East Canyon Reservoir
Diagnostic Feasibility Clean Lakes Study
By
Harry Lewis Judd
Project Officer
July 15, 1999
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
This study was conducted in cooperation with the United
-------
East Canyon Reservoir
Diagnostic Feasibility Clean Lakes Study-
Project Officer
Harry Lewis Judd
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
By
Harry Lewis Judd
July 15, 1999
This study was conducted in cooperation with the United
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The East Canyon Reservoir: Diagnostic/feasibility Study by the
Division of Water Quality within the Department of Environmental
Quality, is a product of technical assistance and support of a
large number of people not all of who are mentioned below.
Appreciation is extended to the staff of the Division of Water
Quality's monitoring section for their assistance in conducting the
water quality monitoring and providing field information that has
assisted in the evaluation of pollutant sources in East Canyon
Reservoir watershed. A special thanks to those individuals through
cooperative agreements have participated in the gathering of water
quality data utilized to evaluate conditions in East Canyon Creek
and East Canyon Reservoir. Specifically, we would like to thank
the staff of Snyderville Basin Wasterwater Treatment Plant for
their assistance in this effort.
Special recognition is given to members of the East Canyon
Technical Advisory Committee under the direction of Richard
Bojanowski and Ray Loveless, Water Quality Director for
Mountainland Association of Governments for their assistance in
evaluation of information and their contributions to understanding
the dynamics of the system and local perspective related to this
proj ect.
We also appreciate the assistance from other agencies and
individuals in the collection of biological and other related data
used in this report. Specifically the Division of Wildlife
Resource personnel for their assessments related to riparian
corridor and the fisheries throughout the watershed, the Bureau of
Reclamation for their assistance in evaluating the toxicity of
metals in the food chain, and the Utah Automated Geographic
Reference Center.
Finally, we appreciate the financial support received for the
project from the Environmental Protection Agency. We recognize and
appreciate the interest and support of Dr. David Rathke, the Clean
Lakes Coordinator for Region VIII for his guidance and assistance.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Executive Summary vii
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Recreation 2
1.2 Limnological Assessment 3
2.0 Background 6
2.1 Public Access and Public Use 7
2.2 Watershed Description 8
2.2.1 Soil and Geology 10
2.3 Basin Hydrology 10
2.4 Point Sources 11
2.5 Nonpoint Sources 12
2.5.1 Urban Runoff 12
2.5.2 Stream Bank Erosion 17
2.5.3 Agriculture 18
2.5.4 Urban Development 18
3.0 Water Quality Monitoring 20
3.1 Water Quality Monitoring Sites 20
3.2 Sampling Procedure 20
3.3 Sampling Schedule 21
3.3.1 Monitoring 21
3.4 Parameters Measured 21
3.4.1 Lake Sites 21
3.4.2 Stream Sites 22
3.5 Laboratory Sites 22
3.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control 22
4.0 Watershed Evaluation 24
4.1 Hydrology 24
4.2 Metal Analysis 25
4.3 Chemical Analysis 27
4.4 Total Suspended Solids Analysis 32
4.5 Nutrient Analysis 32
4.5.1 Total Phosphorus Loadings 3 4
4.6 Biological Analysis 38
4.7 Significant Pollutant Sources 39
4.7.1 Urban Runoff 3 9
4.7.2 Agriculture 40
4.7.3 Construction, Development and Recreation 41
4.7.4 Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant 41
5.0 Reservoir Water Quality 42
5.1 Introduction 42
5.2 Lake Processes 42
5.2.1 Algae 43
5.2.2 Macrophytes 44
5.2.3 In-Lake Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles 45
5.2.4 Sedimentation and Nutrients 46
5.3 Water Chemistry 47
5.3.1 Total Phosphorus 47
-------
5.4 Trophic Level Evaluation 50
5.4.1 Carlson Trophic State Index 50
5.4.1.1 Transparency TSI "51
5.4.1.2 Total Phosphorus TSI 52
5.4.1.3 Chlorophyll-a TSI 55
5.4.2 Vollenweider's Model 55
5.4.3 Larsen Mercier Model 55
5.5 Phytoplankton Community Dominance 56
5.6 Reservoir Response 61
6.0 Recreation/Socio-Economic Evaluation 62
7.0 Public Participation 63
8.0 East Canyon Reservoir Watershed TMDL/WRAS Development 64
8.1 TMDL/WRAS Development and Allocation of Responsibility 65
8.1.1 Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant 67
8.1.2 Riparian Corridor/Stream Restoration 68
8.1.3 Urban Runoff 71
8.1.4 Development/Construction 72
8.1.5 Lead Agencies for Implementation, Monitoring,
Maintenance, and Evaluation 73
8.2' Monitoring and Evaluation 74
9.0 References 75
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Land Cover in the watershed
Land Ownership designation in the watershed
Soils designation in the watershed
Nutrient Data Set used in this report
Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature Profiles
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
East Canyon State Park Visitation Data
Table
2
Effluent limitations for Snyderville Basin, East Canyon Plant
Table
3
Water Quality Characteristics of Urban Runoff
Table
4
EMC Mean Values used in Load Comparison
Table
5
Estimate of Annual Urban Runoff Loads (Kg/Ha/year)
Table
6
Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Table
7
Water Budget Summary
Table
8
Metal analysis for watershed stream sites (values in ug/L)
Table
9
Metal analysis of aquatic life in East Canyon Reservoir
Table
10
Chemical analysis at designated watershed sites
Table
11
Average annual concentrations of nutrient data at stream sites
Table 12
Annual and quarterly total phosphorus loadings above East Canyon Reservoir
Table
13
Summary of annual total phosphorus loadings at watershed sites
Table
14
Current and projected loadings from urban runoff bases on NURP data
Table
15
Summary of chemical data (mg/L) for East Canyon Reservoir above dam site
Table
16
Trophic state index values for reservoir sites
Table
17
Phytoplankton floras from East Canyon Reservoir for 1994
Table
18
Phytoplankton floras from East Canyon Reservoir for 1995
Table
19
Phytoplankton floras from East Canyon Reservoir for 1996
Table
20
303(d) Identified Impaired Waters
Table
21
TMDL Endpoints for East Canyon Creek Watershed Impaired Waters
Table
22
Loading calculations based on annual flow rates and concentrations
Table
23
Comparative annual loadings based on defined TMDL endpoints
Table
24
Required elements for TMDL or WRAS development
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 State Park Recreation Site
Figure 1.2 East Canyon Resort
Figure 1.3 Water column data
Figure 2.1 Physical Data Summary
Figure 2.2 East Canyon State Park Annual Visitation Data
Figure 2.3 East Canyon Reservoir Watershed
Figure 4.1 Annual TSS loadings at station above East Canyon Reservoir
Figure 4.2 Total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L) at watershed tributary sites
Figure 4.3 Total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L) at watershed tributary sites
Figure 4.4 Average annual values for total phosphorus concentrations and loads
for Snyderville WWTP
Figure 5.1 Cycling of nutrients in a lake is important factor in lake productivity
Figure 5.2 Annual total phosphorus concentration in East Canyon Reservoir and
East Canyon Creek
Figure 5.3 Average annual trophic state index vales for East Canyon Reservoir
Figure 5.4 Average annual TSI values for total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and
transparency
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
East Canyon Reservoir is a valuable freshwater resource in Utah.
Recreation, wildlife, agriculture, and water supply are key beneficial uses
served by the lake. The area's value as a recreational resource is highlighted
by over 300,000 user days at the state park surrounding the reservoir during peak
use years in the 1980's and a significant number of visitors at East Canyon
Resort at the south end of the reservoir. The fishery is the focal point of
activity at the reservoir as shown by visitation records. Water from the
reservoir is used primarily downstream for irrigation on downstream lands,
recreation and for municipal and industrial purposes in the urban area of Davis
and Weber Counties with proposals to return water to the upper watershed for snow
making, culinary and other residential uses.
According to the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources, the fishery in East
Canyon Reservoir has deteriorated as a result of poor water quality. Oxygen
concentrations below 10 meters, drop to near zero during the mid to late summer
period, and surface water temperatures may approach levels that are lethal to
many fish.
This report summarizes water quality data through 1997, but the focus of
the discussions extends primarily through 1996. We acknowledge that Snyderville
Basin Sewer Improvement District (SBSID) has implemented a biological phosphorus
removal component for some of their effluent, but an in-depth discussion of
reductions achieved or their impact on the reservoir has not been incorporated
into this report. Findings reported in this report indicate that an excessive
total phosphorus load is responsible for a degradation of water quality and
impairment for the defined cold water fishery. The average concentration of
total phosphorus in the water column has consistently exceeded the State
pollution indicator for phosphorus of 25 ug/L. For the period 1992-97 the
average total phosphorus concentration in the water column of the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) data set is 117 ug/L. A review of past studies and current
findings indicate that current loadings of available phosphorus are such that the
reservoir is on the boundary between eutrophic and hyper-eutrophic condition and
the reservoir has exhibited an increasing eutrophication trend in recent years.
Currently the waters of East Canyon Creek and Reservoir are defined in Utah's
303(d) list as impaired.
Waters listed on Utah's 303(d) list require the development of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL's) for those stressors or pollutants identified as
causes of the impaired water quality. The objective of the TMDL process is to
restore water quality for the impaired defined beneficial uses by identifying
all significant sources of pollutants and designing strategies to reduce, or
eliminate those sources. In addition to restoring the cold water fishery, it is
also important to protect for the culinary water use and for water-based
recreation uses.
The primary focus of the proposed restoration plan for the reduction of
total phosphorus within the system is on the controllable significant sources of
sediment and phosphorus including: Snyderville Basin wastewater treatment plant
(SBWWTP); urban runoff; construction activities associated with residential,
business and recreation areas; agricultural related activities; and at risk
-------
to reduce total phosphorus loadings to the point where trophic state index values
are in the mesotrophic range (40-50) , shift the algal community dominance away
from blue-green species composition, reduce temperature regimes in the
epilimnion, and reduce anoxic conditions present in the hypolimnion.
In order to achieve this it is recommended that an annual loading to the
reservoir be established based on an annual target concentration value of 0.05
mg/L for" the waters flowing into the reservoir. A similar endpoint for the
stream is recommended with implementation of a pilot riparian corridor project
to evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced riparian canopy and stream bank
stabilization on temperature and macrophyte growth to determine if this is an
acceptable endpoint or if modification need to be made to restore water quality
defined beneficial uses in the impaired stream reaches.
All available evidence indicates that we could expect a favorable response
to reductions of "phosphorus loadings" which would reduce productivity and
-------
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
East Canyon Reservoir is a large reservoir behind the northern Wasatch Front.
Its watershed drains the Snyderville Basin area, the home of several major ski
resorts. In addition its close proximity to the population centers on the
northern Wasatch Front, the location of a State Park makes this a very popular
reservoir for year round recreation.
The current dam, a concrete arch, was created in 1966. Two other dams were
constructed prior to the completion of the current concrete, arch dam. The
spillway creates a spectacular waterfall off the west side of the dam. The
reservoir shoreline is owned by the
State of Utah, and public access is
generally unrestricted, but
vehicular access to the west side
of the reservoir is restricted.
Reservoir water is protected for a
cold water fishery, recreation,
agriculture and culinary use.
Although the waters have been
designated as a culinary water
Location
County Mcrgan
Longitude / Latitude 111 35 20 ' 40 54 20
USGS Maps East Canyon Reservoir -1975
DeLorme's Utah Atlas & Gazetteer™ Page 53, A-6
Cataloging Unit Lower Weber (16020102)
-------
source, historically the water has been used primarily for agricultural
irrigation. Currently there is a move to shift some of this agricultural water
back to the upper basin for reuse primarily as culinary water. As urban sprawl
continues to displace agricultural lands, the fraction consumed for culinary
purposes is expected to increase.
1.1 Recreation
East Canyon Reservoir is located in East Canyon between 1-80 and 1-84. The
primary all year access is U-66 from Morgan (Exit 103 off 1-84) . Alternate
routes via U-65 from the south (Exit 134 off 1-80 in Parley's Canyon) or the
north (Exit 115 off 1-84 in
Henefer). U-66 follows the
north shore of the reservoir,
while U-65 follows the east
shore. There is limited access
to the southern half of the west
shore by a gravel road off U-65.
Driving time is about Yi hour
from the mouth of either
Parley's or Weber Canyons.
Cross-country skiing,
fishing, boating, sailboarding,
swimming, camping, picnicking,
ice fishing, and water skiing
are all popular. Recent usage
trends as indicated in Table 2 .1
Figure 1.1 State Park Recreational Site show a decline in the
recreational use of the
reservoir. During the past fifteen years the average number of visitors to the
State Park was 189,512. In 1986 visitations numbers at the park were 312,224
with an average well over 200,000 prior to 1987.
Recreational facilities include a wide concrete boat ramp, modern rest rooms
with showers, sewage disposal,
a 31 unit campground with a
large overflow area, and fish
cleaning stations. A
concessionaire provides food,
meals and boat rentals. The
park is located on U-66 on the
north shore of the reservoir,
one mile west of the junction
with U-65. Entrances are well
marked. There are no other
campgrounds in the area, and
little public land is available
for dispersed camping. Also
East Canyon Resort is located
near the southern end of the
reservoir with a wide range of
facilities available to the
public.
Figure 1.2 East Canyon Resort
-------
1.2 Limnological Assessment
The water quality of East Canyon Reservoir is fair. It is considered to be
hard with an average hardness concentration value of approximately 245 mg/L
(CaC03)for the period 1992-97. The parameters that exceed State water quality
standards for defined beneficial uses are phosphorus, temperature and dissolved
oxygen. The average concentration of total phosphorus in the water column has
consistently exceeded the State pollution indicator for phosphorus of 25 ug/L.
For the period 1992-97 the average total phosphorus concentration in the water
column of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) data set is 117 ug/L. This high
concentration is due primarily to high nutrient loadings from the watershed where
a major municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges into East Canyon Creek.
Other contributors include nonpoint sources of nutrients associated with
agriculture, stormwater, residential, recreational and commercial development.
In addition internal phosphorus loading occurs from lake sediments due to
extensive anoxic conditions present in the reservoir. These high concentrations
of nutrients stimulate the production of blue green algae and excessive algal
production in general. This excessive production is directly tied to impaired
water quality.
Figure 1.3 depicts a typical pattern for a dissolved oxygen/temperature
profile of the water column near the dam obtained on September 1, 1992. The low
dissolved oxygen concentrations as shown substantiate the fact that water quality
impairments do exist. Concentrations
dropped dramatically below the
thermocline (9-10 meters) to virtually
anoxic conditions. In addition summer
surface water temperatures exceed the
established criteria (20°C) for a cold
water fishery. These factors (low
dissolved oxygen and high surface
temperatures) coupled together
eliminate a very large portion of the
reservoir as fishery habitat. Because
of these impairments the reservoir and
its watershed have been the focus of
a Clean Lakes Phase I study.
According to the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources report. East Canyon
Creek: Aquatic-Riparian Management
Plan (1998), the fishery in East
Canyon Reservoir has deteriorated as
a result of poor water quality. A
more complete discussion of the
fishery status in the stream and
reservoir is given in the paper, "East
Canyon Creek Fisheries Summary".
Oxygen concentrations below 10 meters,
drop to near zero during the mid to
late summer period, and surface water
temperatures may approach levels that
Figure 1.3 Water column data
D
SC
£H
DO
Cond
0
182
88
105
645
1
173
8.7
104
647
2
16.8
8.7
94
650
3
166
86
85
652
4
162
83
64
661
5
159
63
59
664
6
157
8.2
55
667
7
156
82
50
669
8
144
79
2.7
683
9
136
7.8
08
697
10
10.9
77
00
718
11
93
76
00
721
12
87
7.6
0.1
726
13
8.0
76
00
728
14
7.4
76
0.1
727
15
66
7.6
0.1
730
16
63
7.6
0 1
732
17
62
7.6
0 1
731
18
59
76
0 1
733
19
5.8
76
0.1
734
20
5.8
76
0.1
734
21
58
7,6
0 1
734
22
58
7.6
0 1
734
23
57
76
0.1
735
24
57
76
0.1
736
25
5.7
75
0.1
735
26
5.7
75
01
735
27
57
7.5
0 1
735
28
57
7.5
0 1
736
29
57
75
0.1
738
30
57
75
0.1
736
31
57
75
0.1
736
32
5.8
7 5
0 1
737
32.S
) 6 1
75
0.1
740
Temp
DO
-------
are lethal to many fish.
Throughout the productivity season algae, and organic debris at the bottom
of the reservoir extract oxygen from the water column during respiration and
decomposition which contribute to the loss of available habitat for fish. Anoxic
conditions move upward in the water column and high temperatures move down into
the water column.
During the period for which these conditions persist, trout are confined to
a narrow band of water and smaller fish are subjected to greater predation. In
addition to marginal temperature during the summer and low levels of dissolved
oxygen concentrations, fish are stressed by factors related to crowding,
competition for food, and increased susceptibility to anchor worm infection.
Utah Division of Wildlife Resource's (DWR) fisheries summary attributes loss of
two spring plants in 1990 and 1991 of fingerling rainbow trout (~ 300,000 fish
each) to these conditions. These conditions are a result in part to the high
productivity experienced in the reservoir stimulated by the high concentration
of nutrients within the reservoir.
Elevated levels of nutrients stimulate large algae blooms in late summer and
early fall. These algal blooms not only contribute to the loss of dissolved
oxygen from the water column but also detracts from swimming and water skiing
activities in the reservoir. Algal production can also have a negative impact
on treatment of this water for municipal and industrial uses. To produce high
quality culinary water additional treatment such as 'activated charcoal addition'
or other 'pretreatments' may be required which add significantly to the costs of
treating surface water for use. Current plans to pipe water from the reservoir
back into the upper watershed for culinary purposes may need to address this
issue.
Poor water quality conditions are indicated by the dramatic decline in the
number of visitors to the state park in recent years.
According to DWR and DWQ fish kills have been reported in recent years. In
late summer of 1994 a fish kill was observed in the south arm of the reservoir
by the author during a routing monitoring trip. In addition to poor water
quality conditions, the fish population is infected with the parasite, Lernaea.
Lernaea is an anchorworm that causes lesions and sores on the external surface
of fish. These conditions and the stress factors associated with water quality
are responsible for the loss of fish at the reservoir.
The reservoir has populations of the following game fish: rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) , cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) and some brown trout
(Salmo trutta). Macrophytes are not typically present and therefore not a
problem.
As observed during the study period the phytoplankton community is dominated
by blue-green algae and diatoms that are indicative of eutrophic waters.
Water quality concerns that have been identified in East Canyon Reservoir
include algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen concentrations coupled with high
epilimnetic temperatures leading to periodic fish kills, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations during winter ice coverage and outbreaks of anchorworm parasitism.
In order to better understand the reasons for impaired water quality and
establish recommendations to improve water quality in the reservoir, further
studies were needed to provide more limnological information, to identify and
quantify pollutant loadings and establish watershed alternatives to address these
concerns.
The primary purpose of this Phase I study was to obtain such essential
information. The major objectives of this study are:
-------
~ to develop and implement a detailed water quality monitoring program for East
Canyon Reservoir and its associated watershed;
~ to investigate the current limnological conditions with the reservoir; and
~ to develop alternatives for the restoration or protection of water quality
in East Canyon Reservoir.
Field and laboratory monitoring of water quality in the reservoir and
watershed was started in June 1991 and continued until June 1993. The data
obtained during this period was deemed inadequate considering the potential
ramifications on development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus
with the reservoir watershed and its effect on point sources dischargers.
Therefore additional monitoring was conducted through a cooperative monitoring
program between the Utah Division of Water Quality and the Snyderville Basin
Wastewater Improvement District from 1994-97.
The objectives of the program were modified as follows:
~ to review the historical water quality information,
~ to identify and quantify pollution sources,
~ to develop a nutrient budget for the reservoir,
~ to assess the lake water quality and its trophic state,
~ to determine nutrient loadings and implement the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) process and partition nutrient loads and reductions for the
restoration requirements for the lake and stream,
~ to evaluate the loss of social, economic and recreational benefits resulting
from problems associated with water quality,
~ to develop a list of alternatives for restoration, and
~ to assess the costs, benefits and feasibility of restoration.
The reservoir is a valuable freshwater resource. Recreation, wildlife,
agriculture and culinary water supplies are the key defined beneficial uses of
the reservoir. This Clean Lakes 314 Water Quality Study has been jointly funded
by the Environmental Protection Agency, Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
and Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. Additional support has been provided
by Snyderville Basin wastewater treatment improvement district during the final
study phase of this project.
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
Weber River water was first used by new settlers for irrigation about 1848.
Water development was reasonably rapid, and by 1896 more than 100 canal companies
had begun to divert water from the river or its tributaries and had established
rights to all of the normal summer flow. The 3,850 acre-foot East Canyon
reservoir, constructed by private interests in 1896, was one of the first storage
reservoirs in the basin. It was enlarged to a capacity of 29,000 acre-feet in
1916 .
Planning for the Weber Basin project, which included East Canyon Reservoir,
started in 1942 . A report issued July 1949 led to congressional authorization
of the project by the Act of August 29, 1949 (63 Stat. 677) . The first
appropriation of construction funds was made July 9, 1952. A construction
contract to enlarge East Canyon for the third time was awarded on April 6, 1964,
and completed July 1966.
The Weber Basin Project Repayment Contract between the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District was signed on December 12, 1952.
The contract established that the reimbursable construction cost of the project
was to be repaid by the water users. The operation and maintenance of the East
Canyon Reservoir rests with the Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company, with
costs shared with the District as agreed to in Contract 14-06-400-3373 entitled
Contract among the United States, the Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company and
the Weber Basin Conservancy District Relating to the Construction of the East
Canyon Dam and Reservoir and the Operation and Maintenance Thereof.
The contract gives the Canal Company the permanent right to an annual yield
of 28,000 acre-feet of stored water in the reservoir. The United States, for the
use of the Weber Basin Project, has the permanent right to the annual yield of
storage over and above the 28,000 acre-feet. Within the storage pool there is
3,000 acre-feet of inactive capacity reserved for fishery conservation.
The Contract also gives the Canal Company the responsibility of operation and
maintenance of the dam and reservoir for project purposes.
Upon completion of the dam, recreational development began around the
reservoir, as designed by the National Park Service. In 1967 the basic
recreational features were constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, with
culinary water and electricity added in 1969. In 1969 the State of Utah added
a boat dock and vault toilets.
On June 1, 1967, Contract No.
14-06-400-487 6, An Agreement
Between the United States of
America and the Utah State Park and
Recreation Commission Concerning
the Administration and Development
of Lands and Facilities at the
Enlarged East Canyon Reservoir for
Recreation Purpose was signed,
giving the State of Utah the
administration of the recreational
aspects of the reservoir area.
This agreement was updated by
Contract No. 14-06-400-6092 on June
27, 1974.
Physical
Data Summary
Latitude:
40°46 ' 06"
Longitude:
111°34 ' 59"
Township:
2N
Range:
3E
Section:
10
Watershed area:
36,442 ha (90,047 a)
Elevation:
1739 m (5,705 ft.)
Max. Surface Area:
262 ha (648 a)
Max. Volume:
63,228,532 m (51,260 af)
Active Storage:
Mean Depth:
31 m (102 ft)
Max. Depth:
59 m (195 ft)
Figure 2.1 Physical Data Summary
-------
2.1 Public Access and Public Uses
All of the shoreline of the reservoir and the management area around the
reservoir is accessible to the public for recreational uses identified by the
state park, with some restrictions to the western shores. Visitors can access
the reservoir from either Highway 65, which parallels the east shore, or by
Highway 66, which parallels the northern shore. Also access to the south and
west sides of the reservoir is provided by the southwest access road. East
Canyon Reservoir is easily accessible to motorists via Highway 65 and 66 which
have connections to Interstates 80 and 84. Figure 2.1 is a map of the reservoir
watershed with indicators for various recreational opportunities associated with
the reservoir.
The state designated beneficial use classifications for the reservoir
include: (1C) culinary, (2A) recreational bathing (swimming) , (2B) boating and
similar recreation (excluding swimming) , (3A) cold water game fish and organisms
in their food chain and (4) agricultural uses.
East Canyon State Park Visitation
June
Julv
Auaust
SeDtember
October
November
December
Total
1982
74,151
60,876
55,941
2,250
2,982
1,998
420
235,323
1983
56,906
57,294
61,417
9,312
4,123
1,320
60
223,051
1984
83,967
71,596
67,095
10,456
3,332
1,060
440
279,539
1985
87,318
71,806
71,213
7,476
3,428
124
616
289,759
1986
93,612
74,172
63,296
7,824
3,528
2,112
1,720
312,224
1987
I 80,208
68,944
63,224
8,532
3,692
2,428
300,634
1988
| 21,324
25,496
13,389
4,864
6,016
1,260
668
116,398
1989
I 16,156
31,583
18,923
10,832
4,729
11,797
2,994
140,097
1990
40,390
38,429
23,057
4,455
2,929
1,550
787
189,279
1991
23,642
39,816
23,506
7,388
4,781
672
430
119,537
1992
| 25,716
18,763
13,170
7,318
1,176
676
252
108,395
1993
I 83,379
34,706
34,706
3,851
1,037
2,383
3,437
155,432
1994
12,733
36,795
27,321
7,318
1,085
875
1,039
152,035
1995
12,733
35,094
30,389
6,473
1,396
1,760
1,428
110,876
1996
33,376
36,795
18,763
5,467
1,085
787
738
110,106
1997
I 12,733
36,795
77,087
Table 1 East Canyon State Park Visitation Data
Table 1 summarized the visitation records at the East Canyon State Park
adjacent to the reservoir. As indicated by the graph in figure 2.2, it is
clearly evident that there is a declining trend of park visits at the state park.
Traditionally according to state park records fishing and boating are the
primary recreational activities engaged in by visitors to the park. Strong
arguments can be made that this decline is due in part to the reduction in water
quality and its effect on the fishery. The number of visits to East Canyon
Reservoir has fluctuated but from 1982 to 1987, visitations rose to above 300,000
users per year. Since then, use has declined significantly to about 111,000
users.
-------
Em* Canyon Stat* Park Total Annual VMU
Fishing, which is the single most
popular recreational activity at East
Canyon Reservoir, has been adversely
impacted by a decline in water quality.
Trout are stressed by low dissolved oxygen
concentration through the hypolimnion from
mid-summer to early autumn. This
condition resulted in a complete loss
(100% mortality) of fingerling rainbow
trout stocked in 1990 and 1991 as reported
in DWR's fishery summary.
State Park Records show that nearly 98
percent of those who visit the reservoir
area are Utah residents and almost all of
those come from Salt Lake, Davis, Weber,
"" "" Cache, Morgan, Tooele or Summit counties.
Figure 2.2 East Canyon State Park Annual The combined population of these counties
Visitation Data . ¦ i ^ nnr, i_ ._i
is projected to reach 1,410,000 by the
year 2000 . With the accelerated growth and development in Park City and Summit
County and the increased activity associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics there
will need to be a major focus on protecting water quality and implementation of
projects to restore or improve water quality throughout the watershed.
2.2 Watershed Description
East Canyon Reservoir is an impoundment of East Canyon Creek. The watershed
as depicted in figure 2.3 drains the back side of the Wasatch Front, from behind
Big Cottonwood Canyon to behind Emigration Canyon.
