium
mg/1
Chloride
mg/1
Sulfate
mg/1
Alkalinity
mg/1
Total Hardness
mg/1
490049
<1.0
5.9
6.0
<10.0
158.6
161.3
490055
<1.1
8.1
9.8
12.6
195.3
218.6
490050
<1.0
6.8
8.1
11.8
215.8
228.8
N
41
41
41
41
41
41
Mean
1.5
7.0
8.3
<11.3
138
140.6
Min
<1.0
4.9
4.0
<10.0
54
124.2
Max
1.2
8.4
10.5
20.2
348
238.5
4-3
-------
TABLE IV.4
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS OF THE MANTUA RESERVOIR WATERSHED
(GROUNDWATER)
Storet
#
T. Phosphorus
mg/1
D-T. Phosphorus
mg/l
T.K.N,
mg/l
D-N02+N03
mg/l
Ammonia
mg/l
490049
0.024
0.019
0.185
0.438
<0.05
490055
0.034
0.030
0.279
0.329
<0.053
490050
0.013
0.011
0.157
0.907
<0.05
N
41
41
41
41
41
Mean
0.022
0.019
0.195
0.563
<0.051
Min
<0.01
<0.01
<0.10
0.119
<0.05
Max
0.088
0.087
0.69
1.020
0.087
4-4
-------
B. Surface Water
During the diagnostic and feasibility study, a total of eleven watershed sites were
monitored. Those sites included three locations on Maple Creek, two on Box Elder Creek
including its diversion, two on Dam Creek, one at the pump station, one at Bunderson Spring,
one irrigation ditch (west flow from Maple Spring) and one at Big Creek (outlet).
1. Metals
Water quality analysis for metals was conducted on Maple Creek above Mantua
Reservoir. Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, manganese, barium, chromium,
iron, selenium, and zinc were evaluated. The results of that analysis is shown in Table IV. 5.
Samples were obtained during June 1994 and September 1994. None of the metals analyzed
were found to exceed the state water quality standards for designated uses of the tributaries of
Mantua Reservoir.
2. Chemistry
Physical and chemical analysis was conducted for the following parameters: temperature,
pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, total suspended solids, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, alkalinity, and total hardness. Table IV. 6 summarizes the
average value of these parameters at each site monitored. None of these chemical parameters in
the watershed exceed the state water quality standards for tributaries to Mantua Reservoir's
designated use.
3. Nutrients
Water quality data showing nutrient concentrations in the watershed are shown in Table
IV. 7. Phosphorus is the nutrient of most concern because it is the limiting factor for
eutrophication of the reservoir. Only three of the eleven sites monitored in the watershed showed
average phosphorus levels exceeding the state standard of 0.05 mg/L. Those sites include Maple
Creek below the Mantua Fish Hatchery (490048), Maple Creek above Mantua Reservoir
(490051), and the Pump Station (490056).
4-5
-------
TABLE IV. 5
METAL ANALYSIS OF MAPLE CREEK ABOVE MANTUA RESERVOIR
Storet
#
H+Arsenic
ug/l
H+Barium
ug/I
H+Cadmium
ug/l
H+Chromium
ug/l
H+Copper
ug/l
H+Iron
ug/l
490051
<5.0
32
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mean
<5.0
32
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
Min
<5.0
31
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
Max
<0.5
33
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
Storet
#
H+Lead
ug/l
H+Mangancse
ug/l
H+Mercury
ug/l
H+Selenium
ug/l
H+Silver
ug/l
H+Zinc
ug/l
490051
<3.0
<5.0
<0.2
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
N
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mean
<3.0
<5.0
<2.0
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
Min
<3.0
<5.0
<2.0
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
Max
<3.0
<5.0
<2.0
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
4-6
-------
TABLE IV. 6
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR WATERSHED
Storet
U
Temp
C
pll
DO
mg/|
Sp. Cond
unih os/cm
TSS
mg/l
l)-Calcium
mg/l
D-Mag
mg/l
D-Polss
mg/l
D-Sodium
mg/l
Chloride
mg/l
Sulfate
mg/l
Alkalinity
mg/l
Total Urdus
mg/l
490047
11 9
8 0
102
479
109
51 9
28 9
1 3
7 3
8 6
12 1
209 3
236 04
490048
102
7 9
99
353
4 2
37 5
16 5
<1
5 8
6 1
<10.0
156 7
161 45
490049
8 7
7 6
8 2
355
<3 0
374
16 5
<1
5 9
60
<10 0
158 6
161 29
490050
12 7
7.7
106
448
4 4
49 2
25 7
<1
6 8
8 1
1 1 8
215 8
22S 81
490051
12 2
8 3
102
337
7 2
35
15.3
1 0
5 6
59
<100
146 6
150 23
490053
11 0
8.6
104
318
9.5
32 5
13 5
<1
5 4
5 5
<100
133 3
136 62
490054
11 3
8 0
96
174
11 4
13 8
3 8
<1
3 6
1 7
<10 0
51 8
50 14
490055
14 8
7 7
79
425
70
48 2
23 9
1 1
8 1
9 8
12 6
195 3
21S 59
490056
13 3
7 7
72
798
14 6
84 7
35
16 8
25 9
54 8
15 7
310 1
347 89
490125
102
80
92
167
II
13
3 7
1
3 44
1 7
<100
50 2
47 66
N
1 14
114
114
114
1 14
114
114
114
114
1 14
114
114
114
Mean
11 5
80
9 5
408
6.9
42 9
19 5
2 6
8.1
1 1 8
1 I.I
176 0
187 08
Min
29
68
1 6
137
<3 0
10
29
<1
3 3
0 5
<100
39
484 3
Max
23 9
94
14 7
1530
46
110
51
120
51
147 5
38 8
533
36 9
4-7
-------
TABLE IV. 7
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR WATERSHED
Storct
#
T. Phosphorus
mg/l
D-T. Phosphorus
mg/l
T.K.N,
mg/l
D-N02+N03
mg/l
Ammonia
mg/l
490047
0.037
0.020
0.964
0.800
<0.05
490048
0.072
0.053
0.504
0.405
0.142
490049
0.024
0.019
0.185
0.438
<0.05
490050
0.013
0.011
0.157
0.907
<0.05
490051
0.063
0.043
0.331
0.410
0.06
490053
0.032
0.018
0.268
0.157
<0.05
490054
0.032
0.019
0.632
0.132
<0.05
490055
0.034
0.030
0.279
0.329
<0.05
490056*
0.571
0.419
3.425
0.910
1.97
490125
0.023
0.018
0.348
0.107
<0.05
N
114
114
114
114
114
Mean*
0.036
0.026
0.408
0.411
<0.66
Min
<0.01
<0.01
<0.10
<0.02
<0.05
Max
1.986
1.327
28.45
3.043
20.364
*Site 490056 (Pump Station) was not used to calculate the "Mean".
C. Point Sources of Pollution
Mantua Fish Hatchery
The Mantua Fish Hatchery is the only permitted point source in the watershed (See Figure IV. I
for location). The hatchery is located at the point where Maple Spring originates. That water source is
then used for fish production. Comparing the water quality of the spring where it comes out of the
ground, with that of the hatchery effluent, shows an increased total of 20,974 Kg suspended solids, and
292 Kg of TP (Total Phosphorus) with 206 Kg of that amount being D-TP (Dissolved Total
Phosphorus). The TP discharge from the hatchery is approximately 30% of the TP load entering the
reservoir. The amount of D-TP leaving the hatchery is approximately 28% of the total amount entering
4-8
-------
the reservoir. However, Maple Creek does have a high number of aquatic plants growing within its
streambanks. Those plants undoubtedly utilize some of the nutrients before they get the reservoir.
Those numbers cannot be quantified.
D. Nonpoint Sources ofPollution
Nonpoint sources of pollution were identified in the watershed. Figure IV. 1 shows the location
of identified sources of man-caused pollution. On the south side of the reservoir, Maple Creek is the
only tributary. Maple Creek receives water from Maple Spring, Box Elder Creek Diversion, and other
small ditches. Because of the dike which surrounds the reservoir, most potential nonpoint sources
which do not drain into Maple Creek, are diverted downstream. There is a drainage ditch which
collects water from all areas south of the reservoir and transports that water to Big Creek below the
reservoir.
Dam Creek is the only tributary to the reservoir from the North. The reservoir dike diverts
water which does not drain into Dam Creek toward the pump station located on the west side of the
reservoir. Some drainage from the west side also is collected at the pump station.
Box Elder Creek Diversion
Box Elder Creek Diversion contributes the largest amount of sediment. During 1994, the
diversion added 47.8 tons of sediment to the reservoir. The diversion also provided 10% of the
reservoirs TP (98 Kg), and 10.5% of the D-TP (78 Kg) load.
Agricultural Runoff
Agriculture is the largest nonpoint source contributor to the reservoir. Figure IV.2 shows that
agriculture is the major land use around Mantua Reservoir. The pump station adds 25% of the TP load
(263 Kg) and 24% of the D-TP load (190 Kg) to the reservoir each year. Agricultural activities along
Dam Creek contributes 3% of the TP load (34 Kg) and 0.5% of the D-TP load (4 Kg) per year.
Additional agricultural activities along Maple Creek add an additional 16 Kg of TP per year. Though
not quantified, animals having direct access to the reservoir shoreline also contribute to the total
phosphorus load.
Another potential source of agricultural pollution to the reservoir is from farming practices
occurring on the east side of the watershed. This land is relatively steep, and susceptible to runoff from
both irrigation and from snow melt. Fortunately, there is an irrigation ditch which intercepts most
runoff from these farms and diverts it onto more farmland which acts as a filter strip before it finds its
way to the reservoir. Farming practices on those lands should prohibit putting any animal manure on
those lands while they are frozen or on top of snow. The use of minimum tillage practices should also
be encouraged.
4-9
-------
Figure IV. 1
Potential Pollution
Sources
A/ Drainage
/\/ Mantua
'/\/ Streams
Roads
> _ Pollution Sources
Water Bodies
260 0 260 520 Feet
Mantua
Riparian
Pasture
Dairy
Pijmp
Station
Reservoir
Corral
m
Q-
(D
na9e
:\0^
Corral
i/
atcjiery
4-10
-------
A LX.
/
Land Use
f \y Mantua
/\/ Streams
/\y Roads
Water Bodies
Landuse
fefeg) Alfalfa
I | Built-up Land
I Other Crops
I | Other Land Use
I | Pasture
'V
Maht
?fBK p & m,
mmm
Reservoir
1 CD V
M
r$in,
*9e
-------
Urban Runoff
Urban runoff could not be documented as entering the reservoir. Possibly some runoff from
streets and driveways could enter the pump station site. However, that contribution is slight if any.
Recreation Activities
Recreational activities are limited to occasional motor boating, water skiing, fishing, and some
limited shoreline activities. The pollution sources from these activities are not significant. However,
motorboats can stir up the bottom sediments of the reservoir, causing nutrients to become available to
aquatic plant life. This study did not quantify recreational sources of pollution. Mantua Reservoir
offers the potential for many recreational activities which were identified in Section VIII of this report.
If recreational facilities are recommended for construction, then they should be required to consider
water quality impacts prior to issue of any construction permits.
Septic Tanks
Septic tanks are probably not a source of water quality pollution to Mantua Reservoir. If septic
tanks are allowed to be installed in the foothills east of Mantua Reservoir, then concern is warranted.
E. Natural Sources of Pollution
The TP and D-TP load to Mantua Reservoir from background sources equals 18% and 19%,
respectively, of all phosphorus sources to the reservoir. These values are quite high, but there is very
little which can be done to reduce these values.
G. Water Quality Loadings
Loadings most accurately express the relative impacts of various watershed sources on
reservoir water quality. Because reservoirs store nutrients in their water columns and bottom
sediments, water quality responses are related to the total nutrient loading that occurs over the year.
Loadings change in response to season, storm events, upstream nonpoint sources, and land use
changes. The evaluation of loadings provide a basis for projecting reservoir responses to changes in
land use and other factors.
To estimate phosphorus and nitrogen loadings, both flow and concentration must be quantified
over the year. The average flow of water from Mantua Reservoir into Big Creek in 1995 was 20.5 cfs.
Maple Creek provides 46.7% of the flow entering Mantua Reservoir, followed by groundwater flows
on the east side of the reservoir, or those entering directly from the bottom of the reservoir (37.3%),
Dam Creek (13.6%), and the pump station (2.4%).
4-12
-------
It is difficult to calculate loadings accurately because of variability of both flow and
concentration. An additional difficulty which occurred at Mantua was the fact that during the study
period, construction was occurring at the outlet to put Big Creek into a pipe to allow better use of the
water at the downstream electric generation plant in Brigham City. There were days when the outlet
flow was much higher than average, and other days when the flow was almost nothing to allow for
construction. Obtaining an average flow proved to be difficult. An added difficulty in obtaining
accurate loadings for Mantua occurred when Big Creek was finally piped at the outlet. This meant that
the flow had to be obtained five miles downstream below the hydro electric plant, and there was no
way to determine if outside flows were entering the system along the way. Construction was also
causing an increase in suspended solids which also means that the nutrients increased. Because of
these factors, loading estimates should be considered with a degree of skepticism. These are not fixed
quantities but ranges (USEPA, 1988).
Table IV. 8 shows the loading of TP (Total Phosphorus), D-TP (Dissolved Total Phosphorus),
and nitrate to Mantua Reservoir.
4-13
-------
TABLE IV. 8
LOADING VALUES FOR MANTUA RESERVOIR
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, DISSOLVED TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, AND NITRATE
cfs
Average
mgIL
average
Total P
Load Kg/yr
Percent of
Total
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
Maple Creek
9.80
0.063
55!
52.3
Springs
8.09
0.022
159
15.1
Dam Creek
2.10
0.037
80
7.6
Pump Station
0.51
0.571
263
25.0
TOTAL INPUT
20.5
0.060
1053
100
Big Creek
(Outlet)
20.5
0.083
1554
147.6
TOTAL DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS
Maple Creek
1 1.2
0.043
429
53.5
Springs
8.09
0.020
144
18.0
Dam Creek
2.10
0.020
39
4.8
Pump Station
0.51
0.419
190
23.7
TOTAL INPUT
20.5
0.040
802
100
Big Creek
(Outlet)
20.5
0.041
749
93.4
NITRATE
Maple Creek
9.8
0.410
3845
39.3
Springs
8.09
0.558
4025
41.1
Dam Creek
2.10
0.800
1511
15.4
Pump Station
0.51
0.910
414
4.2
TOTAL INPUT
20.5
0.529
9795
100
Big Creek
(Outlet)
20.5
0.220
4021
41.1
4-14
-------
V. WATER QUALITY EVALUATIONS - RESERVOIR
A. Reservoir Profile
Deep lakes stratify into layers of markedly different temperatures during part of the year.
Thermal structure is a physical process. Cold water is heavier than warm water and will sink to
the bottom of the lake. During warm summer months the sun efficiently warms water in the
photic zone - the area penetrated by sunlight. Rapidly flushed, shallow lakes do not normally
develop persistent thermal stratification.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles for Mantua Reservoir are shown in Figure
V.J (North Arm, Storet # 490046), Figure V.2 (South Arm, Storet # 490045), and Figure V.3
(Above Dam, Storet # 490044). The shallow nature of Mantua Reservoir is not conducive to a
strong thermal stratification. Preliminary examination of the data does indicate that stratification
began to set up on the South arm of the reservoir during July, but by August the stratification had
been broken down. Between the July 18, 1994 and August 10, 1994 sampling, it was noted that
a storm with strong winds had moved through the area.
Temperature exceeded the state's standard of 20ฐ C during much of the summer. At the
deeper depths of the reservoir, where the water was cooler, the DO was poor. During July and
August, the temperature and DO profiles indicate that cold water fish are being stressed.
During summer months, poor dissolved oxygen concentrations were documented.
Beginning in May and continuing into September, the DO concentrations on the bottom of the
reservoir were of concern. However, in most cases, DO levels improved to acceptable levels
within one meter of the bottom. Exceptions to that occurred in the South arm on June 6 when
DO levels were less than 3.0 mg/1 at two meters off the bottom, and again on July 18 when the
DO concentrations were less than 1.0 mg/1 at two meters off the bottom. The monitoring site
above the dam showed the DO levels on July 18 to be at 1.1 mg/1 or less at all levels below one
meter, and on August 10 the DO concentrations were below 3.0 mg/1 at two meters off the
bottom.
The wind action which occurred between July 18 and August 10 improved the DO levels
within the water column. During long hot stagnant summer months, the capability exists for
severe DO depletion to occur in the reservoir.
Low DO values within the bottom meter of the water column support the fact that internal
phosphorus loading from the sediments occur and that decomposition of organic matter is
contributing to the loss of dissolved oxygen. Aquatic vegetation also contributes to the loss of
DO due to photosynthesis.
5-1
-------
Figure V.J: Mantua Reservoir - North Arm
Temperature & DO Profiles
May 10, 1994
10
15
20
(deg C)
May 23, 1994
5 10 15
20
(deg C
Q.
0>
Q
June 6, 1994
5 10 15 20
25
DO
> , I
1
~
Temp |
(mg/l) '
<
* (deg C)*
y
i
1
~ o
a
a>
a
o.
1
2
3 .
4
5 .
June 22, 1994
5 10 15 20
DO
(mg/i)
Temp
(deg C) i
I
/
25
July 18, 1994
Temp |
(deg C)
Temp I
(deg C) J
August 10, 1994
0 5 10 15 20 25
1
<
2
DO
> Temp
3
. (mg/i) .
(deg C) i
4 .
1
5
s
August 23, 1994
0 5 10 15 20 25
DO
* Temp J
(mg/l) <
> (deg C)
<
<
-------
Figure V.l (Continued): Mantua Reservoir - North Arm
Temperature & DO Profiles
Q.
d)
Q
0
1
2 .
3 .
4
5
September 9, 1994
5 10 15 20
25
DO <
*
I
/
(mg/iy
* Temp
* (degC)
*
October 26, 1994
5 10 15
20
(mg/l) I I (deg C)
Q.
01
Q
0
0 .
1
2
3 .
4
November 9, 1994
5 10 15
> I
Temp 1
DO
' (deg C) j
'(mg/l)
*
>
i
~
20
a
a>
a
January 24, 1995
5 10 15
20
0 .
1
/
Temp | ,
' DO
2 .
(deg C)?f
(mg/l)
3
1/
>
4
i
5
to 1
o. 4
CD
April 26, 1995
5 10
15
20
> ~ i
1
DO *
1
* * Temp
(mg/l) '
' f (deg C)
~
1
i
1
>
Q.
0)
Q
May 11, 1995
5 10 15
20
> 1
i
1
~ Temp
DO
(mg/l) '
i (deg C)
|
<
i
~
5-3
-------
Figure V.2: Mantua Reservoir - South Arm
Temperature & DO Profiles
May 10, 1994
5 10 15
20
(deg C)
(/>
k_
0
ฆ4-t
O
E
Q.
0)
Q
May 23, 1994
5 10 15
20
u
1
DO I
*
2 .
(mg/l) I
J
Temp I
3
(deg C) 1
4 .
5
fi
0 .
1
o
+>
~
, Temp i
(mg/l)
(deg C) I
1
r
4
(/>
k_
CD
+-ป
0)
E,
ฃ
Q.
01
Q
June 22, 1994
5 10 15 20
25
u .
1 .
DO f
Temp |
2
(mg/l) T
(deg C) 1
3 .
J
4 .
July 5, 1994
5 10 15
20
25
(deg C)
July 18, 1994
5 10 15 20
25
30
Temp
/ (deg C)
August 10, 1994
5 10 15 20
25 30
deg C)
August 23, 1994
5 10 15
20
25
(deg C)
5-4-
-------
(J)
1_
o
5-5
-------
0
0 r
1
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 ..
6 .
7
0
0 T
1 ..
2 .
3 ..
4
5
6 -
0
0
0 r
1
2 .
3 -
4 .
5 .
6
Figure V.3: Mantua Reservoir - Above Dam
Temperature & DO Profiles
May 10, 1994
5 10 15
20
June 6, 1994
5 10 15
20
DO
~
Temp
(mg/I) ,
~
(deg C)
25
i Temp
i (deg C)
25
a.
0)
D
0
May 23, 1994
5 10 15
20
25
0
1
2
3
4
5 .
6 .
7
DO
~
7 Temp
(mg/l)
i
; (deg C)
~
June 22, 1994
(deg C) T
July 5, 1994
5 10 15
20
Temp
(deg C)
25
Q.
-------
Q.
ฆ |
1
i
~
1
DO
j Temp
J
" (mg/l)
~
1 (deg C)
1
4
a
0)
D
0
0 .
1 .
2
3
4
5 .
6 .
October 26, 1994
5 10
15 i
DO f
/
I Temp
(mg/l) T
1 (deg C)
0)
k.
<1)
a>
E
a.
0)
a
November 9, 1994
5 10
15
u
~ '
> 1 1
1
1
Temp <
DO
2 -
(deg C)
" (mg/l)
3
I
ป
4
1
9
~
5
a.
0)
a
January 24, 1995
0 5 10
0
1
2
3 .
4
5 .
6 .
7
15
Temp
(deg C)
0
1
(/)
w
O
2
O)
3
.b
4
.C
*-ป
R
a.
a>
H
Q
/
April 26,
1995
0 5
10 15
~
DO
, i Temp
(mg/l)
, i (deg C)
<
i
i
~
e
a>
a
a
O
May 11, 1995
5 10
15
20
u
1
<
I
~
2 .
DO
i Temp
3 .
(mg/l) ,
~ i (deg C)
4
<
>
5 .
J
I
6 .
f
7 .
5-7
-------
B. Analysis
1. Metals
A metals analysis on the water samples from the reservoir was conducted for arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc.
Samples were collected from the bottom of the reservoir. None of these metals were found in the
reservoir to exceed the state water quality standards for designated uses. Metal concentrations
are summarized in Table V. I.
TABLE V.J
METAL ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR
Storet
#
H+Arscnic
ug/1
H+Barium
ug/l
H+Cadmium
ug/l
H+Chromium
ug/l
H+Copper
ug/l
H+Iron
ug/l
490045
<5.0
40
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
490046
<5.0
43.5
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
<5.0
42.3
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
Min
<5.0
29
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
Max
<0.5
58
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20.0
Storet
#
H+Leail
ug/l
H+Manganese
ug/l
H+Mercury
ug/l
H+Seleniuni
ug/l
H+Silver
ug/l
H+Zinc
ug/l
490045
<3.0
37
<0.2
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
490046
<3.0
<5.25
<0.2
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
<3.0
15.8
<2.0
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
Min
<3.0
<5.0
<2.0
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
Max
<3.0
37
<2.0
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
5-8
-------
2. Chemical Evaluation
Chemical analyses were performed on Mantua Reservoir water samples to determine pH,
specific conductivity, TSS, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, alkalinity,
and total hardness. Sample results are from the reservoir surface. The results of these analyses
are shown in Table V 2. The measured chemical parameters in Mantua Reservoir water are all
within state water quality standards established for the reservoir.
TABLE V.2
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR
Storct
#
Temp
C
PH
Sp. Conductivity
umhos/cm
TSS
mg/l
D-Calcium
mg/l
D-Magnesium
mg/l
490044
15.2
8.5
332
<6.1
28 5
17.5
490045
15.8
8.6
326
<7.0
28.1
17.1
490046
15.8
8.6
328
<7.3
27
17.1
N
45
45
45
45
45
45
Mean
15.6
8.6
329
<6.8
27.9
17.2
Min
0.7
7.6
266
<3.0
12
16
Max
24.4
9.8
440
19
37
21
Storet
#
D-Potassium
mg/l
D-Sodium
mg/l
Chloride
mg/l
Sulfate
mg/l
Alkalinity
mg/l
Total Hardness
mg/l
490044
1.5
7.2
8.7
<10.3
140
143.0
490045
1.5
7.0
8.2
<10.5
138
140.3
490046
1.5
6.9
8.0
<13.0
136
138.6
N
45
45
45
45
45
45
Mean
1.5
7.0
8.3
<1 1.3
138
140.6
Min
1.1
6.2
6.5
<10.0
102
98.3
Max
1.8
8.5
I I
55.5
157
168.7
5-9
-------
3. Nutrients
Total phosphorus, total dissolved phosphorus, T.K.N., D-N02, D-N03, and ammonia as
N were analyzed. The results of that analysis is found in Table V.3 (Surface) and Table V.4
(Bottom).