The area around the watershed is relatively dry compared to the areas closer
to the Wasatch Front. Vegetation is mostly sage-grass, but there are areas of
spruce-fir in sheltered, north facing slopes. Refer to Appendix A for a map of
the vegetative communities of the watershed. Unlike the canyons that drain to the
west, the scenery is not the lush forests most recreationalists hope to find in
the mountains.
The watershed extends south and west from the reservoir. The highest
elevations are along the Wasatch Front, with 10,000 foot ridge lines common at
the south end of the watershed. The eastern border of the watershed is only
slightly higher than the stream elevations in many areas. Like many areas behind
the Wasatch Front, the divides between drainages are very low, with Parley's
Summit, Snyderville basin to Park City, and Parley's Park all being major divides
at low elevations. Silver Creek was once the headwaters of East Canyon Creek,
but appears to have been diverted into the Weber Basin in recent geologic
history. The Snyderville Basin is rapidly urbanizing, creating changes in
water quality for this watershed. Nutrient and sediment loading within the
watershed are major issues at the present time. Pollutant sources include urban
runoff, golf courses, dairies and other cattle operations, construction and
development sites, erosion and loss of riparian habitat, and discharge from the
municipal wastewater treatment facility. These sources are the likely reasons
for water quality problems at the reservoir. The East Canyon Technical Advisory
Committee is attempting to bring about a coordinated effort to control sources
of pollution and restore impaired water quality. Currently there is a spirit of
cooperation by all parties associated with these problems.
-------
East Canyon Reservoir Watershed
General Features Map &
STORET Monitor Locations
492515—
492516'
492518
492519
492520
492513
492523
492524
492525
492526
Silver Creek
Junction
Figure 2.3 East Canyon Reservoir Watershed
492536
N
-------
The watershed high point is 2,753 m (9,034 ft) above sea level, thereby
developing a complex slope of 9% to the reservoir. The average stream gradient
above the reservoir is 4.2% (220 feet per mile). The inflows are East Canyon
Creek, Dixie Hollow, Taylor Hollow, and Sawtooth Creek. The outflow is East
Canyon Creek. The watershed is made up of high mountains, low mountains, and
valleys.
The vegetation communities consist of pine, spruce-fir, oak-maple, alpine
tundra, and sagebrush-grass. The watershed receives 41 - 102 cm (16 - 40 inches)
of precipitation annually. The frost-free season around the reservoir is 80 -
100 days"per year. Current land ownership identification in the watershed is
represented in Appendix B.
Presently, all six square miles of Snyderville Basin, a relatively flat area of
the upper part of the watershed, is under heavy development pressure. The
watershed is almost entirely privately owned, leaving it susceptible to
development
2.2.1 Soil and Geology
Soils and geology in the watershed area vary greatly from limestone-capped
bedrock mountain peaks to fertile, loamy farmland to lush wetlands. Those
formations and soil groups that affect water quality are generally the farmland
soils near the streams. These soils are generally of the Broadhead and Henefer
groups, characterized by good topsoil, greater than 60" depth to water table, CL
classification, moderate permeability, and slight erosion hazard.
Although it is difficult to generalize in one short paragraph, the largest
impact from the soils seems to come from streambank erosion and associated
sediments and minerals washed into the stream from various construction oriented
activities. Streambank erosion is exacerbated where vegetative cover is sparse.
None of the surface soils except a limited amount in the upper watershed
associated with the Park City formation appear to be high in natural minerals
such as phosphorus. However, substantial amounts of precious metals have been
located in the sub-surface soils in the Park City mining District area. For a
more in-depth discussion of soils types, refer to the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS)soil survey of the Park City Area. A new soil survey
is currently underway and is expected to be completed by fall of 1999. Limited
soils information is contained in Appendix C.
2.3 Basin Hydrology
Most of the inflow to East Canyon Reservoir comes from East Canyon Creek.
The major sources of perennial flows in the basin are the Spiro Tunnel and the
Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant, while spring runoff from snow melt
provides the greatest flow, primarily during April and May.
The mean annual precipitation in the East Canyon drainage is 26-37 inches per
year, with 73 percent coming from snow during the period of October to April.
During spring runoff East Canyon Creek flow increases from 15 cfs to 350 cfs.
The East Canyon drainage basin contains 145 square miles and the following 10
small perennial streams: Kimball Creek, McLeod Creek, Spring Creek, Three Mile
Creek, Two Mile Creek, Big Bear Hollow, Toll Creek, Schuster Creek, Big Dutch
Hollow, and Little Dutch Hallow. Figure 2.3 shows the location of these various
streams in the East Canyon Watershed.
A more extensive discussion of the basin hydrology is contained in the
-------
section (4) on watershed evaluation. The average flow at the East Canyon Creek
near Morgan (USGS Station 10134500) for the period of record, 1938-1996 is 41, 520
acre-feet per year. This station is approximately 2, 500 feet downstream from the
East Canyon Reservoir Dam.
2.4 Point Sources
There are two point sources in the watershed, the Snyderville Basin
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Park City's Park avenue storm drain. The
Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant has been identified by the Division
of Water Quality in their report, "Weber River Basin and Farmington Bay Area
Stream Assessment(Toole, September, 1995) as a significant source of nutrient
loading in East Canyon Creek. The Park Avenue storm drain is of lesser
significance. No permit has been issued, nor is one pending for the storm drain
although stormwater regulations are now being implemented in other areas of the
state. The Utah State Division of Water Quality is assessing the need for a
NPDES permit, and voluntary action for storm water in Park City.
The Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant went on-line in 1980. It
serves the Park City/Snyderville Basin area. The facility currently consists of
an extended aeration air-activated sludge treatment process with ultraviolet
disinfection. The physical plant consists of a bar screen and aerated grit
chamber, an influent channel with a weir and equipped with ultrasonic continuous
recording equipment and a second influent line equipped with an in-line mag
meter, one oxidation ditch and secondary clarifier, two primary clarifiers, one
activated sludge aeration basin, two secondary clarifiers, four shallow bed
filters with automatic (and manual) backwash, flow paced ultraviolet light
disinfection, two aerobic sludge holding tanks, two solids centrifuges, and a
mechanical post-aerator basin. The facility was placed in service in 1980 with
a design capacity of 1.3 MGD.
In July of 1996 a bioreactor side (oxidation ditch and secondary clarifier)
of 1.5 MGD capacity was added voluntarily to the plant operations. One of the
primary purposes for this upgrade was to incorporate into their treatment process
the ability to reduce nutrients, primarily phosphorus, as much as possible. The
plant has a combined current capacity of 2.8 MGD. The existing population
equivalent (estimate due to the large influx of population during the
recreational ski season) is estimated to be near 22,600 with an expectation of
near 28,000 by the year 2003. Data summarized by Snyderville Basin SID prior to
May, 1997 indicate that the influent organic loading was 2,504 lbs/day for five-
day BOD, and 2,879 lbs/day for TSS.
Effluent limitations imposed on this facility are contained in Utah Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit number UT0020001. In general there
are limitations imposed for ammonia, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand,
dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, fecal and total coliforms, pH, and oil
and grease. A summary of these limitations is include in Table 2.
The Utah Division of Water Quality has defined new permit limits effective
May 1, 1999. Total phosphorus is a new parameter under consideration for
inclusion as a limit in a possible reopener of the permit. A current recommended
limit has been purposed at 0.05 mg/L or 2.085 pounds per day, whichever value is
the most stringent, but negotiation with Snyderville Basin District are underway
to define criteria needed in the permit to protect water quality.
-------
Effluent Limitations
Parameter
30-day average
7-day average
Daily Minimum
Daily Maximum
CBODs mg/L/% minimum removal
12/85
17
TSS, mg/L/Minimum Removal %
25/85
35
Fecal .coliforms #/100 mL
200
250
Total coliforms #/100 mL
2000
2500
pH
6.5
9
DO, mg/L
6.0
Oil and grease, mg/L
10
Ammonia as N, mg/L
June-August
December-February
Other months
2.0
2.9
2.3
8.4
10.5
8.6
Table 2 Effluent limitations for Snyderville Basin, East Canyon Plant
2.5 Nonpoint Sources
Sources of pollution which may have an impact on reservoir water quality-
include: urban runoff; stream bank erosion; agricultural practices; urban and
recreational development.
2.5.1 Urban Runoff
Urban runoff is defined as water that originates from urban areas developed
for residential and business development within the watershed. It can result
from improper irrigation, precipitation on hard surfaces such as asphalt,
concrete, or rooftops during and after a rainstorm or as snow melt, or merely as
erosion induced as water moves across soils lacking vegetation. As water travels
across these types of surfaces, transport of nutrients, sediments, metals and
other pollutants occurs.
In the Park City area some of this runoff is contained in a storm water drain
system that eventually discharges directly into a live waterway. Where storm
drain systems are not present runoff may be transported across a variety of
surfaces prior to entering a live waterway. In some cases vegetative buffer
strips may be present to reduce or control the movement of some pollutants into
live waterways. However, in many areas development that is directly adjacent or
near a live stream pollutants may enter a given waterway without any significant
loss of sediment or nutrient load. These types of contributions of sediments and
nutrients into the system can be a significant source of controllable nutrients
and sediments.
Because of the uncertainties about the true significance of urban runoff as
-------
a contributor to receiving water quality problems, Congress made treatment of
separate stormwater discharges ineligible for Federal funding when it enacted the
Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1977. To obtain information that would help resolve
these uncertainties, the Agency established the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) in 1978. The program was designed as a 5 year effort to gather data.to
examine such issues as:
1. the quality characteristics of urban runoff,
2. the extent to which urban runoff is a significant contributor to
water quality problems, and
3. the performance characteristics and the overall effectiveness and
utility of management practices for the control of pollutant loads
from urban runoff.
Conclusions from that project are contained in the document, "Results of the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program" , produced by the Water Planning Division of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in December, 1983. The remaining
information contained in this section has been taken from that document.
As part of the project, 28 locations were identified to gather data related
to urban runoff issues. One of those sites was in Salt Lake City, Utah. An
early point in the discussion was the general agreement that urban runoff causes
problems. Remedial costs may be high, but the benefits are obvious.
In order to characterize urban runoff, monitoring was conducted at 81
acceptable "loading sites" in 22 different cities and included more than 2300
separate storm events.
The event mean concentration (EMC), defined as the total constituent mass
discharge divided by the total runoff volume, was chosen as the primary water
quality statistic . Event mean concentrations were based on flow weighted
composite samples for each event at each site in the accessible data base. EMCs
were chosen as the primary water quality characteristic subjected to detailed
analysis, even though it is recognized that mass loading characteristics of urban
runoff (e.g., pounds/acre for specified time interval) is ultimately the relevant
factor in many situations. The reason is that, unlike EMCs, mass loadings are
very strongly influenced by the amount of precipitation and runoff, and estimates
of typical annual mass loads will be biased by the size of monitored storm
events. The most reliable basis for characterizing annual or seasonal mass loads
is on the basis of EMC and site-specific rainfall/runoff characteristics.
The following conclusions were presented as characteristics of urban runoff
and are summarized in Table 3:
1. Heavy metals (especially copper, lead and zinc) are by far the most
prevalent priority pollutant constituents found in urban runoff. End of
pipe concentrations exceed EPA ambient water quality criteria and drinking
water standards in many instances. Some of the metals are present often
enough and in high enough concentrations to be potential threats to
beneficial uses. It should be noted that documentation of these
exceedances do not necessarily imply that an actual violation of standards
will exist in the receiving waters, but the enumeration of exceedances
serves as a screening function to identify those heavy metals whose
presence in urban runoff warrants high priority for further evaluation.
Based upon the extensive NURP data set for total copper, lead, and zinc,
the site median EMC values for the median urban site are: copper = 34
ug/1, lead = 144 ug/1 and zinc = 160 ug/1. For the 90th percentile urban
-------
site the values are: copper = 93 ug/1, lead = 350 ug/1 and zinc - 500
ug/1. These values are suggested to be appropriate for planning level
screening analyses where data are not available.
2. The organic priority pollutants were detected less frequently and at lower
concentrations than the heavy metals.
3. Coliform bacteria are present at high levels in urban runoff and can be
expected to exceed EPA water quality criteria during and immediately after
storm events in many surface waters, even those providing high degrees of
dilutions. Fecal coliform counts in urban runoff are typically in the
tens to hundreds of thousand per 100 mL during warm weather conditions,
with the median for all sites being around 21,000/100 mL. During cold
weather, fecal coliforms counts are more typically in the 1,000/100 mL
range, which is the median for all sites.
4. Nutrients are generally present in urban runoff, but with a few individual
site exceptions, concentrations do not appear to be high in comparison
with other possible discharges to receiving water bodies. Median site EMC
median concentrations in urban runoff were total phosphorus = 0.33 mg/1,
soluble phosphorus = 0.12 mg/1, total kjeldahl nitrogen = 1.5 mg/1 and
N02+3 as Nitrogen = 0.68 mg/1.
5. Oxygen demanding substances are present in urban runoff at concentrations
approximate to those in secondary treatment plant discharges. If
dissolved oxygen problems are present in receiving waters of interest,
consideration of urban runoff controls as well as advanced waste treatment
appears to be warranted. Urban runoff median site EMC median
concentrations of 9 mg/1 BOD5 and 65 mg/1 COD are reflected in the NURP
data, with 90th percentile site EMC median values being 15 mg/1 BOD5 and
140 mg/1 COD.
6. Total suspended solids concentrations in urban runoff are fairly high in
comparison with treatment plant discharges. Urban runoff control is
strongly indicated where water quality problems associated with TSS,
including build-up of contaminated sediments, exist.
Event to Event
Variability in
Constituent EMC's (Coef Var)
Site Median EMC
For Median Urban Site
For 90tb Percentile Urban Site
TSS (ma/It
1-2
100
300
B0D5 (mq/1)
0.5-1.0
9
15
COD (mq/1)
0.5-1.0
65
140
Total Phosphorus
0.5-1.0
0.33
0.70
Soluble Phosphorus
0.5-1.0
0.12
0.21
TKN (ma/1)
0.5-1.0
1.50
3.30
N02+3 -N (ma/1)
0.5-1.0
0.68
1.75
Total coooer
0.5-1.0
34
93
Total lead (ua/1)
0.5-1.0
144
350
1 Total zinr (ua/1 )
Q,5-1.0
160
500
Table 3 Water Quality characteristics of Urban Runoff
In general the effects of urban runoff on receiving water quality are
-------
highly site specific. They depend on the type, size, and hydrology of the
waterbody; the urban runoff quantity and quality characteristics; the designated
beneficial use; and the concentration levels of the specific pollutants that
affect that use.
Although the EMC median concentrations values are appropriate for many
applications (e.g., assessing water quality impacts in rivers and streams), when
cumulative effects such as water quality impacts in lakes and comparisons with
other sources on a long-term basis (e.g., annual or seasonal loads) are to be
examined, the EMC mean concentration values should be used. These EMC mean
concentrations and the values used in the load comparison to follow are listed
in the following Table 4.
Constituent
Site Mean EMC
Median Urban Site
90th Percentile Urban
Site
Values Used in Load
Comparison
TSS (ma/1)
141 - 224
424 - 671
180 - 548
BOD5 (ma/1)
10 - 13
17 - 21
12 - 19
COD (ma/1)
73 - 92
157 - 198
82 - 178
Total Phosphorus
0.37 - 0.47
0.78 - 0.99
0.42 - 0.88
Soluble Phosphorus
0.13 - 0.17
0.23 - 0.30
0.15 - 0.28
TKN (mq/1)
1.68 - 2.12
3 .69 - 4.67
1.90 - 4.18
N02+3 -N (ma/1)
0.76 - 0.96
1.96 - 2.47
0.86 - 2.21
Total copper
38 - 48
104 - 132
43 - 118
Total lead (uq/1)
161 - 204
391 - 495
182 - 443
Total 7inc lua/ll
179 - 226
559 - 707
202 - 633
Table 4 EMC Mean Values used in Load Comparison
It is a straight forward procedure to calculate mean annual load estimates for
urban runoff constituents on a Kg/Ha basis by assigning appropriate rainfall and
runoff coefficient values and selecting EMC mean concentration values. A runoff
coefficient (RV), defined as the ratio of runoff volume to rainfall volume, has
been determined for each of the monitored storm events As with the EMCs, the
runoff coefficient values at a particular site area, with relatively few
exceptions, well characterized by a lognormal distribution. Typical values for
mean runoff coefficient (based on NURP data) have been assigned for residential
land use (Rv = 0.3) , commercial land use (Rv = 0.8) , and for an aggregate urban
area which is assumed to have representative fractions of the total area in
residential, commercial, and open uses (Rv = 0.35).
Some observations can be made from a general comparison made as part of the
NURP study. One of the central points in source identification of pollutants is
the determination of the relative magnitude of those contributing sources. A
comparison of urban runoff to the general operation of a well run secondary
treatment plant was investigated. The following assumptions were made:
• Effluent values used for the treatment plant were TSS = 25 mg/L, BOD5 = 15
mg/L, and total phosphorus = 8 mg/L;
• Urban runoff mean concentrations used were TSS = 180 mg/L, B0D5 = 12 mg/L,
-------
total phosphorus = 0.4 mg/L for a typical situation and TSS = 548 mg/L,
B0D5 = 19 mg/L and total phosphorus = 0.88 mg/L for a worst case
situation;
• A value of 0.35 was selected as a typical mean runoff coefficient; and
• An average population density of 10 person per acre (the average of the
NURP sites) and a mean annual rainfall of 40 inches per year, urban runoff
averages 104 gallons per day per capita which is also a reasonable
estimate of sewage generation in an urban area.
Therefore, the ratio of mean pollutant concentrations of urban runoff and POTW
effluents will also be the ratio (urban values/WWTP values) of their annual
loads. Thus, we have;
TSS = 180/25 = 7; B0D5 = 12/15 = 0.8; and Total phosphorus = 0.4/8 = 0.05
using typical urban runoff values, and;
TSS = 548/25 ~ 22; BODS = 19/15 = 1.3; and Total phosphorus = 0.88/8 = 0.01
using worse case values.
These numbers suggest that annual loads from urban runoff are approximately
one order of magnitude higher than those from a well run secondary treatment
plant for TSS, an equal order of magnitude for BOD5, and an order of one
magnitude less for total phosphorus.
If the hypothetical urban area just described were to go to advanced waste
treatment and achieve an effluent quality of TSS = 10 mg/L, B0D5 = 5 mg/L and
total phosphorus = 1 mg/L and no urban runoff controls were instituted, the mean
annual load reductions to the receiving waters would be:
TSS = 25-10/180+25 = 7%; BOD5 = 15-5/12+15 = 37%; and Total phosphorus = 8-1/0.4+8 = 83%
for the typical case, and;
TSS = 25-10/548+25 = 3%; B0D5 = 15-5/19+15 = 29%; and Total phosphorus = 8-1/0.8P+8 = 79%
for the worst case scenario.
On the other hand, if urban runoff controls that reduced TSS by 90%, B0D5 by
60%, and total phosphorus by 50% were instituted, (typical results from a well
designed detention basin), the mean annual load reductions to the receiving
waters would be:
TSS = 180-18/180+25 = 79%; BOD5 = 12-7/12+15 = 19%; and Total phosphorus = 0.4-0.2/0.4+8 = 2%
for the typical case, and;
TSS = 548-55/548 + 25 = 86%; B0D5 = 19-8/19 + 15 = 32%; and Total phosphorus = 0.88-. 44/0.58 + 8 = 5%
for the worst case scenario.
Therefore if these pollutants are causing receiving water quality problems,
consideration of urban runoff control appears warranted for TSS, both urban
runoff control and advanced wastewater treatment might be considered for B0D5,
and only advanced wastewater treatment might be effective for total phosphorus
control under these scenarios.
It should be noted that local values for annual rainfall, runoff coefficient,
or point source characterization that are different than those used in the
illustration will of course change the results shown; although in most cases the
-------
changes would not be expected to cause a significant change in the general
relationship. However, removal of phosphorus from all sources in a water quality
impaired watershed is important. Reductions from sources other than a treatment
plant with advanced wastewater treatment may be more economical and practical due
to escalating costs associated with chemical removal of phosphorus to low
concentrations. When attempting to reduce annual total phosphorus loadings due
to cost constraints, it may be more beneficial to focus on reduction from other
sources.
As a final perspective on urban runoff loads, Table 5 presents an estimate of
annual urban runoff loads, expressed as Kg/Ha/year, for comparison with other
data summaries of nonpoint source loads which state results in this manner. Load
computations are based on site mean pollutant concentrations for the median urban
site and on the specified values for annual rainfall and runoff coefficient.
Constituent
Site Mean
Concentration
mg/L
Residential
Rv = 0.3
Commercial
Rv = 0.8
Aggregate
Rv ¦» 0.35
TSS
180
550
1460
640
BOD 5
12
36
98
43
COD
82
250
666
292
Total Phosphorus
0.42
1.3
3.4
1. 5
Soluble Phosphorus
0.15
0.5
1.2
0 . 5
TKN
1.90
5.8
15.4
6.6
N02+3 -N
0.86
' 2.6
7.0
3 . 6
Total cooper
0.043
0.13
0.35
0.15
Total lead
0.182
0.55
1.48
0 . 65
Total zinc
0 202
0.62
1 .64
0.72
Table 5 Estimate of Annual Urban Runoff Loads (Kg/Ha/year)
The annual load estimates which results are comparable to values and ranges
reported in the literature. Remember the annual loads shown by Table 5 have been
computed on the basis of a 40 inch annual rainfall volume. For urban areas in
regions with higher or lower rainfall, theses loads estimates can be adjusted by
factoring by the ration of local rainfall volume to the 40 inch volume used for
the table provided the remaining variables remain constant.
A review of best management practices (BMP's) for control effectiveness of
urban runoff, indicates there is a strong preference for detention devices,
street sweeping, and recharge devices as reflected by the control measures
selected at the local level for detailed investigation. Interest was also shown
in grass swales and wetlands. A discussion of these measures can be found in the
NURP report.
2.5.2 Stream Bank Erosion
Stream bank erosion, the loss of sediments in direct proximity to waterways
can be attributed to several factors. Typically the stability of streambanks is
reduced due to an alteration or loss of the protective vegetative cover essential
for stabilization of those soils comprising the bank structure. These unstable
-------
soils can then be eroded away by water movement or a variety of mechanical
mechanisms.
Although there is no comprehensive quantitative study assessing the conditions
of all of the stream channels in the watershed, it can be stated that there is
a general agreement that one of the sources of sediment and total phosphorus to
East Canyon Reservoir is the existence of unstable streambanks. Denuded
streambanks do occur and areas of active erosion are present in the watershed
Refer to section 8.1.2 for a description of current streambank conditions.
2.5.3 Agriculture
Many of the activities associated with farming or ranching provide the
potential for the movement of nutrients , salts, sediments or other pollutants
into adjacent waterbodies. However, through utilization of good agronomic
practices and appropriate best management practices (BMP's) these can be reduced
or eliminated.
The quantity of phosphorus in agricultural runoff is influenced by 1) the
amount of phosphorus in the soil, 2) topography, 3) vegetative cover, 4) quantity
and duration of runoff, 5) land use, and 6) cropping practices. All though
runoff from agricultural land has not been precisely quantified, it is presently
contributing to the overall nutrient load to the reservoir and the implementation
of BMP's could reduce the overall loading of total phosphorus into watershed
waters.
Currently the proposed development of the 640 acre Leland Swaner Memorial
Wetland, will remove approximately 640 acres from agriculture production. This
will not only reduce agricultural impacts on water quality for this area, but
enhance the treatment of some surface waters in this area of the watershed.
Data from this study and other studies indicated that the Osguthorpe Dairy was
responsible for the transport of animal waste and surface wash from feeding areas
directly into the stream. Currently this dairy operation is not an active dairy.
Some animal wastes may still be present that could move into adjacent waterways
during episodic precipitation events, but the inactivation of this dairy in the
long term represents a significant decline of agricultural source of nonpoint
source of pollution.
Through the urbanization of the Park City and Snyderville Basin, agriculture
is giving way to housing, business and recreational developments. Even with the
loss of many agricultural acres there are still agricultural activities in the
watershed that will need to be addressed to reduce or eliminate identified
sources of nutrients and sediments into existing waterways.
The Division of Water Quality is in the process of trying to identify and
quantify existing nonpoint sources of pollutants in the watershed through a
consulting firm. A major focus of their effort will be to ascertain the affect
of conversion of agricultural lands into urban and recreational areas. The
primary purpose is to develop and implement strategies to control or eliminate
pollutants that might result as a result of this shift in land use in the
watershed.
2.5.4 Urban Development
Urban development pertains to those activities that occur during the natural
construction activities required as an area moves to a residential and business
type setting. During this process it is only natural for soil to be disturbed
-------
and the potential for new sources of pollutants to occur unless active steps are
taken to prevent the movement of materials into adjacent waterways.
During the past twenty years, Park City and much of the Snyderville Basin has
had a steady increase in the number of recreational and permanent homes built,
business properties developed, and recreation facilities (ski resorts, golf
courses et.al.) developed. It is readily apparent that this trend will continue,
if not escalate, for some time to come. Many of these developments have allowed
runoff from their properties or sites of construction or other activities to
discharge to the nearest drainage way or stream without adequate types of
detention or sediment control.
Current planning efforts will need to be implemented to control the movement
of sediments and nutrients from these types of sites through the implementation
of best management practices which inhibit movement of such materials from
construction sites. To assure adequate protection from contaminated runoff from
these areas or sites a concerted effort with a focus on local planning and zoning
ordinances with periodic inspections to assure compliance with ordinances will
need to be implemented by local governmental entities.
-------
3.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
3.1 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Water Quality monitoring for this project was designed to determine nutrient
loadings from the watershed and to establish the limnological conditions present
in the reservoir. In addition significant emphasis was directed towards lake
productivity and eutrophication. Monitoring sites are listed in Table 6 and
referenced by location in figure 2.3.
3.2 Sampling Procedure
During the Clean Lakes Phase I study, sampling was conducted by personnel from
the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the Weber Basin Water
Conservancy District. A Hydrolab was used to measure temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen and conductivity in the field.
All water samples obtained were "grab samples". Dissolved nutrients and
Site
Location
STORET
Number
Station
Number
Miles
above
Res.
LI
East Canyon Reservoir above dam
492516
WBWCD 01
0
L2
East Canyon Reservoir in east arm
492513
WBWCD 02
0
L3
East Canyon Reservoir in south arm
492518
WBWCD 03
0
SI
East Canyon Creek below East Canyon Reservoir
492515
WBWCD 01
-0.4
S2
East Canyon Creek above reservoir at USGS station
492519
WBWCD 02
0.2
S3
East Canyon Creek at U65 crossing
492520
0
S4
East Canyon Creek at bridge above Big Dutch
492521
WBWCD 03
0
S5
East Canyon Creek below Jeremy Ranch golf course
492523
WBWCD 04
0 . 5
S6
East Canyon Creek below Snyderville WWTP
492524
11.6
S7
Snyderville Basin WWTP
492525
SBWWTP
12 .4
S8
East Canyon Creek above Snyderville WWTP
492526
12.4
S9
East Canyon Creek 2.8 miles above Snyderville WWTP
WBWCD 05
15.2
S10
Kimble Creek
WBWCD 06
17 .7
Sll
McLeod Creek below Park City
WBWCD 07
22.1
L=Lake S=Stream
Table 6 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
-------
chlorophyll-a samples were filtered with a peristaltic pump through a millipore
filter (0.45(J.) . Chlorophyll-a samples were stored in a dark container and frozen
prior to analysis. Unlike stream or effluent grab samples, lake samples were
collected using a Van Dorn sampler at designated depths through the water column.