TABLE V.3
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR (SURFACE)
Storet
#
T. Phosphorus
mg/1
D-T. Phosphorus
mg/1
T.K.N.
mg/1
D-N02+N03
mg/1
Ammonia N
mg/1
490044
0.063
0.037
0.766
<0.039
<0.062
490045
0.060
0.032
0.671
<0.034
<0.072
490046
0.060
0.028
0.706
<0.034
<0.057
N
45
45
45
45
45
Mean
0.061
0.032
0.714
<0.035
<0.064
Min
0.015
<0.01
0.10
<0.02
<0.05
Max
0.162
0.083
2.0
0.167
0.177
TABLE V.4
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS OF MANTUA RESERVOIR (BOTTOM)
Storet
#
T. Phosphorus
mg/1
D-T. Phosphorus
mg/1
T.K.N.
mg/1
D-N02+N03
mg/1
Ammonia N
mg/1
490044
0.074
0.047
0.566
<0.037
<0.081
490045
0.067
0.038
0.583
<0.032
<0.067
490046
0.068
0.038
0.617
<0.030
<0.061
N
45
45
45
45
45
Mean
0.070
0.040
0.589
<0.033
<0.070
Min
0.026
<0.01
0.10
<0.02
<0.05
Max
0.146
0.119
1.14
0.092
0.153
5-10
-------
An evaluation of the nitrogen to phosphorus ratio was done to consider the limiting
nutrient in the reservoir. Usually a 10:1 (N:P) ratio is used to indicate that both are limiting. In
other words, if the ratio exceeds 10 then phosphorus is usually the limiting factor, but if the ratio
is less than 10, nitrogen usually controls. The total nitrogen in the lake is the addition of T.K.N,
and N02 + N03 concentrations. The ratio was calculated on an average to 11:1 which indicates
that phosphorus is the limiting nutrient.
C. Trophic State Index (TSI)
The major factors in eutrophication -
phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment - have
been classified into many systems for
quantifying lake trophic status. The system
most widely used is Carlson's (1977) Trophic
State Index (TSI). TSI is determined by
Secchi disk measurements, surface total
phosphorus, and chlorophyll a concentrations.
Utilizing the standard Carlson
formula, the average TSI value was
determined for Mantua Reservoir. Two
Carlson TSI values were derived for two
different periods. First the entire study period
was evaluated to give Mantua Reservoir a
general TSI number, then the productivity
period (August) was evaluated to assess the
TSI during the critical time. The overall TSI
values for the study period and the month of August were 59.1 and 67.8, respectively. These TSI
values show that Mantua Reservoir is eutrophic. During the month of August, it reaches a TSI
value close to hypereutrophic.
To determine annual TSI values, the following procedure was used:
a. An average annual summer TSI value for total phosphorus, Secchi depth, and
chlorophyll a for each reservoir site is determined.
b. The values from step one are then averaged to determine an overall TSI value at
each reservoir station.
c. An average annual summer TSI value for the reservoir is calculated by averaging
all the station TSI valued.
TSI
Secchi Disk
Surface Surface
(M)
Phosphorus
(mg m-3)
Chlor-A
(mg m-3)
0
210
0.75
0.04
10
105
1.5
0.12
20
52
3
0.34
30
26
6
0.94
40
13
12
2.6
50
7
24
6.4
60
3
48
20
70
19"
96
56
80
10"
192
154
90
5"
384
427
100
2.5"
768
1 183
Source: Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index
for lakes. Limnol. Oceanog. 22:363-9.
5-11
-------
These values were then compared to the following values and the trophic status
determined:
TSI Index values < 40 - Oligotrophia
TS1 Index values 40 <> 50 - Mesotrophic
TSI Index values 50 <>70 - Eutrophic
TSI Index values > 70 - Hyper eulrophic
1. Carlson's Secchi Depth Method
Secchi depth measurements, which indicate transparency, were taken during the 1994 and
1995 study period at locations within the lake. The average transparency depth measurement
during the entire study period in Mantua Reservoir was 1.77 meters. These measurements were
compared to the trophic level index given by Carlson to give a TSI value of 51.8 which falls
within the eutrophic values. During the month of August, the Secchi depth measurements
averaged 0.95 meters which has a TSI value of 61, which is also eutrophic.
2. Carlson's Chlorophyll Method
Chlorophyll a data gathered during the study period, and presented in Table V.5, had an
average concentration of 24.7 ug/1, and during the month of August, the average was 45.3 ug/1.
Each of these chlorophyll a values falls into the eutrophic range with TSI's of 62.1 and 68,
respectively.
TABLE V.5
MANTUA RESERVOIR CHLOROPHYLL-a DATA (ug/L)
Storet Site
1995 Average
August 1995 Average
490044
24.01 (16)
42.2
490045
25.39 (16)
45.5
490045
24.69 (16)
54.3
AVERAGE
24.7
45.3
* number in parenthesis is number of samples
3. Carlson's T-P Method
The total phosphorus concentration of Mantua Reservoir during the study period was
0.061 mg/1 or 61 ppb which gives a TSI value of 63.4. The summer or August total phosphorus
concentration was 0.131 mg/1 or 131 ppb and has a TSI value of 74.5. The annual average is
within the eutrophic range, however, during August the TSI value for total Phosphorus was in the
hypereutrophic range.
5-12
-------
VI. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
A. Macrophytcs
Overabundant rooted and floating plants are a major nuisance to lake users. Shallow,
warm, nutrient-rich and transparent water provides optimum conditions for aquatic plant growth.
The Intermountain Herbarium, at Utah State University in Logan, Utah completed a botanical
assessment of Mantua Reservoir. That report in its entirety is included in this report as Appendix
A. In order to make good decisions about aquatic plant control it is necessary to:
1. Understand the role of healthy plant populations in a well-balance waterbody.
2. Understand the effects of nuisance plant populations and the potential of radical
removal.
3. Identify the plant populations and their purpose in a specific location.
4. Choose the technique that offers the best control with the least potential for
disrupting desirable balance in the lake system.
The principal phanerophytes identified in the study, listed in descending order of relative
abundance are: Common Hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum L.), Naked Water-milfoil
(.Myriophyllum exalbescens Fernald), Water Smartweed (Polygonum amphibium L.), Fennel-leaf
Pondweed (Potamogelon pectinatus L.), Curly-leaf Pondweed (Potamogeton crispus L.), and
Grass Alisma (Alisma granineum Lejune). Curly-leaf Pondweed is considered to be an alien
species, while the remaining are native or cosmopolitan. Typically, these species are rooted in
the mud substrate approximately one-quarter meter to two meters under water at scattered locales
around the reservoir perimeter.
Many macrophytes have a very distinct seasonal cycle, which dictates that large numbers
of plants will die almost simultaneously. When much of the lake surface is covered by a single
species of plant, a seasonal die-off can severely strain the lake's oxygen budget. Large numbers
of plants can also reduce oxygen because they shade other plants that grow deeper in the water
column preventing photosynthesis (Moore, 1987). Mantua Reservoir exhibited a decline in
dissolved oxygen particularly in July, but also somewhat in June and August. This time of the
year represents when the plant growth was heaviest thus straining the oxygen level.
B. Phytoplankton
The algal plankton flora of Mantua Reservoir was studied by Samuel Rushforth, Brigham
Young University, Provo, Utah. The entire report is included in this investigation as Appendix D.
The most important plankters from Mantua Reservoir total plankton samples collected during
1994 in descending order were Stephanodiscus niagarae, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, Anabaena
circinalis, Microcystis aerugionsa, Sphaerocystis schroenteri and Pandorina morum. These six
taxa comprised 94.4% of the phytoplankton flora of Mantua Reservoir.
6-1
-------
The flora of Mantua Reservoir indicates that this is a eutrophic system with substantial
water quality problems. In particular, it is important to note that the 1994 flora had a high
component of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), most indicative of inferior water quality. Fully
58% of the Mantua flora was comprised of cyanobacteria. Only 9% of the flora was composed
of Chlorophyta, 32% diatoms, and slightly more that 1% dinoflagellates.
C. Chlorophyll a
At the three lake sites monitored, the average chlorophyll a concentrations were 24.01
ug/L Above Dam, 25.39 ug/L in the North Bay, and 24.69 ug/L in the South Bay (See Table
V.5). The maximum chlorophyll a measured during the study was 100.9 ug/L (North Bay, July)
and the minimum was 1.9 ug/L (Above Dam, May). These numbers are consistent with the
findings that the water is nutrient-rich, and that the reservoir is eutrophic.
D. Coliforms and Benthos
No coliform or benthos evaluations were conducted.
6-2
-------
VII. SEDIMENT EVALUATION
The purpose of analyzing sediment is to determine the ability of nutrients to recycle back
into the water column from the sediments. Also to determine if metals are present and if they
can return to the water under anoxic conditions. Composite sediment samples from the top 10
centimeters were collected at two sites on the reservoir. Because the water level had been
lowered, reservoir bottom sediments were easily obtained and placed in glass jars obtained from
the Utah State Department of Laboratories. Samples were obtained on October 2, 1996 and sent
to the laboratory for analysis.
A. Metals
Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, manganese, barium, chromium, iron,
selenium and zinc were evaluated. Table VIII shows the results of that analysis.
TABLE VII. 1
Metal Analyses of Sediments (mg/Kg dry weight)
In Mantua Reservoir, October 2,1996
Parameter
490046
North Arm
490045
South Arm
T-Arsenic
<31.8
<62.0
T-Cadmium
<2.38
<4.65
T-Copper
23.7
25.3
T-Lead
25.9
<31.0
T-Mercury
<0.6
<1.12
T-Silver
<2.0
<3.1
T-Manganese
517.0
331.0
T-Barium
137.0
111.1
T-Chromium
17.1
16.1
T-lron
16600.0
13300.0
T-Selenium
<31.8
<62.0
T-Zinc
70.8
50.2
These data indicate that none of the metals were found to be in a quantity which would be
7-1
-------
of concern in either area of the reservoir. The table shows that the metal content in the sediment
is typically higher in south arm. This is probably due to the flow of Maple Creek entering near
where the sample was collected. It was noted that iron concentrations are high in the sediments.
Also, manganese was high at the north site. Even with high levels of metals in the sediments, the
metals dissolved in the water column are well within acceptable levels which indicate that the
metals in the sediments are not returning in high amounts back to the water.
B. Nutrients
Total phosphorus, T.K.N., and ammonia as N were analyzed. Table VII.2 shows the
results of that analysis.
TABLE VII.2
Nutrient Analysis of Sediments (mg/Kg dry weight)
In Mantua Reservoir, October 2,1996
Parameter
490046
North Arm
490045
South Arm
Total Phosphorus
0.18
0.51
T.K.N.
7.74
6.32
Ammonia as N
1.7
1.31
These nutrient levels are not as high as what was expected before the study was
conducted. The nutrient levels are high enough to support both emergent and submergent
aquatic vegetation, but are not so high that they are very important in recycling high quantities of
nitrogen and phosphorus to the phytoplankton community within the open water.
C. Sediment-Phosphorus Relationships
Internal sources of phosphorus must be considered in the determination of eutrophication
status. Phosphorus release from sediments can result in accelerated eutrophication.
Dissolved phosphorus may become associated with particulate inorganic or organic
material before entering a lake or it may become associated with inorganic and organic particles
within the lake. Some of this phosphorus associated with particles is recycled within the water
column. The particulate phosphorus which is not taken up by algae and macrophytes settles to
the lake sediments. Even though this sedimented phosphorus is not immediately available to
aquatic vegetation, it may become available later (Illinois EPA, 1986).
7-2
-------
The amount of phosphorus in sediment and the processes involved in its release have
been studied. Sediments release phosphorus in its soluble reactive form when hypolimnetic
water becomes anoxic, and to a less degree, under oxygenated conditions. During summer on
Mantua reservoir, dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 1.0 mg/L have been documented.
These low values support the fact that internal phosphorus loading from the sediments may occur
and that decomposition of organic matter is contributing to the loss of dissolved oxygen from the
water column. When lakes undergo spring and fall overturn, the hypolimnetic water containing
the dissolved phosphorus is then brought to the surface where it becomes available to algae and
macrophytes (Illinois EPA, 1986).
The contribution of sediments to the overall phosphorus budget depends upon several
factors. These factors which influence the concentration of phosphorus in the sediments are: 1)
forms and amounts of phosphorus entering the reservoir, 2) amount of biological activity in the
overlying water column, 3) hydraulic retention time, and 4) lake depth.
The forms of phosphorus entering a reservoir influence concentration within the
sediments. Only dissolved phosphorus is taken up by algae and macrophytes. High levels of
biological activity in the water column can initially tie up the dissolved phosphorus, but when the
plankton and macrophytes die, settle to the bottom of the reservoir and decompose, they increase
the organic phosphorus content of the sediments.
Hydraulic retention time and lake depth influence phosphorus sedimentation rates. The
retention time, defined as the lake volume divided by total annual discharge, represents the
length of time for lake water with its nutrients and sediment load to be completely flushed from
the lake. The retention time for Mantua Reservoir is approximately 8 months. Lake depth
determines the distance settling particulate phosphorus must drop and the amount of turbulence
reaching the sediments. In a shallow lake, the sediments are always exposed to the euphotic
zone. Mantua Reservoir is shallow and the euphotic zone covers almost the entire lake.
Regeneration in the littoral zone is a major source of phosphorus, especially since
phosphorus released from littoral sediments is spatially available as soon as it is released since it
is already in the euphotic zone. Sediments in the littoral region receive major phosphorus inputs
from the decay of aquatic weeds and algae as well as settling of phosphorus from the overlying
water. Aquatic plants take up phosphorus and nitrogen through their roots. At the end of the
growing season the plants die and phosphorus is released during microbial decomposition.
Over 75 percent of the phosphorus leached from decaying macrophytes is in a form
which is available to plants (Carpenter 1983). This phosphorus is released within days of plant
die-off; it can either be taken up by bacteria, algae, or it returns to the sediments. Although there
is still much to be learned about internal cycling of nutrients, it can be concluded from existing
literature that regeneration from the sediments and plants within lakes can be an important source
of nutrients.
7-3
-------
Depth is an underlying factor influencing many of the conditions. Lakes of moderate to
shallow depth tend to receive more input form internal sources than deep lakes of similar surface
areas since the released phosphorus would have less distance to travel in order to become
positionally available to aquatic plants in the photic zone.
Even with reduction of nonpoint sources in the Mantua Reservoir watershed it is likely
that the macrophyte quantities will remain high due to the availability of phosphorus in the
sediments. In-lake management practices such as dredging or biological control are necessary to
control the macrophytes.
7-4
-------
VIII. RECREATION / SOCIO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION
A. Recreation Impacts
1. Regional Recreational Resources
Mantua and its surrounding region offers a host of recreational opportunities (Table
VIII. 1). In addition to the reservoir itself, Mantua is surrounded by a large portion of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest (see Regional Recreation Opportunities Map - Figure VIII. 1).
This area accommodates a diversity of all season recreational use. However, much of the
recreational uses are limited to single-day activities performed predominantly by local residents.
Table VIII.I - Regional Recreational Opportunities
Winter
Summer
Fall
Non-Seasonal
X-Country Skiing
Camping & Picnicking
Deer Hunting
Scenery & Wildlife Viewing
Sledding
Sailing & Jet Ski's
Waterfowl Hunting
Ice Fishing
Fishing
Grouse Hunting
Snowmobiling
Bicycling
Pheasant Hunting
Ice Skating
Canoeing & Rafting
Hiking
Bird Watching
Waterskiing
2. Local Recreation Inventory
Existing recreation development sites (see Local Recreation Opportunities Map - Figure
VIII.2) in Mantua include two small city parks with the following facilities: bowery, little league
ball diamond, restrooms and kitchen facilities. At least one of these parks is within close
proximity to the reservoir and is often used in conjunction with the reservoir as a recreational
amenity. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service owns and maintains a 49 site campground a short
distance west of Mantua. This campground is one of the five most utilized in the Logan Ranger
District.
3. Water Quality Issues Related to Recreation
Although difficult to quantify, decreased water quality and the resulting odors,
sedimentation, and algae in the reservoir have had a significant impact on recent recreational use.
Water sports have seen a significant decline in recent year. Water sport users have complained
about the density of algae growth and the potential for contracting "swimmer's itch" from
8-1
-------
Mantua Town
MAP KEY
Forest Service Land
BLM Land
State of Utah Land
Utah State Parks Land
f 1 State Wildlife Reserves
H Wilderness Areas
Manuta Reservior
Cache\Box Elder Border
N
Regional Recreation Opportunities
Mantua Reservoir Water Quality Study
10
15 Mile
-
CB
:s
Bear River Association of
October 1995
emments
-------
J ^'>1
\
Mantua
City Parte
Mantua
f'c-
Mantua
Boat Ramp
Box Elder
Picnic Grounds
Bel MIA.
Girls Home
v. T ! i
,V'"\ \
S \k v-J \ -v--
Tl
kr*1 ^
iTT
vV'
s. ,.
ฆ\^y
Fish
Hatchery
MAP KEY
U.S. Highway 89
/\ / Local Roads
/ \*
/ \ / Streams or Canals
0.5
Q5
1 Miles
N
W
E
Local Recreation Opportunities
Mantua Reservoir Water Quality Study
iationofGbv
Bear River Association of Governments
October 1995
-------
reservoir use. Exposure to leeches and other parasites is also perceived as a deterrent to reservoir
use.
The recent decline in the reservoir's fishery can also be linked, in part, to water quality
problems. Poor water quality has had a direct impact to the fishery itself (habitat, ecology,
abundance etc.). It also has effected the desirability of the fish taken from the reservoir.
Fisherman have reported an undesirable "mossy" taste to the fish caught in the reservoir.
The impact to the fishery is not limited to the reservoir itself. Water from Big Creek
which is not piped to Brigham City flows into Lower Box Elder Creek This Creek is
designated as a Class 3 (high priority) fishing water by the UDWR for Utah's State Water Plan.
These waters are important because they support the bulk of stream fishing pressure in Utah. In
recent years, this fishery has supported a catch rate of 0.65 fish/hour, which is well above the
catch rate of 0.30 fish/hour considered good for a trout fishery. Box Elder Creek is an important
fishery because it is the only cold water fishery in the vicinity of Brigham City.
4. Recreation Potential for Mantua
Several factors converge to determine the potential recreation demand for Mantua
Reservoir. What follows is a general consideration of some of these factors as they relate to the
recreational demand for activities available at Mantua Reservoir and its regional setting.
Attractiveness of the Site as Judged by Potential Users
Attractiveness is determined by the users perception of the recreational opportunities
offered by a recreational area. Many things affect this perception. In the case of Mantua
Reservoir, this would include the natural and physical characteristics of the area, the amount and
types of facilities, the management practices for the sites, the types of recreational experiences
offered at the site, carrying capacity and design load of the area and finally the status or image of
the area. These issues relate to the perceived quality of a site for recreational use. They are
subjective and complex and thus difficult to quantify. However, most reservoir users agree that
problems with the water quality in Mantua Reservoir dramatically effect this perception of the
attractiveness of the site as recreational amenity.
Awareness Levels of Recreation Opportunities
Mantua Reservoir, and its surrounding sub-region, have a fairly high level of awareness
due to its proximity to U.S. Highway 89. The Reservoir and town are highly visible by travelers
on Highway 89 from Brigham City to Logan (however, most people are not aware of the
recreational amenities offered at the reservoir itself). A high level of awareness for the Forest
Service picnic area below Mantua Reservoir also exists. This site is well marked by signage and
enjoys high usage rates.
Availability of Alternative Sites
This factor is concerned with the availability and accessability of alternative sites that
8-4
-------
offer comparable recreational opportunities. In terms of sub-regional (less than a 20 minute
drive) destination recreation sites, the primary competing site that offers comparable or better
recreational experiences (boating, watercraft, fishing etc.) is Willard Bay. Travel time for the
estimated largest population of potential Mantua Recreation users (Brigham City), is similar for
both Willard Bay and Mantua Reservoir. However, over-crowding at Willard Bay may influence
local users to seek Mantua as an alternative site.
Total Population and its Geographic Distribution
The population and geographic distribution of demand is essentially a question of access
and service area for a particular site. Given the level of current and potential recreation
opportunities offered by Mantua, the service area of the site is likely limited to the immediate
sub-region. Listed in likely order of use frequency, this would include the populations of Mantua
itself (primary users), Brigham City and surrounding, the Cache Valley and finally a small
number of users from outside the region (primarily Wasatch Front residents). The total
population and its geographic distribution is shown in the map labeled "Population Density."
Recreation Potential Summary
Given the physical constraints of the Mantua Reservoir site combined with the
demographic characteristics of the region, the users most likely to utilize any level of recreation
development would be local users. A moderate level of recreation usage would be expected from
sub-regional populations. This would include Brigham City along with other parts of Box Elder
County.
5. Potential Recreation Development Alternatives for Mantua
Goal: Provide passive recreation in a natural setting
Target Users: Mantua Residents, Sub-regional population
Program: Development of Mantua Reservoir as a sub-regional destination warm
water fishery with the appropriate facilities and management. Capitalize
on boating and watercraft opportunities at Mantua Reservoir.
Development of a trail system which provides linkages of existing
recreational amenities with each other and town shops.
Provide the linkages for existing facilities by organizing, designing and implementing a trail
plan to link existing sites. Develop a trail system to link campground and picnic facilities with
the reservoir and other recreational amenities as well as the town shops, parks and other
attractions. This could include some interpretive features around the reservoir and along other
parts of the trail. An informative brochure along with signage could be used to publicize the
trail system. The primary users of this system would likely be day hikers that are using the
facilities at Box Elder Picnic Grounds. The trail could also include a linkage to the "Bonneville
Shore Line Trail" that is tentatively proposed up Box Elder Canyon to Smithfield City in Cache
8-5
-------
County.
Improve existing boat ramp and adjacent facilities: Boat docks, parking facilities associated
picnic and restroom facilities. This may include:
~ Central gathering spaces for group and individuals
~ Direct access from main parking area to visit the reservoir
~ Parking for 12 visitors (2 handicapped stalls)
~ Overflow parking for boat trailers
~ Information dispensers
~ Picnic tables for 25 people
~ Service access
~ Drinking fountain
~ Trash receptacles
B. Economic Significance
Mantua Reservoir has a direct economic impact on the community in the form of real estate,
commercial property, food service, and other "sales" relating to the lakes location and image.
The significance of the decline in water quality in economic terms is mostly linked to reduced
outside destination recreation use of the reservoir (mostly fishing and boating). This has an
impact on existing business establishments that otherwise could benefit from increased use of the
reservoir. Although difficult to quantify, housing development and real estate markets could also
be impacted by the less desirable aesthetic qualities of the reservoir (this includes undesirable
odors). Increased costs attributed to overabundant organic matter and vegetation clogging intake
points of the hydroelectric station have also been reported.
8-6
-------
IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Advisor}' Committee
One of the first steps in developing a successful lake management plan is to invite
participation from all the people and groups that have an interest in the reservoir or those who
will be affected by a lake project. Partnerships provide a forum for solving complex problems
that involve many interests.
The people with a stake in the reservoir watershed, those who are close to problems that
may exist, are best able to help determine effective solutions. Partnerships are helpful for
encouraging clear and open communication, promoting a spirit of trust and cooperation, raising
public awareness and educating people, and identifying problems, needs and financial resources.
Giving the local community the power to effect decisions, promote sense of hope and helps
develop local leadership skills that are important for ensuring the future health of the reservoir.
The Bear River Association of Governments (BRAG) coordinated the public participation
component of the study. An initial Mantua Reservoir Water Quality Technical Advisory
organizing meeting was held on January 18, 1994. Committee members were selected according
to their interest in the reservoir, its watershed, and downstream uses. Members included people
and groups with diverse talents including those with technical, leadership, communication,
education, political and regulatory skills. The Technical Advisory Committee was organized
with the following members:
Blair Blonquist, Chairman
Karl Kler
Nate Pierce
Brigham City Corporation
NRCS
Box Elder Ck Water Users
20 North Main
1860 North 100 East
647 South 100 East
Brigham City, UT 84302
Logan, UT 84341
Brigham City, UT 84302
Bud Layton
Newell Francis
Harvey Facer
West Field Irrigation Co.
Northern Utah SCD
Facer Dairy
448 South 700 West
2895 South HWY 89
825 North Main
Brigham City, UT 84302
Perry, UT 84302
Mantua, UT 84324
Fred Selman
Allen Jensen
Ron Robidoux
Northern Utah SCD
Box Elder County Commis.
Division of Wildlife Res.
P.O. Box 73
County Court House
Mantua Fish Hatchery
Tremonton, UT 84337
Brigham City, UT 84302
Mantua, UT 84324
Frank Nishiguchi
Craig Russell
Roger C. Jones
Box Elder Water Cons. Dist.
Mantua Town Council
Bear River Assoc. of Govt's
102 East Forest Street
63 East Fish Hatchery
170 North Main
Brigham City, UT 84032
Mantua, UT 84324
Logan, UT 84321
9-1
-------
Steve Leggett
North Field Irrigation Co.
651 North 500 West
Brigham City, UT 84302
Bob Wilson
Bear River Dist. Health Dept.
P.O. Box 506
Brigham City, UT 84302
2545 North Canyon Road
Provo, UT 84604
Ray Loveless
Mountainland Assoc. of Gov
Glen Wagstaff
Perry Water Company
Dave Wham
Utah Div. of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
650 South HWY 89
Perry, UT 84302
The Mantua Technical Advisory Committee met throughout the length of the project to
receive project updates, and provide input to the study. The committee provided maps and
information outlining the watershed boundaries, geography, geology, land and recreational uses,
fish and wildlife data, water quality data, and demographic information.
B. Media Reports
Opportunities were provided to inform the general public about the study through local
newspaper articles, as well as newsletters and updates from the Bear River Association of
Governments.