Water samples were refrigerated and transported to either the Utah State
Department of Health Laboratory in Salt Lake City or the Weber Basin Water
Conservancy District Laboratory located in Layton, Utah. Later during the
extended phase of monitoring, personnel from Snyderville Basin wastewater
improvement district participated in the collection of samples. They focused
primarily on the collection of samples associated with their facility discharge.
These samples were analyzed by a State certified lab or the State Health
Laboratory and which followed established criteria established by the Division
of Water Quality.
All sampling conducted by the Division of Water Quality was in accordance with
procedures and methods outlined in their quality assurance and procedures manual.
3.3 Sampling Schedule
3.3.1 Monitoring
Although, the initial monitoring schedule for the Phase I
diagnostic/feasibility study was to sample lake sites on a monthly basis from
June 1991 through June 1993 and stream and effluent sites on a biweekly basis
from March, 1992 through June, 1993, a review of the data shows that there really
was insufficient data obtained to conclusively move forward with recommendations
for restoration. Due to the potential impact to the wastewater treatment plant
in the watershed, it was mutually agreed upon by the parties involved that more
data be obtained for limnological assessment of the reservoir and an extension
of time for the project be allowed to evaluate a new biological treatment process
being implemented at the wastewater treatment plant be conducted.
An additional period of monitoring was established through a cooperative
monitoring program with the Snyderville Basin Sewer Improvement District (SBSID) .
Additional sampling was extended through September, 1997, but only sites at or
below 492526 were monitored. In addition to the original monitoring plan
phytoplankton samples were schedule for collection on the reservoir to provide
addition information to support the trophic state classification of the reservoir
and a more rigorous and extensive monitoring plan was developed to assess the
impact of new facilities at the wastewater treatment plant.
In an effort to assess the effectiveness of the biological process added in
the treatment monitoring was schedule at the treatment plant to coincide with
the stream monitoring. When the biological process came on line the monitoring
schedule would increase in frequency to provide as much data as possible for an
effective evaluation of the plant by SBSID staff.
3.4 Parameters Measured
3.4.1 Lake Sites
Field measurements
Temperature, Dissolved oxygen, pH, Specific Conductance, Secchi depth and/or
photo extinction
-------
Lab Analysis
Nutrients:
Total Phosphorus, Total filterable Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,
Nitrate/Nitrite, and Ammonia as N
Metals:
Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Silver, Manganese, Barium, Chromium,
Iron, Selenium, and Zinc
Chemistry:
pH, Alkalinity, Volatile Suspended Solids, Residual Suspended Solids,
Calcium, Potassium, Total Hardness, Magnesium, Sodium, Chloride Sulfate
Biological:
Chlorophyll-a, Macrophyte, Phytoplankton
3.4.2 Stream Sites
Field measurements
Temperature, Dissolved oxygen, pH, Specific Conductance
Lab Analysis
Nutrients:
Total Phosphorus, Total filterable Phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,
Nitrate/Nitrite, and Ammonia as N
Metals:
Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Silver, Manganese, Barium, Chromium,
Iron, Selenium, and Zinc
Chemistry:
pH, Alkalinity, Volatile Suspended Solids, Residual Suspended Solids,
Calcium, Potassium, Total Hardness, Magnesium, Sodium, Chloride Sulfate
Biological:
Macrophyte
3.5 Laboratory Sites
All water quality analysis, except field parameters, were performed by
either the Utah Department of Health Laboratory in Salt Lake City, Weber Basin
Water Conservancy District Laboratory located in Layton, Utah, Snyderville Basin
WWTP laboratory, or another certified laboratory under contract with Snyderville
Basin WWTP. Field parameters were measured on-site with a Hydrolab.
3.6 Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Sample collection, quality control, and data storage for all water quality
samples in this study were done in accordance with the State of Utah standards
and procedures. For a complete review refer to the Division of Water Quality's
quality assurance and procedures manual.
-------
All laboratories are State-certified environmental laboratories and maintain
an effective written Quality Assurance Plan to ensure that routinely generated
analytical data are scientifically valid and are of known and acceptable
precision and accuracy.
As part of the DWQ's routine quality assurance program, the validity of total
phosphorus data for 1997 came into question. Through the combined efforts of DWQ
staff and the Utah State Health Laboratory (USHL) all of the phosphorus data for
the period in question was scrutinized utilizing a ridged set of quality
assurance/quality control criteria. Only the data that met the established
guidelines was utilized for our report. Erroneous data was deleted for the DWQ's
database. Therefore it should be noted that summaries of the 1997 data set do
not have as many data points as the previous three years (1994-96) of the
extended study period.
-------
4.0 WATERSHED EVALUATION
4.1 Hydrology
The watershed area of East Canyon Reservoir contains 145 square miles. This
watershed produced an average annual water inflow to the reservoir of
approximately 41, 520 acre-feet according to USGS flow records for the period 1931
through 1996. For the period 1992 through 1997, annual water budgets varied
substantially from the annual average flow as depicted in Table 7.
A very simplified water budget formula has been used in determining water
budgets for the study period:
Total reservoir inflow = Outflow + Change in reservoir storage +
Precipitation + Groundwater - Evaporation
The documented flows in the watershed include the outflow as gaged at the USGS
station 10134500 (East Canyon Creek near Morgan, Ut), the change in reservoir
storage as indicated from USGS station 10134000 (East Canyon Reservoir near
Morgan, Ut) , and estimates for precipitation, and evaporation. Groundwater and
other inflow from minor streams are estimated as one variable.
Flow data above the Snyderville wastewater treatment plant (SBWWTP) was
calculated using the USGS flow determinations at their station 10133895, East
Canyon Creek above Big Bear Hollow near Park City, Utah, minus the reported flows
from SBWWTP. Records from this station are present for the period late 1989
through early 1996. The average annual flow at the Big Bear Hollow station from
1989 through early 1996 is 23,210 acre-feet. The approximate average annual flow
for the same period for East Canyon Creek above the treatment plant is estimated
at 22,295 acre-feet. This value was estimated by subtracting from the average
annual flow at Big Bear Hollow from the average annual discharge from the
treatment plant. It should be noted that the average total flow into East Canyon
Reservoir for the same period is 33,134 acre-feet on a calendar year basis which
is approximately 80 per cent of the long term average annual flow to the
reservoir. An estimated long-term flow of 27, 869 acre-feet per year will be used
later in determining annual loads above the wastewater treatment plant. This
value was determined by calculating 80% of the long-term flow rate above the
reservoir and should be used for planning purposes only.
The total water stored in the reservoir is based primarily on the USGS flow
records for the reservoir and the discharge from the reservoir. The reservoir
station is an record of the acre-feet of water present in the reservoir and
associated changes in the storage over time. The stream station (Morgan site)
located approximately 2,500 feet downstream from the reservoir is an active
station for the period of record 1931 to current date.
As indicated in Table 1 total inflow to the reservoir was determined by adding
to the flow data from the stream station, 10134500, any change in storage volume
in the reservoir for a given time period. For calculations of total inflow it
was assumed that precipitation was equal to evaporation and that groundwater
recharge coupled with intermittent tributary flows adjacent to the reservoir are
minimal or not significant enough to change the overall inflow value to the
reservoir.
-------
TIME
East Canyon
Creek above
WWTP
492526
Snyderville
WWTP
492525
East Canyon
Creek below
WWTP
492524
Total
Reservoir
Inflow
( H + CIS)
492519/20
East Canyon
Creek near
Morgan, Utah
492515
Retention
Period
East Canyon
Reservoir
Change in
Storage per
Period
96/97
61,840
60,590
0.98
1,350
96
*33,379
2,051
*35,430
54,620
58,050
1.06
(3,430)
95/96
34,870
54,060
57,430
1.06
(3,370)
1995
39,335
1,795
41,130
59,900
48,230
0.81
11,670
94/95
40,690
57,930
47,770
0.82
10,160
1994
15,220
1,550
16,770
22,350
32,360
1.45
(10,040)
93/94
17,350
22,630
32,950
1.46
(10,320)
1993
31,909
1,771
33,680
47,410
27,350
0.58
20,060
92/93
31,830
46,240
26,690
0.58
19,550
1992
7, 700
1,250
7,700
12,150
29,560
2.43
(17,410)
91/92
8,220
12,980
29,780
2 .29
(16,800)
1991
17,999
1,111
19,110
25,350
13,560
0.53
11,790
90/91
18,890
24,590
13,200
0.54
11,390
1990
9, 473
967
10,440
15,660
22,830
1.46
(7,170)
89/90
10,640
16,240
23,180
1.43
(6,940)
1989
922
28,640
25,270
0.88
3,370
88/89
28,300
25,470
0.90
2, 830
1988
609
18,080
19,530
1.08
(1,450)
87/88
19,750
19,560
0 . 99
190
1987
1,336
31,230
40,620
1.30
(9,390)
Table 7 Water budget summary
* Estimated values based on previous year data
4.2 Metal Analysis
Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, manganese, barium, chromium,
iron, selenium, and zinc were evaluated at four stream sites in the watershed.
The standards used for assessment were those associated with the 1C designation
for culinary waters and 3A designation for a cold water fishery. The most
stringent standard was used to determine impairment. In general average values
throughout the watershed did not exceed the State water quality standards for
defined beneficial uses. However there were two specific samples where it
exceedances of the standards did occur. The cold water fishery standard for lead
is 3.2 ug/L for the 4 day average, but 82 ug/L for the 1 hour average. At East
Canyon Creek below East Canyon Reservoir there was a reported value of 5.0 ug/L
-------
Date 1 M 1 Ba I ca 1 Cr 1 Cu 1 Fe 1 Pb 1 Mn I Se 1 AO 1 Zn 1 *1 I hcj
East Canyon Creek below East Canyon Reservoir (492515)
4/14/93
<5 0
100
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<30.0
<3.0
94
<5.0
<2 0
<20 .0
<0.2
7/22/93
<5.0
82
<1.0
<5 0
<20 0
<30 0
<3 0
15
<2.0
<2.0
<30 .0
<0 2
11/23/93
<5 0
78
<1.0
<5 0
<20.0
<20 0
<3 0
20
<1 0
<2 0
<30 0
<0.2
1/13/94
<5 0
110
1
<5 0
<20 0
82
<3.0
13
<1 0
<2 0
<30 0
<0.2
2/16/94
<5 0
92
<1.0
<5 0
<20 0
<20 0
<3.0
41
<1 0
<2.0
<30 0
<0 2
4/6/94
<5.0
91
<1.0
<5.0
<20 0
<20.0
<3 0
51
<1 0
<2 0
<30.0
<0.2
8/11/94
<5 0
90
<1 0
<5.0
<20 0
<20 0
5
37
<1.0
<2.0
<30.0
<30.0
<0 2
Ha&n
93
39
Maximum
<5.0
110
1
<5.0
<30.0
82
S
94
<5.0
<2.0
<30.0
<30.0
<0.2
East Canyon Creek above East Canyon Feservoir at U65 (492520)
6/24/92
<5.0
100
<1 0
<5.0
<20 0
<20 0
<5 0
18
<5.0
<2.0
<20.0
<0.2
8/6/92
<5 0
120
<1 0
<5 0
<20.0
<20.0
<5 0
43
<5 0
<2 0
<20 0
0.2
9/24/92
<5 0
120
<1 0
<5 0
<20 0
28
<5.0
61
<5.0
<2.0
<20.0
<0 2
11/5/92
<5 0
120
1
<5 0
<20.0
51
<5.0
76
<5 0
<2 0
<20 0
<0 2
1/20/93
<5 0
110
<1.0
<5 0
<20 0
28
<3.0
43
<5.0
<2 0
48
<0.2
4/1/93
<5.0
96
<1 0
<5 0
<20 0
54
<3 0
84
<5 0
<2 0
<20.0
<0.2
4/14/93
<5.0
99
<1 0
<5 0
<20 0
58
<3.0
77
<5.0
<2 0
<20 0
<0.2
7/22/93
<5 0
90
<1.0
<5 .Q
<20 0
<30 0
<3 0
25
<2 0
<2 0
<30.0
<0.2
11/23/93
<5.0
96
<1.0
<5.0
<20.0
<20 0
<3 0
21
<1 0
<2.0
<30 0
-------
in August, 1994. Although this value exceeds the 4 day average it is well below
the 1 hour value. This is near the minimum detectable limit (MDL) of 3.0 ug/L
and all other samples were reported at less than the MDL. Since the average
appears less than the standard it appears that no significant violation has
occurred. The other parameter of concern is zinc which has a 4 day average
standard of 110 ug/L with a 1 hour average of 120 ug/L. In January, 1993 a value
of 150 ug/L was report. This site is East Canyon Creek above Snyderville
Wastewater Treatment Plant. All of the other samples at this site were reported
below the minimum detectible limit. It does not appear that this is a problem
of concern using similar reasoning as related to the lead parameter violation.
In general there appears to be no metal problems within the watershed and the
data obtained is summarized in Table 8.
Fish, invertebrates, and crayfish were collected by Utah Department of
Wildlife Resources in September of 1990 and submitted to the Bureau of
Reclamation for trace element analysis. Sediment Samples were also collected and
analyzed for trace elements and nutrients.
Fish tissue analysis by the USBR revealed only one large fish to have mercury
levels anywhere near a standard. The fish analyzed had levels of 0.4 ppm,
whereas the standard for commercial seafood is 1 ppm. Utah does not have an
adopted standard. Refer to Table 9 for data.
The edible tissue fish portions in East Canyon were low in all trace elements
that might be harmful for human consumption, with the possible exception of
mercury in a single rainbow trout sample. This fish weighted 816 grams as
compared to the mean for all rainbow collected of about 126 grams. The 816 gram
rainbow had a weight wet (fresh weight) mercury concentration of .41 ppm in
edible tissue (muscle fillet) and 0.53 ppm in a combination liver/kidney sample.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a standard of 1 ppm fresh
weight for commercial fish.
Many States have adopted a lower standard than the FDA 1 ppm for fresh weight,
particularly for expectant mothers and young children. The State of Utah has not
adopted a more stringent standard for sport fisheries, and relies on the FDA
standard. Because mercury can accumulate faster in tissues than the excretion
rate, larger and older fish which are higher on the food chain do tend to
accumulate higher concentrations in their tissues. In general the fish in East
Canyon Reservoir are not considered to be toxic and have a lower range and
average mercury content than canned tuna.
In addition this one larger fish also had higher selenium concentrations, but
only in the liver/kidney and not in the edible tissue. Selenium is antagonistic
to mercury toxicity and is an essential trace element. This value is well within
permissible concentrations for human consumption.
The biological tissue data collected from organisms in East Canyon Reservoir
do not have concentrations of trace elements that should warrant any public
health advisories for human consumption based on Utah or FDA standards. The
trace elements are well within normal ranges, and no health impairment or
biological affects would be expected to the biota based on the samples collected
in 1990.
4.3. Chemical Analysis
In general water quality within the watershed boundaries is characterized as
'good' when comparing general parameter constituents with state water quality
-------
East Canyon Reservoir Fish Tissue Analysis
MCG/G
Description
As DW
As WW
Cd DW
Cd WW
Pb DW
Pb WW
Hg Dtf
Hg WW
Se DW
Se WW
%
Water
1 Kokanee Whole Body
0 200
0.060
0 020
0 004
0 100
0 030
0.686
0 174
1.100
0.280
74 7
2. Kokanee Edible Tissue
0 200
0 050
0 010
0 002
0.100
0.020
0.674
0 162
0.620
0 150
76
3 Kokanee Liver
0.200
0.050
0 058
0 Oil
0 100
0.020
1 600
0.300
5.200
1 000
80 .7
4 Kokanee Whole Body
0 400
0.200
0 020
0.007
0 010
0.040
0.600
0 224
0.740
0 .280
62 6
5. Redside Shinner Whole Body
0 700
0.140
0 020
0.004
0 300
0.060
0 350
0.070
1 000
0.210
80
6 Redside Shinner Whole Body
0 590
0 .150
0 043
0.011
0 100
0 030
0 400
0.100
1.100
0.280
73 9
7. Redside Shinner Whole Body
0 600
0 100
0 030
0 008
0 010
0.020
0 420
0.110
1.200
0 300
74 7
8 Redside Shinner Whole Body
0 760
0.210
0 055
0.015
0 300
0.070
0.400
0 110
1.000
0 290
72 3
9 Redside Shinner Whole Body
0 600
0.160
0 030
0.007
0 090
0.030
0 470
0 130
0 930
0 250
73.1
10. Trout Whole Body
0.500
0.100
0 034
0.008
0 090
0.020
0 450
0.100
1.200
0.260
77 3
11 Trout Edible Tissue
0 200
0.060
0 010
0.003
0.090
0.030
0 850
0 233
0.670
0.180
72.6
12 Trout Liver/Kidney
0.200
0.060
0.068
0.016
0 100
0 020
1.100
0.260
15.100
3 510
76.8
13 Trout Edible Tissue
0 .200
0 050
0.010
0 003
0 100
0.020
0.670
0.132
1.000
0 200
80 3
14 Trout Liver/Kidney
0 7C0
0 100
0.058
0.010
0.20C
0 030
0 470
0 082
5.700
0 990
82 5
15. Trout Whole Body
0 .300
0 050
0.010
0.002
0.100
0.020
0 440
0 910
1.100
0 220
79.3
16 Trout Edible Tissue
0 300
0 070
0.010
0 002
0.100
0.020
0.594
0.133
1.500
0 330
77.6
17. Trout Liver/Kidney
0 100
0 200
0 032
0.007
0.100
0 020
0 520
0.107
4 .700
0 .970
79.4
18 Trout Whole Body
0 200
0.060
0 043
0.012
0 100
0.030
0 575
0 161
2.400
0.670
72
19. Trout Edible Tissue
0 300
0.080
0 010
0.002
0.100
0.020
1.700
0 410
1.600
0.400
75 3
20. Trout Liver/Kidney
0 300
0 070
0 130
0.003
0 .100
0.020
2 300
0 530
13 .000
3 .000
77 3
21. Sucker Whole Body
0 780
0.120
0 070
0 010
0.380
0.055
0 130
0 019
2.300
0 340
85 3
22. Sucker Whole Body
0 600
0.180
0 037
0.011
). 200
0 050
0.068
0 265
0.890
0.270
69 7
23. Crayfish
1.700
0 490
0.038
0 011
0 680
0 020
0 160
0 047
0.770
0 220
71
24. Crayfish
2 300
0.060
0 086
0 023
0.940
0.240
0 062
0 016
0 900
0 230
74 1
25. Crayfish
2.300
0.410
0 057
0 010
0.740
0 130
0 036
0 006
1 100
0 200
82 4
26. Crayfish
1.800
0 540
0.079
0 024
0.760
0 240
0.120
0 035
0.700
0 220
69 6
HDL
0 02
0.02-3
0 1
0.00- 001 0.1
o
o
0 01-2
.001-5
0 1-3
0.01-6
27 Benthic Invertebrate
15 000
1 700
1.200
0.140
49.000
5 700
0 076
0 009
1.030
0 160
88.3
28 Benthic Invertebrate
11 000
2 000
0.930
0 170
30.000
5 500
0 058
0.010
0 870
0.160
81.8
29 Benthic Invertebrate
10.000
3 200
1 400
0.430
39.000
12.000
0 054
0.017
0 580
0.180
68 6
30. Benthic Invertebrate
12.000
0 680
1.200
0.070
58.000
3 .200
0 084
0.005
0.980
0.054
94.5
31. Benthic Invertebrate
17 000
1 100
1 100
0.073
44 000
2 900
0.059
0.004
1 200
0.078
93 4
Benthic invertebrate MDL
Data provided by Jerry Miller,
1-2 1-3 0.2
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
0 01-.006 4 1 0.01
Samples collected on September
) 0003- 002
L4, 1990
Table 9 Metal analysis of aquatic life in East Canyon Reservoir
-------
standards. Total alkalinity and hardness, total suspended solids, residual
solids, total volatile solids, calcium, potassium, magnesium, chloride, sodium,
and sulfate were evaluated. Table 10 summarizes the data obtained during the
study period on an annual basis. None of these chemical parameters in the
watershed exceeded the State water quality standards for East Canyon Creek's
designated beneficial uses. The water quality at East Canyon Creek above East
Canyon Reservoir at U65 station is considered to be hard to very hard with an
average concentration of 298 mg/L with a maximum reported value of 377 mg/L for
the period 1990 through 1997. The average alkalinity concentration is 197 mg/L
with a range from 145 to 238 mg/L for the same period at this site. The effects
of hardness on freshwater fish and other aquatic life appear to be related to
those ions that comprise the hardness and not the hardness itself. In general
the hardness and alkalinity concentrations and other parameters monitored for
these waters don't constitute a problems for defined beneficial uses.