9-2
-------
X. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Duplicate sampling was performed during the project study at two sites. Replicate
samples were given "dummy" names, storet numbers, and field sheets to produce a blind
duplicate sample. The term "blind duplicate" refers to a sample where the analyst is unaware of
the duplication. This effort was performed to increase the validity of the data and expose any
problem analyses or sampling techniques. The validity is increased by demonstrating the
reproducibility of the reported values.
Appendix C of this report is a memorandum from the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Water Quality, stating that none of the duplicate samples showed significant
differences in several analyses. None of the analyses showed significant differences in several
duplicate samples.
The laboratory data accompanying the above stated letter was not included in this report
due to the length, plus the fact that the letter states there were no significant problems associated
with sampling or laboratory procedure. The data is available for examination upon request.
10-1
-------
XI. RESTORATION FEASIBILITY AND ALTERNATIVES
A. Feasibility
Restoration alternatives to improve water quality and enhance beneficial uses defined for
Mantua Reservoir appear good. Factors which support that conclusion are:
1. The watershed is small and manageable. The major water supply for the
reservoir is groundwater which either enters directly into the reservoir, or
flows through a short stream segment before entering the reservoir. The
groundwater is generally good quality at the point where it surfaces.
2. Nonpoint pollution sources in this basin are not as significant as those in a
large drainage basin. The major nonpoint sources are associated with
nutrients and sediment, both can be controlled. The dike which surrounds
the reservoir prohibits many pollutants from entering the water directly,
and diverts pollutants to stream segments below the reservoir.
3. One point source of pollution is the Mantua Fish Hatchery. Significant
quantities of nutrient are discharged from the hatchery. Changes in
management will have an impact on nutrient releases.
4. The reservoir is shallow with nutrient rich sediments which have
accumulated in the lake since the dam was constructed. The principal
source of sediment is from the Box Elder Creek Diversion. Maintenance
of a sediment detention basin above the point of diversion will reduce the
lake sedimentation. Removal of sediments from the lake bottom may help
control the growth of macrophytes, but may be difficult to implement due
to the large of amounts of sediment which would need to be dredged.
B. Alternatives - Reservoir Measures
The principal problems with Mantua Reservoir are the large numbers of aquatic plants in
the water during the year, and the shallowness of the water. These factors contribute to low
dissolved oxygen, and high pH during critical times of the year for the fishery. They also impact
recreation opportunities, and contribute to odor problems. The primary contributors are high
nutrients and sediments entering the reservoir from the watershed. Any alternatives to restore
water quality must consider these problems. Both in-reservoir treatments and watershed
treatments must be considered. The in-lake techniques that offer least risk based on specific
conditions such as chemical, physical and biological characteristics of the lake are the desired
results.
11-1
-------
EPA (1988) prepared a Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual. Twelve lake
and reservoir experts provided their judgement on qualitative evaluations about short- and long-
term effectiveness, costs, and potential for negative side effects. That judgement is presented in
Table XI. 1.
TABLE XI. 1
COMPARISON OF LAKE RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR
CONTROL OF NUISANCE AQUATIC WEEDS.
Treatment
Short Term
Effect
Long Term
Effect
Cost
Chance of
Negative
Effects
Sediment Removal
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
Fair
Drawdown
Good
Fair
Excellent
Good
Sediment Covers
Excellent
Fair
Poor
Excellent
Grass Carp
Poor
Excellent
Excellent
Fair/Good
Insects
Poor
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Harvesting
Excellent
Fair
Fair
Fair/Good
Herbicides
Excellent
Poor
Fair
Poor
1. No Action
If no action is taken, the reservoir will continue to be eutrophic. Macrophytes will
continue to dominate the water column. The fishery will continue to experience occasional times
when the fish will be stressed and die due to lack of oxygen or from toxins released from algae.
2. Dredging
Dredging for the purpose of aquatic plant management is most effective in targeted areas
where increasing water depth and reducing nutrient rich sediments will limit plant growth.
Sediments in the bottom of Mantua reservoir are nutrient rich. The two nutrients of
prime interest are nitrogen and phosphorus. Both are found in lake sediments or dissolved in
surface water. The reservoir responds to nutrient rich sediments by extensive growth of
macrophytes especially watermilfoil and filamentous algae. Table XI. I shows that dredging is
excellent for both short- and long-term effectiveness in macrophyte control after the source of
sediment loading is controlled. However, it rates poor for cost. Dredging can also have a
11-2
-------
negative impact if a disposal area of adequate size to handle the high volume of sediments in not
available. Also turbidity may occur in the downstream discharge.
Dredging is the only practical way to bring about reservoir improvement which has
problems associated with shallowness. Mantua Reservoir is shallow, but has always been that
way. The area within the reservoir which would benefit most from dredging is at the mouth of
Maple Creek which is the final discharge point for Box Elder Creek Diversion.
Sediment removal to retard nutrient release can be highly effective. In Lake Trummen,
Sweden, the upper 3.3 feet of sediments were extremely rich in nutrients. That layer was
removed, increasing the lake depth from 3.6 feet to 5.76 feet. The phosphorus concentration of
the lake dropped sharply and remained low for at least nine years after the dredging (USEPA,
1988).
In Utah, Salem Lake was dredged in 1992 to accomplish the same goal needed for
Mantua Reservoir. Even though dredging deepened the lake and removed the nutrient rich
sediments, the macrophytes (though reduced in numbers) still remain a problem after five years.
3. Grass Carp
Investigate the use of grass carp in Mantua Reservoir for the biological control of
macrophytes. These plant-eating fish have been used with success in several lakes. It is known
that grass carp can have a positive long-term effect on the control of filamentous algae and
macrophytes in a water system (Table XL 1). They are rated poor for short-term remedy,
however. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources cooperated with Salem City to allow them to
introduce grass carp into Salem Lake for demonstration purposes. The grass carp were required
to meet DWR specifications for being disease free and sterile. Salem Lake has now had grass
carp for five years. Observations of the fish indicate they are growing very well. Macrophytes
are still abundant in Salem Lake, but short-term benefit results were not anticipated. It appears
from the work done in Salem Lake, that additional fish would have provided quicker results. The
number of fish introduced into Mantua would have to be carefully considered. The cost
associated with using grass carp is rated as excellent.
4. Mechanical Weed Harvesting
Mechanical harvesters are used to mow and remove aquatic plants from lakes. Harvesters
are labor intensive and cannot be used in shallow areas where obstacles are present. Mechanical
weed harvesting has an excellent short-term benefit and a fair long-term benefit. The cost of
implementing this alternative is rated fair. Weed harvesters come in a variety of sizes ranging
from one which can be adapted to a small boat to large models which utilize pontoons. Any
removal of macrophytes and filamentous algae before they die and decompose and recycle into
the sediments is considered a benefit to the reservoir.
11-3
-------
5. Chemical Treatment of Sediments and Herbicides
Chemicals such as alum have been shown to be effective in other lakes to bind the
nutrients to the sediments so that they are not released back into the water. Treatment of
sediments will not have a long-term effect on macrophyte growth if the reservoir remains
shallow. If dredging is considered an option at some point in time, then this alternative may be
given serious consideration.
Herbicides that kill targeted species of nuisance aquatic plant growth have been
successfully applied in lakes. Due to social concerns regarding the use of chemical agents in the
environment, all cost effective and efficient alternatives to herbicides should be considered first.
6. Reduction of Duck Population
Waterfowl in high densities can add measurably to the phosphorus and coliform levels in
a lake. Phosphorus in animal manure is present in both soluble and particulate forms. A
substantial fraction of manurial phosphorus can be in the soluble form. In addition, the
particulate phosphorus which is organically bound will be solubilized as organic matter
degradation occurs. One study estimated that wild ducks contributed 1.43ug of phosphorus per
square meter of lake surface for one year in Lake Chautauqua, Illinois (Paloumpis, 1960).
Another study by USEPA (1975) on Crab Orchard Lake estimated 6,250 kg or 7.9% of the total
phosphorus load to the lake came from waterfowl. Even though the quantity of phosphorus from
ducks on Mantua Reservoir has not been calculated, the number of ducks are substantial enough
to warrant concern.
The control and management of the wild duck population will be very difficult to enforce.
However, the introduction of domestic ducks to the reservoir needs to be prohibited.
7. Sediment Covers
Sediment covers form a barrier to prevent plant growth and are usually used in swimming
or boat access area. These barriers should be gas permeable and carefully secured to the lake
bottom to prevent them from breaking up and posing a problem to swimmers, wildlife and boat
propellers. Sediment covers are rated excellent for both short- and long-term controls of
macrophytes. They are rated poor, however, for cost.
8. Water Level Drawdown
Exposing sediments to prolonged freezing and drying provides an opportunity to carry
out several management procedures. Some rooted plant species are permanently damaged by
these conditions and the entire plan, including roots and perhaps seeds, is killed if exposed to
freezing for 2-4 weeks. A negative impact may be an effect on fish if oxygen depletion occurs in
the remaining water column.
11-4
-------
9. Public Education
The part education plays in lake management cannot be over emphasized. Getting a
group to work toward a common goal requires mutual understanding of the problem and how it
can be fixed. Convincing local residents and lake users to develop good habits and management
practices also depends upon a strong educational program.
Media reports, public meetings, workshops, presentations to interest groups, newsletters,
signs, etc. are all effective means of educating the public. The Utah Division of Water Quality
has implemented a program called "Adopt a Waterbody". A local civic group could adopt
Mantua Reservoir and provide a valuable service to the community.
C. Alternatives - Watershed Techniques
1. Mantua Fish Hatchery nutrient and suspended solids reduction.
The Mantua Fish Hatchery is the largest contributor of nutrient to the reservoir. Effluent
from the hatchery is required to comply with the Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(UPDES) permit, administered by the Utah Division of Water Quality. The only water quality
parameter currently regulated at the fish hatchery is suspended solids. Suspended solid
concentrations are required to be maintained below 25 mg/L. Nitrogen and phosphorus
discharges are not regulated but are recognized as contributing to the eutrophication of Mantua
Reservoir. Several alternatives should be considered to reduce nutrient levels at the hatchery.
Sedimentation basin
At the lower end of the hatchery, a sedimentation basin has been constructed. That basin
should be cleaned on an annual basis. Also, fish propagation should not occur within the settling
basin. During the cleaning process, water should be diverted around the basin.
Low phosphorus fish food
Use of floating, high efficiency low-phosphorus feeds can reduce the concentration of
phosphorus and to a lesser extent organic nitrogen discharged from the hatchery. Phosphorus
discharge reductions would be achieved primarily through the use of these more efficient low
phosphorus diets.
Constructed wetland alternative
There are several acres of land below the hatchery raceways which is owned by the
Division of Wildlife Resources. A large constructed wetland could be built to provide a
biological treatment to the effluent before it returns to Maple Creek. The wetland could also
11-5
-------
serve as a wetland nature park for outdoor education. Visitors to the fish hatchery could also
explore the wetland park to learn about the value of wetlands and the wildlife which uses them.
A similar idea was implemented below the Timpanogos sewage treatment plant in Utah County.
That wetland concept has received strong support from the Division of Wildlife Resources.
2. Rehabilitation of Sediment Basin Above Box Elder Creek Diversion.
There is an existing sediment retention basin located upstream from the Box Elder Creek
Diversion. That sediment basin needs to be re-constructed and maintained yearly.
3. Elimination of Pump Station on West Side of Reservoir.
The pump station located on the west side of the reservoir contributed 263 kg/yr of total
phosphorus to the reservoir. During the feasibility study, a reconstruction of US Highway 89
west of Mantua was in progress. That highway construction provided for some wetland
construction as part of mitigation for loss of natural wetlands. As a result, the water which was
being pumped back into the reservoir was piped to the constructed wetland for biological
treatment. Inasmuch as the wetlands are located below Mantua Reservoir, that source of
pollution has been eliminated from the reservoir.
4. Agriculture Nonpoint Source Control
The elimination of the Pump Station is the single largest measure which will eliminate
agricultural pollution. Other lesser activities to consider include the removal of animals from
shoreline. Farming practices on the east side of the reservoir should avoid the application of
manure at times of the year when the ground is frozen or on top of snow. The use of minimum
tillage practices in that area should be encouraged. Maintaining a buffer strip between the farm
land and reservoir would also be advised.
5. Local Ordinances
Local ordinances should be considered that restrict the use of septic tanks on the east side
of Mantua Reservoir. Presently there are no homes located in that area. Because of the
directional flow of groundwater, and the fact that several springs are located on the east side of
the reservoir, the town of Mantua should restrict development in that area.
6. Public Education
The part education plays in lake management cannot be over emphasized. Getting a
group to work toward a common goal requires mutual understanding of the problem and how it
can be fixed. Convincing local residents and lake users to develop good habits and management
practices also depends upon a strong educational program
11-6
-------
Media reports, public meetings, workshops, presentations to interest groups, newsletters,
signs, etc. are all effective means of educating the public. The Utah Division of Water Quality
has implemented a program called "Adopt a Waterbody". A local civic group could adopt
Mantua Reservoir and provide an effective service to the community.
D. Alternatives Recommended for Restoration
1. Introduction of Grass Carp
2. Elimination of Pumping Station
3. Implement low phosphorus / high efficiency fish food diet at Mantua Fish
Hatchery.
4. Provide annual maintenance of sediment basin at Mantua Fish Hatchery.
5. Explore the constructed wetland alternative for the Mantua Fish Hatchery.
6. Re-construct the sediment detention basin above the Box Elder Creek
Diversion and provide annual maintenance.
7. Implement the agriculture nonpoint source plan.
8. Adopt zoning ordinances to limit development on the east side of Mantua
Reservoir.
9. Provide public education
Weed harvesting, sediment barriers, and chemical treatment should be considered only
after the implementation of recommended alternatives.
E. Benefits of Implementation
Implementation of a restoration plan should result in the following benefits:
1. Reduction of in-lake nutrients
2. Improved water quality
3. Improved fishery
4. Increased use of water based recreation
5. Beneficial economic development impact
6. Public information and education awareness
7. Potential health benefits
11-7
-------
F. Post-Operation Maintenance
Mantua City and Brigham City will have the responsibility to maintain water quality of
the reservoir. Following are factors they will have to consider as they manage functions around
the reservoir:
1. Provide information and education to reservoir users
2. Periodically drawdown the lake for control of plant growth
3. Implement zoning ordinance to protect the shoreline from development
11-8
-------
XII. LITERATURE CITED
Barker, V. Not Dated. Mantua. Personal Journal.
Carlson, R.E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes. Limnol. Oceanog. 22:363-369.
Carpenter, S.R. 1983. Submerged macrophyte community structure and internal loading:
relationship to lake ecosystem productivity and succession. Lake Restoration, Protection, and
Management. Proc. 2nd Annual Conf. of North American Lake Management Society. USEPA
440/5-83-001.327 p.
Foote, R. 1960. Memories of Mantua. Self Published. 22p.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Phosphorus: A Summary of Information
Regarding Lake Water Quality.
Moore, M.L. 1987. NALMS Management Guide for Lakes and Reservoirs. North American
Lake Management Society. 42 p.
Paloumpis, A.A. and W.C. Starrett. 1960. An ecological study of benthic organisms in three
Illinois /River floodplain lakes. Am. Midland Naturalist. 64: (2):406-435.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Report on Crab Orchard Lake. National
Eutrophication Survey. Working Paper No. 310.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration
Guidance Manual, First Edition. EPA 440/5-88-002.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Utah's Lakes and Reservoirs. An Inventory
and Classification of Utah's Priority Lakes and Reservoirs.
12-1
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
MBQ;TANIG>MiA1>SESi$MENSQ^
Prepared For
Mountainland Association of Governments
Utah State University Contract Control No. 95-4108
Prepared By
Unda Allen, Assistant Curator
Intermountain Herbarium, Utah State University
Graphics By Michael Curio
Reviewed and Submitted By
Dr. Mary Barkwortti, Director and Curator
Intermountain Herbarium, Utah State University
Submitted
September 1995
-------
A floristic survey of Mantua Reservoir and the immediate surroundings, located within Box Elder County,
Utah, was carried out to:
1) compile a list of all vascular plant species present,
2) describe the botanical characteristics of the site, and
3) map the vegetational distribution.
METHODS
Several field surveys of the site were made between September 1994 and August 1995. Table 1 details survey
dates and the personnel who participated in each. An additive list (Appendix 1) was compiled that
tabulates species presence as well as relative abundance and distribution on-site. Voucher specimens were
made of all plants that were in adequate condition for a proper specimen to be made.
Field Survey Dates and Survey Personnel.
SURVEY PERSONNEL
16 September 1994
{ Linda Allen, Michael Curto. :
21 April 1995 : \
.VUntia Allen, Michael Curto \-
; 5 May1995 .
. }.-iinda,Allen, Michael,Curto, Molly, Hysell
22 June 1995
' V.Linda {Alien, Michael Curto
14 July 1995
j Linda Allen, Michael Curto : ; .
23 July 1995 .
. Jeff-Godfrey " . "
28 July 1995 ; v;
j. Linda-Allen, Michael Curto
25 August 1995 r"
-' Jeff Godfrey
Botanical nomenclature conforms to Welsh et al. (1993) with synonyms provided where necessary to cross-
reference Albee et al. (1988), Cronquist et al. (1977,1984,1989,1994), and Shaw (1994). Common names are
taken from Albee et al. (1988) and Shaw (1994). The native versus introduced status of each species, and life
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment
history designations as annual, biennial, or perennial, all conform to Albee et al. (1988). Vegetation zone
classification has been drawn from several sources. No single authority adequately describes the situation at
Mantua Reservoir, which includes both an artificially created wetland and remnants of indigenous
terrestrial plant communities. Native terrestrial upland categories have been derived from MacMahon
(1988) and Welsh et al. (1993); roadside and agricultural designations are used in the traditional delineation
of anthropogenic land use. Wetland classification has been modified from MacMahon (1988) and is cross-
referenced with Cowardin et al. (1979).
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Mantua Reservoir is located in Mantua Valley near the eastern border of Box Elder County in northern Utah.
It sits within a 'back valley' (Murphy 1989) that occurs in the Wellsville Mountains on the eastern portion
of the Wasatch Range (Figure 1). The region is classified as belonging to the middle section of the Rocky
Mountain physiographic province (Murphy 1989). The valley ranges in elevation between 5100 and 5400 feet;
nearby peaks of the Wellsville Mountains exceed 9000 feet. Mantua Reservoir is an artificially created body
of water produced through the construction of an impoundment to contain the inflow and to control the outflow
of water.
ECOLOGY
A total of 151 vascular plant species were observed within the survey area; none has any legal protective
status. Of this number, 62 are considered to be introduced species, whereas 89 are native to the region; Figure 2
depicts a categorization by origin and life form. The zonal vegetation type of the area is described as
Sagebrush Steppe, which occurs in the northern portion of Utah at elevations of 4500 to 5500 feet on foothills
or upper portions of valleys with an annual precipitation totaling 9 to 12 inches (West 1989). The dominant
plant species of this vegetation type are Big Sagebrush {Artemisia tridemata), Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Elymus
spicatus), and Sandberg Bluegrass (Poa secunda).
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment
Mantua Reservoir and Vicinity Box Elder County Utah
FIGURE*
MANTUA
RESiERVOIR
fttle Knoll
kantua22
MANTUA
RESERVOIR
^^hatchery^
ipnngs
ON Scate 124000
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment If"?
Origin and Life Form of Vascular Plant Species at Mantua Reservoir
Native Perennials
Introduced Annual!
Introduced Perennials
Cosmopolitan Perennials
Native Annuals
The natural vegetational associations of the Mantua Valley and adjacent foothills have been significantly
modified by the anthropogenic influences of agriculture and the creation of the reservoir. Broad vegetational
categories are provided to summarize the current condition and Figure 3 delineates these vegetational zones
within the survey area. Remnants of Sagebrush Steppe plant associations do persist, although in varying
degrees of perturbation. The vegetational zones occurring within the survey area that depart from the zonal
vegetational condition include a remnant Mountain Brush association and various wetland conditions.
TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
Sagebrush Steppe. Little Knoll on the eastern side of Mantua Reservoir supports a well developed intact
remnant of Sagebrush Steppe on the north-facing aspect, the integrity of which becomes increasingly
degraded on the western and southern aspects. The north-facing slope supports a densely vegetated plant
cover with high phytodiversity of native species. In addition to the woody shrub Big Sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata), several subshrubs and herbaceous perennials are visually dominant including Foothill Sagebrush
(Artemisia ludoviciana), Mule's Ears (Wyethia amplexicaulis), Arrowleaf Balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), Little
Sunflower (Helianthella uniflora), Mountain Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), Whorled Buckwheat
(Eriogonum heracleoides), Silky Lupine (Lupinus sericeus), Wasatch Beardtongue (Penstemon cyananthus), Yarrow
-------
1995 Mantua Botanical Assessment
General Vegetation Types of Mantua Reservoir and Vicinity
FIGURE 3
C Agricultural
C Shoreline Wetland
Roadside Ruderal
Sagebrush Steppe
ON Scale 1:12000
J) Mt. Brush/Maple
Grassland
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment
(Achillea millefolium), and Wyoming Paintbrush (Castilleja Imariifolia). A variety of native perennial grasses,
including Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Elymus spicatus), Sandberg Bluegrass (Poa secunda), Onion Grass (Melica
bulbosa), Great Basin Wild Rye (Elymus cinereus), June Grass (Koelena macrantlia), and Slender Wheatgrass
(Elymus trachycaulus), also cover the slope. Native annuals, such as Blue Eyed Mary (Collinsia parviflora),
Collomia (Collomia linearis), and Little Polecat (Microsteris gracilis), are also present in this vegetational
association.
Grassland. The western and southern exposure slopes of Little Knoll harbor a species composition at the dry
extreme of the Sagebrush Steppe category, one in which grasses and forbs such as Bluebunch Wheatgrass
(Elymus spicatus), Sandberg Bluegrass (Poa secunda), Utah Milkvetch (Astragalus utahensis), Tapertip Onion
(Allium acuminatum), Browse Milkvetch (Astragalus cibarius), and Sego Lily (Calochortus bruneaunis) predominate.
Now, however, the integrity of the native grassland composition has been severely degraded and these sites
are inhabited largely by non-native, introduced species. The dominant plant in frequency, density, and
biomass on these slopes is Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum). Other introduced species include Rattlesnake Brome
(Bromus briziformis), Meadow Chess (Bromus japonicus), Storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), Gromwell (Lithospermum
arvense), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Bulbous Bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), and Goat Grass (Aegilops cylindrica).
Mountain Brush/Maple. A swale on the north-facing slope of Little Knoll supports a remnant Mountain Brush
plant association consisting of an overstory dominated by Big Tooth Maple (Acer grandidentatum), Chokecherry
(Prunus virgimana), and Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Understory species consist of Snowberry
(Symphoricarpos oreophilus), Creeping Barberry (Berberis repens), Miner's Lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), Spotted
Stickseed (Hackelia patens), Coral Bells (Heuchera sp.), Western Stoneseed (Lithospermum ruderale), and Wood's
Rose (Rosa woodsii). One component of a typical Mountain Brush association, Mountain Mahogany (Cercocarpus
spp.) is absent from this assemblage of plants, thus the emphasis on the presence of Maples and the use of the
distinct appellation Mountain Brush/Maple.
Roadside. The dike of the reservoir supports an access road vegetated with upland non-native ruderal species,
typical of conditions created by anthropogenic disturbance. These include Jointed Goatgrass (Aegilops
cylindrica), Alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides), Field Mustard (Brassica campestris), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis),
Falseflax (Camelina microcarpa), Shepherd's Purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), Bur Buttercup (Ceratocephalus
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment WM
testiculatus), Musk Mustard (Chonspora tenella), Orchard Grass (Dactylis glomerata), Flixweed Tansy Mustard
(Descurainia sophia), Barnyard Grass (Echinochloa crus-gallii), Intermediate Wheatgrass (Elymus hispidus),
Quackgrass (Elymus repens), Storksbill (Erodium cicutarium), Foxtail Barley (Hordeum jubasum), Rabbit Barley
(Hordeum murinum), Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria), Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Pineapple Weed (Matricaria
matricarioides), Cheese Mallow (Malva neglecta), Witchgrass (Pamcum capillare), Prostrate Knotweed (Polygonum
arenastrum), Jim Hill Mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), Sowthistle (Sonchus asper), Common Dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), Field Pennycress (Thlaspi arvense), Puncture Vine (Tribulus terrestris), Moth Mullein
(Verbascum blattaria), Woolly Mullein (Verbascum thapsus), Prostrate Vervain (Verbena bract eat a), and Cocklebur
(Xanthium strumarium).
Agricultural. Agricultural lands surround the reservoir and are the likely source of agricultural waifs found
scattered around the reservoir. These include Wild Oats (Avenafatua), Cultivated Barley (Hordeum vulgare),
and Alfalfa (Medicago sativa).
WETLAND VEGETATION
Wetland vegetation classification has been expanded from MacMahon (1988) and is categorized using a
regional vernacular further cross-referenced with the standardized system of Coward in et al. (1979). Two
general wetland categories occur within the survey area: Perennial Creeks (Streambeds) and Reservoir
Shoreline (Impounded Palustrine Wetland). The category Shoreline encompasses a small subset labelled
Reservoir Aquatics to distinguish species that occur wholly or partly submerged in the reservoir.