Date
Ca
Mg
K
Na
CI
S04
T. Alk
T. Hard
TSS
TVS
RSS
HDL = 1
HDL = 3
HDL = 3
East Canyon Creek below East Canyon Reservoir (492515)
4/14/93
80 . 0
19.0
2.4
55.0
84 . 9
82.7
193
278
20.0
6.0
14.0
4/29/93
65.0
13 .0
1.6
27.0
58.0
50.1
145
216
12.0
5/12/93
78 . 0
19.0
2.5
54.0
87 .4
80.9
185
273
10.0
6.0
4.0
5/25/93
72 .0
18.0
2.4
52.0
83 . 9
75.4
172
254
8.0
6 . 0
1.5
6/10/93
63 .0
14 .0
2.3
29.0
53.0
51.1
151
215
9.0
3.0
6.0
7/22/93
75.0
16.0
2.4
39.0
74 .7
67.1
167
253
1.5
2 . 0
1.5
8/25/93
73 . 0
16 .0
1. 8
34.0
62 . 0
65 . 6
169
248
1.5
4.0
0.0
9/23/93
73 .0
17 . 0
2.4
40.0
74 . 9
67.8
170
252
1.5
2 . 0
1.5
10/28/93
71.0
17 .0
2.3
46.0
71.9
68.1
183
247
4.0
2.0
1.5
11/23/93
68.0
17 .0
2.1
47 . 0
77.4
70.5
180
240
1.5
0 . 0
3.0
1/13/94
73 .0
19.0
2 .1
40.0
63.9
59 .1
200
260
1. 5
1. 0
1.5
2/16/94
77.0
18 .0
2.3
48.0
74 . 9
69.4
177
266
1.5
3.0
1.5
3/24/94
78.0
19.0
2.0
40.0
75.0
65.6
177
273
27.0
8.0
19.0
4/6/94
77 . 0
18.0
2.3
39.0
72.0
68.0
177
266
8.0
2.0
6.0
4/21/94
79.0
19.0
2.3
48.0
80.5
72 .4
185
275
4.0
2 . 0
1.5
5/3/94
76 .0
18 .0
2.3
50.0
77 .5
67 .8
184
264
8.0
2.0
6.0
5/17/94
76.0
18.0
2.2
50. 0
78.5
67.5
185
264
4.0
4.0
1.5
6/1/94
77 . 0
17 . 0
2.1
39.0
69.5
63.6
194
262
5.0
1.0
4.0
6/15/94
80 . 0
18.0
2.5
40.0
75.5
69.7
182
274
6.0
4.0
1.5
Mean
74.0
17.0
2.2
43.0
73.4
67.5
178
257
7.1
3.2
4.2
Maximum
80.0
19.0
2.5
55.0
87.4
82.7
200
278
27 .0
6.0
19.0
Minimum
63.0
13.0
1.6
27.0
53.0
51.1
145
215
1.5
0.0
0.0
East Canyon Creek above East Canyon Reservoir at U65
1/16/90
100.0
22.0
2.0
93.0
160.0
100.0
200
340
1.5
2/15/90
110 . 0
22.0
2.0
94.0
160.5
110.0
216
365
1.5
4/5/90
91.0
19.0
2.0
37.0
73.0
92.0
185
305
9.0
5/17/90
84.0
20 .0
1.0
33.0
62.0
84.0
171
292
10.0
6/19/90
86.0
19.0
2.0
29.0
49 . 5
76 . 0
193
293
1.5
9/11/90
87 .0
18 .0
2.0
28.0
59.0
231
291
12 .0
10/10/90
88.0
19.0
2.0
33.0
51.9
79.0
215
298
0.0
12/11/90
98 . 0
21.0
3.0
40.0
65.9
92.0
216
331
3.0
-------
Date
Ca
Mg
K
Na
CI
S04
T. Alk
T. Hard
TSS
TVS
MS
2/20/91
110.0
24 .0
3.0
73 . 0
139 . 0
110. 0
204
373
5.0
5/8/91
68.0
13 .0
2.0
32.0
67.4
47.0
147
223
41.0
6/27/91
88.0
18.0
1.6
25.0
48.0
71.0
197
294
9.0
8/8/91
89.0
20.0
2.4
29.0
48.2
80.0
206
304
1.5
10/8/91
91.0
20.0
2.1
28.0
49.9
84.0
211
309
4.0
11/26/91
100.0
22 . 0
2.2
52 . 0
107 . 5
94.0
213
340
1.5
1/30/92
98.0
21.0
2.1
33.0
56.3
110.0
202
331
1.5
3/19/92
100.0
22.0
2.3
42 . 0
83 . 5
100. 0
202
340
4.0
4/21/92
95.0
21.0
1.7
38.0
75.9
88.0
209
323
14.0
6/24/92
87 .0
17 . 0
2.1
29.0
51.9
54.1
223
287
3.0
8/6/92
85.0
17.0
2.6
26.0
45.5
36.7
238
282
6.0
9/24/92
87.0
18.0
2.5
32.0
55.4
51.2
238
291
1.5
11/5/92
110.0
25.0
3.3
68.0
128 . 0
174.5
194
377
6.0
1/20/93
110.0
24.0
2.7
89.0
159.5
162.0
204
373
4.0
4/1/93
76.0
16.0
2.2
38.0
83 .4
73.8
151
256
40.0
4/14/93
82 .0
17.0
1.7
40.0
83 . 0
74 . 2
164
275
19.0
5.0
14 . 0
4/29/93
78.0
18.0
2.4
54 .0
86.1
80.8
186
269
8.0
5/12/93
38.0
15.0
2.2
33.0
42.5
33.0
145
157
50. 0
10.0
40 . 0
5/25/93
59.0
12.0
1.5
15.0
28 . 5
41.9
145
197
38.0
8 . 0
30.0
6/10/93
71 .0
15.0
1.5
20.0
37.8
65.8
173
239
14 . 0
3 . 0
11.0
7/12/93
10.0
4 . 0
6.0
7/22/93
85.0
18 .0
1.7
26.0
50.5
84 . 5
192
286
8.0
5.0
3.0
8/25/93
82 .0
19.0
1. 6
30.0
54.5
88.2
192
283
4.0
3.0
1.5
9/1/93
4.0
2.0
1.5
9/23/93
85.0
19.0
2.1
29.0
52 .4
79.2
200
290
4.0
1.0
3.0
10/28/93
94 .0
22.0
2.0
30.0
55.9
113.2
203
325
1.5
2.0
1.5
11/23/93
88.0
21. 0
2.2
31.0
57 .4
98.4
205
306
1.5
0.0
3.0
1/13/94
94 .0
21.0
2 .1
48.0
85 . 9
113 . 8
198
321
1.5
2.0
1.5
2/16/94
100.0
23 . 0
2 . 5
56.0
101.0
105.0
191
344
4.0
3.0
1. 5
3/24/94
97 .0
22 . 0
2.0
120.0
215.0
74.2
196
333
14.0
5.0
9.0
4/6/94
92 .0
19.0
1.9
48.0
87.5
70.3
194
308
20.0
6.0
14 .0
4/21/94
69.0
13 . 0
1. 5
28.0
57.0
37 . 5
161
226
35.0
7.0
28 . 0
5/3/94
82 .0
17.0
1.7
35.0
69.5
61.3
180
275
29.0
5.0
24 .0
5/17/94
65.0
13.0
1.3
20.0
36.0
43.2
161
216
40.0
10.0
30.0
6/1/94
77 .0
16.0
1.4
23.0
42.0
53.8
187
258
34.0
7 . 0
27.0
6/15/94
89.0
19.0
1.7
31.0
56.0
67 . 9
205
300
7.0
1.0
6.0
6/28/94
8.0
4.0
4.0
8/11/94
91.0
19.0
3.0
39.0
67 . 0
56. 8
235
305
6.0
10/26/95
90.0
21.0
2.1
33 . 0
60.5
115.9
194
311
4.0
11/15/95
1.5
2.0
1.5
3/6/96
110.0
23 . 0
2.3
160.0
310.0
82.4
198
369
6.0
4/18/96
72.4
15.2
1.5
44 .1
89.0
50.3
169
243
30.0
8/1/96
83 .1
17.4
1.3
32.4
61.0
58.5
218
279
6.8
9/10/96
94 .0
19.3
2.9
42.0
72.0
69.2
225
314
8.0
10/23/96
83 .6
18 . 6
2.5
38.0
76.0
70.4
213
285
4.4
12/3/96
96.3
20.9
2.6
58.1
115.0
74.7
212
326
21.6
1/30/97
104 .0
22 . 8
2.5
93 .8
190.0
101.4
200
353
17.2
7/10/97
83 .2
19.1
2.2
31.7
57.5
57.3
200
286
8.4
8/6/97
90.5
19.1
2.4
33.6
60.0
53.7
225
304
6.8
10/21/97
86.9
20 . 8
2.3
40 .1
73 . 0
75.0
213
302
13.2
-------
Date
Ca
Hg
K
Na
CI
S04
T. Alk
T. Hard
TSS
TVS
RSS
Mean
88.0
19.1
2.1
44.1
82.1
79.3
197
298
11.5
4.3
11.9
Maximum
110.0
25.0
3.3
160.0
310.0
174.0
238
377
50.0
10.0
40.0
Minimum
38.0
12.0
1.0
15.0
28.5
33.0
145
157
1.5
0.0
1.5
East
Canyon Creek above Snyderville Wastewater Treatment Plant (492526)
1/17/90
110.0
27 . 0
2.0
41.0
73 . 9
160.0
190
386
1.5
4/5/90
87.0
22 .0
2.0
25.0
54.3
120.0
154
308
9.0
6/19/90
80.0
23.0
0.5
19.0
37 . 0
12 0.0
151
294
1.5
9/6/90
86.0
26.0
2.0
20.0
0.0
140.0
160
322
1.5
10/10/90
99.0
27 . 0
2.0
18 . 0
37.5
170.0
172
358
0 . 0
12/11/90
100.0
26.0
2.0
20.0
42 .0
150.0
188
357
1.5
2/20/91
110.0
28.0
2.0
46.0
94 .4
160.0
188
390
12.0
5/8/91
73.0
17 . 0
1.7
26.0
50.3
81.0
139
252
14 . 0
10/8/91
90.0
26.0
1.7
21.0
42.5
150.0
154
332
1.5
11/26/91
97 . 0
26 . 0
2.0
41.0
73 .0
150.0
190
349
4.0
1/30/92
89.0
25.0
1.7
20.0
38.5
160.0
179
325
4.0
3/18/92
100.0
26.0
1.7
25.0
54.7
150.0
180
357
13 .0
4/21/92
95.0
26.0
1.5
26.0
59.7
150.0
176
344
6.0
6/24/92
72.0
23 . 0
1.5
25.0
54.9
115.0
141
274
5.0
8/6/92
82.0
28.0
2.5
26.0
58.0
164 .3
144
320
10.C
9/24/92
80.0
25.0
1.8
21.0
44 .9
166.6
131
303
4.0
ll'5/92
120.0
31.0
2.7
37.0
70.4
266.4
179
427
3.0
1/21/93
120.0
29.0
1.9
43.0
83.0
219.7
176
419
15.0
4/1/93
75.0
18.0
2.3
32.0
74.9
101.2
133
261
23.0
4/15/93
81.0
20.0
1.8
31.0
68.5
125 . 0
136
284
15.0
5.0
10.0
4/28/93
T>. 0
19.0
1.8
26.0
57.5
97 .7
142
270
7.0
5/11/93
66.0
16 .0
1.6
24.0
48.2
66.1
136
231
15.0
6.0
9.0
5/27/93
54 . 0
13 .0
1.8
12.0
21.5
50.6
129
188
31.0
6/9/93
72.0
17.0
1.0
15.0
29.5
81.1
159
250
1.5
3.0
1. 5
7/20/93
89.0
21.0
1.0
18 . 0
47.5
134.4
178
309
6.0
2 . 0
4.0
8/24/93
82.0
23 . 0
1.3
20.0
44.9
143.3
157
299
1.5
3.0
1.5
9/22/93
87.0
25.0
1.7
21.0
47 .0
158.8
164
320
1.5
0.0
3.0
10/27/93
99.0
25.0
1.7
21.0
42.5
166.4
175
350
1.5
2.0
1.5
11/23/93
97.0
26.0
1.9
34.0
65.9
162 .1
180
349
1.5
0.0
3.0
1/13/94
100.0
26 . 0
1.6
26.0
52 .4
198 .1
175
357
1.5
2/17/94
100.0
26.0
1.5
33 .0
64.9
167 .7
182
357
4.0
2.0
1.5
3/23/94
96.0
25.0
2.1
39.0
92.5
112.1
177
342
24.0
7.0
17.0
4/5/94
91.0
23 .0
1.8
41.0
90.0
97.0
177
322
19. 0
5.0
14.0
4/19/94
80.0
20.0
1.5
29.0
59.5
84.2
159
282
59.0
10.0
49.0
5/3/94
79.0
20.0
1.5
42.0
75.0
90.6
159
279
68.0
12.0
56.0
5/17/94
56.0
13.0
1.0
12 .0
25.5
53 .2
133
193
36.0
8 . 0
28.0
6/1/94
68.0
19.0
0 . 5
16.0
30.0
94.8
134
248
12.0
2 . 0
10.0
6/15/94
86.0
23 . 0
1.0
22 .0
45.5
115.4
172
309
8.0
2.0
6.0
Mean
87.5
23.1
1.7
26.7
54.0
134.0
161.8
313.5
11.6
4.3
13.4
Maximum
120.0
31. 0
2.7
43.0
94.4
266.4
190.0
418.0
68.0
12.0
56.0
Minimum
54.0
13.0
0.5
12 .0
21.5
50.6
131.0
188.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
Table 10 Chemical Analysis
-------
4.4 Total Suspended Solids Analysis
The annual total suspended solids
loading for East Canyon Creek above
the reservoir are shown in figure
4.1. The average annual amount of
total suspended sediment reaching
the reservoir in recent years (1995-
97) is 5,529 tons. Assuming that
the general nature of the suspended
solids measured is in the category
of silt-loam, which has a density of
1.15 grams/cubic centimeter (Soil
Science, Principles and Practices,
Hausenbuiller, 1975) it equates to
approximately 3 . 5 acre-feet per year
of material. These calculations of
TSS do not include the bed load
carried down the streams and
therefore represents a conservative Figure 41 tanual TSS loadings aC station above East
estimate Of the volume of materials Canyon Reservoir
that are being deposited in the
reservoir.
There are several potential sources of this material which include; eroding
streambanks, exposed soils associated with various constructions activities,
urban runoff from impervious materials, recreational activities that have exposed
soils making them vulnerable to erosion and winter recreational sites that have
not provided adequate vegetative cover over disturbed soils.
4.5 Nutrient Analysis
The greatest impact on water quality is due to the high concentration of
nutrients in watershed streams and East Canyon Reservoir. High concentrations
of nutrients combined with low flows, limited riparian canopy and sediments from
erosion are primarily responsible for high production of algae, macrophytes, and
elevated water temperatures in watershed streams. Excessive nutrient loads are
responsible for increased productivity and the water quality problems present in
East Canyon Reservoir. A summary of the average annual nutrient data in the
watershed tributaries is contained in Table 11. In addition, a complete set of
the nutrient data used to make this summary is included in Appendix D.
Figure 4.2 and 4.3 represent annual average concentrations of total phosphorus
for the period 1990-97 at tributary sites in the watershed. The most consistent
data sets are for the years 1994-97. The data from the period 1990-93 has been
compiled but it should be noted that it is not as extensive or consistent in
frequency as the later data set. Therefore, our primary discussion will focus
on the four year period of more intense monitoring. The data displayed at site
492519 for the years 1990-93 is the data from site 492520 for that period. These
two sites are in close proximity to each other and the data is essentially the
same.
Several observations can be made from a review of the nutrient summary:
1.) There has been a general decline in the concentration of total phosphorus
Annual Total Suspended Solids Loading
| | Tons/year
-------
492526 492524 492523 492519 492515
r®r
KO
IIP
1990
1993
1996
1991
1994
1997
1992
1995
Figure 4.2 Total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L) at watershed tributary sites.
in recent years as is evident in comparing the 1990-93 data set with the 1994-97
data set depicted in figure 4.3. This general improvement is thought to be
attributed to the
elimination of some
major agricultural
nonpoint sources of
organic wastes,
primarily the Osguthorpe
Dairy and improved
efficiency for removal
of total phosphorus from
the Snyderville
wastewater treatment
plant with the voluntary
addition of biological
component;
2.) As indicated by
the data as observed at
STORET station 492526 (
East Canyon Creek above
Snyderville WWTP) in
figure 4.3, there has
been a steady decline
from 100 ug/L to 47 ug/L
of total phosphorus.
i i i i r
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
~
~
492526
492519
~
492524
492515
492523
Figure 4.3 Total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L)
at watershed tributary sites.
-------
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997"
[ I Loading (1,000 Kg/year)
I "I Concentration (mg/L)
Figure 4.4 Average annual values for total phosphorus concentration and loads for Snyderville WWTP
Although it appears there has been an overall reduction in nonpoint sources of
total phosphorus and other nutrients above this stream station, other nonpoint
sources associated with new land uses have probably increased.;
3.) There is a major increase in the concentration of total phosphorus below
the Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBWWTP). One of the major
sources of nutrients in the watershed is this treatment plant. As is depicted
in figure 4.4, there has been a decline in the concentration and loadings of
total phosphorus discharged from the plant on an annual basis, but even with the
addition of a biological process to remove phosphorus, the plant still is the
most significant sources of controllable phosphorus in the watershed;
4.) There has been a declining trend in the concentration of total phosphorus
in the stream as we move down the watershed towards the reservoir.
This results as the phosphorus in the stream is removed through deposition of
suspended materials and the uptake of phosphorus by plants as they grow.
Eventually the majority of the phosphorus that is assimilated into the plant
community or deposited in the loose sediments will flush to the reservoir. With
the monitoring plan that was in place not all of this phosphorus can be accounted
for through water analysis;
5.) Throughout the intensive period of study, data obtained has exceeded the
pollution indicator value for total phosphorus of 0.05 mg/L in the stream and
0.025 mg/L in the lake. This is a strong indication that significant problems
associated with the excessive amounts of nutrients in the system could develop.
In fact, current impairment conditions for defined beneficial uses for the stream
and lake are directly related to excessive production driven by excessive
nutrients in the system.
4.5.1 Total Phosphorus Loadings
In order to understand the impact on productivity within the reservoir and to
-------
effectively establish goals for total phosphorus loading reduction, it is
necessary to establish current levels of loadings related to existing water
quality conditions and make reductions based on these relationships. Quarterly
and annual loading rates for total phosphorus into East Canyon Reservoir have
been determined and are summarized in Table 12. Included in Table 13 is a
summary of annual loads at various points throughout the watershed based on
annual water yields at those sites.
STORET
YEAR
Ammonia
TP
N02/N03
STORET
YEAR
Ammonia
TP
N02/N03
492515 1993
0.308
0.137
0.335
492523
1995
0.436
0 .209
0 . 983
492515
1994
0.025
0.145
0.226
492523
1996
0.124
0 .177
0 . 567
492515
1995
0.032
0.117
0.210
492523
1997
0.037
0.151
0.813
492515
1996
0.453
0.121
0.212
492524
1990
0.029
0.987
492515
1997
0.039
0.101
0.215
492524
1991
0.044
0.431
0. 925
492519
1994
0.025
0.218
0.437
492524
1992
0.048
1.385
3 . 499
492519
1995
0.041
0.139
0.461
492524
1993
0.025
0.328
1. 945
492519
1996
0 . 049
0 . 124
0.252
492524
1994
0 . 041
0 . 945
3 . 656
492519
1997
0.035
0.093
0.334
492524
1995
0 . 046
0.313
1.403
492520
1990
0.025
0.298
492524
1996
0.157
0.213
0.669
492520
1991
0.045
0 .207
0 . 522
492524
1997
0 . 088
0.177
0 .772
492520
1992
0.030
0.286
0.667
492525
1991
0.067
5.027
15.987
492520
1993
0.043
0.172
0 . 658
492525
1992
0.111
5.629
16.722
492520
1994
0.025
0.174
0.575
492525
1993
0.050
2 .962
12.423
492520
1995
0.025
0 .130
0 . 460
492525
1994
0.064
6.219
11.884
492520
1996
0 . 043
0 .120
0.280
492525
1995
0.231
2 . 901
10.663
492520
1997
0.035
0 .096
0.245
492525
1996
1.434
1.674
4.510
492521
1995
0 . 034
0 .161
0 . 667
492525
1997
0.134
1.423
4 . 490
492521
1996
0 . 067
o
Ln
o
0.411
492526
1990
0.025
0.100
492521
1997
0.039
0 .122
0.557
492526
1991
0.044
0 . 079
0.300
492523
1990
0.029
0 . 517
492526
1992
0.047
0 . 071
0.266
492523
1991
0 . 031
0.382
1.203
492526
1993
0 . 043
0.067
0.713
492523
1992
0.025
1.321
2 . 878
492526
1994
0.030
0.062
0.457
492523
1993
0.025
0.194
1.109
492526
1995
0.041
0.054
0.354
492523
1994
0.038
0.417
1.789
492526
1996
0.077
0.047
0.299
492523
1995
0.436
0.209
0.983
492526
1997
0.100
0.059
0 .382
Table 11 Average annual concentrations of nutrient data at stream sites in the watershed
It is readily apparent that the annual loads can vary dependant upon the
interval values for flows and the amount of water quality data available. Loads
were calculated simplistically based on seasonal or annual concentration and flow
averages. Comparing quarterly versus annual values in general indicate quarterly
calculations yield lower annual load rates, but are within an acceptable range
for planning purposes. It should be noted that the 1997 data set is limited
because several water quality data points were removed after application of
quality assurance procedures. This has resulted in a lower than average annual
concentration value for total phosphorus, therefore perpetuating a lower annual
phosphorus load. This is somewhat verified by the trend established that the
total annual load is usually greater than the total quarterly annual loading and
the calculations for 1997 show just the opposite relationship. Because of this,
the data has been included in the tables but will not be used in accurately
assessing conditions for 1997. It is recognized that annual loadings, reflect
the limitation of the data in determining annual values. Specifically,
-------
Total Phosphorus Loadings above East Canyon Reservoir
Time Period
Reservoir
Outfall (AF)
Change in
Storage (AF)
Ave QTR Flow
(AF)
Ave QTR Cose.
(mg/L)
QTR Loading
(Kg/year)
1994 1" QTR
2, 695
4,770
7,465
0.242
2,229 ¦
1994 2" QTR
8,740
1, 570
10,310
0.128
1, 628
1994 3Et QTR
19,690
(19,000)
690
0.022
19
1994 4" QTR
1,243
2, 620
3, 863
0.210
1, 001
Sum of the quarterly loadings
4,877
1994
32,368
(10,040)
22,328
0.218
6,006
1995 1st QTR
1,714
10,120
11,834
0.223
3,256
1995 2" QTR
22,780
10,560
33,340
0.091
3,743
1995 3" QTR
22,030
(13,140)
8,890
0 .168
1,843
1995 4st QTR
1,703
4,130
5,833
0.130
936
Sum of the quarterly loadings
9,778
1995
48,227
11,670
59,897
0.139
10,273
1995 1st QTR
16,665
(6,500)
10,165
0.173
2,170
1996 2" QTR
18,430
15,030
33,450
0.097
4, 005
1995 3st QTR
20,640
(16,030)
4,610
0.159
904
1995 4" QTR
2,322
4,070
6, 392
0 .081
639
Sum of the quarterly loadings
7,718
1996
58,057
(3,430)
54,627
0.124
8,358
1997 1" QTR
19,580
(6,510)
13,070
0.072
1,161
1997 2" QTR
17,660
18,610
36,270
0.102
4, 565
1997 3" QTR
21,020
(14,820)
6, 200
0 .132
1, 010
1997 4SC QTR
0
0.090
0
Sum of the quarterly loadings
6,736
1997
58,260
(2,720)
55,540
0.093
6,373
It should be noted the 1997 total phosphorus data is limited due to the elimination of a significant portio
of the data due to quality assurance procedures for a major period of time during the year and the total
annual flows are slightly different when computed on a quarterly basis. In addition total annual flows are
slightly different than the annual flows shown in Table 4.
Table 12 Annual and quarterly total phosphorus loadings above East Canyon Reservoir
-------
ANNUAL
ANNUAL LOAD
ANNUAL
ANNUAL LOAD
STORET
YEAR
TP
FLOW
lbs/year
Kg/year
STORET
YEAR
TP
FLOW
lbs/year
Kg/year
492515
1993
0.137
27,350
10,177
4,616
492524
1990
0.987
10,440
28,029
12,714
492515
1994
0.145
32,360
12,763
32,360
492524
1991
0.431
19,110
22,404
10,163
492515
1995
0.117
48,230
0
6,963
492524
1992
1.385
7,700
29,009
13,158
492515
1996
0.121
58,057
19,109
8,668
492524
1993
0.328
33,680
30,004
13,610
492515
1997
0.101
492524
1994
0.945
16,770
43,108
19,554
_ong-term
41,520
492524
1995
0.313
41,130
35,018
15,884
492524
1996
0.213
35,430
20,528
9,311
492519
1994
0.218
22,350
13,253
6,012
492524
1997
0.177
492519
1995
0.139
59,900
22,648
10,273
1990-96
23,210
492519
1996
0.124
54,620
18,423
8,357
492519
1997
0.093
492525
1991
5.027
1,111
15,192
6,891
Long-term
: 0.050
41,520
5,647
2,561
492525
1992
5.629
1,250
19,140
8,682
492525
1993
2.962
1,771
14,269
6,472
492520
1990
0.298
15,660
12,694
5,758
492525
1994
6.219
1,550
26,221
11,894
492520
1991
0.207
25,350
14,274
6,475
492525
1995
2.901
1,795
14,165
6,425
492520
1992
0.286
12,150
9,452
4,288
492525
1996
1.674
2,051
9,339
4,236
492520
1993
0.172
47,410
22,181
10,061
492525
1997
1.423
2,114
8,183
3,712
492520
1994
0.174
22,350
10,578
4,798
Maximum
2,114
492520
1995
0.130
59,900
21,182
9,608
492520
1996
0.120
54,620
17,829
8,087
492526
, 1990
0.1
9,473
2,577
1,169
492520
1997
0.096
492526
. 1991
0.079
18,999
4,057
1,840
Long-term
41,520
492526
1992
0.071
6,450
1,246
565
492526
1993
0.067
31,909
5,815
2,638
492523
1990
0.517
10,440
14,682
6,660
492526
1994
0.062
15,220
2,567
1,164
492523
1991
0.382
19,110
19,857
9,007
492526
, 1995
0.054
39,335
5,778
2,621
492523
1992
1.321
7,700
27,668
12,550
492526
¦ 1996
0.047
33,379
4,267
1,936
492523
1993
0.194
33,680
17,773
8,062
492526
1997
0.059
492523
1994
0.417
16,770
19,022
8,628
1990-96
18,310
492523
1995
0.209
41,130
23,383
10,606
492523
1996
0.177
35,430
17,058
7,738
492523
1997
0.151
1990-96
23.210
Table 13 Summary of annual total phosphorus loadings at watershed sites
monitoring strategies are not sufficient to assure that all of the sources of
phosphorus are included in the annual loading rates. These might include the
flushing of organic material and sediments accumulated in the stream during the
productivity period or flushes from episodic events during the year.
Some general' observations can be made from a review of Tables 12 and 13:
(1) Although there is a reduction in the annual load from the Snyderville
wastewater treatment plant (Station 492525), it still is a major source of
phosphorus in the system; (2) Although the loading at the stream station above
the treatment plant varies on an annual basis dependant upon the flow regime and
concentration, it is apparent that there has been a decline during the last
several years. Data for 1996 concentrations are at or near the pollution
indicator value for total phosphorus in streams (0.050 mg/L); (3) Flow patterns
are highly diverse through the course of time and in recent years both extremes
-------
have been observed; (4) Flows associated with SBWWTP have increased and are
projected to continue to rise as land use shifts from current uses towards
urbanization; (5) Loading at the stations above the reservoir (492519 or 492520)
for total phosphorus has increased significantly over those at the station above
SBWWTP (492526); (6) Annual loads from SBWWTP range from 51% to 198% of the
loading to the reservoir; and (7) There is an inadequacy in the monitoring
program to account for the flushing of nutrients from uptake into the stream
flora or attached to sediments.
It is a recognized fact that the total phosphorus present in a given system
moves downstream unless mechanisms are in place that physically impede its
movement on a permanent basis or it is removed from the system by mechanisms that
provide for the uptake and removal from the system. Therefore, in the discussion
related to establishing pollutant reductions, it is essential to remember inputs
of total phosphorus into the system at some point will reach the reservoir.
Because the monitoring strategy isn't intensive enough to account for the
'flushing' of all materials, annual loading of total phosphorus as determined
from water quality data and annual flows is conservative at best.
4.6 Biological Analysis
During the fall, spring, and summer of 1991-92 Bret Harvey of the Department
of Zoology at Weber State University, reported to Weber Basin Water Quality
Management Council on collected data for benthic invertebrates from five sites
on East Canyon Creek. Sampling stations were identified as:
1. East Canyon Creek approximately 300 meters below East Canyon Dam;
2 . East Canyon Creek 50 meters below the first road crossing above East
Canyon Reservoir;
3. East Canyon Creek at Mormon Flat;
4. East Canyon Creek at the bridge below Jeremy Ranch golf course; and
5. Approximately 1 kilometer below Park City, as a reference station in
relationship to the wastewater treatment plant above site 4.
Reported observations from the report included:
1. General physical conditions at the sampling stations reflect the disturbed
nature of the watershed;
2. Riparian zones at stations 3 and 5 were noticeable barren, probably as a
result of grazing;
3. At station 1 below the dam, anoxic sediments were extremely close to the
surface of the substrate in both summer and fall and the organic material
in summer benthic samples was so abundant that the samples were not
effectively preserved in 90 percent ethanol and had to be discarded;
4. In general, the aquatic invertebrates from all stations were dominated by
taxa with the highest "Tolerance Quotient: (TQ) which are recognized for
their ability to withstand degraded environmental conditions indicative of
low water quality
5. Where several taxa would be expected to be abundant in the absence of
human disturbance, oligochaetes and nematodes dominated samples from
stations 2, 3, and 4. ;
6. Predatory stoneflies such as members of the family Perlodidae and the
perlid genus Hesperoperla, which are abundant in nearby streams were
almost entirely absent;
-------
7 . Samples from station 1 revealed a noteworthy absence of Trichoptera in the
filter-feeding family Hydropsychidae, one of the more common worldwide
patterns in benthic assemblages present below impoundments. The outflow
of East Canyon Reservoir is probably inappropriate for hydropsychids in
terms of both water quality (low dissolved oxygen) and food quality
(organic material dominated by bacteria and blue-green algae).;
8. It is safe to conclude that the benthic assemblages present at all
stations sampled indicate considerable human impact, via both the
abundance and diversity of tolerant taxa and the absence of less tolerant
taxa which are common in other streams in northern Utah;
9. Virtually all of the taxa that are relatively common in northern Utah yet
indicative of high water quality conditions are rare or absent from East
Canyon Creek; and
10. The number of taxa present is relatively low compared to samples from
streams in the region. There is a steadily decline in richness as we move
downstream through the system.
4.7 Significant Pollutant Sources
4.7.1 Urban Runoff
Water quality data from urban runoff was not collected from storm drainage
systems during the study. It is readily apparent from information gathered from
the literature that urban areas do contribute significantly to the nutrient,
organic and sediment loads into the streams and eventually to the reservoir.
General observations indicate that storm water is collected throughout the urban
area and in some cases is discharged directly into tributaries of East Canyon
Creek.
A review specifically of USEPA's publication "Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(1983) NURP, discussed earlier established that urban runoff has a significant
total phosphorus load into waterways. This report represents data information
obtained from over 2,300 rainfall events monitored at 22 project sites. Table
3 summarizes median event mean concentrations (EMC's) for median urban sites as:
TSS = 100 mg/L; B0D5 = 9 mg/L; COD = 65 mg/L; total phosphorus = 0.33 mg/L;
soluble phosphorus = 0.12 mg/L; TKN = 1.5 mg/L; total copper = 34 ug/L; total
lead = 144 ug/L; and total zinc = 160 ug/L. Using statistical analyses EMC
values were converted into a range of values that could be used to address
inherent variability of the data.
Oberts in his paper "Influence of Snowmelt Dynamics on Stormwater Runoff
Quality" which characterizes stormwater runoff in the St. Paul, Minnesota area
indicates that the pollutants leached from snow packs can dramatically impact
water quality. In this study it was determined that the flow weighted mean
concentration of total phosphorus from snowmelt from storm sewers, open channels
and creeks was 0.70 mg/L, 0.56 mg/L and 0.54 mg/L respectively. It is clearly
evident that surface flush and snowmelt'from urban areas does have the potential
to impact water quality and therefore needs to be one of the elements that is
targeted in developing an overall plan to address the control of phosphorus
within this watershed.