Perennial Creeks (Streambeds). Two relatively narrow, perennial creeks, Maple Creek and Dam Creek, flow
into Mantua Reservoir. Water continued to flow in these creeks during autumn 1994 even after a spring and
summer season with extremely low precipitation, providing a perennial source of water to support vegetation.
The creeks sustain a Riparian Woodland overstory (Scrub-shrub Woodlands) of limited extent and marginal
qualitative development with an herbaceous understory along the creekbanks (Persistent Emergent
Wetland). The overstory consists of shrubby willows (Salix exigua, S. lucida) and the understory comprises
Toadrush (Juncus bufonius). Duckweed (Lemna valdiviana), Yellow Monkeyflower (Mimulus gut tat us), Watercress
(Nasturtium officinale), Fowl Bluegrass (Poa palustris), Western Jacob's Ladder (Polemonium coeruleum), Water
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment KJ
Crowfoot (Ranunculus aquatilis), American Brooklime (Veronica americana), and Water Speedwell (Veronica
anagallis-aquatica).
Reservoir Shoreline (Impounded Palustrine Wetland). The reservoir shoreline supports plant species with high
water requirements typical of wetland habitats. Although native and non-native plant species exist
completely intermingled within this narrow zone, species do segregate into bands according to differences in
physiological tolerances of water level fluctuations. Two major vegetational zones of the shoreline based
upon duration of inundation period are listed below. Owing to spatio-temporal fluctuations among months
and years, these finer designations are not distinguished in Figure 3; however, each is referenced in
Appendix 1 when there are notable species distributional distinctions.
Mudflats (Intermittently Exposed-Flooded Wetland) The southeastern shoreline of the reservoir currently has the
largest exposure of mudflat that sustains the shortest period of inundation. The predominant vegetation
consists of herbaceous non-native ruderals, but some species of native origin also occur; many are annuals.
Typical species of the mudflat include Common Water Plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), Red Goosefoot
(
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment ^ijp
Field Mint (Mentha arvensis), Reed Canary Grass (Phalarisamndinacea), Timothy (Phleum pratense), Common
Reed (Phragmites australis), Bulrush (Scirpus acutus), Common Hedgenettle (Stachys palustris), and Common
Cattail (Typtia latifolia).
Reservoir Aquatics. Six species of flowering plants occur wholly or partly submerged around the reservoir
shoreline. Listed in descending order of relative abundance on-site, the six species are: Common
Homwort (Ceratophyllum demersum L.), Naked Water-milfoil {Myriophyllum exalbescens Fernald), Water
Smartweed (Polygonum amphibium L.), Fennel-leaf Pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus L.), Curly-leaf
Pondweed (Potamogeton crispus L.), and Grass Alisma (Alisma gramineum Lejune). Curly-leaf Pondweed is
considered to be an alien species, while the remaining five are native or cosmopolitan. Typically, these
species are rooted in the mud substrate approximately one-quarter meter to two meters under water at
scattered locations around the reservoir perimeter.
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment _KQ
. LITERATURE CfTED
Albee, B.J., L.M. Shultz, and S. Goodrich. 1988. Alias of the Vascular Plants of Utah. Salt Lake City: The Utah
Museum of Natural History.
Cowardin, LJvL, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States. Washington, D.C.: US.D.I., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cronquist, A., AH. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and PiC Holmgren (eds.). 1977. Intermountain
Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren (eds.). 1984. Intermountain
Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 4: Asteridae (except Asteraceae). Bronx: New
York Botanical Garden.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and PJC. Holmgren (eds.). 1989. Intermountain
Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, USA. Vol. 3(B): Fabales, by Rupert C. Bameby. Bronx: New
York Botanical Garden.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren (eds.). 1994. Intermountain
Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5: Asterales. Bronx: New York Botanical Garden.
MacMahon, J.A. 1988. Vegetation of Utah. Pp. xiii-xvi, In Albee, B.J., L.M. Shultz, and S. Goodrich.
Alia? of the Vascular Plants of Utah. Salt Lake City: The Utah Museum of Natural History.
Murphy, D.R. 1989. Physiographic provinces. Pp. 4-5, In K.L. Johnson (ed.). Rangeland Resources of Utah.
Logan: Utah State University Cooperative Extension.
Shaw, R.J. 1994. Vascular Plants of Northern Utah. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins (eds.). 1993. A Utah Flora. Provo: Brigham Young
University
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment jm
Vascular Plant Species List for Mantua Reservoir and .Vicinity "
Scientific Names conform to Welsh ct al (1993); pertinent eynooyms are shown m smaller rtaiica
Origin & Form- NP = Native Perennial; NA = Native Annual; CP = Cosmopolitan Perennial, IP = Introduced Perennial; 1A = Introduced Annual
Relative Abundance* throughout appropriate habitats - Abundant (abt) > Common (com) > Occasional (osl);
Local (ioc) indicates observation at a single site only; however, numbers of individuals at that site may be numerous.
Accession Number refers to the unique number assigned to each specimen upon processing mซn the Intermountam Herbarium (UTC).
--- Scientific Name;
Common Name
Family. -
Ot^jln.
Habitat* "
Relative''.'
-Voucher Date ?
irrc -
"'
On-ซjte ;.
Abundance
Accession
- ฆ' ' /"'
-.Form
-Orveite
Collection
.Number'
Acer grandidentatum Nuti.
Bigtooth Maple
ACERACEAE
NP
Mt Brush
Ioc
22 June 1995
Curto 1369
216467
Achtuea moiercdhim l.
MBfbS Yarrow
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
NP
Steppe
oom
22 June 1995
Curio 1342
216513
Aegllops cylindrlca Host
Jointed
Goatgrass
GRAMNEAE
POACEAE
IA
Roadside
Grassland
osl
22 June 1995
Curto 7397
216477
Agropyron CfiStatom (L) Gaertner
Crested
GRAMNEAE
IP
Roadside
osl
22 June 1995
216463
Wheatgrass
POACEAE
Curto 1361
Agrostls exarata Trinius
Spike
QRAMINEAE
NP
Marsh
osl
not vouchered
Bentgrass
POACEAE
Agrostis stolonltera t.
Creeping
QRAMINEAE
IP
Marsh
com
26 July 1995
216596
Benlgrass
POACEAE
Curto 7601
Allsma gramlneum Lejeune
Grass Alisma
ALISMACEAE
NP
Aquatic
osl
23 July 1995
Godfrey 4
216755
ABsma plantagoaquatica l
Common Water
ALISMACEAE
NP
Mudtlat
com
14 July 1995
216572
Plantain
;
Curto 1487
Allium acuminatum Hook
Tapertip Onion
UUACEAE
NP
Steppe
Grassland
com
22 June 1995
Curto 1338
216517
: Alyssum atyssofdes Avena fatua l.
Wild Oats
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
IA
Roadside
osl
16 Sep 1994
Curto 11BB
213009
Balsamorhiza sagittate (Push) Nutt.
Arrowteal
COMPOSITAE
NP
; Steppe
Ioc
S May 1995
216211
Babamroot
ASTERACEAE
ctปro tits
Berberis repens Lindi.
Creeping
BERBERDACEAE
NP
i Mt Brush
Ioc
22 June 1995
216443
Barberry
i
}
i
Curto 7384
Bfdens cernua l.
Nodding
Beggareticks
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
NA
i Marsh
I
osl
16 Sep 1994
Ctuto 1)68
213028
Bldens Irondosa i
Devil's
COMPOSITAE
NA
Marsh
com
not vouchered
Beggarsticks
ASTERACEAE
Srassfca campsstrfs L
Field Mustard
CRUCFERAE
BRASS ICACEAE
(A
Roadside
osl
22 June 1995
Curto 1330
216522
BromuS brlzltormls Fisch. & Meyer
Rattlesnake
Brome
GRAMNEAE
POACEAE
IA
Steppe
Grassland
osl
22 June 1995
Curto 1334
216520
Bromus Inetmls leyseee
Smooth Brome
GRAMNEAE
POACEAE
IP
Roadside
oal
15 Sซp 1994
Curto 1169
213008
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment IE
: Scientific Name
Common Name
Family
Ori^n
&
Form
Habitats
Orwrtte
Relative
Abundance
On-cite ฆ
Voucher Date
.4
Collection
Bromus japonlcus Murray
Bromus tectorum L
CalOChortUS bruneaunts Nelson & Macbr.
CameSna mfcroca/pa dc.
Capsella bursa-pastorts l.
Caret nebrascensts Dewey
Castlllela Unarllfolla Benth.
Ceratocephahjs testiculars (Crantr} Roth
Ceratophyllum demersum l.
Chenopodium wbrum t.
Chorlspora tennella (Pallas) DC.
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum i.
Chrysothamnus visckDttorus (Hook.) Nutt.
Ctcuta maculata l
Clrslum arvense (L.) Scop.
Claytonla perfoData Com
Coltinsla pan/Mora Lmdi.
CoOomla linearis Mutt.
Convolvulus arvenr.is L
Crepis acuminata nul
Crypsls alopecuroldes (Mitterp) Schrad
Cynocfiossum officinale l
Dactylls glomerata L.
Descuralnla sophta (L) Webb
| DlpsaCUS sylvestris Hudson
Echlnochloa crus-gaffl (L) p. Beauv.
ElymuS ClnereUS Scnbn. & Merr.
Leyrrus anereus
Elymus hlspldus (Opiz) Mekierfe
Ajmpyronhltetdum. A trrnmedtm,
EfYti&blermact^T&fiQpYwmfrtannactum
Elymus repens (L) Gould
Agropymn repens, Bytrltfa repens
Meadow Chess
Cheatgraas
Sego Lily
Fateeftax
Shepherd's
Purse
Nebraska
Sedge
Wyoming
Paintbrush
Bur Buttercup
Common
Horrwort
fled Ooosefoot
Musk Mustard
| Ox-eye Daisy
i
| Mountain
; Rabbitbrush
jwater Hamlook
t
Canada Thistle
Mmer'9 Lettuce
Blue Eyed Mary
Cotlomia
Bindweed
T;
Hawks beard
Pricklegrass
Houndstongue
Orchard Grass
FBxweed Tansy
Mustard
Teasel
Barnyard Grass
Great Basm
Wild Rye
tntermofiale
Wheatgrass
Quackgrass
Couchgrass
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
GWAMNEAE
POACEAE
CfiUCFERAE
8RASSICACEAE
CRUC FERAE
BRASS (CACEAE
CYPERACEAE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
RANUNCULAC6AE
CERATOPHYLLACEAE
OCNOPODiACEAE
CRUCFERAE
BRASS ICACEAE
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
AP1ACฃAฃ
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
PORTULACACGAE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
POLEMON1ACEAE
OONVOLVUIACEAE
~OMPOS1TAE
ASTERACAE
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
BORAOINACEAE
GRAMNEAE
POACEAE
BRASS ICACEAE
DIPSACACEAE
QRAMNEAE
POACEAE
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
GRAMWEAE
POACEAE
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
IA
1A
NP
IA
IA
NP
NP
IA
CP
NA
IA
IP
NP
NP
IP
NA
NA
NA
IP
NP
IA
IB
IP
IA
IB
NA
NP
JP
IP
Steppe
Grassland
All
Steppe
Grassland
Roadside
Roadside
Marsh
Steppe
Roadside
Grassland
Aquatic
Mudftat
Roadside
Roadside
Steppe
Marsh
Marsh
Mt Brush
Roadside
Steppe
Steppe
Roadside
Steppe
Mudflat
Roadside
Roadside
Marsh
Roadside :
Steppe
Roadside
Roadside
com
abt
osl
com
osl
osl
com
abt
osl
osl
loc
obI
osl
abt
loc
com
loc
com
08l
abt
loo
com
osl
corn
osl
loc
com
081
22 June 1995
Curto 7352
22 Jina1995
Curto 1371
22 June 1995
Curto 1388
22 June 1996
Curto 1377
5 May 1995
Curto 1236
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1186
22 June 1995
Curto 1386
6 May 1995
Cwto <228
23 July 1995
Godfrey 3
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1173
5 May 1995
Curto 1233
22 June 1095
Curto 1360
22 June 1995
Curto 1386
28 July 1995
Curto 1607
28 July 1995
Curto 1606
5Mayl995
Curto 1220
5 May 1995
Curto 1225
22 June 1995
Curto 1348
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1184
n June 1995
Curto 1379
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1179
22 June 1995
CtittO 1970
22 June 1995
Curto 1406
22 June 1995
Curto 1376
28 July 1995
Curto 1594
15 Sep 1994
Curto 1177
22 June 1995
Curto 1356
t8Sop 1994
Curtoliso
22 June 1995
Curto 1395
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment 1^1
Scientific Name
Common Name
Family
Origin
&
Form
Habitats
On-site ..
Relative
.Abundance
On-site
Voucher Date
&
Collection
UT.C
Accession
Number
ElymuS spicatus (Pursh) Gould
A&cpfmn spica&jm, Pseuekroegnena
Elymus trachycaukis (link) Shtnnem
AorDoyrontncfycuutum
Equtsetum arvense l.
EqulsBtum taevlgatum Sohieioh.
EragrOStiS Cllianensls (Aflioni) Jane hen
Briogonum heracteoldes Nutt
Erodium clcutarium (L.) L'Her.
Festuca anmcffnacea schreber
Galium aparlne L.
Gayophyiumdlffusum r.&o.
Gnaphallum palustre Nutt.
GrlntieUa sepjarrosa (Pureh) Dunai
Hackelia patens (Nutt.) Johnston
HeHanthella untttora (Nutt.) T.&G.
Hellanthus annuus L
Heuchera sp.
Holosteum umbe.'latum l
Hordeum fubatum l
Hordeum murinum i
Hordeum vuigare l
Hydrophyllum capttatum Douglas
Isatls ttnaorla L
Iva xanthlfolia Nun
Juncus arcticus WiBd.
Juncus bufonlus L.
Koelerla macrantha
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment JED
ScientificName
Common Name
Family
Origin
&
form.
Habitats
On-site '
Relative
Abundance
- On-site
Voucher Date
&
Collection.
OTC
Accession
Number'
Uthospermum arvense l.
| Uthospermum tuderale Lehm.
Lupinus sericeus Pureh
Madia gracilis (Smith) Keck
Malva neglecta WaSr.
Matricaria matrlcarioldes (Less.) Porter
Medlcago lupullna l.
Mecffcago satfra l.
Mellca bulbosa Porter & Coulter
Metitotus officinalis (L.) Paiias
Mentha arvensis L.
[ MlCfOStBliS gracilis (Hook.) Greene
Mimulus guttatus DC.
I
MyriophyUum exalbescens Famafci
Urtoctrdwn stttvm
Nasturtium officinale R. Br
Panicum capHlare ฆ_
| Penstemon cyananthus Hook.
Phaiaris arundinacea L
Phleum pratense l
Phragmttes austrails (Cav.) steudel
Plantago major L
Poa bulbosa L
Poa palustrls l
Poapratensis L
Poa secunda Presi
Polemonhjm coeruleum l
Polygonum arenastrum Jord
GromweU
Western
Stoneweed
Silky Lupine
Grassy
Tarwoed
Cheese Mallow
Pineapple
Weed
Black Medic
Alfalfa
Onion Grass
Yeflow
Sweett lover
Field Mint
little Polecat
Yellow
j Monkeyflower
| Naked
f Water-milfoil
Watercress
Wltchgrass
Wasatch
Penstemon
Reed Canary
Grass
Timothy
Common Reed
Broadleaf
Plantain
Bulbous
Bhiegrass
Fowl Bluegrassj
Kentucky
Blue grass
Sandberg
Bluegrass
Western
Jacob's Ladder
Prostrate
Knotweed
BORAQtNACEAE
B0RA31NACEAE
LEQUMINOSAE
FABACEAE
COMPOSITAE
AETERACEAE
MALVACEAE
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
LEQUMINOSAE
FABACEAE
LEQUMINOSAE
FABACEAE
GRAMNEAE
POACEAE
LEGUMINOSAE
FABACEAE
LABIATAE
LAMIACEAE
POLE MOM IACEAE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
HALOGORACEAE
CHUC FERAE
BRASS 1CACEAE
GRAMfNEAE
POACEAE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
QRAMWEAE
POACEAE
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
QRAMINEAE j
POACEAE |
PLANTAQINACEAE j
GRAMMEAE [
POACEAE |
QRAMINEAE i
POACEAE
ORAMWEAE
POACEAE
QRAMINEAE
POACEAE
POLEMOMIACEAE
POLYQONACEAE
IA
NP
NP
NA
IA
1A
IA
IP
NP
IA
NP
NA
NP
CP
IP
?IA
NP
IP
IP
NP
IP
IP
NP
IP
NP
NP
Grassland
Steppe
Steppe
Steppe
Roadside
floadside
Marsh
floadside
Steppe
Marah
Marsh
floadside
Creek
Aquatic
Creek
Roadside
Steppe |
!
t
Marsh
Marsh
Marsh
Creek
Mudflat
Roadside
Grassland 1
Creek
Grassland
Steppe
Grassland
Creek
1
NA | Roadside
loc
osl
com
osl
com
osl
osl
osl
loc
osl
osl
oel
loc
com
loc
osl
osl
lOD
osl
loc
loc
5 May 1995
Curto 1226
5 May 1995
Curto 1227
32 June 1995
Curto 1381
22 June 1995
Curto 1345
22 June 1995
Curto 1333
28 July 1995
Curto 1595
22 June 1995
Curto 1409
22 June 1995
Curto 1393
22. June 1995
Curto 1300
22 June 1995
Curto 13 55
22Juna 1S96
Curto 138S
14 July 1995
Curto 1496
28 July 1995
Curto 1603
5 May 1995
Curto 1237
22 June 1995
Curto 1411
25 Aug 1995
Godfrey 7
216215
216440
216216 !
216508
216447
216521
216591
216470
216496
216476
216491
216499
216576
216597 ฎ
I
216213 *
216471
216768
not vouchered
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1176
22 June 1995
Curto 1344
22 June 1995
Curto 1362
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1191
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1192
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1170
5 May 1995
Curto 1230
22 June 1995
Curto 1413
22 June 1995
Curto 1357
5 May 1995
Curto 1222
22 June 1995
Curto 1351
22 June 1995
Curto 1412
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1181
213021
216512
216488
213006
213006
213026
216249
216484
216489
216208
216495
216453
213015
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment _KQ
Scientific Name
Common Name
Family .
Origin
Habitats
Relative
Voucher Date
UTC
& .
Form
On-site
Abundance
On-eite
&
Collection
Accession
Number
Polygonum amphlblum L
Water
POLYGONACEAE
NP
Aquatic
com
22 June 1995
216450 !
Smartweed
Curio 1374
Polygonum dougtasll Qreene
Douglas
POLYQONACEAE
NA
Sleppe
osl
22 June 1995
216514
Knotweed
Curto 1341
Polygonum lapathlfollum L.
Pale
POLYGONACEAE
IA
Mudflat
abt
16 Sep 1994
213024
Smartweed
Curto 1172
POpUtuS angust'rfOtta James
Narrowteaf
SALtCACEAE
NP
Shoreline
o o
C0
22 June 1995
216465 I
Cottonwood
Curto 1365
Populus tremontll Watson
Fremont
SALICACEAE
NP
Shoreline
22 June 1995
216464
Cottorrwood
Curto 1364
Potamogeton crispus l.
Curty Leaf
PQTAMJGETOmCWf
IP
Aquatic
o&l
23 July 1995
216753 I
Pondweed
1
Godfrey 5
!
Potamogeton pectinatus L
FenneHeaf
POTAMDGETOWCEAS
CP
Aquatic
osl
25 Aug 1995
216756 |
Pondweed
Godfrey 8
i Pntnus vlrginlana L
Chokeoherry
R03ACEAE
NP
Ml Brush
loo
ฆ
22 June 1896
Curto 1363
216466
Ranunculus aquatllls L.
Water Crowfoot
RANUNCULAC6AE
NP
Creek
com
16 Sep 1994
213016
osl
CurtolleO
Ranunculus inamoenus Greene
Pleasant
flAMJNCtAACEAE t NP
Mudflat
22 June 1995
216476 i
Buttercup
1
Curto 1394
Ranunculus macounli Britton
Macoun
RANUNCULACEAE
NP
Mudflat
ost
22 June 1995
216498
Buttercup
Curto 1397
216455 i
|
I Rosa woodsii Undtey
Wood's Rose
ROSACEAE
NP
Mt 6fU9h
odl
22 June 1995
Curto 1366
i Rumex crispus l
{
Curty Dock
POLYGONACEAE
IP
Mudflat
osl
22 June 1995
Curto 7358
216461
| Rumex satictfolhis Wainm.
Willowloaf
Dock
POLYGONACEAE
NP
Mudflat
osl
22 June 1995
Curto 1400
216452
' Safix exlgua Nutt.
!
Narrowfeaf
SALICACEAE
NP
Creek
abt
22 June 1995
216441
Willow
Shoreline
Curto 1401
| Sallx luckta Muhl
Whiplash
WhIow
SALICACEAE
NP
Creek
com
16 Sep 1994
216571
E Sab (aa&nrta
8horeline
Curto 1174
l
!
:
22 June 1995
216479
ง
Curto 1373
216480
f
X
Curto 1407
| Salix lutea Nutt.
Yellow Willow
SALICACEAE
NP
Shoreline
.
com
22 June 1995
Curto 1402
216481
j Sctrpus acutus Murt.
Bulrush
CVPERACEAE
NP
Marsh
;
com
14 July 1995
Curto 1495
216576
| Seneclo Integerrlmus Nun.
COMPOS1TAE
NP
Steppe
osl
22 June 1995
216448
9ytM>fcniiuJ
Butterweed
ASTERACEAE
Curto 1380
| Setarta vlrkSs (U) p. beaiw
Green
GRAMNEAE
IA
j Mareh
oel
16 Sep 1094
213004
Bristlegrass
POACEAE
;
'
Curto 116?
Sisymbrium attissimum l.
Jim Hill
Mustard
CRUC FERAE
BRASS (CACEAE
IA
Roadside
com
22 June 1995
Curto 1408
216469
Sofanum dulcamara l.
European
SOLANACCAE
IP
MudHat
osl
22 June 1995
216600
Bittersweet
j
Curto 1330
Sonchus asper (L.) hui
Sowthi3tle
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
IA
Roadside
com
28 July 1995
Curto 1605
216589
Stachys paft/sMs L.
Common
LAB1ATAE
NP
| March
[
com
14 July 1995
216674
Hedgenettto
AMIACEAH
Curto 1494
Symphorlcarpos oreophllus A. Gray
Snowberry
| CAPRI FOLIACEAE
;
NP
, Mt Brush
!
osl
22 June 1995
Curto 1337
216518
Taraxacum Officinale Weber ex Wiggere
Common
COMPOSITAE
1 'IP
Roadside
abt
S May 1995
216223
Dandelion
ASTERACEAE
Curto 1234
Thlaspi arvense L.
Field
CRUCFERAE
! IA
Roadside
com
5 May 1995
216212
Pennycress
BRASS ICACEAE
!
1
Curto 1218
216466
Tragopogon dubius soop.
YeBow Salsify
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
! IP
Marsh
Roadside
osl
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1185
213011
i
Grassland
22 June 1995
216482
1
Curto 1332
-------
1995
Mantua Botanical Assessment _EB
Scientific'Name.
Common Name
- Family
Origin
Form
Habitats
On-site
Relative
Abundance
On-site
Voucher Date
&
Collection
UTC
Acceaaton
Number
Trlbulus terrestris I.
Trifolium repens L
Typha latifolia L.
tltmus pumtta i.
Verbascum blattaria l
Verbascum thapsus l.
Verbena bracteata lag. & Rodr.
Veronica americana Sohwein. ex Berth.
Veronica anagallis-aquatlca L.
Veronica W/oba L
Wyethla amplexlcaulis (Nutt) Nutt
! Xanthk/m strumarlum l.
Puncture Vine
While Clover
Common Cattail
Sfeerian Elm
Moth Mullein
Woolly Mullein
Prostrate
Vervain
Amarioan
i Brooklime !
Water
Speedwell
Speedwell
Mule's Ears
Cocklebur
ZYGOPHYllACEAE
tEOUMINOSAE
FABACEAE
TYPHACEAE
ULMACEAE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
SCftOPHUURWCEAE
VERBENACEAE
SCflOPHULABIACEAE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
SCHOPHUlARIACEAEi
COMPOSITAE
AS7ERACEAE
COMPOSITAE
ASTERACEAE
IA
IP
NP
22 June 1995
Curto 1404
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1182
22 June 1995
Curto 1414
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1166
5 May 1995
Curto 1224
22 June 1995
Curto 1335
16 Sep 1994
Curto 1171
216502
213014
216483
213030
216206
216519
213025
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
PHYTOPLANKTON FLORAS FROM MANTUA RESERVOIR
BOX ELDER COUNTY, UTAH; SUMMER, 1994
by
Samuel R. Rushforth
Professor of Botany
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
January 20, 1995
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Abstract.-The algal plankton flora of Mantua Reservoir, Box Elder County, Utah
was studied through the summer months of 1994. Total plankton samples were
collected at the reservoir and examined in the laboratory. A total of 38 taxa was
identified in the plankton flora. The two common categories, centric diatoms and
pennate diatoms, each contained additional taxa adding to the total of phytoplankton
species encountered during this study.