Following the logic for estimating urban runoff contributions in section
2.5.1, and accepting the fact that Park City area exemplifies a runoff
coefficient of 0.3 5 with an average annual rainfall of approximately 40 inches
per year, it is expected to yield 1.5 Kg/Ha/year of total phosphorus and 640
Kg/Ha/year of total suspended solids. Table 14 represents current and projected
-------
Estimated Current Land Use
Projected Land Use
Parameter
Residential
Commercial
Aggregate
Residential
Commercial
Aggregate
365 Ha
200 Ha
565 Ha
1000 Ha
500 Ha
1500 Ha
Total
Phosphorus
(Kg/Ha/Yr)
1.3
3.4
1.5
1.3
3.4
1.5
Annual Load
(Kg/Yr)
475
680
848
1,300
1,700
2,250
Annual Load
(lbs/Yr)
215
308
384
590
771
1, 020
Total
Suspended
Solids
(Kg/Ha/Yr)
550
1,460
640
550
1,460
640
Annual Load
(Kg/Yr)
200,750
292,000
361,600
550,000
730,000
960,000
Annual Load
(Tons/yr)
221
322
399
606
805
1, 058
Table 14 Current and projected loadings from urban runoff based on NURP data
loadings for these parameters based on current and estimated projected land uses
in the watershed and these estimates of pollutant production based on the prior
statistical analyses. It is important to note that there is expected to be a
substantial increase in urban areas as agricultural lands are displaced with the
increasing demands for development.
Estimates for the total phosphorus and total suspended solids loadings are
based on values obtained in the literature for total phosphorus concentrations
considering annual precipitation and land use data and should be used for
planning purposes. Current land use information was developed using GIS
interpretation of land use data available. The breakdown into residential and
commercial areas is an estimated breakdown of the aggregate acreage. Future
projections are strictly estimates which will need to be verified after the
current study ascertains more accurate values. In addition these annual loads
represent potential loads into the stream and reservoir. Not all of these
potential load will actually enter a live waterway. It is evident that some
control mechanism are already in place to eliminate or reduce the movement of
these materials into waterways, but it is also essential that additional measures
may be needed if significant loading of pollutants is occurring from the current
sources or new sources created or developed as urban areas are increased.
4.7.2 Agriculture
Although water quality data has not identified any concentrated sources of
agriculture runoff, a visual survey of the watershed has identified several areas
of concern including:
1. Small detention basins associated with agricultural areas,
2. Livestock grazing in sensitive areas,
3. Areas where runoff moves sediments and nutrients to adjacent waterways,
-------
4. Horse corals, stables, or feeding areas adjacent to streams, and
5. Historical practices or diversions have created some dysfunctional
riparian areas or flood plains.
It should be noted that in recent history there has been a movement away from
agricultural uses in the area towards commercial, residential and recreational
areas. Along with this transition there has been a substantial reduction in
historical nonpoint sources of pollution. These changes have resulted in the
reduction of the amount of animal wastes produced and transported into the
waterways. This is evident by the recent reduction in the annual average
concentration of total phosphorus in East Canyon Creek above the Snyderville
wastewater treatment plant. Although there are still best management practices
(BMP's) that need to be implemented to negate or reduce total phosphorus loading
from agriculture activities or restore dysfunctional areas, it is clearly evident
that additional efforts will need to be directed towards those activities that
have replaced the agricultural uses in the watershed. Currently there is an
investigation being conducted by the DWQ to identify and quantify controllable
nonpoint sources of total phosphorus for incorporation into a basin-wide TMDL
4.7.3 Construction, Development and Recreation
One of the most significant potential sources of total phosphorus is from the
movement of sediments from activities associated with the development of lands
for urban needs including commercial, residential, transportation and
recreational areas. It is imperative that all development in the watershed
should only occur in conjunction with appropriate best management practices in
place to protect and minimize the impacts to water quality in the watershed. As
part of the clean lakes study we have not tried to quantify loadings from these
distinct sources, but want to emphasize that they can be significant sources of
sediments and nutrients where appropriate measures are not taken to eliminate the
movement of pollutants from these sources. In addition there are several
detention structures that could be modified to reduce significantly the movement
of sediments downstream.
4.7.4 Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant
The most significant controllable source of total phosphorus within the basin
is from the Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant. A review of the data
contained in Table 13 for STORET stations 492526, 492525, and 492524 indicates
there is a substantial increase in the total phosphorus loading from the stream
station above the SBWWTP (492526) because of the discharge of the wastewater
treatment plant (492525)to the station below the SBWWTP (492524). In 1995-96
annual total phosphorus loads from the plant have decreased to approximately
4,000 Kg/year because of additional treatment, but in 1994 a maximum of 11,894
Kg/year was determined.
SBWWTP is a permitee through the UPDES process. Through this regulated
process the discharge of pollutants including total phosphorus can be controlled
under the guidance of the Clean Water Act and other Utah State regulation. It
is expected that at some point in time steps will be taken to incorporate
limitations on the discharge of phosphorus through their waste waters.
-------
5.0 RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY
5.1 Introduction
The overall water quality conditions in East Canyon Reservoir have
deteriorated since 1980 as the result of increasing organic and nutrient
loadings. The reservoir is exhibiting eutrophic symptoms, including oxygen
depletion, high algal production with undesirable blue green species, and
stresses on aquatic life.
Three, trophic state water quality models (Vollenweider, Larsen-Mercier, and
Carlson) will be discussed to verify that the lake is in an eutrophic state.
Although there is not an exact agreement between the models, it is evident that
conditions present in the reservoir are impairing defined beneficial uses of the
reservoir.
Phytoplankton community diversity has been monitored since 1989 . The dominate
algae in the lake is Aphanizominon, which is indicative of poor water quality.
There was enough Aphanizominon in the reservoir water in 1993 to form small
windrows along the beaches as it was blown on to the shore. Spirogyra has been
documented on the bottom near the shore as ice melts in the Spring and Anabaena
and Hicrocystis are also present in the reservoir.
The fishery seems to be extremely stressed and barely holding the line.
Oxygen levels on the bottom frequently are depleted to zero during several
months, whereas a decade ago, there was still some oxygen there. It is not
uncommon for oxygen to be almost totally depleted at a 10 meter depth as early
as August. This is a dramatic change from the data reported in the "East Canyon
Reservoir--Water Quality Assessment" (Merritt et .al. , 1980). Their report noted
that during the years of 1978 to 1979 the dissolved oxygen at the bottom of the
reservoir rarely dropped below 4 mg/1. This includes summer months where
averages were just below 4 mg/1. Analysis by Utah Division of Wildlife personnel
indicate that there has been a degeneration of the fishery resource in the last
decade. Due to a change in conditions in the reservoir, DWR has modified their
stocking protocol to be able to provide the best possible cold water fishery that
water quality conditions allow at this point in time. However it should be noted
that DWR has been and still is planning to maintain these waters as a cold water
fishery. Modifications of the management of this reservoir could occur if
conditions do not improve or public demands require a higher quality of fishery
at the reservoir.
5.2 Lake Processes
It is important in the overall understanding of the perceived conditions of
waterbodies that we understand what constitutes productivity in a waterbody, the
components involved, and the effect it has on individual lakes or reservoirs.
Primary productivity deals with the rate at which algae and macrophytes fix or
convert light, water, and carbon dioxide to sugar in plant cells. In'addition
the amount of plant material produced and remaining in the system is referred to
as the primary production and is analogous to the standing crop or biomass of
plants in a farmers1s field. Photosynthesis normally is the dominant source of
organic matter for the lakes's food web.
It is through the process of photosynthesis that molecular oxygen is produced.
This is the primary source of dissolved oxygen in the water and of oxygen in the
atmosphere. Oxygen is usually required to completely break down organic matter
(molecules) and release their chemical energy. Plants and animals release this
-------
energy through a process called respiration. Its end products--energy, carbon
dioxide, and water--are produced by the breakdown or organic molecules in the
presence of oxygen.
Photosynthesis requires light in the production of organic matter by aquatic
plants. It is restricted to the portion of the lake water column that is
lighted, the photic zone. The thickness of the photic zone depends upon the
transparency of the lake water and corresponds to the depth to which at least 1
percent of the surface light intensity penetrates. Transparency is dependent
upon color, and the suspension of particulate matter, organic or inorganic.
When light is adequate for photosynthesis, the availability of nutrients often
controls phytoplankton productivity. In the lake, differences between plant
requirements for an element and its availability exert the most significant limit
on lake productivity. Typically, phosphorus and nitrogen are the least available
elements, and therefore they are the most likely to limit lake productivity.
Phosphorus in particular can often severely limit the biological productivity
of a lake. The by-products of modern society, however, are rich sources of this
element. Waste waters, fertilizers, agricultural drainage, detergents, and
municipal sewage contain high concentrations of phosphorus, and if allowed to
enter the lake, they can stimulate algal productivity. Such high productivity,
however, may result in nuisance algal blooms, noxious tastes and odors, oxygen
depletion in the water column, and undesirable fish kills during winter and
summer.
Photosynthetic activity occurs primarily in two groups, algae and macrophytes
(aquatic plants). It is essential here that each of these groups be discussed
not only to help us in understanding lake productivity but also in understanding
problems and solutions associated with these groups.
5.2.1 Algae
Algae are photosynthetic plants that contain chlorophyll and have a simple
reproductive structure but do not have tissues that differentiate into true
roots, stems, or leaves. They do however, grow in many forms. Some species are
microscopic single cells; others grow as mass aggregates of cells (colonies) or
in strands (filaments). Some even resemble plants growing on the lake bottom
The algae are an important living component of lakes. They convert inorganic
material to organic matter through photosynthesis; oxygenate the water through
photosynthesis; serve as the essential base of the food chain; and affect the
amount of light that penetrates into the water column.
Like most plants, algae require light, a supply of inorganic nutrients, and
specific temperature ranges to grow and reproduce. Of these factors, it is
usually the supply of nutrients that will dictate the amount of algal growth in
a lake. In most lakes, increasing the supply of nutrients (especially
phosphorus) in the water will usually result in a larger algal population.
There are a number of environmental factors that influence algal growth. The
major factors include: (1) the amount of light that penetrates the water
(determined by the intensity of sunlight, the amount of suspended material, and
water color) ; (2) the availability of nutrients for algal uptake (determined both
by source and removal mechanisms); (3) water temperature (regulated by climate,
altitude, et cetera); (4) the physical removal of algae by sinking or flushing
through an outflow; (5) grazing on the algal population by microscopic animals,
fish, and other organisms; (6) parasitism by bacteria, fungi, and other
microorganisms; and (7) competitive pressure from other aquatic plants for
nutrients and sunlight.
-------
It is a combination of these and other environmental factors that determines
the type and quantity of algae found in lake. It is important to note, however,
that these factors are always in a state of flux. This is because a multitude
of events, including the change of seasons, development in the watershed, and
rainstorms constantly create "new environments" in a lake.
Excessive growth of one or more species of algae is termed a bloom. Algal
blooms, usually occurring in response to an increased supply of nutrients, are
often a disturbing symptom of cultural eutrophication. A bloom of algae can give
the water an unpleasant taste or odor, reduce clarity, and color the lake a vivid
green, brown, yellow, or even red, depending on the species. Filamentous and
colonial algae are especially troublesome because they can mass together to form
scum or mats on the lake surface. These mats can drift and clog water intakes,
foul beaches, and ruin many recreational opportunities.
5.2.2 Macrophytes
Aquatic plants have true roots, stems, and leaves. They, too, are a vital
part of the biological community of a lake. Unfortunately, like algae, they can
overpopulate and interfere with lake uses. Aquatic plants can be grouped into
four categories; emergent plants, rooted floating-leaved plants, submergent
plants and free-floating plants.
Emergent plants are rooted and have stems or leaves that rise well above the
water surface. They grow in shallow water or on the immediate shoreline where
water lies just below the land surface. They are generally not found in lake
water over two feet deep.
Rooted floating-leaved plants have leaves that rest on, or slightly above, the
water surface. These plants, whose leaves are commonly called lily pads or
"bonnets," have long stalks that connect them to the lake bottom.
Submergent plants grow with all or most of their leaves and stems below the
water surface. They may be rooted in the lake bottom or free-floating in the
water. Most have long, thin flexible stems that are supported by the water.
Most submergents flower above the surface.
Free-floating plants are found on the lake surface. Their root systems hang
freely from the rest of the plant and are not connected to the lake bottom.
Through photosynthesis, aquatic plants convert inorganic material to organic
matter and oxygenate the water. They provide food and cover for aquatic insects,
crustaceans, snails, and fish. Aquatic plants are also a food source for many
animals. In addition, waterfowl, muskrats, and other species use aquatic plants
for homes and nests.
Aquatic plants are effective in breaking the force of waves and thus reduce
shoreline erosion. Emergents serve to trap sediments, silt, and organic matter
flowing off the watershed. Nutrients are also captured and utilized by aquatic
plants, thus preventing them from reaching algae in the open portion of a lake.
There are many factors that affect aquatic plant growth including: the amount
of light that penetrates into the water; the availability of nutrients in the
water (for free-floating plants) and in the bottom sediments (for rooted plants) ;
water and air temperature; the depth, composition, and extent of the bottom
sediment; wave action and/or currents; and competition pressure from other
aquatic plants for nutrients, sunlight, and growing space.
Excessive growth of aquatic plants is unsightly and can severely limit
recreation. Submergents and rooted floating-leaf plants hinder swimmers, tangle
fishing lines, and wrap around boat propellers. Fragments of these plants can
break off and wash up on beaches and clog water intakes.
-------
For many species, fragmentation is also a form of reproduction. An overgrowth
problem can quickly spread throughout a lake if boat propellers, harvesting
operations, or other mechanical actions fragment the plants, allowing them to
drift and settle in new areas of the lake.
Free-floating plants can collect in great numbers in bays and coves due to
prevailing winds. Emergent plants can also be troublesome if they ruin lake
views and make access to open water difficult. In addition, they create areas
of quiet water where mosquitoes can reproduce.
From observations made during recent years macrophytes are very limited in
East Canyon Reservoir and do not exhibit an impact on beneficial uses defined for
the reservoir
5.2.3 In-lake Temperature & Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
Thermal stratification is an important process effecting productivity in
northern lakes. Stratification causes surface and bottom waters to be separated
by a narrow band of water called the metalimnion, characterized by rapidly
changing temperature and densities called the thermocline. The density
gradient change of the metalimnion acts as a physical barrier to the complete
mixing of lake waters. In essence stratification inhibits or prevents the mixing
of surface and bottom waters. Stratification occurs because the density (weight)
of water changes depending on its temperature. Water is heaviest at about 3 9.2°
F. Above and below this temperature water becomes lighter (less dense). In very
shallow lakes, wind and wave forces along the surface are strong enough to mix
the water throughout and prevent temperature stratification. In deeper lakes,
however, stratification develops because the forces of temperature become greater
than those of the wind.
As lakes continue to warm in the late spring, the temperature differences
between the surface and deeper waters increase. Most U.S. lakes with a depth of
2 0 feet or more stratify into three temperature-defined layers during the summer
season. The water in the upper layer (epilimnion) is warm, well lit, and
circulates easily in response to wind action. In contrast, the deep layer
(hypolimnion) is darker, colder, denser, and relatively stagnant. These two
layers are separated by a transition zone (metalimnion) where temperatures change
rapidly with depth. The metalimnion as discussed earlier functions as a barrier
between the epilimnion and the hypolimnion. The magnitude of the temperature
difference between the two layers defines how resistant they are to mixing. A
large temperature difference means that the layers are stable and that it would
take a great deal of wind energy to break down the stratification and mix the
layers.
In the fall, chilly air temperatures cool the lake's surface. As the surface
waters nears the temperature of 39.2° F it becomes denser (heavier). This
chilled water is heavier than the water below and begins to sink towards the
bottom. This process continues until waters in the upper layer have cooled to
a point where they become the same temperature (and'density) as the lower layer.
At this time, the resistance to mixing is removed and the entire lake freely
circulates in response to wind action. This action is known as fall overturn
During winter the lake continues to cool. The colder water (32° F) "floats"
on the top, and forms ice. This is why a lake doesn't freeze from the bottom up.
The thermal gradient during the winter increases from top to bottom, the opposite
of summertime gradients. As the weather moderates in the spring, the ice melts
and the surfaces waters begin to warm above 32° F. As water temperatures rise
towards 39.2° F, the surface water again becomes more dense and moves downward.
-------
The equalization of the temperature gradient throughout the water column is
facilitated by wind action. This process is called spring turnover. During this
rather brief period of time most of the lake water is at the same temperature and
in chemical equilibrium while surface waters mix freely with bottom waters.
East Canyon is a fairly deep reservoir with a maximum depth of approximately
60 meters. As indicated from lake monitoring the depth usually ranges from 30
to 55 meters during the year, making it subject to strong stratification. A
review of the temperature and dissolved oxygen contained in Appendix E indicates
that there is a significant dissolved oxygen depletion and elevated temperatures
near the surface seriously limit available fishery habitat during the summer.
It should be noted that these anoxic conditions increase the release of total
phosphorus from the sediments into the water column.
5.2.4 Sedimentation and Nutrients
Nutrients primarily enter a lake from external and internal sources. Movement
of total phosphorus is primarily through exportation of water, but atmospheric
deposition and internal recycling from sediments can contribute significantly to
the overall phosphorus load into the reservoir. This is graphically depicted in
figure 5.1.
Internal phosphorus loading is associated with the process of decomposition.
Decomposition of organic matter by bacteria is essential to lake ecosystems.
Without decomposition, most material falling to the bottom would remain there and
the lake would fill in. Decomposition speeds up the breakdown of matter and
helps nutrients recycle back in to the system for reuse. Recycling of nutrients
introduced into lakes is an important process. It not only involves the inputs
of nutrients into the lake but involves changing the chemical form of nutrients
already in the lake so that they may be utilized in the food web again. For
example, plants take up inorganic nitrogen which animals cannot use and
incorporate it in their tissues as organic nitrogen which animals can use. When
animals die, nitrogen must be changed back to the inorganic form for plants or
it will be lost to the system as a useful nutrient. This nutrient recycling is
accomplished by biological
(decomposition) , chemical (oxidation),
and physical (circulation) processes.
Without recycling, many important
nutrients such as phosphorus and
nitrogen would become depleted and the
productivity of many lakes would be
drastically reduced.
Sedimentation is a process that
greatly affects the ecosystem of lakes.
The gradual filling-in of a lake is a
natural process. Streams, storm water
runoff, and other forms of moving water
carry sand, silt, clays, organic matter,
and other chemicals into the lake from
the surrounding watershed. These
materials settle out once they reach
quieter waters. The rate of settling is
dependent on the size of the particles,
water velocity, density, and
temperature. Not all sediment particles
46
-------
quickly settle to the lake bottom. The lighter, siltier particles often stay
suspended in the water column or settle so lightly on the bottom that they can
be easily stirred up and re-suspended with even slight water motion. This causes
the water to be turbid and brownish in appearance. Sediment blocks light from
penetrating into the water column. It also interferes with the gills of fish and
the breathing mechanism of other creatures.
The sediment input to a lake can be greatly accelerated by human development
in the watershed. In general, the amount of material deposited in the lake is
directly related to the use of watershed land. Activities that clear the land
and expose soil to winds and rain (e.g., agriculture, logging, and site
development) greatly increase the potential for erosion. These activities can
significantly contribute to the sediment pollution of a lake unless erosion and
runoff is carefully managed. The input of sediments to a lake makes the basin
more shallow, with a corresponding loss of water volume. Thus, sedimentation
affects navigation and recreational use and also creates more fertile growing
space for plants because of increased nutrients and exposure to sunlight.
Sediment material from the watershed tends to fertilize aquatic plants and
algae because phosphorus, nitrogen, and other essential nutrients are attached
to incoming particles. If a large portion of the material is organic, dissolved
oxygen can decrease as a result of respiration of decomposers breaking down the
organic matter. Sedimentation also can ruin the lake bottom for aquatic insects,
crustaceans, mussels, and other bottom-dwelling creatures. Most important, fish
spawning beds are almost always negatively affected.
Oxygen depletion in the lower layer occurs "from the lake bottom up." This
is because most decomposers live in or on the lake sediments. Through
respiration, they will steadily consume oxygen. When oxygen is reduced to less
than one part per million on the lake bottom, several chemical reactions occur
within the sediments. Notably, the essential plant nutrient, phosphorus, is
released from its association with sediment bound iron and moves freely into the
overlying waters. The influx of phosphorus from the sediments under anaerobic
conditions is referred to as the internal phosphorus loading. When
stratification breaks down if present or as this phosphorus reaches the photic
zone, this phosphorus can be used by algae and aquatic plants. This internal
pulse of phosphorus can thus accelerate algal and aquatic plant problems
associated with cultural eutrophication. Iron and manganese are also released
from the sediments during anoxic (no oxygen) periods.
5.3 Water Chemistry
Water quality analysis for alkalinity, hardness, calcium, magnesium, chloride,
and sulfate were conducted and in general the water quality for the reservoir as
described previously is considered fair. The results of this analyses are shown
in Table 15. The measured chemical parameters in East Canyon Reservoir water
are all within State water quality standards and when compared with the data
reported Merritt et.al. '(1980) there are no significant changes except'for sodium
and chloride concentrations which have been reduced by approximately 50% from
33.8 mg/L and 64.3 mg/L to 17.7 mg/L and 30 mg/L respectively.
5.3.1 Total Phosphorus
Phosphorus is often the key nutrient in determining the quantity of algae in
a lake or reservoir. Phosphorus is typically the least abundant element required
for plant growth and commonly limits biological productivity in aquatic
-------
ecosystems. For eutrophication studies, total phosphorus is the single most
important nutrient to identify in outgoing and incoming streams. Many lake
management decisions will be made based on the total phosphorus load coming into
a lake or reservoir.
In determining the nutrient limitation association with a specific waterbody
it is necessary to determine the nitrogen/phosphorus (N:P) ratio. Specifically,
the ratio of inorganic nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia) to total
phosphorus needs to be calculated. A ratio value of less than 14 will be defined
as nitrogen limited while those values of 14 or greater will be defined as
phosphorus limited. Currently East Canyon Reservoir is not a phosphorus limited
system, due in large part to excessive amounts of phosphorus in the lake. There
will need to be a substantial reduction in phosphorus concentrations to shift the
reservoir towards a phosphorus limited system.
When phosphorus acts as the limiting nutrient, it is readily apparent that
increases of phosphorus to the lake may dramatically result in an increase in
algal production. It is the magnitude of algal production that has a great
impact on lake water quality and the aquatic life within the lake ecosystem. It
is imperative to understand the relationship between phosphorus concentrations
and water quality. Through the control of phosphorus loading, under this
principle, one can influence the quality of water in a majority of waterbodies.
Total phosphorus as it relates to water quality standards is defined as an
"indicator of pollution" and not a "standard". The numeric criteria limit
associated with lake water quality has been established at 0.025 mg/L (25
micrograms per liter of water). This value is used as a criteria in assessing
class 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B waters. It is a widely recognized that these are the
target values needed to put a reservoir into a moderate range of productivity
Nutrient analysis of East Canyon Reservoir establishes that total phosphorus
concentrations consistently well above this indicator value. Figure 5.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
represents the average
total phosphorus
concentration in the
reservoir and the creek
above the reservoir for
the period 1992-97. The
average annual
concentration for the
intensive monitoring
period (1994-97) in the
reservoir is 0.117 mg/L.
It should be noted that
the average
concentration of total
phosphorus from East
Canyon Creek for the
same period is 0.144
mg/L.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Nutrient analysis of
sediments collected in
East Canyon Reservoir
indicate that the water
ECCK M ECR
Figure 5.2 Annual total phosphorus concentration in East Canyon
Reservoir and East Canyon Creek
-------
Date Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Alkalinity
Hardness
6/2/92
84
19
2.6
39
71. 9
81.2
196
288
9/1/92
67
20
2.5
41
74.5
70.5
155
250
Average
75.5
19.5
2.55
40
73.2
75.9
17 «
269
7/12/93
65
14
1.8
25
47.5
52.2
154
220
9/1/93
66
15
1.8
27
50.5
58.8
152
226
Average
65.5
14.5
1.8
26
49
55.5
153
223
6/28/94
70
17
2.1
35
67.5
51.4
164
245
7/14/94 "
70
18
2.2
36
67.5
59.8
162
249
7/26/94
69
18
2.1
36
70
65.6
162
246
8/11/94
69
18
2.3
37
70
58.1
159
246
8/25/94
69
18
2.3
37
68.5
63 . 8
166
246
9/13/94
72
18
2.3
37
75
63.3
167
254
9/28/94
72
18
2.4
37
70.5
61.5
171
254
10/20/94
76
18
2.3
37
74
62.9
175
264
11/8/94
80
19
2.5
40
74
67.9
177
278
11/22/94
81
18
2.3
40
77
63.1
187
276
Average
72.8
18
2.3
37.2
71.4
61.7
169
256
1/31/95
81
19
2.6
40
75.5
66
179
280
4/4/95
78
19
2.4
46
88
65
174
273
4/20/95
81
19
2.3
46
91
66.5
175
280
5/3/95
83
19
2.3
46
89
63 . 9
172
285
5/16/95
77
17
2.2
43
85
62 . 5
171
262
5/30/95
73
16
2
38
78
58
166
248
6/13/95
70
15
1.9
33
64
50.3
166
236
7/3/95
68
15
1.8
30
60
52 . 5
164
231
7/11/95
69
15
1.6
28
54
48.2
169
234
7/27/95
70
15
1.6
27
50.5
60.5
169
236
8/10/95
69
16
1.6
27
48.5
54
172
238
8/22/95
68
16
1.6
27
49
56
156
236
9/7/95
66
16
1.7
27
49.5
58
159
231
9/26/95
67
16
1.7
28
54
56
164
233
10/26/95
69
17
1.7
30
57
62
166
242
11/15/95
72
17
1.8
32
Average
72.6
16.7
1.9
34.3
66.2
58.6
168
250
2/14/96
77
18
2.2
38
71.5
60.5
187
266
3/6/96
73
17
2.2
35
69
57 .8
184
252
4/4/96
72 .2
16.7
2.4
39.6
73
65
175
249
4/30/96
72.1
14 .7
1.4
41.8
70
52.1
172
240
5/29/96
68.1
13 .5
1.85
30.3
62
41.2
164
226
6/12/96
60.2
13.3
1.5
29.1
58
46.2
144
205
7/9/96
64.2
13 . 9
1.3
27 . 5
52
40 .7
159
217
7/23/96
66.1
14.6
1.3
29.2
54
46 . 5
161
225
8/7/96
68.7
15.3
1.67
29.1
54 . 5
49 .7
166
234
8/23/96
71.4
15.1
1.5
30.2
56
52 .1
171
240
9/10/96
72 .3
15.7
1.9
29.8
55.5
49.9
175
245
9/26/96
69.8
15.4
1.9
29.5
58
45.6
172
238
10/8/96
69.4
16.4
2.3
40.4
74
37 .4
179
241
11/5/96
73.2
16.8
3.12
32.9
64
50.6
179
252
Average
69.8.
15.5
1.9
33.0
62.3
49.7.
171
238
4/18/97
79.2
16.9
2 .18
48.1
94 . 8
53 .4
175
267
5/15/97
65 . 8
12 . 8
1.69
34
69
33 .8
155
217
6/13/97
67 .1
13.1
1.71
25.9
54.5
32.4
157
221
7/18/97
66.7
13 .7
1. 58
24.5
48.5
39
169
223
9/9/97
74 .7
15.4
2
28.8
50.5
41.2
174
250
Average
70.7
14.4
1.8
32.3
63.5
40.0
166
236
Annual Ave
71.2
16.4
2.0
33.8
64.3
56.9
167
245
Table 15 Summary of chemical data (mg/L) for East Canyon Reservoir above dam site
-------
soluble portion of the phosphorus was rather high. This supports the theory that
internal phosphorus recycling in East Canyon Reservoir is an additional source
of phosphorus into the lake increasing productivity and potentially delaying a
response from reductions of external loading without further in lake treatments
to reduce or eliminate this phosphorus source.