The most important plankters as determined by calculating Important Species
Indices (ISIs) from all Mantua Reservoir total plankton samples collected during 1994 in
descending order were Stephanodiscus niagarae, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae,
Anabaena circinalis, Microcystis aeruginosa, Sphaerocystis schroeteri and
Pandorina morum. These taxa all had ISIs greater than 1.0. These six taxa
comprised 94.4% of the phytoplankton flora (as determined by summing importance
values) of Mantua Reservoir for the 1994 collecting season. This measurement is an
assessment of algal standing crop and distribution as reflected in our samples.
Algae with ISIs greater than or equal to 0.25 but less than 1.0 included (in
descending order of importance) Ceratium hirundinella, Gomphosphaeria lacustris,
Staurastrum species, Eudorina elegans, Oocystis species, and Volvox areus.
The flora and assemblage structure of Mantua Reservoir indicates that this is a
eutrophic system with substantial water quality problems. In particular, it is important to
note that the 1994 flora had a high component of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae),
most indicative of inferior water quality. Fully 58% of the Mantua flora was comprised
of cyanobacteria. Only 9% of the flora was comprised of Chlorophyta, 32% of diatoms,
and a bit more than 1% of dinoflagellates.
-------
2
INTRODUCTION
The present studies of Mantua Reservoir were initiated to determine biological
water quality during the summer of 1994 as indicated by phytoplankton communities.
These studies were initiated as a part of a larger study on the water quality of the
Mantua system. These studies are also important to establish a baseline of data for
comparison with future conditions in the reservoir.
The 1994 study reports data on total plankton samples collected through the
summer of 1994. These 1994 studies involved direct microscopical observation and
enumeration of the dominant algae present in the water column of Mantua Reservoir.
We determined the number of each alga present in each sample, as well as the volume
of the total number of each individual organism in cubic micrometers, the relative
density of the organisms according to volume, and the rank of each taxon according to
biomass in each sample. We also performed several descriptive statistical assess-
ments of each sample.
FIELD METHODS
Algal populations from three localities on Mantua Reservoir were sampled during
the summer of 1994 by Ray Loveless of the Mountainlands Association of
Governments. These sites were 490044 (near Mantua Dam), 490045 (south midlake),
490046 (north midlake).
-------
3
A total of 9 total plankton samples was collected, one from each of these
localities on each of three dates. Collection dates were; July 18, 1994; August 23,
1994; and September 19, 1994.
Total plankton samples were collected from the euphotic zone of the reservoir by
lowering a large diameter tube through the water column to a depth of 3 times Secchi
extinction depth. This tube was then capped and removed from the water column,
retaining the water within the tube. The water in this tube was then drained into two-
liter containers and returned to the laboratory for analysis of the algal flora.
LABORATORY METHODS
Total Plankton Samples-Total plankton samples were returned fresh (without
preservatives) to the laboratory as soon as possible after collection. In general, these
samples were processed within a day or two of collection. These samples were
returned to the laboratory in 2-liter containers.
At the time of processing, a 1 liter subsample was removed after mixing. This
subsample was suction filtered through a 1.2 micrometer pore size Millipore filter. The
algal cells retained on the filter were re-suspended in 10 ml of distilled water in a 50 ml
beaker. Aliquots were removed from this subsample and placed into Palmer counting
chambers for enumeration (Palmer and Maloney 1954). The Palmer cell is
advantageous since the algae can be studied at 400 magnifications rather than 160X
which facilitates species identification, especially of smaller taxa. This is often an
important factor, especially for diatom work. One or two transects from each Palmer
-------
4
cell subsample was studied to determine the mean number of cells per transect. The
number of algal cells present per liter of reservoir water was then calculated by
multiplying the mean number of cells per transect by appropriate multiplication factors.
Microscopy on total plankton samples was performed using a Zeiss RA research
microscope equipped with bright field and Nomarski interference phase contrast optics.
Identifications were performed using standard taxonomic works and personal reference
slide collections.
A separate determination of biomass was made by determining the cubic
micrometers of each taxon in each sample by multiplying the volume in cubic
micrometers for that taxon by its number per liter. These figures are reported in the
tables in the appendix of this report.
Numerical AnalysesA percent relative density for each taxon was calculated
using the volume for that taxon in the sample. The rank of each taxon in that sample
was also calculated based upon the volume per liter.
The number of species in each sample was tallied and recorded. A Shannon-
Wiener diversity index for each stand was calculated using the volume per liter for each
taxon (Margalef 1958, Patten 1962, Shannon and Weaver 1963). The formula for this
index is
S
H' = -I P, LOG Pf
i=1
where; Pi = the proportion of the total number of individuals in the im species; and
S = the number of species.
-------
5
A species richness factor was calculated after Atlas and Bartha (1981). This
factor is similar to many other diversity factors and may be considered to be a second
measure of diversity by many biologists. The formula for calculation of this evenness
factor is
d = S-1
log N
where; S = the number of species; and N = the number of individuals. The number of
species per sample was also tallied and recorded. A species evenness factor was
calculated (Atlas and Bartha 1981) according to the formula
e = Shannon-Weaver index
log S
where S is the number of species in the sample.
Similarity indices between all samples were calculated from relative density data
according to the formula
min (Xj, Yj)
SI = 100
max (X,. Y,)
where Xj and Yj are observations for the i* species in the two stands being compared.
This is equivalent to the formula presented by Ruzicka (1958).
Cluster analyses were subsequently performed on these similarity indices using
unweighted pair-group techniques (UPGMA) (Sneath and Sokal 1973). This method
computes the average similarity of each site to each other site using arithmetic
averages. It is widely used and has been found to introduce less distortion than other
methods (Kaeslerand Cairns 1972).
-------
6
Important species indices (ISIs) were calculated for each taxon by multiplying
the percent frequency of the taxon by its average relative density (Kaczmarska and
Rushforth 1983). This index is often preferable to comparing average density alone
since it reflects both the distribution and abundance of a taxon in the ecosystem.
Important species indices were calculated for all taxa from all sites throughout the
reservoir through the year to provide a list of the most important diatoms in the Mantua
system. ISIs were also calculated for taxa present in net plankton samples considered
separately and for taxa in total plankton samples.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Floristics-The plankton flora of Mantua Reservoir for the summer of 1994
contained a total of 38 taxa (Table 1). This represents those species that were
identifiable in our analyses. Additional diatom taxa were present in the flora but were
recorded in our analyses as the categories pennate diatoms or centric diatoms since
specific determination was not possible.
The plankton flora was comprised of 1 diatom (Bacillariophyta) taxon (as well as
several counted in the categories pennate and centric diatoms), 25 green algae
(Chlorophyta), 11 cyanobacteria or blue-green algae (Cyanophyta), and 1
dinoflagellate (Pyrrnophyta).
-------
7
Table 1. List of the algal taxa present in the plankton of Mantua Reservoir, Box Elder
County, Utah during the summer of 1994.
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Stephanodiscus niagarae Ehr.
Centric diatoms
Pennate diatoms
CHLOROPHYTA
Ankistrodesmus falcatus (Corda) Ralfs
Ankyra judayi (G.M. Sm.) Fott.
Chlamydomonas species
Coelastrum species
Cosmarium species
Eudorina elegans Ehr.
Gloeobotrys species
Oocystis species
Oocystis species 2
Pandorina morum (Mull.) Bory
Pediastrum duplex Meyen
Pediastrum duplex var. gracilimum West & West
Pteromonas species
Phacotus species
Quadrigula lacustris (Chod.) G.M.Sm.
Scenedesmus bijuga (Turp.) Lagerheim
Scenedesmus quadricauda var. quadrispina (Chod.) G.M. Smith
Sorastrum species
Sphaerocystis schroeteri Chod.
Staurastrum gracile Ralfs
Staurastrum species
Tetraedron minimum (A Braun) Hansgirg
Unknown spherical Chlorophyta
Volvox aureus Ehrenberg
Wislouchiella planktonica
-------
8
CYANOPYHTA
Anabaena circinalis Rabenhorst
Anabaena spiroides var. crassa Lemm.
Anabaena species
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (Lemm.) Ralfs
Chroococcus species
Gomphospheria aponina Kutz.
Gomphospheria lacustris Chodat
Gomphospheria species
Microcystis aeruginosa Kutz. em. Elenk.
Microcystis incerta Lemm.
Oscillatoria species
PYRRHOPHYTA
Ceratium hirundinella (O.Mull.) Dujard.
Important Species.--The most important plankters as determined by calculating
Important Species Indices (ISIs) from all Mantua Reservoir total plankton samples
collected during 1994 in descending order were Stephanodiscus niagarae (19.9),
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (17.7), Anabaena circinalis (12.3), Microcystis
aeruginosa (6.7), Sphaerocystis schroeteri (2.7) and Pandorina morum (1.6).
These six taxa comprised 94.4% of the phytoplankton flora (as determined by summing
importance values) of Mantua Reservoir for the 1994 collecting season. This measure-
ment is an assessment of algal standing crop and distribution as reflected in our
samples.
-------
9
Algae with ISIs greater than or equal to 0.25 but less than 1.0 included (in
descending order of importance) Ceratium hirundinella, Gomphosphaeria lacustris,
Staurastrum species, Eudorina elegans, Oocystis species, and Volvox areus.
-------
10
Table 2. List of species in Mantua Reservoir during 1994 from total plankton samples
with an importance value index greater than 0.1. Important species indices (ISIs) were
calculated by multiplying the percent frequency of the taxon by its average relative
density (Kaczmarska and Rushforth 1983).
TAXON IMPORTANCE VALUE
Stephanodiscus niagarae 19.9
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae 17.66
Anabaena circinalis 12.26
Microcystis aeruginosa 6.72
Sphaerocystis schroeteri 2.71
Pandorina morum 1.57
Ceratium hirundinella 0.79
Volvox areus 0.42
Gomphospheria lacustris 0.39
Eudorina elegans 0.35
Staurastrum species 0.35
Oocystis species 0.31
Coelastrum species 0.17
Pennate diatoms 0.16
Pediastrum duplex 0.16
Anabaena spiroides var. crassa 0.10
-------
11
Percent Sum Impt. Species Indices (ISIs)
Total Plankton, Mantua Res., 1994
Microcys. aeruginosa 10%
Anabaena circinalis \*$%
Stephano. niagarae 30%
All others 10%
Sphaero. schroeteri 4%
Aphanizo. flos-aquae 27%
Figure 1. Percent of sum Important Species Indices of the major species
in Mantua Reservoir from total plankton samples collected during 1994.
Important species indices (ISIs) were calculated by multiplying the
percent frequency of the taxon by its average relative density
(Kaczmarska and Rushforth 1983).
Sum ISIs by Algal Group in Mantua Res.,
Total Plankton, 1994
Diatoms 32%
Pyrrhophyta 1%
Chlorophyta 9%
Cyanophyta 58%
Figure 2. Percent of sum Important Species Index comprised by the maj-
or groups of phytoplankton from total plankton samples collected from
Mantua Reservoir during 1994. Important species indices (ISIs) were cal-
culated by multiplying the percent frequency of the taxon by its average r-
elative density (Kaczmarska and Rushforth 1983).
-------
12
DISCUSSION OF WATER QUALITY IN MANTUA RESERVOIR
Biological water quality of Mantua Reservoir during 1994 indicates eutrophic
conditions. The most important plankter as determined by multiplying frequency of
occurrence times average density (ie, by calculating an Important Species Index) was
Stephanodiscus niagarae (IS119.9). This organism often occurs in mesotrophic or
eutrophic waters. It is a common plankter in many waters of the Intermountain West.
For example, this taxon is the dominant organism in Deer Creek Reservoir.
The cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) Aphanizomenon flos-aquae (ISI 17.66),
Anabaena circinalis (IS112.26) and Microcystis aeruginosa (ISI 6.72) were the nest
three most important organisms in Mantua during the summer of 1994.
A. flos-aquae is indicative of eutrophic or hyper-eutrophic waters (Munawar and
Munawar 1976; Lin 1972; Sloey 1970; Beeton 1965). This organism is one of the most
common noxious phytoplankters found in western waters. Anabaena circinalis
reaches maximum development in and indicates eutrophic waters (Jarnefelt 1952;
Teiling 1955; Lin 1972). This organism is less common in the Intermountain West than
several other indicator taxa found in this study. It was especially common during July
in Mantua. Microcystis aeruginosa can occur under mesotrophic conditions (Mabille
1956), but reaches its maximum development under eutrophic conditions (Redeke
1935; Nygaard 1949, Mabille 1956; Round and Brook 1959; Lin 1972; Cairns, et al.
1972).
The green alga Sphaerocystis schroeteri was the fifth most important alga
overall during 1994 in Mantua. This taxon reaches its maximum development in
mesotrophic (Reynolds 1984) or eutrophic waters (Meyer and Brook 1968).
-------
13
The green alga Pandorina morum was sixth most important in the summer flora
of Mantua. This organism occurs in a variety of waters in the Intermountain west and
probably cannot be counted as a reliable indicator.
The dinoflageliate Ceratium hirundinella was relatively important in the
reservoir. This organism generally occurs in eutrophic or hyper-eutrophic waters
although it may occur in relatively clean to hypereutrophic waters. C. hirundinella is
often a dominant phytoplankter in Utah Lake.
In summary, the algal taxa present and phytoplankton assemblage structure of
Mantua Reservoir indicates that this is a eutrophic system with substantial water quality
problems. In particular, the 1994 flora had a high component of cyanobacteria (blue-
green algae), most of which were indicative of inferior water quality. Fully 58% of the
Mantua flora was comprised of cyanobacteria. Only 9% of the flora was comprised of
Chlorophyta, 32% of diatoms, and a bit more than 1% of dinoflagellates.
-------
14
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1975. Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater. Fourteenth Edition, Washington, D.C.
Atlas, R.M. and R. Bartha. 1981. Microbial Ecology: Fundamentals and Applications.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass. pages 241-246.
Beeton, A.M. 1965. Eutrophication of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes. Limn. Oceanog.
10(2):240-254.
Cairns, J. et al. 1972. Pollution related structural and functional changes in aquatic
communities with emphasis on freshwater algal and protozoa. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sciences, Philadelphia 124(5):79-127.
Jarnefelt, H. 1952. Plankton als Indikator den Trophiegruppen der Seen. Suomalisen
Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, Sarja A, IV, Biologia 18:4-28.
Kaesler, R.L. and J. Cairns. 1972. Cluster analysis of data from limnological surveys
of the upper Potomac River. Amer. Midland Nat. 88:56-67.
Kaczmarska, I. and S.R. Rushforth. 1983. The diatom flora of Blue Lake Warm Spring,
Utah. Bibliotheca Diatomologica 2(1 ):1-123.
Lin, C.K. 1972. Phytoplankton succession in a eutrophic lake with special reference to
blue-green algal blooms. Hydrobiol. 39:321-334.
Mabille, J. 1956. Observations sur une fleur d'eau a Cyanophycees. Revue
Algologique, Nouvelle Serie, t. 2, fasc. 1-2:72-79.
Margalef, R. 1958. 'Trophic" typology versus biotic typology as exemplified in the
regional limnology of northern Spain. Verh Intern. Ver. Limnol. 13:339-349.
Meyer, R.L. and A. J. Brook. 1968. Freshwater algae from the Itasca State Park. Nova
Hedwigia 16:251-266.
Munawar, M. and I.F. Munawar. 1976. A lakewide study of phytoplankton biomass and
its species composition in Lake Eerie, April-December 1970. J. Fisheries Res.
Board Canada 33(3):581-600.
Nygaard, G. 1949. Hydrobiological studies on some Danish Ponds and lakes. Part II:
The Quotient Hypothesis and Some new or little known Phytoplankton
Organisms. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Biologiske Skrifter,
Bind VII, Nr. 1, 293 pp. I Kommission Hos Ejner Munksgaard, Kflbenhaven.
Palmer, C.M. and T.E. Maloney. 1954. A new counting slide for nannoplankton. Am.
Soc. Limnol. Ocean. Spec. Pub. 21, 6 pp.
-------
15
Patten. B.C. 1962. Species diversity in net phytoplankton of Raritan Bay. J. Mar. Re-
search 20:57-75.
Redeke, H.V. 1935. Synopsis van het Nederlandsche Zoet-en Brakwaterplankton.
Hydrobiolog, Club, Amsterdam, Pub. 2, 104pp.
Reynolds, C.S. 1984. The ecology of freshwater phytoplankton. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge; London: New York. 384 pp.
Round, F. and A.J. Brook. 1959. The phytoplankton of some Irish Loughs and an
assessment of their trophic status. Proc. Royal Irish Academy 60B(4):167-191.
Ruzicka, M. 1958. Anwendung mathematisch-statistischer Methoden in der
Geobotanik (synthetische Bearbeitung von Aufnahmen). Biologia Bratisl.
13:647-66.
Shannon C.E. and W. Weaver. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Sloey, W.E. 1970. The limnology of hypereutrophic Lake Butte des Morts, Wisconsin.
Proc. 13th Conf., Great Lakes Res., 1970:951-968.
Sneath, P.H. and R.R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman and Co.,
San Francisco, 573 pages.
Stockner, J. and W.W. Benson. 1967. The succession of diatom assemblages in the
recent sediments of Lake Washington. Limnol. Oceanogr. 12:513-532.
Teiling, E. 1955. Some mesotrophic phytoplankton indicators. Proc. Inter. Assoc.
Limn. 12:212-215.
-------
APPENDIX 1: TOTAL PLANKTON SAMPLES FROM MANTUA RESERVOIR
COLLECTED DURING THE SUMMER OF 1994
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490044
Above Dam) July 18, 1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample, number
of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also provided.
Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (/z3 / liter)
ANABAENA CIRCINALIS
28.13
2
139000
9730000000
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
0.31
5
5560
105640000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.02
7
5560
8340000
PANDORINA MORUM
0.64
4
5560
222400000
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX
1.93
3
5560
667200000
PENNATE DIATOMS
0.03
6
11120
8896000
STEPHANODISCUS N1AGARAE
68.93
1
745040
23841280000
WISLOUCHIELLA PLANKTONICA
0.01
8
5560
2224000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] =
0.74
Species Evenness =
0.36
Species Richness [d] =
0.29
Number of species = 8
s
H' = -Z P, LOG P,
i=l
Where* P, = porportion of lhe total number of individuals in the i111 species;
S = the number of species
Species Evenness = H' / log S
Where. S = the number of species; H' = Shannon-Weaver Index
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where* S = the number of species, N = lhe number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (she 490044
Above Dam) August 23,1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample, number
of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also provided.
Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (m3 / liter)
ANABAENA SPIROIDES
VAR. CRASSA
1.77
8
11120
778400000
ANKISTRODESMUS FALCATUS
0.01
18
5560
4364600
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
43.12
1
1000800
19015200000
CENTRIC DIATOMS
0.01
19
5560
3892000
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
2.14
6
5560
945200000
CHLAMYDOMONAS SPECIES
0.01
20
5560
2224000
CHROOCOCCUS SPECIES
0.03
16
11120
11120000
COELASTRUM SPECIES
1.26
10
5560
556000000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA APONINA
0.20
14
22240
88960000
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
2.77
4
55600
1223200000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.74
11
216840
325260000
PANDORINA MORUM
2.02
7
22240
889600000
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX
1.51
9
5560
667200000
PENNATE DIATOMS
0.22
13
122320
97856000
PTEROMONAS SPECIES
0.50
12
22240
222400000
SCENEDESMUS BIJUGA
0.03
15
5560
11120000
SPHAEROCYSTIS SCHROETERI
8.32
3
33360
3669600000
STAURASTRUM SPECIES
2.65
5
38920
1167600000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
32.68
2
450360
14411520000
UNKNOWN SPHERICAL
CHLOROPHYTA
0.03
17
11120
11120000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H1] = 1.58
Species Evenness = 0.53
Species Richness [d] = 0.78
Number of species
= 20
s
H^-L P, LOG P,
i=l
Where: P, = porportion of the total number of individuals in the iฎ species,
S = the number of species
Species Evenness = H" / log S
Where: S = the number of species; H' ฆ= Shannon-Weaver Index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = the number of species; N =f~'. number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490044
Above Dam) September 19, 1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample,
number ot cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also
provided. Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (p? / liter)
ANABAENA CIRCINALIS
3.97
7
5560
389200000
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
19.39
2
100080
1901520000
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
9.64
5
5560
945200000
CHROOCOCCUS SPECIES
0.06
13
5560
5560000
COELASTRUM SPECIES
5.67
6
5560
556000000
EUDORINA ELEGANS
28.34
1
5560
2780000000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
2.27
8
22240
222400000
MICROCYSTIS INCERTA
17.00
3
166800
1668000000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.43
10
27800
41700000
OSCILLATORIA SPECIES
0.06
12
5560
6116000
PENNATE DIATOMS
2.13
9
261320
209056000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
10.88
4
33360
1067520000
UNKNOWN SPHERICAL
CHLOROPHYTA
0.17
11
16680
16680000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] =
1.95
Species Evenness =
0.76
Species Richness [d] =
0.52
Number of species = 13
s
H" = -z P; LOG p,
1=1
Where: P,
S
Species Evenness = H' / log S
Where: S
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S
= porporlion of ihe total number of individuals in the i species;
= the number of species.
= the number of species; H' = Shannon-Weaver Index.
= the number of species. N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490044
Above Dam) September 19> 1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample,
number of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also
provided. Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (/x3 / liter)
ANABAENA CIRCINALIS
3.97
7
5560
389200000
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
19.39
2
100080
1901520000
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
9.64
5
5560
945200000
CHROOCOCCUS SPECIES
0.06
13
5560
5560000
COELASTRUM SPECIES
5.67
6
5560
556000000
EUDORINA ELEGANS
28.34
1
5560
2780000000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
2.27
8
22240
222400000
MICROCYSTIS INCERTA
17.00
3
166800
1668000000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.43
10
27800
41700000
OSCILLATORIA SPECIES
0.06
12
5560
6116000
PENNATE DIATOMS
2.13
9
261320
209056000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
10.88
4
33360
1067520000
UNKNOWN SPHERICAL
CHLOROPHYTA
0.17
11
16680
16680000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] =
1.95
Species Evenness =
0.76
Species Richness [d] =
0.52
Number of species = 13
s
H' = -Z P, LOG P,
i=l
Where: Pj = porportion of the tola) number of individuals in the Ith species;
S = the number of species.
Species Evenness = H' / log S
Where: S = ihe number of species; H' = Shannon-Weaver Index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = Ihe number of species: N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490045
South Mkilake) July 18, 1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample,
number of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also
provided. Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon
Relative
Density
Rank
Number Per
Liter
Cell Volume
(p? / liter)
ANABAENA CIRCINALIS
80.10
1
583800
40866000000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.02
6
5560
8340000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES 2
0.03
5
11120
16680000
PANDORINA MORUM
0.87
4
11120
444800000
SPHAEROCYSTIS SCHROETERI
1.20
3
5560
611600000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
17.78
2
283560
9073920000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] = 0.58
Species Evenness = 0.33
Species Richness [d] = 0.20
Number of species = 6
s
H' = -2 P; LOG P,
i=l
Where P; = porportion of the total number of individuals in the i1*1 species;
S = the number of species.
Species Evenness = H' / log S
Where: S = the number of species; H' = Shannon-Weaver Index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = the number of species; N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490045 South
Midiake) August 23,2994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample, number of
cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also provided. Descriptive
statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (jj3 / liter)
ANABAENA SPIROIDES
VAR. CRASSA
1.41
8
16680
1167600000
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
47.10
1
2051640
38981160000
CENTRIC DIATOMS
0.00
19
5560
3892000
CERATIUM HIRUNDINELLA
1.14
10
5560
945200000
CHROOCOCCUS SPECIES
0.01
17
11120
11120000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
0.13
15
11120
111200000
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
1.77
5
66720
1467840000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.39
13
216840
325260000
PANDORINA MORUM
0.27
14
5560
222400000
PEDLASTRUM DUPLEX
0.81
11
5560
667200000
PEDIASTRUM DUPLEX
VA GRACLLIMUM
1.61
6
11120
1334400000
PENNATE DIATOMS
0.01
18
11120
8896000
PTEROMONAS SPECIES
0.40
12
33360
333600000
QUADRIGULA LACUSTRIS
1.34
9
5560
1112000000
SCENEDESMUS BIJUGA
0.03
16
11120
22240000
SPHAEROCYSTIS SCHROETERI
11.09
4
83400
9174000000
STAURASTRUM SPECIES
1.61
7
44480
1334400000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
17.41
2
450360
14411520000
VOLVOX AUREUS
13.44
3
11120
11120000000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H*] = 1.66
Species Evenness = 0.56
Species Richness [d] = 0.72
Number of species
= 19
s
H" = -S P.LOGP,
i=l
Where: P, = porportion of the total number of individuals in the i* species;
S = the number of species.
Species Evenness = H" / log S
Where: S = the number of species; H' = Shannon-Weaver Index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = the number of species; N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490045
South Nfidlake) September I9ป 1994 1992. The percent relative density, species rank in the
sample, number of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are
also provided. Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (ji3 / liter)
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
1.18
7
5560
105640000
CERATTUM HIRUNDINELLA
10.59
2
5560
945200000
COSMARIUM SPECIES
0.87
8
5560
77840000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
3.11
4
27800
278000000
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
72.60
1
294680
6482960000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.56
10
33360
50040000
PANDORINA MORUM
2.49
5
5560
222400000
PHACOTUS SPECIES
0.62
9
5560
55600000
STAURASTRUM SPECIES
1.87
6
5560
166800000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
5.98
3
16680
533760000
UNKNOWN SPHERICAL
CHLOROPHYTA
0.12
11
11120
11120000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] =
1.08
Species Evenness =
0.45
Species Richness [d] =
0.44
Number of species = 11
s
H' = -2 P; LOG P,
1=1
Where* P, = porportion of the tola! number of individuals in the species;
S = the number of species.
Species Evenness = H1 / Jog S
Where: S = ihe number of species; H' = Shannon-Weaver index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = the number of species; N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490046
North Midiake) July 18, 1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the sample,
number of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also
provided. Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (/i3 / liter)
ANABAENA CIRCINALIS
81.42
1
1251000
87570000000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
0.05
7
5560
55600000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.01
8
5560
8340000
PANDORINA MORUM
0.21
6
5560
222400000
SPHAEROCYSTIS SCHROETERI
0.57
4
5560
611600000
STAURASTRUM GRACILE
0.34
5
5560
361400000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
12.24
2
411440
13166080000
VOLVOX AREUS
5.17
3
5560
^KVT.-rrixiirii
WISLOUCHIELLA PLANKTONICA
0.00
9
11120
4448000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] =
0.64
Species Evenness =
0.29
Species Richness [d] =
0.31
Number of species = 9
s
H' = -L P; LOG P;
i=I
Where: Fj = porpomon of ihc total number of individuals in the i1*1 species;
S = the number of SDecies
Species Evenness = H1 / log S
Where: S = the number of species, H' = Shannon-Weaver Index
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where. S = the number of species. N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490046 North
Midlake) August 23, 1994 . The percent relative density, species rank in the sample, number of
cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are also provided. Descriptive
statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon
Relative
Density
Rank
Number Per
Liter
Cell Volume
(a*3 / liter)
ANKISTRODESMUS FALCATUS
0.01
12
11120
8729200
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
77.31
1
4536960
86202240000
GLOEOBOTRYS SPECIES
0.20
9
5560
222400000
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
7.13
3
361400
7950800000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.22
8
161240
241860000
PANDORINA MORUM
1.00
6
27800
1112000000
PTEROMONAS SPECIES
0.30
7
33360
333600000
SCENEDESMUS BUUGA
0.02
11
11120
22240000
SORASTRUM SPECIES
0.10
10
5560
116760000
SPHAEROCYSTIS SCHROETERI
7.68
2
77840
8562400000
STAURASTRUM SPECIES
1.05
5
38920
1167600000
VOLVOX AUREUS
4.99
4
5560
5560000000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H*]
Species Evenness
Species Richness [d]
Number of species
= 12
= 0.88
= 0.35
= 0.43
H^-E P,LOG P,
i=l
Where: P, = porpoftion of the total number of individuals in the i" species;
S = the number of species.
Species Evenness = H" / log S
Where: S = the number of species, H' = Shannon-Weaver Index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = the number of species; N = the number of individuals.
-------
Algal taxa present in a total plankton sample collected from Mantua Reservoir (site 490046
North Midlake) September 19,1994. The percent relative density, species rank in the
sample, number of cells per liter, and the volume of cells (in cubic micrometers/liter) are
also provided. Descriptive statistics are also provided at the end of the list of taxa.
Taxon Relative Rank Number Per Cell Volume
Density Liter (ji3 / liter)
ANABAENA CIRCINALIS
4.90
6
5560
389200000
ANKYRA JUDAYI
0.03
14
5560
2780000
APHANIZOMENON FLOS-AQUAE
15.96
3
66720
1267680000
GOMPHOSPHAERIA LACUSTRIS
0.70
8
5560
55600000
MICROCYSTIS AERUGINOSA
24.63
2
88960
1957120000
OOCYSTIS SPECIES
0.94
7
50040
75060000
OSCILLATORIA SPECIES
0.23
10
16680
18348000
PANDORINA MORUM
8.40
4
16680
667200000
PENNATE DIATOMS
0.11
12
11120
8896000
SCENEDESMUS QUADRIGULA
VAR. QUADRISPINA
0.08
13
5560
6672000
SPHAEROCYSTIS SCHROETERI
7.70
5
5560
611600000
STEPHANODISCUS NIAGARAE
35.83
1
88960
2846720000
TETRAEDRON MINIMUM
0.27
9
5560
21128000
UNKNOWN SPHERICAL
CHLOROPHYTA
0.21
11
16680
16680000
Shannon-Weaver Index [H'] =
1.70
Species Evenness =
0.64
Species Richness [d] =
0.57
Number of species = 14
s
H" = -Z P, LOG P,
i= 1
Where: Pj = porportion of the tola) number of individuals in the i1*1 species;
S = the number of species
Species Evenness = H' / log S
Where. S = the number of species, H1 = Shannon-Weaver Index.
Species Richness = S-l / log N
Where: S = the number of species; N = the number of individuals.
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Michael 0. Letvitt
Oowenxr
Dunne R. Nielion, FVD.
Bxocdivt Dodder
Don A. Ottler, P.E.
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Denton
Monitoring Section, Manager
FROM: Arne Hultquist
Environmental Scientist
DATE: December 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Quality Assurance Analyses of the Mantua Clean Lakes Project
Enclosed is the report of Mantua clean lake project quality assurance analysis of blind duplicate
sampling done during the entire sampling phase. The analysis uses regression equations
published in "Estimation of Generic Quality Control Limits for Use in a Water Pollution
Laboratory", published by EPA in May, 1991. The reported value al the site is used as the
mean value and a 95% confidence interval is generated around the value with a Z value of 2.0.
Although this methodology is statistically weak because the mean recovery is generated by one
data point, the error is on the conservative side, i.e. duplicate values will be reported outside
the 95 % confidence interval at a greater frequency than if several measurements were used to
generate the mean recovery value. This methodology is currently being used by several states
within Region VHI and is acceptable to Region VH3 of the EPA (Rick Edmonds, Region VHT).
Duplicate sampling was performed during the project at two sites of the Mantua clean lakes
water monitoring project. The replicate samples were given "dummy" names, stcret numbers,
and field sheets to produce a blind duplicate sample. The term "blind duplicate" refers to a
sample where the analyst is unaware of the duplication. This effort was performed to increase
the validity of the data and expose any problem analyses or sampling techniques. The validity
is increased by demonstrating the reproducabiiity of the reported values.
May I draw your attention to items in the report. None of the duplicate samples showed
significant differences in several analyses. None of the analyses showed significant differences
in several duplicate samples. Some reported values outside the confidence interval might be
attributed to samples exceeding the holding time for that analysis. For all analyses most of the
reported values might be attributed to the normal error associated with sampling and laboratory
-------
Memorandum
December 14, 1995
Page 2
analyses. For some values near the detection limit the confidence interval may not be
appropriate because the data used to generate the regression equations does not include data in
that range. For all analyses that had a duplicate taken with reported values that had sufficient
significant figures to determine if values fell within the confidence interval, the percentage of
values that did not fall within the interval was 2.3%. All agencies involved in this project
should be congratulated on the results of analyses, including the Division of Laboratory Services.
Copies of this data are included at the end of this report.
If you have any questions or comments on this report, please feel free to contact me.
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
490044 CHM
MANTUA RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM - SURFACE
STORET Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-DO
F-Sp Cond
Transp Depth
T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot Alk.
T. Hardns.
No Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
u mhos/cm
m m
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490044
21
42694
815
12 8
8 2
69
339
1
0
11
35
16
1 8
6 5
8
<10 0
154
153 2
490044
21
51094
815
157
8.5
8
336
4
0
3
34
16
1 6
64
7 5
<10 0
153
150 7
490044
21
52394
830
16 4
8 5
7 5
332
36
0
4
34
16
1.7
66
7
<10 0
154
150 7
490044
21
60694
830
20 1
8 8
8.4
313
1 9
0
3
31
16
1 4
6.7
7
<100
144
143 2
490044
21
62294
830
20 2
8.8
8.8
297
2.4
0
3
27
17
1.2
6 8
7
<10 0
133
137 3
490044
21
70594
900
21 5
9
8.7
276
1.5
0
10
20
17
1.1
6 9
9
15 206
121
119.8
490044
21
71894
1500
22
8.8
4.2
266
1.4
0
6
18
17
1 4
7.1
9
<10 0
113
114.9
490044
21
81094
1615
22 8
9
57
276
0.7
0
11
19
17
1 8
8 3
10 5
<10 0
121
117.4
490044
21
82394
815
21 1
8 7
6
300
1 2
0
7
19
18
1 5
7.5
9 5
<100
125
121.5
490044
21
91994
1200
17 3
9
5 8
316
1 1
0
8
22
18
1 5
8
9 5
<10 0
131
129
490044
21
102694
1130
10 1
7 6
72
364
1 1
0
6
29
19
1 6
7 8
9 5
<100
141
150 5
490044
21
110994
1330
54
8 3
8 7
377
1 1
0
6
33
21
1 7
8 1
10 5
<100
157
168.7
490044
21
12495
1130
07
7 8
6 9
440
1
0
5
33
19
1 5
8 5
11
<100
157
160.5
490044
21
42695
845
9 6
8
7 9
369
1.2
0
4
36
17
1 5
6 3
8
<100
148
159.8
490044
21
51195
700
12 8
8 1
8 6
372
2.5
0
3
37
18
1 6
6 5
7
<100
149
166.4
15.23333
8.473333
7 286667
331 5333
1.713333
0
6
28 46667
17.46667
1 526667
7 2
8 666667
15.206
140.0667
142 9067
22 8
9
8 8
440
4
11
37
21
1 8
8 5
11
15.206
157
168 7
07
7 6
5 7
266
07
3
18
16
1 1
6 4
7
<100
113
114 9
6 594225
0 454292
1.373144
47 23629
0 991295
2 878492
6 998639
1 407463
0198086
0.760639
1.409998
1 34418
14 89711
18.41829
-------
490044.NUT
MANTUA RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM - SURFACE
ORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N.
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
i
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490044
4
21
42694
815
0.62
<0.05
0.029
<0.02
0.015
490044
4
21
51094
815
0.41
<0.05
0.031
0.02
0.018
490044
4
21
52394
830
0.45
<0.05
0.031
0.025
0.017
490044
4
21
60694
830
0.41
<0.05
0.015
<0.02
0.01
490044
4
21
62294
830
0.66
<0.05
0.016
<0.02
0.01
490044
4
21
70594
900
1.38
<0.05
0.054
<0.02
0.083
490044
4
21
71894
1500
1.17
0.085
0.052
<0.02
0.024
490044
4
21
81094
1615
1.14
0.146
0.131
<0.02
0.062
490044
4
21
82394
815
0.91
<0.05
0.121
<0.02
0.081
490044
4
21
91994
1200
0.78
<0.05
0.148
0.08
0.074
490044
4
21
102694
1130
1.21
<0.05
0.084
0.14
0.04
490044
4
21
110994
1330
0.28
<0.05
0.048
0.025
0.03
490044
4
21
12495
1130
1.23
0.094
0.105
0.111
0.033
490044
4
21
42695
845
0.24
<0.05
0.039
0.02
0.033
490044
4
21
51195
700
0.6
<0.05
0.045
0.03
0.028
AVERAGE
0.766
0.06167
0.063267
0.0394
0.0372
MAXIMUM
1.38
0.146
0.148
0.111
0.083
MINIMUM
0.24
<0.05
0.015
<0.02
0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.381703
0.02717
0.043475
0.03853
0.025479
-------
MANTUA RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM - MID DEPTH
STORET Sample Date Time
NO Type MMDDYY HHMM
490044
23
42694
815
490044
23
51094
815
490044
23
52394
830
490044
23
60694
830
490044
23
62294
830
490044
23
70594
900
490044
23
71894
1500
490044
23
81094
1615
490044
23
82394
815
F-pH F-DO F-Sp Cond Transp
mg/l umhos/cm m
82
6 8
340
8 5
7 9
335
8.5
7 3
333
8 7
8 2
310
8 8
8 5
300
89
7 5
284
8 5
1 1
278
8 9
3 6
279
8.7
6
300
8.633333 6 322222 306 5556
8 9 8 5 340
8 2 1 1 278
0 229129 2 452436 24 51587
F-Temp
Deg C
12 8
156
16 2
20
19 9
21.1
20 8
22 2
21 1
18 85556
22.2
12.8
3196917
490044.CHM
Depth T.Sus.Sol D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium Chloride Sulfate Tot. Alk. T. Hardns.
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
3
3
3 1
3
3
2 6
2 5
3
2 5
2 855556
3 1
2 5
0 245515
-------
490044. NUT
MANTUA RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM - MID DEPTH
STORET Source
No
Code
Sample
Type
Date
MMDDYY
Time
HHMM
T.K.N,
mg/l
Ammonia
mg/l
T. Phos.
mg/l
D-N02+N
mg/l
490044
4
23
42694
815
0.61
<0.05
0.032
<0.02
490044
4
23
51094
815
0.66
<0.05
0.048
<0.02
490044
4
23
52394
830
0.58
<0.05
0.034
0.028
490044
4
23
60694
830
0.27
<0.05
0.019
0.063
490044
4
23
62294
830
0.56
<0.05
0.026
<0.02
490044
4
23
70594
900
0.95
<0.05
0.47
<0.02
490044
4
23
71894
1500
0.61
0.099
0.058
<0.02
490044
4
23
81094
1615
1.24
0.143
0.139
<0.02
490044
4
23
82394
815
1.03
<0.05
0.125
0.02
AVERAGE
0.723333
0.06578
0.105667
0.02567
MAXIMUM
1.24
0.143
0.47
0.063
MINIMUM
0.27
<0.05
0.019
<0.02
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.294703 0.03318 0.143284 0.01425
D-T Phos.
mg/l
0.014
0.012
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.081
0.047
0.052
0.08
0.036222
0.081
0.01
0.029592
-------
MANTUA RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM - BOTTOM
STORET Sample Date Time
No Type MMDDYY HHMM
490044
29
42694
815
490044
29
51094
815
490044
29
52394
830
490044
29
60694
830
490044
29
62294
830
490044
29
70594
900
490044
29
71894
1500
490044
29
81094
1615
490044
29
82394
815
490044
29
91994
1200
490044
29
102694
1130
490044
29
110994
1330
490044
29
12495
1130
490044
29
42695
845
490044
29
51195
700
F-pH F-D O. F-Sp.Cond Transp
mg/l umhos/cm m
8
48
330
8 1
4 5
340
8 5
6 9
330
8 1
2 6
331
8 1
2 2
314
8 9
6 2
284
8 2
1
300
8 7
2 1
289
8 6
4 9
300
9
4 8
320
74
6.2
370
8 3
87
379
74
3.2
446
7 9
7 9
370
7 7
5 9
377
I333
4.793333
338 6667
9
8 7
446
74
1
289
0 487657 2 241641 43.25451
F-Temp
Deg C
12 6
14
159
18 9
18 6
21
19 9
22 7
20 6
16 8
9 5
5 3
4 9
94
11 6
14 78
22 7
4 9
5 720789
490044 CHM
Depth T Sus Sol D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium Chloride Sulfate Tot. Alk T Hardns.
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
6 3
6 3
6 3
5 8
58
5 3
5
4 9
4 8
4 4
4.9
3
5 5
6 3
6 3
5 393333
6.3
3
0 932329
-------
490044. NUT
MANTUA RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM - BOTTOM
ORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N.
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490044
4
29
42694
815
0.62
<0.05
0.033
<0.02
0.014
490044
4
29
51094
815
0.43
<0.05
0.042
0.039
0.039
490044
4
29
52394
830
0.48
<0.05
0.029
0.066
0.018
490044
4
29
60694
830
0.43
<0.05
0.035
<0.02
0.011
490044
4
29
62294
830
0.77
<0.05
0.091
<0.02
0.012
490044
4
29
70594
900
0.74
<0.05
0.052
<0.02
0.077
490044
4
29
71894
1500
0.6
0.25
0.17
<0.02
0.119
490044
4
29
81094
1615
1.08
0.21
0.146
<0.02
0.078
490044
4
29
82394
815
1.11
<0.05
0.122
<0.02
0.085
490044
4
29
91994
1200
0.71
<0.05
0.105
0.092
0.076
490044
4
29
102694
1130
0.46
<0.05
0.087
0.054
0.039
490044
4
29
110994
1330
0.28
<0.05
0.06
<0.02
0.031
490044
4
29
12495
1130
0.34
0.153
0.045
0.071
0.038
490044
4
29
42695
845
0.1
<0.05
0.043
0.02
0.03
490044
4
29
51195
700
0.34
<0.05
0.048
0.06
0.032
AVERAGE
0.566
0.06587
0.073867
0.03747
0.0466
MAXIMUM
1.11
0.153
0.146
0.092
0.119
MINIMUM
0.1
<0.05
0.029
<0.02
0.011
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.282028 0.04859 0.044346 0.02456 0.032467
-------
490045. NUT
MANTUA RESERVOI R MIDLAKE SOUTH - SURFACE
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490045
4
21
42694
900
0.61
<0.05
0.029
<0.02
0.013
490045
4
21
51094
915
0.57
<0.05
0.022
0.024
0.014
490045
4
21
52394
915
0.42
<0.05
0.032
<0.02
0.017
490045
4
21
60694
930
0.26
<0.05
0.026
<0.02
0.01
490045
4
21
62294
930
0.44
<0.05
0.024
<0.02
0.01
490045
4
21
70594
945
0.85
<0.05
0.032
<0.02
0.026
490045
4
21
71894
1600
1.12
<0.05
0.055
<0.02
0.022
490045
4
21
81094
1715
1.38
0.177
0.115
<0.02
0.049
490045
4
21
82394
850
1.3
<0.05
0.162
<0.02
0.078
490045
4
21
91994
1300
0.76
<0.05
0.117
0.062
0.066
490045
4
21
102694
1215
0.67
<0.05
0.077
0.036
0.061
490045
4
21
110994
1415
0.27
<0.05
0.074
<0.02
0.028
490045
4
21
12495
1500
0.8
0.162
0.05
0.167
0.029
490045
4
21
42695
930
0.16
<0.05
0.038
<0.02
0.029
490045
4
21
51195
745
0.46
0.145
0.047
0.02
0.021
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MIMIMUM
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.671333 0.07227
1.38 0.177
0.16 <0.05
0.370538 0.04649
0.06
0.162
0.03393
0.167
0.022 <0.02
0.041718 0.03848
0.031533
0.078
0.01
0.021659
-------
490045.CHM
MANTUA RESERVOIR MIDLAKE SOUTH - SURFACE
STORET
Sample
Date Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-D O.
F-Sp Cond
Transp. Depth
T Sus Sol
D-Calaum D-Magnes D-Potassu
D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot Alk.
T. Hardns.
No
Type
MMDDYY HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
u mhos/cm
m m
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490045
21
42694
900
12 9
82
7
334
08
0
12
35
16
1.7
65
7.5
<10 0
153
153 2
490045
21
51094
915
15.8
86
82
332
42
0
3
34
16
1 6
6.2
6 5
<10 0
151
150 7
490045
21
52394
915
167
8.6
79
330
32
0
3
34
16
1.5
65
7
<10 0
153
150.7
490045
21
60694
930
20 2
8.7
7 3
315
1 5
0
3
32
16
1 4
6.5
7
14.794
144
145 7
490045
21
62294
930
20 7
69
9.1
295
2.6
0
3
26
17
1 2
6.8
7
<10.0
130
134.8
490045
21
70594
945
21 7
9 1
9.4
275
1 2
0
11
19
17
1.1
7
85
13 293
116
117.4
490045
21
71894
1600
24 4
97
12.5
249
09
0
12
13
16
1 2
7.1
8.5
<10.0
102
98 3
490045
21
81094
1715
23 1
9 1
76
272
0.9
0
9
17.8
17.2
1 53
7.46
10
<10.0
121
1152
490045
21
82394
850
21 5
88
6 3
300
1
0
19
20
18
1 5
7.5
9.5
<10.0
123
124
490045
21
91994
1300
177
9
6 3
317
1 3
0
6
22
18
1 5
79
9
<10.0
131
129
490045
21
102694
1215
10 3
77
8 1
360
1 1
0
5
30
19
1 6
7.7
9 5
<10.0
143
153
490045
21
110994
1415
5 4
83
9
380
1 1
0
8
33
20
1 7
8.1
10
<10.0
156
1646
490045
21
12495
1500
3.1
8.2
86
392
1 7
0
3
32
16
1.3
6.2
8
<10 0
146
145 7
490045
21
42695
930
10.1
8
7 8
370
1 5
0
4
37
17
1.6
6.7
7.5
<10 0
149
162 3
490045
21
51195
745
13 1
82
9 5
366
24
0
3
36
17
1.5
64
7
<10.0
153
159 8
AVERAGE
15.78
8.606667
8 306667
325 8
1 693333
6.933333
28 05333
17 08
1.462
6 970667
8166667
10 57764
138 0667
140.2933
MAXIMUM
24 4
97
12 5
392
42
19
37
20
1.7
8 1
9 5
14 794
156
164 6
MINIMUM
3 1
7.7
7
249
08
3
13
16
1.1
62
6 5
<10.0
102
98.3
STANDARD DEVIATION
6 492985
0 517503
1 538769
42 56457
0 985224
4 817626
7.750564
1.223111
0185017
0.626139
1 205148
1.49756
16.52041
19 63803
-------
490045.NUT
MANTUA RESERVOI R MIDLAKE SOUTH - BOTTOM
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490045
4
29
42694
900
0.6
<0.05
0.032
0.02
0.015
490045
4
29
51094
915
0.57
<0.05
0.028
0.04
0.026
490045
4
29
52394
915
0.36
<0.05
0.035
0.024
0.017
490045
4
29
60694
930
0.26
<0.05
0.048
<0.02
0.027
490045
4
29
62294
930
0.75
<0.05
0.036
<0.02
0.01
490045
4
29
70594
945
0.44
<0.05
0.047
<0.02
0.029
490045
4
29
71894
1600
0.8
0.125
0.119
<0.02
0.064
490045
4
29
81094
1715
1.14
0.119
0.116
<0.02
0.056
490045
4
29
82394
910
0.96
<0.05
0.121
<0.02
0.078
490045
4
29
91994
1300
0.82
<0.05
0.117
0.064
0.067
490045
4
29
102694
1215
0.78
<0.05
0.087
0.08
0.037
490045
4
29
110994
1415
0.28
<0.05
0.064
<0.02
0.028
490045
4
29
12495
1500
0.41
0.16
0.055
0.054
0.035
490045
4
29
42695
930
0.18
<0.05
0.052
<0.02
0.033
490045
4
29
51195
745
0.4
<0.05
0.049
0.04
0.023
AVERAGE 0.583333 0.06693 0.067067 0.03213 0.036333
MAXIMUM 1.14 0.125 0.121 0.08 0.078
MINIMUM 0.18 <0.05 0.028 <0.02 0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.282202 0.03604 0.034964 0.01946 0.020458
-------
490045.CHM
MANTUA RESERVOIR MIDLAKE SOUTH - BOTTOM
No
ORET Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp F-pH
F-D O.
F-Sp.Cond
Transp. Depth
T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
i Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cin
m m
mg/l
mg/l mg/l
490045
29
42694
900
128
8.3
7.3
330
4.8
490045
29
51094
915
126
8.3
74
287
48
490045
29
52394
915
16 3
83
6
337
4.5
490045
29
60694
930
18 8
8 2
2.4
328
1 9
42
33 16
490045
29
62294
930
199
8 5
34
300
2.6
4.1
490045
29
70594
945
19
89
67
285
1 2
42
490045
29
71894
1600
20
8 5
09
298
36
490045
29
81094
1715
22 7
9 1
6
27 7
09
3 7
490045
29
82394
910
21
8 9
6 1
300
36
490045
29
91994
1300
173
9
5
323
1 3
3.1
25 18
490045
29
102694
1215
96
77
7 9
374
1 1
3
490045
29
110994
1415
54
8 3
94
380
1 1
3.4
490045
29
12495
1500
4 7
79
4.8
414
1 7
4
490045
29
42695
930
9 8
7.9
7.7
370
1 5
42
37 17
490045
29
51195
745
9 8
8
9.3
300
4
Sulfate
mg/l
Tot Alk.
mg/l
T. Hardns.
mg/l
148.2
136.4
162 3
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
STANDARD DEVIATION
14 64667 8 386667
22 7 9.1
47 77
6 02 326 8667 1.477778 3 946667
94
09
414
277
2.6
09
4.8
3
5 806015 0 430725 2 409268 40.93002 0 526255 0 547549
31 66667
37
33
6.110101
17
18
16
1
148.9667
162 3
136 4
12.96701
-------
490046.NUT
MANTUA RESERVOIR MIDLAKE NORTH - SURFACE
STORET Source
No
Code
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
490046
4
Sample Date Time T.K.N. Ammonia T. Phos. D-N02+N D-T Phos.