All nutrient parameters in East Canyon Reservoir were within State water
quality standards except for phosphorus, which exceeded the pollution indicator
criterion of 0.025 mg/1 for its 3A classification. Phosphorus has exceeded this
value significantly and consistently for an extended period of time.
5.4 Trophic Level Evaluation
The trophic state of a lake is a hybrid concept with no precise definition.
Originally, trophic referred to nutrient status. Eutrophic water was water high
in nutrients and by extension a eutrophic lake was a lake that contained
eutrophic water. Later the concept of trophic state was applied to lakes rather
than water, and its precise definition was lost. Now trophic state not only
refers to the nutrient status of the water, but also to the biological production
that occurs in the water and to the morphological characteristics of the lake
basin itself. A eutrophic lake may not only be a lake with high levels of
nutrients, but also a very shallow pond, full of rooted aquatic plants, that may
or may not have high nutrient levels.
Lakes are typically divided into three trophic categories: oligotrophic,
mesotrophic, and eutrophic. Other categories have been developed to account for
anomalies within the system. In Utah we use the category hypereutrophic to
describe lakes in the extreme eutrophic range. Lakes and reservoirs are
categorized by various characteristics associated with each lake. An
oligotrophic lake is typically a large deep lake with low nutrient enrichment,
crystal clear waters and a rocky or sandy shoreline. Both planktonic and rooted
plant growth are sparse, and the lake can support a cold water fishery. A
eutrophic lake, on the other hand, is usually high in nutrient enrichment which
may be shallower with a soft, mucky bottom. Algal blooms are common due to
nutrient laden waters with reduced oxygen concentrations in the water column due
to decomposition associated with the extensive algal blooms. Water clarity is
reduced and the water often has a coloration. If deep enough to thermally
stratify, the bottom waters are devoid of oxygen. Mesotrophic is an intermediate
trophic state, displaying characteristics between the other two.
In evaluating the reservoir's trophic level, several approaches shown below
were reviewed. The basic intent of review these models is to determine if there
is an agreement at least to the trophic state of East Canyon Reservoir, and to
identify a mechanism to establish endpoints based on any of these methods in
determining a set of realistic goals to achieve a specific reduction in the
trophic state of the reservoir.
5.4.1 Carlson Trophic State Index
The Carlson (1977) Trophic State Index (TSI) is intended to predict
productivity of a lake, as indicated by three indicators: secchi depth,
chlorophyll-a, and total phosphorus concentrations. Secchi depth measurements
indicated transparency, chlorophyll-a indicates the amount of algal biomass, and
total phosphorus indicates the nutrient availability to drive algae growth.
Carlson assigned oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, and hyper-eutrophic ranges
to each of these parameters. Utilizing the standard Carlson formulas, an annual
-------
average TSI Index value was determined for the reservoir. To determine the annual
TSI values, the following procedure was used:
1 - An average annual TSI Index value for total phosphorus, secchi depth and
chlorophyll-a was determined.
2 - The values from step one were then averaged to determine an overall
TSI Index value for the reservoir.
3 - TSI values are compared to the following index values to determine
current trophic state condition.
TSI Index value < 40 Oligotrophic
TSI Index value 40 to 50 Mesotrophic
TSI Index value 50 to 60 Eutrophic
TSI Index value > 60 Hypereutrophic
As indicated in Figure 5.3 the overall TSI values, an average of the value for
total phosphorus, transparency, and chlorophyll-a, for the reservoir in recent
years is consistently above the
low range value of 50 for
eutrophic status. It should be
noted that the 1992-93 data set
represents two monitoring periods
in each year. The last 4 years
is a better indication of
existing condition in the
reservoir.
5.4.1.1 Transparency TSI
The transparency of water, or
its ability to transmit light, is
dependent mainly upon color and
turbidity. An increase in color
or suspended particles will
reduce the depth which sunlight
can penetrate in a lake and thus
reduce clarity. The depth of
light penetration in lakes,
called the photic zone, is
limited by water transparency.
This is important because plants
can only grow in the photic zone, therefore plant growth in lakes is controlled
by the nature of the photic zone.
Secchi depth measurements, the indicator of transparency, were taken
throughout the study period, but were more extensive during the period 1994-97.
Secchi readings for the entire study period are shown in Table 16 along with
other trophic state parameters values for the period of study. Depicted in figure
5.4 are the annual average TSI values for the various parameters used to assess
the overall TSI values for the reservoir. Secchi readings are expressed in
meters, chlorophyll-a in mg/L and surface total phosphorus concentrations in
mg/L. The annual average transparency index values are reflective of mesotrophic
conditions, however because of the interrelationship of these parameters it is
important to determine the overall average trophic state value for all of the
parameters to obtain a more precise indication of the trophic state.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 5.3 Average annual trophic state index
values for East Canyon Reservoir
-------
1
1994
51.28 5q 85 51.15
r^TT. .. '¦ • - - ¦' ' . • '¦•" ^ m
1995
1996
1997
TP
OLA
SD
Figure 5.4 Average annual TSI values for total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a and transparency
5.4.1.2 Total Phosphorus TSI
Photosynthesis requires light in the production of organic matter by aquatic
plants. It is restricted to the portion of the lake water column that is
lighted, the photic zone. The thickness of the photic zone depends upon the
transparency of the lake water and corresponds to the depth to which at least 1
percent of the surface light intensity penetrates. Transparency is dependent
upon color, and the suspension of particulate matter, organic or inorganic.
When light is adequate for photosynthesis, the availability of nutrients often
controls phytoplankton productivity. In the lake, differences between plant
requirements for an element and its availability exert the most significant limit
on lake productivity. Typically, phosphorus and nitrogen are the least available
elements, and therefore they are the most likely to limit lake productivity.
Phosphorus in particular can often severely limit the biological productivity
of a lake. The by-products of modern society, however, are rich sources of this
element. Waste waters, fertilizers, agricultural drainage, detergents, and
municipal sewage contain high concentrations of phosphorus, and if allowed to
enter the lake, they can stimulate algal productivity. Such high productivity,
however, may result in nuisance algal blooms, noxious tastes and odors, oxygen
depletion in the water column, and undesirable fish kills during winter and
summer. It should be noted that East Canyon Reservoir is not phosphorus limited
at this time due to the relatively overabundance of total phosphorus present in
the system. However, it is the recommendation of this report that phosphorus is
the key parameter that needs to be targeted for reduction. Through this
reduction process, it is anticipated that phosphorus will become the limiting
factor on productivity in the reservoir.
Total phosphorus, which is the best indicator of potential algal growth, is
a major focal point of our monitoring in the lake and watershed. It is apparent
-------
from reviewing figure 5.3 that total phosphorus concentrations would reflect in
Site
Date
Secchi
CLA
TP
Site
Date
Secchi
CLA
TP
492516
6/2/92
5
1
0.09
492518
8/22/95
20.6
0.02
492517
6/2/92
4.5
0.6
0.09
492513
9/7/95
2.6
10.3
0.02
492518
6/2/92
3.3
2.2
0.10
492516
9/7/95
3.1
4.4
0 01
492516
9/1/92
1
27.9
0.06
492518
9/7/95
3.4
6 7
0.01
492517
9/1/92
1.7
1.3
0.04
492513
9/26/95
3.3
8.8
0.01
492518
9/1/92
1
11.2
0.09
492516
9/26/95
3.8
6.8
0.00
Mean
2.75
7.36
0.07
492518
9/26/95
2.6
4 6
0.02
Maximum
5
27.9
0.1
492513
10/26/95
3.4
9.3
0 02
Minimum
1
0.06
0.04
492516
10/26/95
3.4
11 3
0.03
492516
7/12/93
4.8
1.1
0.01
492518
10/26/95
3.2
3.6
0. 02
492517
7/12/93
4.4
2.7
0.02
492513
11/15/95
4.6
6.9
0.05
492518
7/12/93
3.9
3.8
0.02
492516
11/15/95
4.6
8.4
492516
9/1/93
2
2.7
0.01
492518
11/15/95
4.2
1.4
0.05
492517
9/1/93
2
3 . 3
0.02
Mean
3.44
8.23
0.05
492518
9/1/93
1.8
4 . 5
0.03
Maximum
4.6
39.5
0.13
Mean
3.15
3.01
0.01
Minimum
1.3
0.4
0.0
Maximum
4. B
4.5
0.03
492516
2/14/96
5.6
2.3
0.1
Minimum
1.8
1.1
0.01
492516
3/6/96
5.6
12
0.09
492513
6/28/94
2.2
2 .1
0.01
492513
4/4/96
1.9
21. 6
0 12
492516
6/28/94
2
2 . 4
0.01
492516
4/4/96
1. 6
38 . 3
0. 13
492518
6/28/94
2
4.3
0.02
492518
4/4/96
10.3
0.14
492513
7/14/94
3
4.8
0.01
492513
4/30/96
2 3
17.9
0.07
492516
7/14/94
2.5
7.6
0.01
492516
4/30/96
2.5
20.5
0.07
492518
7/14/94
3
4 .1
0.02
492518
4/30/96
2.3
14.8
0.06
492513
7/26/94
2.8
3.5
0.04
492513
5/29/96
3 .2
2.1
0 .04
492516
7/26/94
2.9
7 . 6
0.01
492516
5/29/96
2.5
12.7
0.04
492518
7/26/94
2.7
0 01
492518
5/29/96
2.9
7.7
0.04
492513
8/11/94
2.3
5
0.01
492516
6/12/96
3.9
0.4
0.01
492516
8/11/94
2 - 7
3.8
0.02
492513
6/27/96
5 5
2.1
0.16
492518
8/11/94
2.6
2.9
0.02
492516
6/27/96
5
2 . 8
492513
8/25/94
1.6
3.4
0.06
492518
6/27/96
4
5
0 02
492516
8/25/94
2.1
4.1
0.04
492513
7/9/96
3.7
3.6
0.02
492518
8/25/94
4.1
0.03
492516
7/9/96
3.8
3.2
0.02
492513
9/13/94
1.5
9.2
0.05
492518
7/9/96
2.9
5
0.02
492516
9/13/94
2
10
0.03
492513
7/23/96
2 . 6
2.5
0 01
492518
9/13/94
2.7
5.8
0.04
492516
7/23/96
2.8
3 3
0.01
492513
9/28/94
1.5
8
0 03
492518
7/23/96
2.6
4.6
0.02
492516
9/28/94
1.7
6.7
0.03
492516
8/7/96
2.9
3 .1
0.02
492518
9/28/94
1.4
8.8
0,04
492513
8/8/96
2.5
4.2
0 02
492513
10/20/94
5.6
2.7
0.07
492518
8/8/96
2.3
4.2
0 49
492516
10/20/94
5.8
1.8
0.07
492513
8/23/96
2.75
3.2
0.01
10/20/94
3.6
4.3
0.07
492516
8/23/96
3.48
1.?
0.01
-------
Site
Date
Secchi
CLA
TP
Site
Date
Secchi
CLA
TP
492513
11/8/94
4.8
8.4
0.10
492518
8/23/96
2 . 55
2 8
0.01
492516
11/8/94
5.4
4.1
0.12
492513
9/10/96
2.2
6.1
0.02
492518
11/8/94
4 . 4
6.2
0.10
492516
9/10/96
2 . 5
8.1
0.02
492513
11/22/94
4.5
11.3
0.15
492518
9/10/96
2
9.8
0.01
492516
11/22/94
4.6
4.8
0.19
492513
9/26/96
3.6
2 1
0.02
492518
11/22/94
4.4
12 . 6
0.14
492516
9/26/96
4
1.2
0.02
Mean
3.04
5.66
0.05
492518
9/26/96
3 . 6
2.6
0.02
Maximum
5.8
12.6
0.19
492513
10/8/96
4.5
3.3
0.00
Minimum
1.3
l.B
0.01
492516
10/8/96
3.95
23.2
0.00
492513
4/4/95
1.3
39 5
0.13
492518
10/8/96
3.9
7.8
0.00
492516
4/4/95
1. 3
36
0. 13
492513
11/5/96
4 .1
5.5
0.05
492518
4/4/95
1.2
31.2
0. 14
492516
11/5/96
4.3
7 5
0 08
492513
4/20/95
3 . 8
5.1
0.09
492518
11/5/96
4.3
18
0.06
492516
4/20/95
6.2
0.10
Mean
3.33
7.87
0.05
492518
4/20/95
3.6
6.6
0.10
Maximum
5.6
38.3
0.49
492513
5/3/95
2 6
0.09
Minimum
1. 6
0.4
0.01
492516
5/3/95
10.5
0.09
492513
4/18/97
0.7
61.8
0 .10
492518
5/3/95
2.5
0.10
492516
4/18/97
1
20. 9
0.08
492513
5/16/95
5.5
2.2
0.08
492518
4/18/97
0.6
12-4
0.08
492516
5/16/95
3.6
3.9
0.07
492513
5/15/97
4 . 1
1.1
0.08
492518
5/16/95
2.2
2.8
0.07
492516
5/15/97
4 . 5
1.3
0.09
492513
5/30/95
4 . 5
1.6
0.06
492518
5/15/97
3 . 5
2.3
0 10
492516
5/30/95
4 . 9
0 4
0.06
492513
6/13/97
4.2
1.7
0.09
492518
5/30/95
5.2
2.1
0.06
492516
6/13/97
4.8
1.8
0.09
492513
6/13/95
4 . 1
6.1
0.04
492518
6/13/97
4
3.2
0.14
492516
6/13/95
4.7
5.1
0.05
492513
7/18/97
1.9
2.7
0.04
492518
6/13/95
4.4
1.8
0.05
492516
7/18/97
2.3
2.4
0.06
492513
7/3/95
3.2
1.9
0.03
492518
7/18/97
1.9
2.4
0.05
492516
7/3/95
3 . 9
2.8
0.03
492513
9/9/97
2.2
0.06
492518
7/3/95
2 . 2
3.8
0.03
492516
9/9/97
3.3
3
0.05
492513
7/11/95
3.9
2.9
0.02
492518
9/9/97
3.7
3.1
0.06
492516
7/11/95
3.9
4 1
0.01
Mean
2.89
8.15
0.07
492518
7/11/95
4 . 2
4 3
0.03
Maximum
4.8
61.8
0.14
492513
7/27/95
4
1.4
0.02
Minimum
0.7
1.1
0.05
492516
7/27/95
5
2
492518
7/27/95
3.5
0.01
492513
8/10/95
2
6.2
0.01
492516
8/10/95
2.5
8.4
0.01
492518
8/10/95
2
12.1
0.02
492513
8/22/95
16.5
0.01
492516
8/22/95
1.4
31.1
0.01
Table 16 Trophic state index values for reservoir sites.
-------
a significantly higher TSI value determination if that was the only parameter
used in the evaluation.
5.4.1.3 Chlorophyll-a TSI
All three lake stations were monitored by the state for chlorophyll-a during
the course of the intensive study period. Table 16 contains the data obtained
during the study.
The average concentrations for the reservoir during the intensive study period
was 5.67-mg/L, 8.23 mg/L, 7.88 mg/L and 8.15 mg/L for an annual average of 7.48
mg/L. The highest concentration measured was 61.8 mg/L on April 18, 1997. The
Carlson index, as discussed earlier, gives trophic state values of 47.62, 51.28,
50.85 and 51.15 for the same respective years. A value greater than 50 indicates
a eutrophic state.
5.4.2 Vollenweider's Model
Vollenweider's model for phosphorus loading diagram provides another way of
evaluating the East Canyon Reservoir trophic level. Vollenweider (1968)
developed equations and subsequently nutrient loading graphs in which the mean
annual inflowing phosphorus concentration (ug/L) was plotted against the
hydraulic retention time (years) where the residence time is lake volume/outflow.
A review of the hydraulic retention time for the reservoir indicates that the
average for the years 1994-96 was 1.15 and for the last ten years 1.17. The
model assigns trophic states to a reservoir with a retention period of = 1.17 as:
hypereutrophic with a total phosphorus inflow concentration greater than =13 0
ug/L; eutrophic with a total phosphorus inflow concentration greater than = 50
ug/L; mesotrophic with a total phosphorus inflow concentration greater that = 20
ug/L; and oligotrophic with a total phosphorus inflow concentration less than =
20 ug/L.
Therefore during the intensive monitoring period (1994-96) the trophic state
for the reservoir would be assigned as hypereutrophic based on the total inflow
concentrations to the reservoir for the years 1994-96 as 218 ug/L, 139 ug/L, and
124 ug/L respectively.
5.4.3 Larsen Mercier Model
The Larsen Mercier model is similar to Vollenweider's. In this model,
inflowing total phosphorus concentration is related to the phosphorus retention
coefficient to the predicted trophic state in the lake or reservoir. Although
the model works well for oligotrophic to meso-eutrophic waterbodies, eutrophic
and hypereutrophic systems like East Canyon Reservoir have such an abundance of
phosphorus that other factors play an increasingly significant role in limiting
productivity at such a high level.
Phosphorus retention coefficients are calculated by subtracting'the outflow
phosphorus load from the inflow phosphorus load and dividing this difference by
the inflow phosphorus load. It is assumed that an inflowing concentration of 10
ug/L is the point of separation between oligotrophic and mesotropic systems and
20 ug/L is the point of separation between mesotrophic and eutrophic or higher
systems. A general model observation can be made that as the phosphorus
retention coefficient increases these boundaries shift upward so that as the
coefficient approaches the value 1 the inflowing concentration approaches 1000
ug/L as the point of separation between oligotrophic and mesotrophic systems.
-------
This increase follows a logarithmic scale with a uniform straight line
relationship until the coefficient values passes 0.4-0.5.
A review of data for the intensive study period indicate that the general
phosphorus retention coefficient for the reservoir is near the lower end of the
scale with a highest determined value of 0.32 and the lowest value of -.17
(indicates that more phosphorus left the system that year than enter the
reservoir) . It is clearly evident that the inflow concentrations to the
reservoir for the years 1994-96 as 218 ug/L, 139 ug/L, and 124 ug/L respectively
place the trophic state as well above the eutrophic border of approximately 20-30
ug/L for a given retention coefficient less than 0.32, the maximum found during
the intensive study period.
The Larson Mercier curves are fit for a large number of common lakes. There
is some indication from those who have studied the reservoir that East Canyon
Reservoir differs from these typical lakes, hence the model gives a more
eutrophic reading for lower phosphorus retention coefficients. It has been
stated that these trophic states indicated by Larsen Mercier give higher than
normal trophic readings, and for East Canyon Reservoir these levels should be
reduced. However, because the plot of the inflowing phosphorus concentration
against the phosphorus retention coefficients place the trophic status of the
reservoir well into the eutrophic range, it does clearly indicate that the
reservoir is indeed at least a eutrophic system.
5.5 Phytoplankon Community Dominance
As part of the intensive study phytoplankton samples were collected on the
reservoir as part of the routine monitoring effort. Phytoplankton samples
collected were representative of the water column to a depth of three times the
transparency reading. The results of that sampling clearly indicate that the
reservoir is dominated by blue-green algae. These algae are indicative of a
highly eutrophic condition.
A review of the phytoplankton data obtained during the intensive study period
(Table 17, 18, and 19) indicates that not only is the reservoir dominated by
blue-green algae but there have been significant population densities of the most
troublesome species present in the reservoir.
Blue-green algae, cyanobacteria, contribute to a wide variety of water quality
problems in lakes worldwide. These problems range from aesthetic concerns to
swimmers, the reduction in the filtration capacity and efficiency of water
treatment facilities, the production of compounds responsible for unpleasant
taste and odor in drinking water, creation of precursors (organic compounds) for
the development of trihalomethanes (THM's) when chlorinated, to the production
of compounds that are acutely toxic to animals, and likely also to humans.
Poisonings of animals occur when they drink water from ponds, dugouts and
lakes contaminated with toxin producing blue-green algae. Reports of animal
deaths are recorded in veterinary journals, community newspapers , personal
memoirs and also in scientific journals. These animal poisonings include
livestock (cattle, sheep), cats, dogs, deer, muskrats, waterfowl and shorebirds,
and even a rhinoceros. Death can occur very quickly after the animals consume
the contaminated water (in as little as a few minutes) (Kotak et.al., 1994).
Blue-green algae produces two classes of toxins: neurotoxins and hepato-
(liver)-toxins. Neurotoxins are compounds which affect the nervous system after
the toxin is ingested and, if ingested in sufficient concentrations, cause
respiratory arrest in five to thirty minutes. Neurotoxins are produced primarily
by species of Anabaena, although Aphanizominon as well. Anabaena sp. produces
-------
Taxon
Relative Density (%)
6/28 7/14 7/26 8/11 8/25
Cell Volume (mmVliter)
6/28 7/14 7/26 8/11 8/25
Anabaena sp.
59 . 12
36.65
27 .31
12.788
4 . 448
3.614
Ankistrodesmus falcatus
0.02
0.10
0.04
0.004
0.004
Ankyra judayi
0.01
0.003
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
1.60
18.99
0.211
1. 585
Asterionella formosa
1.26
0.40
0.167
0.042
Centric diatoms
0.08
0.23
0.007
0.023
Ceratium hirundinella
7.79
21.43
11.33
9.16
0.945
2.836
0.945
0.945
Chlamydomonas sp.
0.01
0.002
Dinobryon divergens
3.22
0.40
1.85
0.12
0.697
0.049
0.245
0.012
Fragilaria crotonensis
7.56
5.49
3.23
1.001
0.458
0.334
Gloeocystis vesiculosa
0.13
0.11
0.011
0.011
Merismopedia glauca
0.60
0.050
Microcystis aeruginosa
2 .93
0.245
Microcystis incerta
3.86
3.20
67.32
0.834
0.267
6.950
Oocystis sp.
1.65
1. 89
3.10
1.45
0.200
0.250
0.259
0.150
Pandorina morum
1.03
18. 65
4.31
0.222
1.557
0.445
Pennate diatoms
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.17
0.013
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.018
Phacotus sp.
13.46
1.390
Sphaerocystis schroeteri
31.10
50.39
36.97
31.65
6.728
6.120
4.893
2 . 641
Stephanodiscus niagarae
0.82
2.93
0.178
0.356
Unk. spherical chlorophyta
0.02
0.09
0.003
0.011
Wislouchiella planktonica
0.72
0.07
3 .70
0.156
0.009
0.309
Table 17 Phytoplankton floras from East Canyon Reservoir for 1994
two neurotoxins termed anatoxin-a and anatoxin-a(s). These compounds are more
toxic than dioxins, with LD50 value of 200 and 50ug/kg (measuring lethal dose
that 50 percent of the test organism died), respectively, in mice. Accidental
ingestion of the neurotoxins causes muscle tremors, staggering, gasping for
breath, convulsions and can even cause death.
Hepatoxin poisonings are the most frequently reported cases of blue-green
algal intoxication in the literature. Hepatotoxins were first reported to be
produced by Microcystis aeruginosa and are, therefore, referred to as
microcystins. Other species of blue-green algae, however, such as Anabaena sp.
and Oscillatoria sp. also produce microcystins. Microcystins are small proteins
that cause extensive liver hemorrhage when ingested. A lethal dose of
microcystin will cause liver damage and death in two to twenty-four hours. More
than 30 microcystins have been identified to date, with more being described each
year. The most commonly occurring microcystin in Alberta, and likely in North
-------
Taxoxi
Relative Density (%)
7/11 7/27 8/26 9/6
Cell Volume (maVliter)
7/11 7/27 8/26 9/6
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
8.87
28.21
43.94
0.106
4.859
10.24
7
Asterionella formosa
2.38
0.028
Ceratium hirundinella
21.95
8.11
3.781
1.890
Chlamydomonas sp
0.02
0.004
Dinobryon divergens
0.16
0.037
Euglena sp.
3.45
0.041
Fragilaria crotonensis
22 . 60
15.71
3.894
3.665
Meiosira granulata var. angustissima
1.00
0.30
0.077
0.051
Melosira granulata
13.73
2.13
0.32
0.23
0.163
0.163
0.054
0.054
Microcystis incerta
0.24
0.056
Oocystis gigas
0 .14
0.033
Oocystis sp.
8.40
0.76
0.34
0.32
0.100
0.058
0. 058
0.075
Pandorina morum
2.90
1.29
1.91
0.222
0.222
0.445
Permate diatoms
2.29
0.12
0.027
0.027
Phacus sp.
2.33
3.26
2.42
0.83
0.028
0.250
0.417
0.195
Sphaerocystis schroeter1
68 93
15.33
22.65
5 282
2.641
5.282
Staurastrum gracil
4 .72
0.361
Stephanodiscus niagarae
44 . 82
16.25
7.23
2.29
0.534
1.245
1.245
0.534
link. Spherical chlorophyta
0 .04
0.02
0.003
0.003
Unk. Filamentous chlorophyta
13 .73
0.163
Table 18 Phytoplankton floras from East Canyon Reservoir for 1995
America, is microcystin-LR. It is also one of the most toxic of the
microcystins, with an LD50 of 50ug/kg. Recent studies suggest that microcystin-
LR is one of the most potent tumor promoters yet tested. Chronic exposure to low
levels of microcystins may increase the risk of liver tumors, so health agencies
are now considering what levels of microcystins in drinking water would be
necessary to pose a significant cancer risk. At present, primary liver cancer
is relatively uncommon in North America.
Little information is available on the consequences of consuming low
concentrations of microcystins over one's lifetime. The risk of long-term
chronic exposure may exist as conventional water treatment practices such as
flocculation, filtration and chlorination do not remove microcystins adequately
from drinking water. Available data indicates that these processes remove
between 10 and 30 percent of microcystin-LR while more sophisticated treatment
involving activated carbon filtration or ozonization are much more effective,
removing almost 100 percent of dissolved microcystin-LR from water.
In the study by Kotak et.al., it was concluded that the presence of
-------
Microcystis aeruginosa in an algal sample generally assured that microcystin-LR
would be present in detectable concentrations. There was a strong statistical
correlation between the abundance of Microcystis aeruginosa and microcystin-LR
(r=.90, PcO.OOl, df=11).
-------
Taxon
Relative Density (*&)
9/9 9/23 8/8 8/23 9/10 9/26 10/8
Cell Volume (mroVliter)
9/9 9/23 8/8 8/23 9/10 9/26 10/8
Anabaena spiroides var. crassa
18.83
0.97
11.48
54.64
1.168
0.106
0.778
12.45
Ankistrodesmus falcatus
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.009
0.004
0.004
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
4 . 90
31 05
0.634
7 . 078
Asterionella formosa
0.11
0.05
0.78
12 . 08
14 82
0.30
0.03
0.007
0.007
0.033
0 .514
1.608
0 020
0.007
Botryococcus braunii
17.20
2 . 224
Centric diatoms
0 .13
0 . 12
0. 07
0.23
0 10
0.008
0.016
0.008
0.016
0.023
Ceratium hirundinella
7.31
22.22
8 . 71
27.87
0. 945
0.945
0.945
1.890
Chlamydomonas sp.
0. 40
0.051
Coelastrum sp.
8.20
0. 556
Cosmarium sp.