Type MMDDYY HHMM mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
21 42694 845 0.62 <0.05 0.029 <0.02 0.014
21 51094 845 0.44 <0.05 0.024 0.023 0.014
21 52394 900 0.45 <0.05 0.026 <0.02 0.013
21 60694 900 0.35 <0.05 0.038 <0.02 0.01
21 62294 900 0.66 <0.05 0.022 <0.02 0.01
21 70594 930 1.16 <0.05 0.077 <0.02 0.016
21 71894 1530 2 0.074 0.061 <0.02 0.024
21 81094 1640 1 0.12 0.096 <0.02 0.051
21 82394 850 1.21 <0.05 0.158 <0.02 0.077
21 91994 1230 0.68 <0.05 0.128 0.061 0.06
21 102694 1200 0.91 <0.05 0.068 <0.02 0.038
21 110994 1350 0.31 <0.05 0.06 <0.02 0.029
21 12495 1530 0.3 <0.05 0.032 0.113 0.017
21 42695 900 0.1 <0.05 0.042 <0.02 0.027
21 51195 720 0.4 0.058 0.043 0.04 0.027
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.706 0.0568
2 0.12
0.1 <0.05
0.486853 0.01861
0.060267 0.03047 0.028467
0.158 0.113 0.077
0.022 <0.02 0.01
0.040191 0.02549 0.02
-------
490046 CHM
MANTUA RESERVOIR MIDLAKE NORTH - SURFACE
STORET
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-DO
F-Sp Cond
Transp
Depth
T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu
D-Sodium
Chloride Sulfate
Tot Alk
T. Hardns
No
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
m
m
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490046
21
42694
845
12 9
83
7.1
338
1
0
11
35
17
1 8
65
7.5 <10 0
154
157 3
490046
21
51094
845
15 6
8 5
8
336
37
0
3
34
16
1 6
64
7 5 <10.0
153
150 7
490046
21
52394
900
167
8.6
79
332
42
0
5
34
16
1 5
66
7 <10 0
153
150 7
490046
21
60694
900
20 6
8 8
8 2
314
1 3
0
7
32
16
1 4
6 7
7 <10.0
144
145 7
490046
21
62294
900
20.3
88
8 9
298
24
0
3
28
17
1 3
68
7 <10 0
131
139 8
490046
21
70594
930
21 8
9
94
273
1.2
0
14
19
17
1 2
7 1
8 5 55.548
121
1174
490046
21
71894
1530
24 4
98
14
248
0
16
12
17
1 3
72
8 5 <10.0
100
99.9
490046
21
81094
1640
23
9 1
6 6
275
0 8
9
18
17
1 6
7 5
9 5 <10.0
121
114.9
490046
21
82394
850
21 5
88
66
299
1 1
0
12
20
18
1 8
7 5
9 <10.0
126
124
490046
21
91994
1230
18 9
9
56
316
0 9
0
9
22
18
1.5
8
9 5 <10.0
130
129
490046
21
102694
1200
10 7
7.7
7 5
363
1 3
0
4
30
19
1.5
7 7
9.5 <10.0
143
153
490046
21
110994
1350
5 2
84
9 5
379
1 2
0
6
32
20
1 7
8 1
11 <10.0
156
162.1
490046
21
12495
1530
2 5
8 1
84
400
1 7
0
3
22
12
1.1
5 1
7 <10,0
103
104 3
490046
21
42695
900
10
8
8 1
369
1 4
0
4
37
18
1.5
64
8 <10 0
149
166 4
490046
21
51195
720
12 8
8
84
373
3
0
3
36
18
1.6
64
4 <10 0
153
163 9
15 79333
8.593333
8 28
327 5333
1 8
7 266667
27 4
17.06667
1.493333
6 933333
8 033333 13 03653
135.8
138 6067
24 4
98
14
400
4 2
16
37
20
1.8
8 1
11 55 548
156
166 4
2.5
77
5 6
248
0 9
3
12
12
1.1
5 1
4 <10 0
100
99 9
6 624356
0 537809
1 907953
44 08412
1 091928
4 350151
7 881262
1 791514
0 205171
0.775211
1 641718 11 76044
18 64786
22.13196
-------
490046. NUT
MANTUA RESERVOIR MIDLAKE NORTH - BOTTOM
No
ORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N.
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
i
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490046
4
29
42694
845
0.61
<0.05
0.041
0.02
490046
4
29
51094
845
0.55
<0.05
0.031
<0.02
490046
4
29
52394
900
0.41
<0.05
0.033
<0.02
490046
4
29
60694
900
0.25
<0.05
0.086
0.033
490046
4
29
62294
900
0.4
<0.05
0.026
<0.02
490046
4
29
70594
930
1.1
<0.05
0.059
<0.02
490046
4
29
71894
1530
1.14
<0.05
0.079
<0.02
490046
4
29
81094
1640
0.96
0.134
0.126
<0.02
490046
4
29
82394
850
1.06
<0.05
0.14
<0.02
490046
4
29
91994
1230
0.65
<0.05
0.122
0.071
490046
4
29
102694
1200
1
<0.05
0.078
<0.02
490046
4
29
110994
0.3
<0.05
0.053
<0.02
490046
4
29
12495
1530
0.3
0.131
0.051
0.073
490046
4
29
42695
900
0.23
<0.05
0.053
<0.02
490046
4
29
51195
720
0.29
<0.05
0.047
0.06
AVERAGE
0.616667
0.061
0.068333
0.03047
MAXIMUM
1.14
0.134
0.122
0.073
MINIMUM
0.23
<0.05
0.026
<0.02
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.343858 0.02903 0.036209 0.01988
D-T Phos.
mg/l
0.016
0.017
0.015
0.01
0.01
0.046
0.039
0.077
0.077
0.078
0.043
0.028
0.035
0.022
0.026
0.035933
0.078
0.01
0.0242
-------
MANTUA RESERVOIR MIDLAKE NORTH - BOTTOM
STORET Sample Date Time
No Type MMDDYY HHMM
490046
29
42694
845
490046
29
51094
845
490046
29
52394
900
490046
29
60694
900
490046
29
62294
900
490046
29
70594
930
490046
29
71894
1530
490046
29
81094
1640
490046
29
82394
850
490046
29
91994
1230
490046
29
102694
1200
490046
29
110994
490046
29
12495
1530
490046
29
42695
900
490046
29
51195
720
F-pH F-D O. F-Sp Cond Transp
mg/l umhos/cm m
8 3
7
340
8 3
6
335
a
27
338
87
8 3
312
8 1
1.7
304
82
1 1
310
9
1
260
9
38
279
8 8
6.5
299
82
1.8
326
76
7.5
365
84
9 5
379
78
4 5
420
8
7 9
370
8
8 5
377
8 293333 5 186667 334 2667
9 9 5 420
7 6 1 260
0 419977 2 977263 42 5348
F-Temp
Deg C
129
145
16
20 5
186
20 3
21 7
22 5
21 3
172
98
5 1
48
99
12.5
15 17333
22 5
4 8
5 876888
490046 CHM
Depth T Sus Sol D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium Chloride Sulfate Tot. Alk T. Hardns.
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
5 1
53
5.5
4 2 32 16 1457
4 7
4.7
4
4 5
4 1
4 25 18 136.4
35
28
4 1
4 3 37 18 166 4
4 3
4 34 31 33333 17 33333 1495
5 5 37 18 166 4
2 8 25 16 136 4
0 685357 6 027714 1 154701 15 35676
-------
490042 CHM
BIG CREEK BELOW MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET Sample Date Time F-Temp F-pH F-D O F-Sp Cond Flow, cfs T.Sus.Sol D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium Chloride Sulfate Tot Alk T. Hardns
490042
4
42694
2000
124
8
6.2
344
45 4
12
36
16
1 8
6.7
8 <10.0
136
155 7
490042
4
50994
1815
162
8 4
84
339
27
5
36
16
1.7
6 7
8 <10 0
156
155 7
490042
4
52394
1315
163
8 1
77
346
3 1
4
36
16
2.1
7 2
7.5 <10.0
177
155 7
490042
4
60694
1315
187
82
66
338
18 1
7
36
17
2 1
7.4
9 <100
154
159 8
490042
4
62294
1200
185
7.9
38
325
18 1
15
32
17
1.4
6.9
8 <100
143
149 8
490042
4
70594
1230
21 3
9
8 5
275
16
12
22
17
1 1
6 8
8 5 <100
121
124 8
490042
4
71894
1200
195
82
1 9
308
12
24
17
1 6
7 5
9 <100
130
129 8
490042
4
81094
1500
21 5
8.6
4 4
332
11 1
19
25
18
1 9
7.8
8 5 <100
136
136 4
490042
4
82394
1030
20 5
8 5
63
322
14 3
9
24
18
1 6
7 9
9 <100
138
133.9
490042
4
91994
1135
164
87
58
334
13 8
4
26
18
1 7
8 1
95 <100
139
138.9
490042
4
102694
1030
92
7 4
7 5
379
7
33
19
1 8
8.3
10 <100
148
160 5
490042
4
110994
1500
58
8
87
402
5 3
8
36
20
1 8
8 5
7 10816
161
172 1
490042
4
12495
1430
4 5
7 9
52
423
26 6
4
39
22
1 7
7 8
95 <100
175
187 8
490042
4
51095
830
127
8
92
374
34
3
36
18
1 5
64
7 <100
151
163 9
490042
4
52295
930
146
8.5
68
350
34
3
34
16
1 4
6 1
7 <100
143
150 7
490042
10
42595
1700
AVERAGE
15 20667
8 226667
6 466667
346 0667
20 52308
8 266667
31 66667
17 66667
1 68
7 34
8 366667 10 0544
147.2
151 7
MAXIMUM
21 5
9
9.2
423
45 4
19
39
22
2.1
8.5
10 10.816
177
187 8
MINIMUM
4.5
7.4
3.8
275
3 1
4
22
16
1.1
6.1
7 <100
121
124 8
STANDARD DEVIATION
5 36902
0 397252
2.025434
36 75492
12 25161
4 83243
5.740416
1 676163
0 265115
0 724865
0.972234 0 21069
15 60769
16.86471
-------
490042.NUT
BIG CREEK BELOW MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET
Source Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N. Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No
Code Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490042
3
4
42694
2000
0.55 <0.05
0.042
0.135
0.02
490042
3
4
50994
1815
0.41 0.05
0.032
0.175
0.018
490042
3
4
52394
1315
0.53 <0.05
0.042
0.207
0.026
490042
3
4
60694
1315
0.5 <0.05
0.058
0.209
0.032
490042
3
4
62294
1200
0.73 <0.05
0.088
0.3
0.024
490042
3
4
70594
1230
0.77 <0.05
0.056
0.02
0.01
490042
3
4
71894
1200
0.82 0.26
0.143
0.178
0.108
490042
3
4
81094
1500
1.14 0.142
0.137
0.377
0.078
490042
3
4
82394
1030
0.75 <0.05
0.125
0.333
0.084
490042
3
4
91994
1135
0.2 <0.05
0.116
0.309
0.073
490042
3
4
102694
1030
0.6 <0.05
0.086
0.291
0.049
490042
3
4
110994
1500
0.79 <0.05
0.093
0.214
0.037
490042
3
4
12495
1430
0.63 0.08
0.072
0.132
0.045
490042
3
10
42595
1700
490042
3
4
51095
830
0.14 <0.05
0.048
0.04
0.029
490042
3
4
52295
930
0.56 <0.05
0.032
0.02
0.015
AVERAGE
0.608 0.07213
0.078
0.196
0.0432
MAXIMUM
1.14 0.26
0.143
0.377
0.108
MINIMUM
0.2 <0.05
0.032
0.02
0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.249434 0.05739
0.038165
0.113271
0.029399
-------
490047 CHM
DAM CREEK ABOVE MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-D.O.
F-Sp Cond
Flow, cfs
T.Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot Alk
T Hardns
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhosVcm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490047
3
4
42594
1800
127
8.1
10
453
6
3
46
26
<1
7 1
8
13 377
225
221 7
490047
3
4
50994
1720
16 9
8.6
11.1
438
6 2
3
45
25
<1
6 9
7.5
17 907
43
215 1
490047
3
4
52394
730
10 5
7.8
7 8
469
29
4
53
26
<1
7
7.5
11.05
264
239 2
490047
3
4
60694
1200
13 1
84
127
514
0 3
24
66
28
4 4
10
11
16 045
276
279 9
490047
3
10
62294
1245
490047
3
10
70594
1245
490047
3
10
71894
1100
490047
3
10
81094
1520
490047
3
10
82294
2000
490047
3
10
91994
1510
490047
3
102694
1055
9 9
73
9 3
487
22
9
51
25
<1
6 7
9
10
208
230 1
490047
3
110994
1530
10 3
8
10
485
2
11
52
26
<1
7 1
9
10
225
236 7
490047
3
12495
1345
7 7
8 3
104
483
2
6
51
25
<1
67
8 5
10 538
220
230 1
490047
3
42595
1600
126
8
10.1
479
2
4
53
26
<1
7 2
8 5
10
207
239 2
490047
3
51095
1845
136
8
10.7
482
36
15
51
26
<1
7.1
8 5
12.45
213
234 2
490047
3
52295
700
11 3
75
8 1
496
24
14
51
26
<1
7.1
8 5
10
212
234 2
AVERAGE
11 86
8
10 02
478.6
2 96
9 3
51 9
25.9
1 34
7 29
8.6
12 1367
209 3
236 04
MAXIMUM
16 9
86
127
514
6 2
24
66
28
44
10
11
17 907
276
279.9
MINIMUM
7 7
73
7 8
438
0 3
3
45
25
<1
6.7
7 5
10
43
215 1
STANDARD DEVIATION
2 515817
0 394405
1 41798
21 32917
1 852446
6 832114
5.646041
0 875595
1 07517
0.967758
0 994429
2 832478
63
00979
17 2097
-------
490047.NUT
DAM CREEK ABOVE MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490047
3
4
42594
1800
4.1
<0.05
0.02
0.779
0.016
490047
3
4
50994
1720
0.37
<0.05
0.025
0.632
0.015
490047
3
4
52394
730
0.25
<0.05
0.028
0.778
0.011
490047
3
4
60694
1200
1.52
<0.05
0.122
0.632
0.056
490047
3
10
62294
1245
490047
3
10
70594
1245
490047
3
10
71894
1100
490047
3
10
81094
1520
490047
3
10
82294
2000
490047
3
10
91994
1510
490047
3
4
102694
1055
0.21
<0.05
0.029
0.846
0.012
490047
3
4
110994
1530
<0.1
<0.05
0.034
0.89
0.019
490047
3
4
12495
1345
<0.1
<0.05
0.025
0.836
0.018
490047
3
4
42595
1600
0.11
<0.05
<0.01
0.91
0.012
490047
3
4
51095
1845
<0.1
<0.05
0.027
0.84
<0.01
490047
3
4
52295
700
0.19
<0.05
0.02
0.93
<0.01
AVERAGE
0.964286
<0.05
0.036667
0.8073
0.019875
MAXIMUM
4.1
<0.05
0.122
0.93
0.056
MINIMUM
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
0.632
<0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION
1.562289
0
0.033873
0.10138
0.014885
-------
490048 CHM
MANTUA FISH HATCHERY
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-D O.
F-Sp.Cond
Flow, cfs T Sus.Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Alk
T. Hardns
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490048
7
4 42094
800
138
8 4
11 2
276
4 4
11
490048
7
4 42694
930
76
7 5
82
297
10 9
5
31
12
<1
4 9
45
<10 0
123
126 7
490048
7
4 50994
1455
12 2
8 3
10.6
296
15 2
4
32
13
<1
5 3
4.5
<100
130
133 3
490048
7
4 52394
1130
10 1
8
10.1
334
5 1 <3 0
36
15
<1
5 6
5 5
<100
148
151 5
490048
7
4 60694
945
9 6
8
10 1
338
6 7 <3 0
39
16
<1
59
6
<10 0
157
163 1
490048
7
4 62294
1030
104
79
10 3
361
6 8 <3 0
40
17
<1
5 9
6.5
<10 0
166
169 7
490048
7
4 70594
1015
10.2
8 1
106
370
6 2 <3 0
41
18
<1
5.9
6.5
<10.0
169
176 4
490048
7
4 71894
1345
12.6
8 3
12
366
5 7 <3 0
40
19
<1
6.4
7
<10 0
175
178
490048
7
4 81094
1400
12 9
8
11
371
5 <3 0
40
19
<1
6 1
7
<10 0
179
178
490048
7
4 82294
1845
134
8 2
11.6
383
5 1 <3 0
40
19
<1
6
7
<10 0
179
178
490048
7
4 91994
1020
8 9
7 8
7 5
403
5 2 <3 0
40
19
<1
6
65
<10 0
175
178
490048
7
4 102694
1000
7 6
7 2
8
399
4 4 <3 0
40
19
<1
5 7
6 5
<10 0
166
178
490048
7
4 110994
1220
87
8
10
396
4 <3 0
40
19
<1
6
7
<100
174
178
490048
7
4 12495
1300
6 5
8
9.5
388
4 8
9
40
18
<1
6
7
<100
167
173 9
490048
7
4 42595
1500
96
7 6
8 8
332
74
4
35
13
<1
56
55
<100
130
140 8
490048
7
4 51095
1645
102
7 6
94
336
96
4
33
14
<1
5 5
5
<10 0
131
139 9
490048
7
4 52295
815
8 5
7 5
9 7
347
8 9
4
33
14
<1
56
6
<10.0
138
139 9
AVERAGE
10.16471
7 905882
9 917647
352 5294
6 788235 4
1765
37 5
16 5
<1
5 775
6 125
<10
156 6875
161 45
MAXIMUM
13 8
8 4
11 6
403
15 2
11
41
19
<1
6 4
7
<10
179
178
MINIMUM
6 5
7 2
7 5
276
4 <3 0
31
12
<1
4 9
4 5
<10
123
126 7
STANDARD DEVIATION
2165624
0 330663
1 258588
37 99526
2 920805 2
2977
3 521363
2 607681
0 0 356838
0 885061
0 20.06894
19 23005
-------
490048.NUT
MANTUA FISH HATCHERY
STORET Source Sample Date
Time
T.K.N.
Ammonia T. Phos. D-N02+N D-T Phos.
No Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490048
7
4
42694
930
0.53
0.187
0.089
0.335
0.073
490048
7
4
50994
1455
0.58
0.153
0.088
0.274
0.079
490048
7
4
52394
1130
1.1
0.119
0.082
0.362
0.056
490048
7
4
60694
945
0.53
0.105
0.06
<0.02
<0.01
490048
7
4
62294
1030
0.47
0.107
0.054
0.41
0.05
490048
7
4
70594
1015
0.34
0.121
0.096
0.41
0.01
490048
7
4
71894
1345
0.27
0.117
0.059
0.41
0.058
490048
7
4
81094
1400
0.35
0.139
0.07
0.453
0.058
490048
7
4
82294
1845
0.54
0.089
0.07
0.461
0.054
490048
7
4
91994
1020
0.46
0.137
0.079
0.511
0.064
490048
7
4
102694
1000
0.33
0.135
0.062
0.468
0.052
490048
7
4
110994
1220
0.145
0.11
0.059
0.518
0.051
490048
7
4
12495
1300
0.71
0.209
0.104
0.454
0.059
490048
7
4
42595
1500
0.43
0.17
0.067
0.35
0.048
490048
7
4
51095
1645
0.76
0.196
0.062
0.32
0.045
490048
7
4
52295
815
0.52
0.18
0.058
0.34
0.035
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.504063 0.142125 0.072438 0.405067 0.0528
1.1 0.209 0.104 0.511 0.079
0.27 0.105 0.054 <0.02 <0.01
0.222854 0.036409 0.015332 0.072838 0.015965
-------
490049.CHM
MANTUA FISH HATCHERY INFLOW
STORET Source Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-DO
F-Sp Cond Flow, cfs
T.Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot. Alk
T Hardns.
No Code Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490049 1
42694
1000
78
7.6
8 5
292
10.9
<3 0
30
12
<1
4.9
4
<10.0
125
124.2
490049 1
50994
1430
88
7 8
8
299
15.2
<3 0
31
13
<1
5 1
4.5
<10.0
131
130.8
490049 1
52394
1100
9
7 7
7 5
268
4 1
<3 0
36
15
<1
55
5.5
<10.0
174
151.5
490049 1
60694
1000
8.5
7 8
8 7
346
44
<3 0
39
16
<1
5.8
5.5
<10 0
157
163 1
490049 1
62294
1015
9.1
7.8
8 5
365
0 8
<3 0
40
17
<1
8.3
6
<10 0
164
169.7
490049 1
70594
1035
8.5
7 6
8 1
368
0 7
<3 0
41
18
<1
5 9
7 5
<10 0
174
176 4
490049 1
71894
1320
8.9
7.7
8.1
376
0 8
<3 0
41
19
<1
6 3
6 5
<10 0
175
180 5
490049 1
81094
1330
94
76
8.3
385
0 8
<3 0
40
19
<1
6.1
7
<10 0
179
178
490049 1
82294
1830
8 9
7 5
7 9
390
07
<3 0
40
19
<1
5 9
7
<10 0
180
178
490049 1
91994
1000
8 8
7.8
7 9
403
07
<3 0
40
19
<1
6
6.5
<10 0
174
178
490049 1
102694
940
8 6
74
74
396
3 8
<3 0
39
19
<1
5.8
6.5
<10.0
167
175 5
490049 1
110994
1200
8 7
7 6
8 2
402
32
<3 0
41
19
<1
6
7
<10 0
175
180 5
490049 1
12495
1230
8 1
7 8
8 7
384
1
<3 0
39
18
<1
6
7
<10 0
164
171 4
490049 1
42595
1515
8 3
74
84
331
54
<3 0
35
13
<1
56
5 5
<10 0
133
140 8
490049 1
51095
1630
9 1
7 5
7 8
333
1 1
<3 0
34
14
<1
54
4.5
<10 0
131
142 4
490049 1
52295
800
8.2
7 4
8 9
345
1 2
<3 0
33
14
<1
56
55
<10 0
135
139 9
AVERAGE
8 66875
7 625
818125
355 1875
3 425
<3 0
37.4375
16.5
<1
5.8875
6
<10 0
158 625
161.2938
MAXIMUM
94
7 8
8 9
403
152
<3 0
41
19
<1
6 3
7.5
<10 0
190
180 5
MINIMUM
8 1
7.4
7 4
292
0.7
<3 0
30
12
<1
4 9
4
<10 0
125
124 2
STANDARD DEVIATION
0 420664
0152753
818125
41 46037
4157002
0
3 723238
2 607681
0 0 741058
1 048809
0 20 1986
19 69353
-------
490049.NUT
MANTUA FISH HATCHERY INFLOW
STORET Source Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No Code Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490049 1
4
42694
1000
0.89 <0.05
0.03
0.322
0.025
490049 1
4
50994
1430
0.11 <0.05
0.026
0.305
0.024
490049 1
4
52394
1100
0.31 <0.05
0.02
0.362
0.021
490049 1
4
60694
1000
0.2 <0.05
0.021
0.483
0.02
490049 1
4
62294
1015
0.13 <0.05
0.016
0.477
0.021
490049 1
4
70594
1035
<0.1
<0.05
0.046
0.479
0.011
490049 1
4
71894
1320
0.1 <0.05
0.021
0.483
0.019
490049 1
4
81094
1330
<0.1
<0.05
0.021
0.499
0.02
490049 1
4
82294
1830
<0.1
<0.05
0.02
0.497
0.016
490049 1
4
91994
1000
0.12 <0.05
0.022
0.525
0.022
490049 1
4
102694
940
0.16 <0.05
0.019
0.525
0.014
490049 1
4
110994
1200
<0.1
<0.05
0.02
0.539
0.017
490049 1
4
12495
1230
<0.1
<0.05
0.02
0.459
0.017
490049 1
4
42595
1515
<0.1
<0.05
0.033
0.35
0.023
490049 1
4
51095
1630
0.22 <0.05
0.021
0.36
0.017
490049 1
4
52295
800
0.12 <0.05
0.022
0.35
0.01
AVERAGE
0.135 <0.05
0.023625
0.438438
0.018563
MAXIMUM
0.89 <0.05
0.046
0.539
0.025
MINIMUM
<0.01
<0.05
0.019
0.305
0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.19704 0
0.007302
0.081127
0.004351
-------
490050 CHM
DAM CREEK AT SOURCE
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-D O.
F-Sp Cond
Flow, cfs
T Sus.Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot. Alk.
T Hardns.