1.26
0 . 60
1.81
0 . 07
0 . 07
0 . 07
Dinobryon divergens
3 .16
5.39
0. 57
0.29
0.18
0 .16
0.19
0.69
0 . 02
0 . 01
0 . 012
0 . 03
Fragilaria crotonensis
5.16
7 . 77
47 . 0
67 . 6
39 . 3
11. 7
0 . 66
0 .33
2 . 00
7.33
2 . 669
2 . 66
Melosira granulara var
0 . 40
0.47
0.22
0.05
0.05
0.05
. Microcystis incerta
66 . 3
54.6
40. 1
0 . 82
4.11
7.06
1.72
0.056
Oocystis borgei
3 .23
0.20
Oocystis gigas
1.75
0.59
0.23
0.37
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.025
Oocystis sp.
0.54
0.77
3.50
5 .49
0.15
0.04
0.03
0 .10
0.15
0 . 23
0 . 01
0.00
Pandorina morum
10.3
5.23
3 .28
0 . 98
0 . 44
0 . 22
0 . 222
0.22
Pennate diatoms
0.07
0.14
0.21
1.46
0.08
0 . 07
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.00
0 . 06
0.00
0.004
0.00
Phacotus sp.
0.08
1.83
0.10
0 . 66
0.07
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.044
0 .01
Quadrigula lacustris
25 . 9
1.11
Sphaerocystis schroeteri
5.64
0.61
Staurastrum gracile
5.83
2 . 80
0.36
0.36
Stephanodiscus niagarae
0.27
0.13
5 . 83
3 . 53
1.08
7 . 13
0.88
0 . 01
0.01
0.25
0.15
0 .11
0.484
0.200
Unk. spherical chlorophyta
0.09
0.52
0.13
0.08
0.006
0.022
0.006
0.006
Table 19 Phytoplankton floras from East Canyon Reservoir for 1996
-------
5.6 Reservoir Response
There are several factors that need to be considered as goals and objectives
are established to improve water quality in this reservoir. Although the natural
tendency is to want to see change in the water quality immediately, a more
realistic long-term time frame is more appropriate in expecting water quality
changes. After establishing goals, implementation of appropriate corrective
action will take time. A monitoring program will need to be continued for the
assessment of the effectiveness of the initial treatment alternatives and to
establish if implementation of BMP's is achieving water quality endpoints or
goals. If needed monitoring data may verify and direct correction action needed
to accomplish water quality objectives.
To shorten the reservoir response time, treatment to inactivate the release
of phosphorus from the sediments in the reservoir that have accumulated over an
extended period of time may be a reasonable option. This treatment should not
be implemented without first controlling the external sources of phosphorus into
the reservoir to the extent feasible. This inactivation could be accomplished
either by chemical treatment to inactivate the phosphorus in the sediments or by
the elimination of anoxic conditions in the reservoir by breaking down the
thermal stratification through the introduction of oxygen into the hypoliminion
and disruption of the stratification by mechanical means.
Another treatment that could be effective on a long-term water quality in the
reservoir is the breaching or removal of two previous dam structures in the
reservoir.
Current plans are underway to import additional water into the basin. This
plan would allow for an increase in the permanent population in the basin and
probably expand recreational opportunities in the watershed to meet the needs of
increased resident and nonresident populations. One proposal to import a minimum
of 5,000 acre-feet of water back from East Canyon Reservoir could have a variety
of impacts to water quality. Because of the complex nature of this proposal, a
through review of the proposal should be conducted to assure no further
degradation of water quality will occur in the stream or the reservoir.
East Canyon Reservoir is one of several reservoirs that is managed in part by
Weber Basin Water Conservancy. As such the development of a water quantity
management plan for all of the reservoirs under their jurisdiction can have a
major impact on the water present in the reservoir at any given point in time.
It should be noted that the management of these reservoirs for water rights
downstream can have an impact on the water quality within any of the respective
reservoirs according to representatives of the conservancy district.
-------
6.0 RECREATION/SOCIO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Traditionally according to state park records fishing and boating are the
primary recreational activities engaged in by visitors to the park. Strong
arguments can be made that this decline is due in part to the reduction in water
quality and its effect on the fishery. The number of visits to East Canyon
Reservoir has fluctuated but from 1982 to 1987, visitations rose to above 300,000
users per year. Since then, use has declined significantly to about 111,000
users.
Fishing, which is the single most popular recreational activity at East Canyon
Reservoir, has been adversely impacted by a decline in water quality. Trout are
stressed by low dissolved oxygen concentration through the hypolimnion from mid-
summer to early autumn. This condition resulted in a complete loss (100%
mortality) of fingerling rainbow trout stocked in 1990 and 1991 as previously
reported.
State Park Records show that nearly 98 percent of those who visit the
reservoir area are Utah residents and almost all of those come from Salt Lake,
Davis, Weber, Cache, Morgan, Tooele or Summit counties. The combined population
of these counties is projected to reach 1,410,000 by the year 2000.
Most of the park's visitations occur between the months of April and September,
with the heaviest use being May through August. Surveys conducted by Utah
Division of Parks and Recreation indicate that the primary activities at East
Canyon Reservoir in order of importance include; fishing, picnicking, camping,
sightseeing, boating, and water skiing.
The impaired water quality in East Canyon Reservoir has the following economic
impacts:
1. Increased cost for the treatment of reservoir waters for municipal and
industrial uses.
2. Decrease in the tourist activity at the reservoir, affecting the State
Park visitation and East Canyon Resort.
3. Loss of sales tax revenue to local agencies.
4. Stocking the reservoir with larger fish that have a better survival rate
than the fingerling has increased the cost of maintaining a fishery in
East Canyon Reservoir.
5. The 1991 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated an economic loss in
dollars per angler that would affect the fishery environment both in the
community and reservoir. A value of $59,3 5 per angler would be lost if
fishing were to cease. This includes logging, gas, and equipment among
other things. Furthermore a overall community economic impact has been
estimated at $122 per day. Using these figures one can estimate the loss
of monies associated with a general decline in public use of this
resource. Using Utah Division of Parks and Recreation use values there is
a decline of 201,733 users days from the peak of 312,224 to the average
users days for 1995-96 (110,491) . If 25% of those days were dedicated to
fishing ($59.35/day) a loss of $11,972,853.00 or an overall community
economic impact of $24,611,426.00. Although these percentage values are
estimates, it can readily be assumed that the decline in user days for
this resource represents a significant economical impact to the area.
-------
7 .0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
At the beginning of the project a technical committee was organized and made
up of the following State and Federal agencies and local interest groups. This
committee has met on at least a bi-monthly basis to review the progress of the
study and to provide valuable resources, and guidance towards completion of the
study. This was an open meeting and public participation was encouraged. This
committee was chaired by Richard Bojanowski of East Canyon Resort and Joan
Patterson of Morgan County. Membership consisted of the following
representatives:
East Canyon Resort
Utah Trout Foundation
High Country Fly Fishers
East Canyon Land Owners
Park City Development Board
910 Cattle Company
Morgan County Commission
Morgan County Planning Commission
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah State Division of Parks and Recreation
Utah State Division of Water Resources
Utah State Department of Agriculture
Utah State Department of Environmental Quality
Summit City/County Health Department
Summit County Planning Commission
Summit County Commission
Park City
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District
Snyderville Basin Sewer Improvement District
Mountainland Association of Governments
Weber/Morgan Health Department
During the period of intensive monitoring that was initiated after the
preliminary clean lakes period of monitoring and evaluation, the East Canyon
Technical Advisory Committee underwent a period of inactivity. Recently the
group has been reorganized to provide oversight not only for the completion of
the final clean lakes report but to provide input and direction into the
development of a TMDL for designated impaired waterbodies and the development of
a long range watershed plan focusing on water quality related issues and
problems. They are also providing input with some oversight on projects that are
planned or are being planned for development in the basin that might have an
impact on water quality. The same basic representation has been solicited but
the chairmanship for the committee has been under the Ray Loveless, Water Quality
Director for Mountainlands Association of Governments.
-------
8.0 EAST CANYON RESERVOIR WATERSHED TMDL DEVELOPMENT
East Canyon Reservoir is a valuable freshwater resource in Utah. Recreation,
wildlife, agriculture, and water supply are key beneficial uses served by the
lake. The area's value as a recreational resource is highlighted by over 300,000
user days at the state park surrounding the reservoir during peak use years in
the 1980's and a significant number of visitors at East Canyon Resort at the
south end of the reservoir. The fishery is the focal point of activity at the
reservoir as shown by visitation records. Water from the reservoir is used
primarily downstream for irrigation on downstream lands and for municipal and
industrial purposes in the urban area of Davis and Weber Counties. The water is
also used for recreation by users of the East Canyon Resort, other private
property owners above the reservoir and users located along the Wasatch Front.
Additional uses may develop with the anticipated movement of water from the
reservoir back to the Park City area for snow making, culinary and other
residential uses.
The objective of this program is to restore water quality for the defined
beneficial uses. These include restoring the cold water fishery, protecting
culinary water use by reducing the potential for taste and odor problems and
protecting water-based recreation uses.
Findings reported in previous sections of this report indicate that an
excessive total phosphorus load is currently entering the reservoir when viewed
as to the trophic state of the reservoir. Evidence indicates that current
phosphorus loadings support (eutrophic) excessive growth of algae and other
aquatic plants and it is expected that a reduction in phosphorus loadings will
reduce productivity. A review of past studies and current findings indicate that
current loadings of available phosphorus are such that the reservoir is on the
boundary between eutrophic and hyper-eutrophic condition and the reservoir has
exhibited an increasing eutrophication trend in recent years. Ihese aitrcphic
conditions are responsible for the beneficial use impairments observed in the
reservoir.
Available evidence indicates that we could expect a favorable response to
reductions of "phosphorus loadings" and thereby limit productivity, a leading
cause of water quality impairments. EPA guidance for the development of TMDL's
for impaired waterbodies requires the development of a strategy that will reduce
or eliminate the stressors or pollutants that are responsible for the loss in
beneficial uses for identified waters. Table 21 contains the major elements
required for the development of a TMDL for an impaired waterbody or a Watershed
Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) with reference within this report to areas
pertinent to those requirements.
Those waters currently defined in Utah's 303 (d) list are East Canyon Reservoir
and East Canyon Creek from East Canyon Reservoir to the headwaters. Figure 8.1
identifies the specific pollutant or stressor that has been linked to the
impairment for specific defined beneficial uses of those listed waters.
Of the two pollutants identified it should be noted that total phosphorus is
considered an 'indicator of pollution' as defined in Utah's "Standards of Quality
for Waters of the State (R317-2, Utah Administrative Code)Threshold values
established for streams and lakes or reservoirs is 0.05 mg/L and 0.025 mg/L
respectively. Numeric standards established for dissolved oxygen for Class 3A
waters are:
3 0 Day Average
7 Day Average
6.5 mg/L
Maximum 9.5 mg/L
Minimum 5.0 mg/L
-------
1 Day Average
Maximum 8.0 mg/L
Minimum 4.0 mg/L
Through the assessment process defined by the Division of Water Quality in
compliance with Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) additional
information other than water quality data when available is used to validate
exceedances of those pollution indicators in streams. Limited macroinvertebrate
303(d) Identified Impaired Waterbodies
Waterbody Description
Specific Pollutant or
Stressor
Unpaired
Beneficial Use
East Canyon Creek from East Canyon Reservoir to
the headwaters
Total Phosphorus,
Dissolved oxygen
3A
East Canyon Reservoir
Total Phosphorus,
dissolved oxygen
3A
Table 20 303(d) Identified Impaired Waterbodies
and diurnal dissolved oxygen data was available for the assessment of East Canyon
Creek above the reservoir. The assessment process for lakes and reservoirs
incorporates additional data and information in determining the impaired status
of waters.
We recognize the validity of the pollution indicator for total phosphorus but
additional endpoints will be defined to enhance our ability to evaluate the
restoration of beneficial uses as defined by the State in their water quality
standards. These additional endpoints will be associated with waterbody
productivity, stream morphology, or the biological integrity of the stream, its
corridor, or other ecological areas in the watershed.
Table 2 0 contains a summary of those endpoints for the impaired waters in the
watershed. The linkage of these non-numerical standards to defined beneficial
uses is supported by scientific studies that link these factors to those defined
beneficial uses and to some of the existing violations of criteria associated
with beneficial uses (eg. High algal production dominated by blue-green algae
leads to low dissolved oxygen or anoxic conditions in reservoirs; lack of habitat
and streambank stability leads to impaired fisheries).
8.1 TMDL Development and Allocation of Responsibility
The objective of establishing endpoints is to assure the restoration of
impaired beneficial uses. Those waters defined as impaired from an empirical
evaluation of available water quality data n-stream macroinvertebrate data
coupled with observations from local constituents and water users in the
watershed. There is some professional judgement associated with the definition
of endpoints or targets established in this watershed, nevertheless, it is
important to note that it is the intent of the stewards in this watershed that
these endpoints be established based on our initial objective, the restoration
of impaired beneficial uses.
The primary parameters of focus are total phosphorus, temperature (not a
303(d) listed parameter), and dissolved oxygen. Criteria associated with these
parameters are defined in the Utah's "Standards of Quality for Waters of the
State (R317-2, Utah Administrative Code)." Through the assessment process
defined by the Division of Water Quality in compliance with Section 305 (b) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) additional data when available is used to validate
"exceedances" of those pollution indicators. Biological data presented in this
-------
TMDL Endpoints for East Canyon Creek Watershed Impaired Waters
Description
Waterbody Biota
Total
Phosphorus
concentration
mg/L
Dissolved
oxygen
concentration
mg/L
Miscellaneous Endpoints
East Canyon
Creek and
tributaries
from East
Canyon
Reservoir
to
headwaters
Shift from
organic
enrichment and
sediment tolerant
macroinvertebrate
to higher water
quality species
composition
m
o
o
VI
Instantaneous
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
> 4.0 mg/L
Enhance or restore streambank
stability in designated areas
with accelerated streambank
erosion.
Implement DWR recommendations
for stream corridor
restorations of habitat and
channel stabilization.
Insure compliance with
existing ordinances and
develop additional ordinances
for construction activities
associated with recreation,
residential or business
development.
Implement BMP's to reduce
total phosphorus from urban
runoff.
"Fishery goals to be defined"
East Canyon
Reservoir
Algal dominance
not blue-green
In-lake
concentration
s.025; Inflow
concentration
of s0. 05
Instantaneous
water column
average at
dam site >
4.0 mg/L for
> 50% of
water column
depth
Overall TSI value = 40-50.00;
Annual loading equivalent to
annual flow with 0.05 mg/L
total phosphorus conc.
Table 21 TMDL Endpoints for East Canyon Creek Watershed Impaired Waters
report for some segments of East Canyon Creek and its tributaries, with
additional criteria defined for the reservoirs in support of the conventional
chemical assessment for those waters listed on the impaired waters listing,
referred to as the 303(d) list.
The primary focus of restoration practices focuses on the reduction of total
phosphorus within the system through control of those sources contributing
excessive loadings: Snyderville Basin wastewater treatment plant (SBWWTP) ; urban
runoff; development; recreation; agricultural related activities; and at risk
riparian corridor conditions. The primary goal for the reservoir is to reduce
total phosphorus loadings to the point where trophic state index values are in
the mesotrophic range (40-50), shift the algal community dominance away from
blue-green species composition, reduce temperature regimes in the epilimnion, and
reduce anoxic conditions present in the hypolimnion.
In order to achieve this it is recommended that an annual loading to the
reservoir be established based on an annual target concentration value of 0.05
mg/L for the waters flowing into the reservoir. This endpoint is equivalent to
the established pollution indicator found in the states water quality standards
which is based on scientific studies which support the biological effects
associated with high levels of nutrients in aquatic systems and specifically on
the modeling previously discussed supporting a shift in the trophic state status
of the reservoir with a reduction of nutrient levels to this endpoint. A review
of the average annual concentration for the intensive monitoring period (Section
-------
5.3.1) indicates that the differential between inflowing concentrations to the
reservoir and in-lake concentrations of total phosphorus to be 0.027 mg/L. "This
is basically the difference of the state pollution indicator values for a stream
versus a lake. It is a good indication that if the inflowing stream
concentration endpoint of 0.05 mg/L can be achieved that the in-lake
concentration endpoint of 0.025 mg/L will also be achieved.
In addition when control of identified sources of total phosphorus is
achieved, it is recommended that treatment of the sediments within the reservoir
to reduce or eliminate internal loading of phosphorus be initiated. This could
be accomplished either by chemical inactivation of the sediments or an ongoing
program to entrain oxygen into the hypolimnetic portion of the reservoir. It is
clearly evident that significant reduction in current phosphorus loadings will
be required to achieve these goals.
Figure 8.3 summarizes loadings in recent years compared to what would have be
expected through achieving target endpoint goals. This data is based on the
phosphorus concentrations and annual flow rates as given in figure 8.2. Based on
long-term annual flows into East Canyon Reservoir (41, 520 acre-feet per year) and
the target phosphorus concentration of 0.05 mg/L for inflowing water into the
reservoir an annual target load for total phosphorus is 5,647 pounds (2,561
Kg/year) . This target value will vary dependent upon the flow regime for any
given water year. During 1994-96 as indicated in figure 8.3 there were two wet
cycle years (1995-96) and one dry cycle year (1994) . Target phosphorus loads
range from 3,040 to 8,147 pounds per year. Actual data as determined in this
reports indicates an excess each year from a low of 10,213 pounds during 1994 to
a high of 14,501 pounds in 1995. The difference of these values represent the
excess total phosphorus that must be removed from the system in order to restore
beneficial uses.
During the same period the average annual concentration at the station above
SBWWTP has been in a declining trend with concentrations levels in 1995-96 near
the instream phosphorus concentration goal of 0.05 mg/L as referenced in Table
11 and observed in figure 4.2 and 4.3.
8.1.1 Snyderville Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant
The SBWWTP is the major contributor of total phosphorus into East Canyon Creek
and Reservoir, even though significant reduction in total phosphorus loading has
occurred in recent years. A summary of plant loadings is contained in Table 13.
The highest loading occurred in 1994 with 26,221 pounds of phosphorus being
discharged into East Canyon Creek. In 1996-97 loadings have been significantly
reduced primarily due to the addition of a biological process for the removal of
phosphorus. An average of 8,761 lbs/year was calculated for 1996-97. These
ECC above Reservoir
ECC above WWTP
Snyderville WWTP
Project Annual Load
Year
Flow
¦(AF)
Cone.
Mg/L
Load
lbs/yr
Flow
(AF)
Cone.
Mg/L
Load
lbs/yr
Flow
(AF)
Cone.
Mg/L
Load
lbs/yr
Above
Res
Above
WWTP
WWTP
1994
22,350
0.218
13,253
15,220
0.062
2 , 567
1, 550
6.219
26,221
3,040
2, 070
211
1995
59,900
0.139
22,648
39,335
0.054
5,778
1,795
2 . 901
14,165
8,147
5,350
244
1996
54,620
0 .124
18,423
33,379
0.047
4,267
2,051
1.674
9,339
7,429
4, 540
279
1997
2,114
1.423
8,183
Table 22 Loading calculations based on annual flow rates and concentrations
-------
Comparison of Annual Total Phosphorus Loads
(Based on projected TMDL Endpoints)
Period
Annual Flow
ab Res (AF)
Above Res
Lbs/yr
Above WWTP
Lbs/yr
WWTP
Lbs/yr
Below WWTP
Lbs/yr
Long-term
41,520
5,647
3,790
288
1, 569
1994 w/TMDL
22,350
3 , 040
2, 070
211
759
Actual
22,350
13,253
2, 567
26,221
"Excess
(19,170)
10,213
497
26,010
Long-term
41,520
5,647
3,790
288
1, 569
1995 w/TMDL
59,900
8 ,147
5,350
244
2 , 553
Actual
59,900
22,648
5,778
14,165
Excess
18,380
14,501
428
13,921
Long-term
41,520
5,647
3, 790
288
1, 569
1996 w/TMDL
54,620
7 , 427
4,540
274
2,513
Actual
54,620
18,423
4, 267
9,339
Excess
13,100
10,996
(273)
9, 065
Long-term values are determined using long-term annual flow rates and TMDL endpoint concentrations
w/TMDL values are based on existing flows with TMDL endpoint concentrations
Actual values are determined using existing flow and concentration data
Excess values are the difference of "actual values minus w/TMDL values
Table 23 Comparative annual loadings based on defined TMDL endpoints
loadings represent a significant source of phosphorus that technological
processes are available to remove. It is the recommendation of this report that
given the current information available that a permit load limit should be
incorporated into the plant UPDES discharge permit based on an average
concentration of 0.05 mg/L for any given annual flow to be treated (2,114 acre-
feet for 1997) . This is also consistent with the fact that the stream
concentrations has been near this target concentration value of 0.05 mg/L for the
period 1995-96. This will ensure reaching the annual target loading for the
reservoir. This will require the implementation of chemical treatment for the
removal of phosphorus. There may be options available to treat other sources of
phosphorus in lieu of achieving extremely low concentrations limits in this
process. This is an area that will need to be explored as determinations are
made to what can be achieved from chemical treatment based on cost feasibility.
Loadings will vary dependant upon the hydrologic regime for any given year,
therefore, it is important to remember the relationship of concentration, flow,
and annual loads in establishing target goals for various 'sources of total
phosphorus. Specifically regarding point sources strategies will need to be
developed to assure achieving annual loads into the reservoir.
It should be noted that efforts are underway with representatives of the
SBWWTP to structure their permit to address targets or endpoints which adequately
reduce phosphorus discharge from their operation. Issues that are currently
being reviewed that may have an impact on these negotiations include:
1. Currently, investigations are underway to develop a watershed model that
-------
will determine loading rates into East Canyon Reservoir needed to achieve
defined reservoir endpoints and restore defined beneficial uses.
2 . Based on best available technology (BAT) for chemical removal of phosphorus,
can endpoints defined for the stream and reservoir be achieved? Should
the focus of the endpoint be an annual or seasonal loading values or do we
need to maintain some correlation to instream concentration of total
phosphorus? What are the factors that will drive BAT in reducing loadings
to the point of 'feasibility or cost effectiveness'? What discharge
concentrations can be achieved under cost effective constraints? Is this
an acceptable endpoint concentration or can reduction of other sources to
which are more cost effective be controlled to offset proposed limitations
needed on the wastewater plant? Are there other operation and maintenance
issues (sludge removal) that may limit the reduction of total phosphorus
concentrations in SBWWTP effluent? Can numerical limits be removed from
the permit and placed in other documents that would assure efforts to
achieve targets or endpoints while allowing flexibility in the permitting
process for non-compliance to ridged numerical limits?
3 . What are the controllable nonpoint sources of total phosphorus and what is
the expected total phosphorus loading reduction?
4. Can a mechanism be developed in the permitting process for SBWWTP that
could potentially be an incentive based approach to the implementation of
nonpoint source control of total phosphorus?
5. What are the limitations on the stream related to flow regimes that may be
impacting defined beneficial uses and are they more restrictive than
nutrient related impairments?
6. Are there existing data limitations that preclude the development of a
basin wide TMDL for all sources related to the impairment?
Studies, modeling, and experience with other reservoirs in the area (Deer
Creek Reservoir) supports the supposition that as the loading to the reservoir
is reduced and the trophic status moves into the mesotrophic range (TSI Index of
40-50), there will also be a shift in the algal dominance away from the blue-
green species currently present.
Anoxic conditions present in the reservoir are directly related to the
decomposition of organic materials discharged into the lake via the stream, and
the demand from high production of algae. The algae can exhibit an immediate
demand during the diurnal cycle or a long-term effect from the decomposition of
algae at the sediment layer of the reservoir. A reduction of algae biomass
present in the reservoir will have an impact on the dissolved oxygen
concentration in the reservoir. Acute fish kills associated with low dissolved
oxygen conditions during the diurnal cycle due to high algal biomass can be
eliminated as productivity in the reservoir is controlled. Oxygen demand for
decomposition can be reduced with the reduction of organic material being
deposited in the reservoir.
8.1.2 Riparian Corridor/Stream Restoration
Low dissolved oxygen concentrations at night in the streams where heavy
-------
macrophyte and algal communities are present can be reduced with the reduction
of biomass which is present due to the high concentrations of nutrients, low
flows, and lack of shading.
One component that needs to be evaluated is the affect that lack of shading
might be exhibiting on the temperature regimes and the plant biomass of the
stream. The 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus concentration in the stream may be
sufficient to control plant biomass, if additional shading can be obtained
through the development of more diversified riparian community with emphasis on
developing a 'herbaceous canopy' (woody streambank vegetation) associated with the
stream corridor. We recommend the implementation of a demonstration project
which can be monitored and evaluated to obtain this needed information. There
are limited studies that suggest that these levels of total phosphorus may not
be adequate, but because there are so many variables associated with stream
ecology, site specific information will need to be developed to provide long-term
endpoints that will assure water quality protection for defined beneficial uses
in East Canyon Creek.
An increase in stream canopy may also produce lower temperature regimes in the
reservoir.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources produced a document, "East Canyon
Creek Aquatic-Riparian Management Plan" (June, 1998) describing management
strategies needed in the riparian zones to support potential sport fisheries.
In their report East Canyon Creek was segmented into five sections for planning
purposes. The following is a description and summary of restoration plans for
those sections above East Canyon Reservoir:
1. Section 3, East Canyon Creek from East Canyon Reservoir to Summit County
boundary (about 5.5 miles).
A. "Beaver ponds are numerous in the upper part of the section. However,
increased siltation, thick macrophyte beds, and increased filamentous
algae growth have occurred as a result of reduced flows and nutrient
loading from urban growth in the Snyderville basin. Mid-summer water
temperatures and dissolved oxygen concentrations often approach lethal
limits for salmonids. Some natural adaptation in channel morphology
has resulted from changes in creek flows and nutrient levels. The
width:depth ratio of the channel has improved (narrowed and deepened)
and additional vegetation has helped stabilize some eroding banks.
However, recovery rate is slow, and nonexistent in much of the reach.
Habitat improvements including grazing management and bank
stabilization are needed at the following locations: 1) downstream
portion of the McFarlane Ranch - needs an estimated 23 rock barbs,
riparian fencing, bank sloping and transplants and replanting with
native woody vegetation; 2) upstream portion of McFarlane Ranch -
requires riparian fencing, bank sloping, replanting, and placement of
approximately 2 8 rock barbs; 3) Schuster Creek/Mormon Flat area
(approximately % mile of stream) - estimate 24 rock barbs and many
transplants/plantings of woody vegetation. These habitat improvements
will decrease siltation, minimize solar heating, and provide more pool
habitat for adult fish.
2. Section 4, East Canyon Creek from Summit County to Interstate 80 (about 10
miles).
B. Habitat restoration is needed in Section 4. Historical livestock
-------
grazing and recent urban development have degraded channel
morphology, riparian habitat, and water quality. Efforts to restore
instream habitat without increasing flows would probably be
unsuccessful. Similar to Section 3, some natural adaptation in
channel morphology has resulted from changes in creek flows and
nutrient levels. The width:depth ratio of the channel has improved
and additional vegetation has helped stabilize some eroding banks.
However, recover rate is slow, and nonexistent in much of the reach.
Habitat improvements including grazing management and bank
stabilization are needed at the following locations: 1) Bear Hollow;
bank sloping, about 35 rock barbs, and willow plantings are
recommended throughout a Hi mile reach; 2) Summit Self Storage to
Hidden Haven Campground; 23 rock barbs and willow plantings
throughout a 3/4 mile reach; and 3) above Hidden Haven Campground;
undetermined bank stabilization.