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490050
3
42594
1930
11 5
76
9 7
451
6
<3 0
50
26
<1
67
8
13 936
220
231 7
490050
3
50994
1730
14 3
82
11 7
441
6 2
<3.0
49
25
<1
6.7
75
19.453
54
225 1
490050
3
52394
715
11 1
7 5
6
460
12 9
<3 0
51
26
<1
6.8
7 5
11 401
231
234 2
490050
3
60694
1245
14 2
8
12.6
448
2 3
<3 0
44
26
<1
6.9
8
11 939
221
216 8
490050
3
62294
1230
14 3
7 9
12.9
450
22
<3 0
52
26
<1
7
8.5
12 599
218
236 7
490050
3
70594
1245
14.2
78
11.7
447
2
<3 0
47
25
<1
6 7
8
10
221
220.1
490050
3
71894
1115
13 6
7 6
9 7
463
0 7
<3 0
51
26
<1
6 9
8 5
11 919
221
234.2
490050
3
81094
1515
14 8
8
14.7
440
2
25
49
26
<1
6 7
7 5
10
220
229.2
490050
3
82294
1915
12 7
7.5
104
468
1 8
<3 0
49
26
<1
6 7
8
11 926
221
229 2
490050
3
91994
1515
14 2
8
12 3
476
2
<3 0
49
25
<1
6.7
8
11.339
215
225 1
490050
3
102694
1105
11 2
69
79
257
2 1
<3 0
49
25
<1
6.5
8
11.301
210
225 1
490050
3
110994
1545
11 7
7 7
9 8
480
2
<3 0
51
26
<1
6 7
8.5
10 428
218
234 2
490050
3
12495
1400
10 9
8 1
10 5
473
2
<3 0
50
26
<1
6 8
8 5
11.48
212
231 7
490050
3
42595
1615
11 8
7.6
106
480
2
<3 0
52
26
<1
7
8 5
10.75
348
236 7
490050
3
51095
1830
12 5
76
11.8
451
3 6
<3 0
45
26
<1
7
75
10 78
213
219.3
490050
3
52295
715
11
76
8
488
2 5
<3 0
50
26
<1
6 9
9
10
210
231.7
AVERAGE
12 75
7 725
10 64375
448 3125
3 26875
4 4
49 25
25.75
<1
6 79375
8 09375
11 82819
215.8125
228 8125
MAXIMUM
14 8
8.2
14 7
488
12.9
25
52
26
<1
7
9
19 543
348
236 7
MINIMUM
109
6 9
5
257
07
<3 0
45
25
<1
6 5
7 5
10
54
216 8
STANDARD DEVIATION
1 444068
0 315172
2165477
53 19238
2 959441
5 5
2 265686
0 447214
0 0 143614
0 455293
2 284358
54 24048
6 265554
-------
490050. NUT
DAM CREEK AT SOURCE
STORET Source
Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490050
3
4
42594
1930
<0.1
<0.05
0.015
0.905
0.011
490050
3
4
50994
1730
0.19 <0.05
0.017
0.847
0.013
490050
3
4
52394
715
0.17 <0.05
0.01
0.87
0.01
490050
3
4
60694
1245
0.45 <0.05
0.013
0.933
<0.01
490050
3
4
62294
1230
0.3 1 0.05
0.01
0.895
<0.01
490050
3
4
70594
1245
0.11 <0.05
0.01
490050
3
4
71894
1115
<0.1
<0.05
0.011
0.88
0.014
490050
3
4
81094
1515
0.27 <0.05
0.022
0.848
<0.01
490050
3
4
82294
1915
0.11 <0.05
0.01
0.846
<0.01
490050
3
4
91994
1515
<0.1
<0.05
0.014
0.904
0.022
490050
3
4
102694
1105
<0.1
<0.05
0.012
0.962
<0.01
490050
3
4
110994
1545
<0.1
<0.05
0.014
0.982
0.013
490050
3
4
12495
1400
<0.1
<0.05
0.015
0.839
<0.01
490050
3
4
42595
1615
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
0.95
<0.01
490050
3
4
51095
1830
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
0.93
<0.01
490050
3
4
52295
715
0.11 <0.05
<0.02
1.02
<0.01
AVERAGE 0.15688 0.05 0.01331 0.9074 0.01153
MAXIMUM 0.45 0.05 0.22 1.02 0.022
MINIMUM <0.1 <0.05 <0.01 0.839 <0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.10098 0.00377 0.054871 0.0032
-------
490051 CHM
MAPLE CREEK ABOVE MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-D O.
F-Sp Cond
Flow, cfs
T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride Sulfate
Tot. Alk.
T Hardns
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490051
3
42594
1830
9
7 9
89
282
33 6
18
17
6 3
<1
3.9
4 <10 0
69
68 3
490051
3
50994
1615
15.9
88
89
229
34.5
9
22
8 1
<1
4.4
3 <100
90
88 2
490051
3
52394
945
11 2
8.2
9 8
304
97
8
32
12
<1
5.3
5 <10 0
139
129 2
490051
3
60694
1030
14 1
8.6
10.7
345
5 5
3
39
16
<1
5 7
6 <100
161
163 1
490051
3
62294
1100
147
85
11 3
345
5
7
38
18
<1
6
6 <100
161
168 9
490051
3
70594
1145
15 4
84
104
360
4
8
41
18
<1
6
7 <100
174
176 4
490051
3
71894
1300
16 9
84
10 3
370
4 2
6
42
19
<1
6 6
65 <100
177
183
490051
3
81094
1420
17 7
8 6
106
366
4
3
40
19
<1
62
7 <10.0
179
178
490051
3
82294
1815
17 5
8 4
99
381
3 5
6
40
19
<1
6 1
6 5 <10.0
179
178
490051
3
91994
1045
9 9
8 2
96
331
3
4
41
19
<1
6
6 5 <10.0
175
180 5
490051
3
102694
1015
7 3
7.6
10.7
406
5 9
5
41
19
<1
6
7 <10.0
171
180 5
490051
3
110994
1245
10
8.5
11 4
402
6 3
10
43
20
13 64
8 <10 0
177
189 6
490051
3
12495
1200
5
85
11.4
395
4 2
4
40
19
<1
6.1
8 <10 0
167
178
490051
3
42595
1545
10 1
8
9 5
348
86
5
37
15
<1
59
6 5 <10 0
141
154
490051
3
51095
1730
12 2
8 2
96
259
20 4
10
23
8 3
<1
4 5
3 5 <10 0
90
91 5
490051
3
52295
900
8 8
7 8
10 5
269
27 3
10
24
89
<1
4.6
4 <10.0
96
96 5
AVERAGE
12 23125
8 2875
10 21875
337
11 23125
7 25
35
15.2875
1 01875 5 60625
5 90625 <10 0
146 625
150 2313
MAXIMUM
177
8 8
11 4
406
34 5
18
42
20
1 3 6.6
8 <10 0
179
189 6
MINIMUM
5
7 6
8 9
229
3
4
17
6 3
<1
3 9
3 <10 0
69
68 3
STANDARD DEVIATION
3 893536
0 326343
0 805166
53 86155
11 10175
3 768289
8 532292
4 851649
0.075 0 811146
1 551545
0 38 30557
41 08678
-------
490051.NUT
MAPLE CREEK ABOVE MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET Source Sample Date Time T.K.N. Ammonia T. Phos. D-N02+N D-T Phos.
No Code Type MMDDYY HHMM mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
490051
3
4
42594
1830
0.36
<0.05
0.043
0.2
0.042
490051
3
4
50994
1615
0.39
<0.05
0.061
0.197
0.042
490051
3
4
52394
945
0.29
<0.05
0.066
0.4
0.039
490051
3
4
60694
1030
0.31
<0.05
0.059
0.443
0.035
490051
3
4
62294
1100
0.38
<0.05
0.062
0.469
0.039
490051
3
4
70594
1145
1.1
7 0.05
0.062
0.461
0.016
490051
3
4
71894
1300
0.3
0.058
0.053
0.461
0.08
490051
3
4
81094
1420
0.16
0.062
0.072
0.479
0.056
490051
3
4
82294
1815
0.36
<0.05
0.076
0.481
0.072
490051
3
4
91994
1045
0.1
0.061
0.064
0.548
0.05
490051
3
4
102694
1015
0.41
0.092
0.062
0.539
0.041
490051
3
4
110994
1245
0.306
0.079
0.08
0.524
0.055
490051
3
4
12495
1200
0.13
0.08
0.058
0.453
0.047
490051
3
4
42595
1545
0.16
0.08
0.045
0.4
0.036
490051
3
4
51095
1730
0.22
<0.05
0.035
0.26
0.021
490051
3
4
52295
900
0.32
<0.05
0.042
0.31
0.01
AVERAGE 0.331 0.06013 0.05875 0.414063 0.042563
MAXIMUM 1.1 0.092 0.08 0.548 0.08
MINIMUM 0.1 <0.05 0.035 0.197 0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.227092 0.01436 0.012535 0.11314 0.018327
-------
490053 CHM
WEST FLOW FROM MAPLE SPRING ABOVE MAPLE CREEK
ORET Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-DO
F-Sp Cond
Flow, cfs
T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot Alk.
T. Hardns
) Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490053
3 4
42594
1910
10 3
9
10 3
280
1
15
31
12
<1
4 9
45
<100
128
126 7
490053
3 4
50994
1535
21 3
94
10 3
261
0.4
10
28
12
<1
5 1
4 5
<100
123
119 2
490053
3 10
52394
1205
490053
3 10
60694
1110
490053
3 10
62294
490053
3 10
70594
1050
490053
3 10
71894
1415
490053
3 10
81094
1305
490053
3 10
82294
1735
490053
3 10
91994
1035
490053
3 10
102694
920
490053
3 10
110994
1145
490053
3 4
12495
1320
2 9
8 6
11 2
382
1
3
37
17
<1
57
7
<100
162
162 3
490053
3 4
42595
1530
10 2
8 5
10 3
320
1
14
34
13
<1
56
6
<10 0
121
138 3
490053
3 4
51095
1715
12 4
8.5
10.8
323
1 6
10
32
13
<1
54
5
<10.0
130
133 3
490053
3 4
52295
830
87
7 5
9.3
340
0 9
5
33
14
<1
5.5
6
<10 0
136
139 9
AVERAGE
10 96667
8 583333
10 36667
317 6667
0.983333
9 5
32 5
13 5
<1
5 366667
5 5
<10 0
133 3333
136.6167
MAXIMUM
21 3
94
11.2
382
1 6
15
37
17
<1
57
7
<10 0
162
162 3
MINIMUM
2 9
7 5
93
261
0
3
28
12
<1
4 9
4 5
<10 0
123
119 2
STANDARD DEVIATION
6 001222
0 63692
0 637704
43 13081
0 381663
4 764452
3 016621
1 870829
0 0 307679
1
0 15 01555
14 73722
-------
490053.NUT
WEST FLOW FROM MAPLE SPRINGS ABOVE MAPLE CREEK
STORET
No
Source Sample Date
Time
T.K.N.
Ammonia T. Phos.
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490053
3
4
42594
1910
0.3 <0.05
0.047
0.108
490053
3
4
50994
1535
0.44 <0.05
0.057
0.02
490053
3
10
52394
1205
490053
3
10
60694
1110
490053
3
10
62294
490053
3
10
70594
1050
490053
3
10
71894
1415
490053
3
10
81094
1305
490053
3
10
82294
1735
490053
3
10
91994
1035
490053
3
10
102694
920
490053
3
10
110994
1145
490053
3
4
12495
1320
0.01 <0.05
0.018
0.327
490053
3
4
42595
1530
0.15 <0.05
0.018
0.16
490053
3
4
51095
1715
0.54 <0.05
0.033
0.17
490053
3
4
52295
830
0.17 <0.05
0.018
0.16
D-N02+N D-TPhos.
mg/l
0.022
0.037
0.017
0.01
0.013
0.01
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.268333 <0.05
0.54 <0.05
0.01 <0.05
0.197324
0.031833
0.057
0.018
0.016964
0.1575
0.327
0.016
0.100255
0.018167
0.037
0.01
0.010304
-------
490054 CHM
BOX ELDER CREEK DIVERSION ABOVE MAPLE CREEK
STORET Source Sample Date Time F-Temp
No Code Type MMDDYY HHMM Deg C
8 2
14 5
14
490054
3
4
42594
1850
490054
3
4
50994
1520
490054
3
4
52394
1210
490054
3
10
60694
1115
490054
3
10
62294
1050
490054
3
10
70594
1055
490054
3
10
71894
1420
490054
3
10
81094
1300
490054
3
10
82294
1740
490054
3
10
91994
1040
490054
3
10
102694
930
490054
3
10
110994
1150
490054
3
10
12495
1330
490054
3
10
42595
1535
490054
3
4
51095
1700
490054
3
4
52295
845
F-pH
11 2
8 5
F-D.O
mg/l
7 9
7 9
F-Sp.Cond Flow, cfs
u mhos/cm
99
106
174
205
T.Sus Sol
mg/l
D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium Chloride
mg/I
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Sulfate
mg/l
Tot Alk.
mg/l
T. Hardns.
mg/l
8
96
157
21 6
20
11
3.1
1
3.3
1 9 <100
39
40 2
1
84
145
18
8
11
3 2 <1
34
1 5 <100
44
40 6
.2
94
190
2 9
6
18
4 7 <1
3 8
1 5 <100
66
64.2
126
16 9
10
13
12
17
3 3 <1
4 8 <1
3 7
3 7
05 <100
3 <100
48
62
43 5
62 2
AVERAGE
11 28
8.02
9 58
174.2
14 4
114
138
3 82
<1
3 58
1 68
<100
51 8
50 14
MAXIMUM
14 5
8 2
106
205
21 6
20
18
4.8
1 37
1 9
<10 0
66
64.2
MINIMUM
8.2
7 9
84
145
0
8
11
3.1
<1
3 3
0 5
<10.0
39
40 2
STANDARD DEVIATION
2 957533
0130384
0.801249
24 22189
718575
5 458938
3 420526
0 852643
0 0 216795
0 90111
0 11 67048
12 01075
-------
490054.NUT
BOX ELDER CREEK DIVERSION ABOVE MAPLE CREEK
STORET Source Sample Date Time T.K.N. Ammonia T. Phos. D-N02+N D-T Phos.
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM mg/l
mg/l
mg/l mg/l
mg/l
490054
3
4
42594
1850
1.98 <0.05
0.035
0.105
0.031
490054
3
4
50994
1520
0.33 <0.05
0.032
0.07
0.019
490054
3
4
52394
1210
0.29 <0.05
0.047
0.064
0.021
490054
3
10
60694
1115
490054
3
10
62294
1050
490054
3
10
70594
1055
490054
3
10
71894
1420
490054
3
10
81094
1300
490054
3
10
82294
1740
490054
3
10
91994
1040
490054
3
10
102694
930
490054
3
10
110994
1150
490054
3
10
12495
1330
490054
3
10
42595
1535
490054
3
4
51095
1700
0.25 <0.05
0.019
0.15
0.012
490054
3
4
52295
845
0.31 <0.05
0.027
0.27
0.01
AVERAGE 0.632 <0.05 0.032 0.1318 0.0186
MAXIMUM 1.98 <0.05 0.047 0.27 0.031
MINIMUM 0.25 <0.05 0.019 0.064 0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION 0.754135 0 0.010344 0.084506 0.008325
-------
490055.CHM
BUNDERSON SPRING
"ORET
Source Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-DO
F-Sp.Cond
Flow, cfs T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes
D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot. Alk.
T Hardns.
)
Code Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490055
3
4
42594
1815
12 5
8.2
9 5
450
0 5
6
49
24
<1
7 9
10 5
13 679
212
221
490055
3
4
50994
1700
14 9
8
12
446
2
7
57
23
<1
7 7
9
20.193
62
236 8
490055
3
4
52394
745
13 7
7.9
12 2
458
1 <3 0
56
24
<1
79
9 5
13.629
261
238 5
490055
3
4
60694
1130
18 7
7 8
7 8
448
0 2
32
54
24
<1
84
10
15.185
218
233.5
490055
3
10
62294
1145
490055
3
10
70594
1200
490055
3
4
71894
1230
15.7
7.7
4 8
420
0.1 <3.0
41
23
12 8 1
95
10 573
192
196 9
490055
3
4
81094
1700
152
74
5
482
2 <3 0
42
24
12 8 3
10
10
200
203.5
490055
3
4
82394
1000
15
7 6
6 5
445
2 <3 0
43
24
1 2 8.1
10
10
203
206
490055
3
4
91994
1120
14
76
6
204
2 <3 0
45
24
12 8 3
9 5
10
205
211
490055
3
4
102694
1210
13 1
6 8
7 2
474
2 <3 0
47
25
12 8 2
10
10
205
220 1
AVERAGE
14 75556
7 666667
7 888889
425.2222
1 311111
7
48 22222
23 88889
11 8 1
9 777778
12.58
195.3333
218 5889
MAXIMUM
187
8 2
12 2
482
2
32
57
25
12 84
10 5
20 193
261
238 5
MINIMUM
12 5
6 8
4.8
204
0 <3 0
41
23
<1
7 7
9
10
62
196 9
STANDARD DEVIATION
1 811154
0 403113
2 782734
84.85249
0.853587
95
6.13958
0.600925
0 10541 0.229129
0 440959
3 494737
53 8052
15 29987
-------
490055.NUT
BUNDERSON SPRING
STORET Source
Sample
Date
Time T.K.N
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490055
3
4
42594
1815
0.45 <0.05
0.024
0.119
0.01
490055
3
4
50994
1700
0.1 <0.05
0.011
0.568
0.01
490055
3
4
52394
745
0.69 <0.05
0.01
0.543
0.01
490055
3
4
60694
1130
0.25 <0.05
0.06
0.165
0.016
490055
3
10
62294
1145
490055
3
10
70594
1200
490055
3
4
71894
1230
0.24 <0.05
0.042
0.304
0.087
490055
3
4
81094
1700
0.26 0.077
0.088
0.278
0.039
490055
3
4
82394
1000
0.24 <0.05
0.045
0.291
0.037
490055
3
4
91994
1120
0.1 <0.05
0.044
0.326
0.04
490055
3
4
102694
1210
0.18 <0.05
0.035
0.37
0.023
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.278889 0.053 0.039889 0.329333 0.030222
0.69 0.077 0.088 0.568 0.087
0.1 <0.05 0.01 0.119 0.01
0.185839 0.009 0.024421 0.150113 0.024808
-------
490056 CHM
PUMP STATION WEST OF MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET
Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-D.O.
F-Sp Cond
Flow, Cfs
T Sus Sol
D-Calcium D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot. Alk.
T. Hardns.
No
Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490056
3 4
42594
1945
87
7 5
4 3
895
1
8
96
38
14
42
95
13 564
348
395 9
490056
3 4
50994
1750
162
77
4 6
821
1
15
94
37
15
40
87
11.294
338
386.8
490056
3 4
52394
BOO
10 5
7 5
7 1
690
02
6
81
32
4 6
19
38 5
13 881
317
333 8
490056
3 4
60694
1230
15 8
7 8
7 4
594
1 1
12
69
32
5
13
19
12 297
284
303 8
490056
3 4
62294
1215
14 5
7.7
99
623
1 5
10
71
30
4 3
15
23 5
15 573
277
300 6
490056
3 4
70594
1315
14 2
8 2
11.4
618
0 3
7
78
33
8 4
19
40
10
315
330 4
490056
3 4
71894
1145
16
76
10.1
636
02
27
75
33
4 3
17
30 5
12 056
303
322 9
490056
3 4
81094
1530
23 9
8 1
13
602
02
8
66
33
4 5
18
30
12 112
287
300 4
490056
3 4
82294
18 8
7 3
56
689
0 3
6
74
32
6 8
22
45.5
13.69
297
316 3
490056
3 4
91994
1445
19 5
8 2
6 7
684
0 3
10
69
31
11
20
35
21 576
277
299 7
490056
3 4
102694
1040
8 1
7
4
879
5
84
34
86
25
47.5
13 707
315
349 5
490056
3 4
110994
1515
5 2
7 5
1 6
1173
0 2
13
78
34
14
20
41
14 08
321
334 5
490056
3 4
12495
1415
3 8
7.8
5.3
1530
0 2
46
110
51
120
51
147 5
38.787
533
484.3
490056
3 4
42595
1630
10 8
7 5
9.7
734
0 2
31
99
40
14
41
87
17 22
130
411.6
490056
3 10
51095
AVERAGE
13 28571
7 671429
7192857
797 7143
0 515385
14 57143
81 71429
35
16 75
25.85714
54 78571
15.70264
3101429
347 8929
MAXIMUM
23 9
82
13
1530
1 5
46
110
51
120
51
147 5
38 787
533
484 3
MINIMUM
3 8
7
1 6
594
02
5
66
30
5
13
19
11 294
130
299 7
STANDARD DEVIATION
5 706927
0 338387
3 240006
263 5388
0.457978
11 91453
13 23415
5 378018
30 00035
12 16462
36 11611
7 221799
82 35837
53 74598
-------
490056.NUT
PUMP STATION WEST OF MANTUA RESERVOIR
STORET Source Sample Date Time T.K.N. Ammonia T. Phos. D-N02+N D-T Phos.
Code Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490056
3
4
42594
1945
4.1
1.806
0.546
0.132
0.428
490056
3
4
50994
1750
2.68
1.063
1.474
0.073
0.771
490056
3
4
52394
800
0.6
0.143
0.22
3.043
0.075
490056
3
4
60694
1230
0.63
0.076
0.345
1.781
0.266
490056
3
4
62294
1215
0.75
0.123
0.24
1.134
0.165
490056
3
4
70594
1315
0.85
0.387
0.226
1.304
0.012
490056
3
4
71894
1145
0.67
0.217
0.15
0.977
0.078
490056
3
4
81094
1530
1.31
0.312
0.151
0.482
0.094
490056
3
4
82294
1.18
0.171
0.255
0.641
0.228
490056
3
4
91994
1445
0.8
0.137
0.82
0.575
0.725
490056
3
4
102694
1040
1.57
0.708
0.321
0.502
0.185
490056
3
4
110994
1515
3.45
1.311
0.477
0.8
0.26
490056
3
4
12495
1415
28.45
20.364
1.986
0.253
1.327
490056
3
4
42595
1630
0.91
0.73
0.783
1.05
0.283
490056
3
10
51095
AVERAGE
3.425
1.967714
0.571
0.9105
0.349786
MAXIMUM
28.45
20.364
1.986
3.043
1.327
MINIMUM
0.6
0.076
0.15
0.073
0.012
STANDARD DEVIATION
7.288563
5.320598
0.544405
0.775672
0.362029
-------
490125.CHM
BOX ELDER CREEK ABOVE DIVERSION
STORET Source
Sample
Date
Time
F-Temp
F-pH
F-DO
F-Sp Cond
Flow, cfs
T Sus Sol
No Code
Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
Deg C
mg/l
umhos/cm
mg/l
490125
3
4
42694
1915
8 1
8.2
94
145
22 1
18
490125
3
4
50994
1645
13 8
7 9
8 1
137
15.9
8
490125
3
4
52394
1245
109
8 1
8 9
183
2 9
4
490125
3
10
62294
1300
490125
3
10
70594
800
490125
3
10
71894
1400
490125
3
10
81094
1245
490125
3
10
82294
1715
490125
3
10
91994
930
490125
3
10
102694
900
490125
3
10
110994
1130
490125
3
10
12495
1030
490125
3
4
51095
1800
9.9
7 7
9 1
167
11.7
9
490125
3
4
52295
740
84
7 9
10 5
201
17 5
16
AVERAGE
10.22
7 96
92
166 6
14 02
11
MAXIMUM
13 8
8 2
105
201
22 1
18
MINIMUM
8 1
7 7
8 1
137
29
4
STANDARD DEVIATION
2 301521
0194936
0 87178
26 43483
7 245136
5 830952
D-Calaum D-Magnes D-Potassu D-Sodium Chloride
mg/l
mg/l
10
10
17
12
16
13
17
10
3 316625
mg/l
2 9
2 9 <1
4 5 <1
3 4 <1
4.8 <1
3.7
4 8
2 9 <1
0 897218
mg/l
mg/l
32
3.2
3.8
3 5
3 5
3 44
38
32
0 250998
Sulfate
mg/l
2 5 <10.0
1 <10.0
2 <10 0
05 <100
25 <100
1.7 <100
2 5 <10 0
05 <100
Tot Alk.
mg/l
41
41
64
T. Hardns.
mg/l
36 9
36 9
60 9
0 908295
44
61
50 2
64
41
11 3446
43 9
59 7
47 66
60 9
36 9
11 89487
-------
490125.NUT
BOX ELDER CREEK ABOVE DIVERSION
STORET
Source Sample
Date
Time
T.K.N.
Ammonia
T. Phos.
D-N02+N
D-T Phos.
No
Code Type
MMDDYY
HHMM
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
490125
3
4
42694
1915
0.21
<0.05
0.019
0.059
0.033
490125
3
4
50994
1645
0.39
<0.05
0.033
0.058
0.026
490125
3
4
52394
1245
0.45
<0.05
0.03
0.03
0.013
490125
3
10
62294
1300
490125
3
10
70594
800
490125
3
10
71894
1400
490125
3
10
81094
1245
490125
3
10
82294
1715
490125
3
10
91994
930
490125
3
10
102694
900
490125
3
10
110994
1130
490125
3
10
12495
1030
490125
3
4
51095
1800
0.42
<0.05
0.026
0.14
0.01
490125
3
4
52295
740
0.27
<0.05
0.025
0.25
0.01
AVERAGE
0.348
<0.05
0.0266
0.1074
0.0184
MAXIMUM
0.45
<0.05
0.033
0.059
0.033
MINIMUM
0.21
<0.05
0.019
0.03
0.01
STANDARD DEVIATION
0.103053
0
0.00532
0.089682
0.010502
------- |