3. Section 5, Mouth of Kimball Creek/McLoed Creek at 1-80 to headwaters
(about 4 miles).
C. Additional public access, stream restoration, and enhanced flows are
needed. Access and potential easements and stable summer flow rates
are of primary concern. Kimball Creek/McLeod Creek is relatively
stable and contains good fish habitat. The upper portion (McLeod
Creek) was recently renovated and trout habitat was enhanced.
Public access to restored sections is secured".
In addition to DWR's assessment is should be noted that there have been
diversions of some of the smaller streams (" eg. Thayne Creek) in the upper
watershed to enhance development opportunities. Several smaller streams run
through residential areas with frequent small, shallow ponds present that may be
increasing water temperatures in the system.
8.1.3 Urban Runof£
To control urban runoff, it is recommended that sediment or stormwater
detention ponds or wetland enhancement areas be considered at significant sources
of urban runoff including the following locations:
1) At the end of the Park Avenue stormwater drain at a location north of
the intersection of Park Avenue and Kearns Blvd. , east of highway U224.
2) On the drainage ditch leaving the Park Meadows area near highway U224
south of Meadows Drive.
3) On the west side of U224 south of Meadows Drive so as to capture and
detain waters from the Thanes Canyon drainage.
4) At a location on the east side of highway U224 between Meadows Drive
and Park Avenue.
5) Other minor stormwater control facilities in the Summit County area
including erosion control during construction.
-------
These small sediment basins need to also have a plan for periodic cleaning and
maintenance. If properly constructed and maintained, some phosphorus laden
sediments, debris, gravel, and salts from roadways can be prevented from entering
the stream.
8.1.4 Development/Construction
It is obvious with all of the development associated with urbanization,
recreation, and the 2002 Winter Olympics that a renewed effort be undertaken to
control the movement of sediments and nutrients from construction sites. These
sites with disturbed soils can be a significant source of pollutants of concern.
It is the recommendation of this report that compliance to the storm water
permitting process and existing planning and zoning regulation be attained. In
addition if new ordinances or regulations are needed to prevent the movement of
sediments or phosphorus into the waterways of this watershed, then appropriate
agencies with jurisdictional oversight should as expeditiously as possible
develop regulations or policies to achieve this goal. This oversight might also
include the development of bans on detergents with phosphorus, street sweeping,
guidance on fertilizer application for residential use, fertilizer management
plans for golf courses or other activities or other activities that could reduce
the contribution of total phosphorus into the waters of the watershed.
Several sites have been identified where emphasis might be directed to reduce
or control the movement of sediments or phosphorus from areas that may be defined
as urban but are directly related to development activities or conditions
conducive to the movement of pollutants from on-site into waterways. They
include but are not limited to the following sites:
1. Area east of K-Mart/Smiths Food & Drug Store (and proposed Boyer
Development directly east of this area) and south of 1-80 in this
expanding commercial development zone.
2. The area west of highway 224 and south of the UDOT maintenance shed.
3. Lower Willow Draw area west of highway 224.
4. The area of expanding residential/commercial development in the lower to
mid-elevation watershed north and east of Silver Springs and Ranch Place
subdivisions on drainages associated with Willow Draw and Spring Creek.
5. The Toll Canyon Creek area near I-80/Jeremy Ranch exit just west of the
Jeremy Ranch Elementary School.
6. The Red Pine and White Pine drainages.
7. The small drainages originating from within the Pinebrook Subdivisions.
Potential areas include the area just south of Kilby Road/South frontange
road of 1-80 between Kimball Junction and Jeremy Ranch exits.
8. Broad Meadow in the southwest portion of Silver Creek Estates prior to the
confluence with East Canyon Creek (North of 1-80, west of Silver Creek
Junction.
8.1.5 Lead Agencies for Implementation, Monitoring, Maintenance, and Evaluation
The Utah Division of Water Quality will take the lead in conjunction with the
East Canyon Steering Committee, the local planning entity, and other designated
agency that have jurisdictional involvement for planning, program implementation,
or policy development for oversight for implementation and post-implementation
activities.
All water quality monitoring will be done by the DWQ or designated
representatives under guidelines and policies established through the divisions
-------
quality assurance protocols.
Implementation projects will be under the direction of those agencies or
groups that may be sponsoring projects. Nonpoint sources projects may be funded
from several sources including: Nonpoint Source Program (CWA, Section 319) , DWR
Habitat Program, NRCS Environmental Programs (eg. EQIP), private funding or
others conservation groups or funding sources. All of the project work will be
coordinated under the oversight of the local watershed planning group and the DWQ
to assure that projects specifically address the recommendations of the watershed
restoration plan. Maintenance of project BMP's will be defined and incorporated
into agreements with private property owners and project administrative agencies.
Overall evaluation of achievement of defined beneficial uses will be under the
lead of the DWQ in cooperation with the local water quality planning committee
and representatives of stewards within the watershed.
Currently funding for voluntary efforts to control nonpoint sources will be
primarily from available federal programs to address nonpoint source problems or
environmental restoration programs, available habitat restoration funds through
Utah's DWR, or other available public and private funds to do restoration work.
In addition on private lands, expenditure of funds from land owners may be
required to match other funding sources. Funding for the control of point
sources will be the responsibility of those discharges under permit requirements
from Utah's DWQ.
8.2 Monitoring and Evaluation
An ongoing monitoring plan to assess water chemistry related to defined
endpoints needs to be implemented and maintained throughout the implementation
phase to evaluate the effectiveness of BMP's in reducing total phosphorus and
evaluation of other endpoints related to these reductions. This monitoring will
also serve as the margin of safety required in the TMDL process to assure that
endpoint achievement meets the goal of restoring defined beneficial uses. If
attainment of beneficial uses does not result from implementation of restoration
measures, then additional endpoints need to be established to assure achievement
of water quality goals.
The monitoring plan will establish water quality sites for the stream and
reservoir to track water quality changes for specific defined targets or
endpoints. Additional biological monitoring will be conducted to ascertain algal
composition, macroinvertebrate composition of diversity, and status of the
fishery. As implementation occurs in the riparian corridor habitat diversity and
stream morphology will be assessed and evaluated to track effectiveness of
implemented restoration practices.
TKDL/WRAS Element
Reservoir TMDL/WRAS
East Canyon Creek TMDL/WRAS
Description of water quality standards
applicable (beneficial .uses,
narrative, numeric or antidegradation)
YES, refer to
Section 2.1; 2.2;
5.3.1 and 9.0
Same as Reservoir TMDL reference
Defined quantifiable endpoint
Refer to 8.0
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
A quantified pollution reduction
target
Refer to 8.1
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
All significant sources of pollutants
need to be addressed
YES, refer to 4.6
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
-------
Defined appropriate level of technical
analysis
YES, refer to 5.4-
5.6
Applied best available
profession judgement with
additional studies for further
evaluation.
Defined margin of safety
YES, refer to 8.2
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
An apportion of responsibility for
taking actions
YES, refer to 8.1
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Public involvement
YES, refer to 7.0
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Identification of measurable
environmental and programmatic goals
YES, refer to 8.1
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Restoration measures to achieve
resource goals
YES, refer to 8.1
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Schedule for implementation of
restoration measures
YES, refer to 8.1
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Identification of lead agencies to
oversee implementation, monitoring,
maintenance, and evaluation
YES, refer to
8.1.5, 8.2
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Monitoring and evaluation plan
developed
YES, refer to 8.2
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Funding plans identified for
implementation and maintenance
YES, refer to 8.1.5
Same as reservoir TMDL reference
Table 24 Required elements Eor TMDL or WRAS development
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
1. Chu, Fun Sun, 1994. Algal Toxins in Drinking Water? Research in Wisconsin,
Lakeline, North American Lake Management Society (NALMS).
2. Harvey, Bret, 1994. Report to the Weber Basin Water Quality Management
Council, "Biological Assessment of East Canyon Creek", Department of
Zoology, Weber State University.
3. Judd, Harry Lewis, 1997. Utah's Lakes and Reservoirs: Inventory and
Classification of Utah's Priority Lakes and Reservoirs. Utah Division of
Water Quality.
4. Kotak, Brian G., et.al., 1994. Bleu-Green Algal Toxins in Drinking Water
Supplies-Research in Alberta, Lakeline, North American Lake Management
Society (NALMS).
5. Merritt, LaVere, B. et.al., 1980. East Canyon Reservoir: Water Quality
Assessment, Eyring Research Institute, Inc., Provo, Ut.
6. Miller, Jerry, 1994. "Mercury and Selenium in East Canyon Reservoir
Biological Fish Tissue Samples", U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
7. Mountainland Association of Governments, 1980. East Canyon Reservoir Water
Quality Assessment.
8. Northern Region, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1998. East Canyon
Creek: Aquatic-Riparian Management Plan.
9. Simpson, J. T. 1991. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual, EPA 440/4-
91-002.
10. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. East Canyon Creek Fisheries Summary.
(Contact: William (Bill) Bradwisch, DNR/DWR Aquatic Section, SLC, Ut.)
-------
APPENDIX A
Land Cover Designation
Land Cover
Acres
Percent of total
Deciduous
48,406
53.76
Sage Grassland
26,557
29.49
Agriculture
4,896
5.44
Conifers
3,240
3.60
Dry Meadow
1,952
2.17
Urban
1,396
1.55
Mixed Forest
1,295
1.44
Pinyon Juniper
1,168
1.30
Riparian
707
0.79
Water
405
0.45
Wet Meadow
?3
0 03
-------
East Canyon Reservoir Watershed
Generalized Land Cover Map
Rivers & Streams
LandcoverTypes
Agriculture
Conifers
Decidous
Dry Meadow
Mixed Forest
Pinyon Juniper
Riparian
Sage Grassland
Urban
Water
-------
APPENDIX B
Land Use Designation
Ownership
Acres
Percent of total
Private
85,475
94.92
State
2,138
2.37
USFS
1,744
1.94
Water
649
0.72
Rl M
as
n 04
-------
East Canyon Reservoir Watershed
Generalized Ownership Map
Streams
East Canyon Ownership
BLM
Forest Service
Private
State
-------
APPENDIX C
Soils Designation
Soils
Acres
Percent of total
Loam
53367
59.27
Silty Loam
9613
10.68
Very Stony Loam
9585
10.64
Gravelly Loam
6664
7.40
Very Cobbly Loam
5467
6.07
Silty Clay
4964
5.51
Water
388
0.43
-------
East Canyon Reservoir Watershed
Generalized Soils Map
Rivers & Streams
East Canyon Soils
Very Cobbly Loam
Gravelly Loam
Loam
Silty Clay
Silt
Very Stony Loam
-------
APPENDIX D
Nutrient Data
(All stream and lake data is expressed in mg/L)
-------
DRET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
STORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492515
4/14/93
0.025
0.168
0.650
492515
4/4/96
0 055
0130
0 090
492515
4/29/93
0 025
0.092
0.072
492515
4/18/96
0.051
0.110
0 070
492515
5/12/93
0.025
0 134
0.527
492515
4/30/96
0.025
0.080
0 040
492515
5/25/93
0.025
0.123
0.398
492515
5/16/96
0 025
0.130
0 300
492515
6/10/93
0.025
0.079
0.098
492515
5/29/96
0.058
0130
0.340
492515
7/22/93
0.083
0 141
0.339
492515
6/12/96
0.052
0.070
0.150
492515
8/25/93
0.025
0 146
0 351
492515
6/27/96
0 025
0 080
0 180
492515
9/23/93
0.025
0.168
0314
492515
7/1/96
0 071
0.100
0 250
492515
10/28/93
0 025
0 155
0 240
492515
7/23/96
0.025
0 080
0 200
492515
11/23/93
0 025
0.162
0.361
492515
8/8/96
0.025
0.108
0 220
492515
8/23/96
0 025
0.090
0.240
492515
1/13/94
0 025
0.107
0.363
492515
9/10/96
0 053
0 110
0.180
492515
2/16/94
0.025
0.142
0.312
492515
9/26/96
0 056
0.133
0 270
492515
3/24/94
0.025
0 178
0 342
492515
10/8/96
0.106
0.212
0 270
492515
4/6/94
0 025
0.140
0.182
492515
10/23/96
0 025
0.247
0 320
492515
4/21/94
0 025
0.134
0418
492515
11/5/96
0 025
0.142
0 230
492515
5/3/94
0 025
0.125
0 305
492515
11/21/96
0.025
0.153
0.350
492515
5/17/94
0.025
0.087
0.308
492515
12/3/96
0 025
0.098
0 320
492515
6/1/94
0.025
0.054
0.036
492515
12/17/96
0 025
0.102
0310
492515
6/15/94
0.025
0.172
0.241
492515
7/14/94
0 025
0.140
0.263
492515
1/15/97
0.060
0.236
0.060
492515
7/26/94
0.025
0 123
0010
492515
1/30/97
0.050
0.072
0.240
492515
8/11/94
0.025
0.146
0 184
492515
2/14/97
0.087
0.059
0 090
492515
8/25/94
0.025
0.181
0.117
492515
3/4/97
0.025
0.057
0 180
492515
9/13/94
0.025
0.121
0.102
492515
3/25/97
0 025
0.107
0.280
492515
9/28/94
0 025
0.233
0.176
492515
4/4/97
0 025
0.104
0.340
492515
10/20/94
0.025
0.189
0.208
492515
4/18/97
0 051
0 111
0.130
492515
11/8/94
0.025
0 201
0.360
492515
5/2/97
0 025
0.065
0.220
492515
11/22/94
0.025
0.139
0.140
492515
5/15/97
0 053
0.138
0.260
492515
5/30/97
0.025
0.183
0.260
492515
1/31/95
0 025
0.153
0.366
492515
6/13/97
0.072
0.113
0.100
492515
2/28/95
0 030
0.122
0.383
492515
6/26/97
0.051
0.088
0 160
492515
4/4/95
0.025
0 136
0.174
492515
7/18/97
0.025
0.088
0 260
492515
4/20/95
0.025
0.122
0.120
492515
8/6/97
0.025
0 108
0 280
492515
5/3/95
0.025
0.124
0 300
492515
8/15/97
0.057
0 145
0.050
492515
5/16/95
0 025
0.118
0.260
492515
8/28/97
0 025
0.198
0.210
492515
5/30/95
0 025
0.136
0 220
492515
9/9/97
0 025
0.114
0.290
492515
6/13/95
0.025
0 110
0 240
492515
9/25/97
0.025
0.212
0.390
492515
6/29/95
0.025
0 040
0 050
492515
10/10/97
0 025
0.186
0.350
492515
7/11/95
0 025
0 030
0.020
492515
10/21/97
0 060
0.474
0.360
492515
7/27/95
0.025
0 020
0.030
492515
12/4/97
0.050
0.093
0 330
492515
8/10/95
0 025
0.140
0.300
492515
8/22/95
0.025
0.120
0 200
492519
7/14/94
0.025
0.158
0010
492515
9/6/95
0.056
0 130
0.210
492519
7/26/94
0.025
0.209
0.154
492515
9/26/95
0.101
0.210
0.270
492519
8/11/94
0 025
0.254
0.528
492515
10/26/95
0.025
0.130
0.160
492519
8/25/94
0.025
0.280
0 359
492515
11/15/95
0.025
0.150
0.270
492519
9/13/94
0.025
0 226
0 320
492519
9/28/94
0.025
0.204
0 642
492515
2/14/96
0 081
0.110
0.040
492519
10/20/94
0.025
0 150
0.247
492515
2/23/96
0.060
0.110
0.060
492519
11/8/94
0.025
0 296
0.953
492515
3/6/96
0.057
0.120
0210
492519
11/22/94
0.025
0 185
0.718
492515
3/21/96
0.066
0 140
0.230
-------
ORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492519
1/31/95
0.025
0.272
1.553
STORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492519
2/28/95
0.030
0.181
0.764
492519
7/18/97
0.025
0.040
492519
4/4/95
0 025
0.128
0.586
492519
8/6/97
0 069
0.152
0.010
492519
4/20/95
0.025
0 053
0.110
492519
8/15/97
0 058
0.111
0.230
492519
5/3/95
0 049
0.116
0.320
492519
8/28/97
0.025
0010
492519
5/16/95
0.025
0 107
0.290
492519
9/9/97
0.058
0 020
492519
5/30/95
0 090
0.084
0.150
492519
9/25/97
0 025
0.060
492519
6/13/95
0 025
0.080
0.050
492519
10/10/97
0.025
0.310
492519
6/29/95
0081
0 070
0.070
492519
10/21/97
0.025
0.360
492519
7/11/95
0 060
0130
0 400
492519
12/4/97
0.025
0.090
0 700
492519
7/27/95
0.025
0.140
0 420
492519
8/10/95
0025
0 140
0.390
492520
1/16/90
0.025
0 371
492519
8/22/95
0 050
0.180
0.700
492520
2/15/90
0.025
0 239
492519
9/6/95
0 069
0.230
0.580
492520
4/5/90
0.025
0.232
492519
9/26/95
0 025
0 190
0 630
492520
5/17/90
0.025
0.198
492519
11/15/95
0.025
0130
0 360
492520
6/19/90
0.025
0.214
492520
9/11/90
0.025
492519
2/14/96
0.025
0.140
0.650
492520
10/10/90
0 025
0.370
492519
2/23/96
0.146
0 160
0 630
492520
12/11/90
0 025
0 460
492519
3/6/96
0 060
0.200
0 900
492519
3/21/96
0 071
0.190
0.500
492520
2/20/91
0.025
0.250
1.184
492519
4/4/96
0.065
0.160
0.120
492520
5/8/91
0.025
0 164
0.287
492519
4/18/96
0 050
0.090
0 360
492520
6/27/91
0.060
0.166
0.324
492519
4/30/96
0 025
0.070
0.290
492520
8/8/91
0.110
0 272
0.323
492519
5/16/96
0 025
0.010
0.170
492520
10/8/91
0.025
0 194
0.196
492519
5/29/96
0 050
0.070
0.210
492520
11/26/91
0.025
0.158
0.817
492519
6/16/96
0 052
0.130
0.200
492519
6/27/96
0.089
0.150
0.340
492520
1/30/92
0.025
0.404
0 959
492519
7/1/96
0.025
0 180
0.180
492520
3/19/92
0 025
0.374
1.335
492519
7/23/96
0.052
0 190
0.030
492520
4/21/92
0 060
0.281
0.555
492519
8/8/96
0 025
0.148
0.010
492520
6/24/92
0.025
0 241
0 100
492519
8/23/96
0 025
0 120
0.010
492520
8/6/92
0 025
0.274
0.082
492519
9/10/96
0 025
0.130
0.010
492520
9/24/92
0 025
0214
0.810
492519
9/26/96
0 050
0.187
0.010
492520
11/5/92
0.025
0.213
0 828
492519
10/8/96
0 095
0.168
0.010
492519
10/23/96
0.025
0.075
0 070
492520
1/20/93
0.250
0420
1.627
492519
11/5/%
0.025
0.072
0 130
492520
4/1/93
0.025
0 182
1 047
492519
11/21/96
0 053
0.034
0.190
492520
4/14/93
0.025
0.112
0.613
492519
12/17/96
0 025
0.057
0.530
492520
4/29/93
0.025
0.159
0.620
492520
5/12/93
0.025
0.126
0.387
492519
1/15/97
0.055
1.090
492520
5/25/93
0.025
0.107
0.236
492519
1/30/97
0.025
0070
0 550
492520
6/10/93
0.025
0.087
0.259
492519
2/14/97
0.025
0.040
0 500
492520
7/12/93
0.025
0.161
0.635
492519
3/4/97
0.025
0.035
0.610
492520
7/22/93
0.053
0.168
0.874
492519
3/25/97
0.025
0 144
0 770
492520
8/25/93
0.025
0.188
0.575
492519
4/4/97
0 025
0 102
0 440
492520
9/1/93
0.025
0 168
0.206
492519
4/18/97
0.025
0.250
492520
9/23/93
0.025
0.168
0 260
492519
5/2/97
0 025
0.320
492520
10/28/93
0.025
0.192
0 789
492519
5/15/97
0 025
0.180
492520
11/23/93
0.025
0.167
1 083
492519
5/30/97
0 025
0.150
492519
6/13/97
0 067
0.200
492520
1/13/94
0.025
0.263
1.372
492519
6/26/97
0.055
0210
492520
2/16/94
0.025
0.321
1 461
-------
)RET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492520
3/24/94
0.025
0 142
0.523
STORET
Dale
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492520
4/6/94
0.025
0.149
0.441
492521
10/23/96
0.025
0 071
0.460
492520
4/21/94
0 025
0 128
0287
492521
11/21/96
0 201
0.028
0.330
492520
5/3/94
0 025
0.128
0 273
492521
12/3/96
0 176
0 066
0.480
492520
5/17/94
0.025
0.013
0.347
492521
12/17/96
0.069
0.082
0 980
492520
6/1/94
0 025
0.181
0 390
492520
6/15/94
0.025
0.143
0 265
492521
1/15/97
0 066
0.177
1.540
492520
6/28/94
0.025
0.152
0.202
492521
1/30/97
0 025
0.087
0.880
492520
8/11/94
0 025
0.289
0.768
492521
2/14/97
0 025
0.073
1.130
492521
3/25/97
0 025
0.146
0 990
492520
10/26/95
0.025
0 130
0.540
492521
4/4/97
0.054
0 098
0.550
492520
11/15/95
0 025
0.130
0.380
492521
4/18/97
0.062
0.130
0.290
492521
5/2/97
0.025
0.053
0.360
492520
3/6/96
0.055
0 180
0 880
492521
5/15/97
0.025
0.186
0 170
492520
4/18/96
0.050
0.100
0.350
492521
5/30/97
0.025
0.117
0 220
492520
8/1/96
0.025
0 180
0 030
492521
6/13/97
0.059
0.093
0 270
492520
9/10/96
0.025
0 130
0010
492521
6/26/97
0.025
0.125
0.270
492520
10/23/96
0.025
0 075
0 070
492521
7/18/97
0 068
0.146
0.130
492520
12/3/96
0.078
0.055
0.340
492521
8/6/97
0.062
0210
0.120
492521
8/28/97
0 025
0318
0.130
492520
1/30/97
0 025
0.077
0.530
492521
9/9/97
0.070
0.207
0 180
492520
7/10/97
0.025
0.072
0 030
492521
9/25/97
0.025
0416
0.500
492520
8/6/97
0.065
0.140
0010
492521
10/10/97
0 025
0 465
1.200
492520
10/21/97
0.025
0.227
0.410
492521
10/21/97
0 025
0 246
0 750
492521
12/4/97
0.025
0.112
0.910
492521
11/22/94
0 025
0.372
1.473
492523
1/17/90
0 025
0 466
492521
1/31/95
0 025
0 322
1 501
492523
1/25/90
0 025
492521
2/28/95
0.030
0 194
0 954
492523
4/5/90
0.025
0.210
492521
4/4/95
0.025
0 118
0.661
492523
6/19/90
0.025
0 397
492521
4/20/95
0.025
0 067
0.250
492523
8/29/90
0 050
492521
5/3/95
0.069
0.171
0.420
492523
9/6/90
0 025
0.699
492521
5/16/95
0.025
0.096
0.340
492523
9/27/90
492521
5/30/95
0 025
0.083
0.210
492523
10/10/90
0 025
0.760
492521
6/13/95
0 025
0.080
0.070
492523
12/11/90
0.050
0.570
492521
6/29/95
0 025
0 070
0 110
492521
8/10/95
0 058
0.230
1.080
492523
2/20/91
0.050
0.697
3 301
492521
8/22/95
0.056
0.300
1.400
492523
2/21/91
0.050
492521
10/26/95
0.025
0.170
0 840
492523
5/8/91
0.025
0.134
0480
492521
11/15/95
0.025
0 190
0.830
492523
8/7/91
0.080
492523
8/27/91
0.341
492521
3/6/96
0.100
0.240
1 170
492523
9/19/91
0 025
492521
3/21/96
0.080
0 200
0 720
492523
10/8/91
0.025
0 524
0.032
492521
4/30/96
0.025
0 090
0.340
492523
11/26/91
0.025
0.212
1.000
492521
5/16/96
0.025
0.010
0.210
492521
5/29/96
0.025
0.070
0.430
492523
1/30/92
0.025
0 629
1 765
492521
6/16/96
0.025
0.120
0.390
492523
2/13/92
0 025
2.443
492521
6/27/96
0.091
0.160
0.450
492523
3/18/92
0.025
0.363
1.397
492521
8/8/96
0.025
0.525
0 030
492523
4/21/92
0 025
0.530
1.566
492521
8/23/96
0.025
0.110
0 030
492523
6/23/92
0 025
2.913
4.696
492521
9/10/96
0.025
0 220
0 110
492523
8/6/92
0 025
2 869
5 478
492521
10/8/96
0 087
0 261
0.040
492523
9/24/92
0.025
1 398
3 728
85
-------
3RET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492523
11/5/92
0.025
0 544
1.954
STORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492523
8/22/95
0 064
0.200
1.000
492523
1/21/93
0.025
0.568
2 573
492523
9/5/95
0.125
0.260
0.900
492523
4/1/93
0 025
0.166
1.369
492523
9/19/95
0 025
0 290
1.330
492523
4/15/93
0.025
0.110
1.009
492523
10/3/95
0 025
0.200
1.030
492523
4/28/93
0 025
0 076
0.656
492523
10/17/95
0.025
0.150
0.640
492523
5/11/93
0.025
0 128
0731
492523
10/31/95
0.025
0.170
0 660
492523
5/27/93
0.025
0.082
0351
492523
11/14/95
0.025
0.180
0 730
492523
6/9/93
0.025
0.072
0.614
492523
11/21/95
0.025
0.260
1.060
492523
7/20/93
0.025
0.177
1 160
492523
11/28/95
0 025
0.230
0 830
492523
8/24/93
0.025
0.197
0 961
492523
12/12/95
0 051
0.210
1 110
492523
9/22/93
0.025
0 270
1 042
492523
12/26/95
0.174
0.360
1.590
492523
10/27/93
0 025
0.243
1.227
492523
11/23/93
0.025
0.244
1 613
492523
1/9/96
0.097
0 260
1 200
492523
1/23/96
0 114
0 260
1.220
492523
1/13/94
0.025
0.268
1 507
492523
2/6/96
0.142
0.340
1.230
492523
2/17/94
0 025
0.677
2 728
492523
2/20/96
0 209
0 540
1.190
492523
3/23/94
0.025
0 272
0 996
492523
3/5/96
0.099
0 270
1 190
492523
4/5/94
0 025
0.058
492523
3/6/96
0.102
0.320
1.520
492523
4/19/94
0.025
0 131
0 632
492523
3/19/96
0 114
0.140
0.980
492523
5/3/94
0 025
0.173
0.587
492523
4/2/96
0 103
0.220
0.520
492523
5/17/94
0025
0 131
0.510
492523
4/16/96
0.056
0 090
0 590
492523
6/1/94
0.025
0 149
0.578
492523
4/30/96
0.025
0 080
0.480
492523
6/15/94
0 025
0.179
0 761
492523
5/14/96
0 025
0 100
0.380
492523
6/28/94
0025
0 390
2 164
492523
5/28/96
0 025
0.090
0.500
492523
7/14/94
0.025
0.397
1 551
492523
6/11/96
0 025
0.120
0.490
492523
7/26/94
0.025
0.686
0.127
492523
6/25/96
0.025
0.170
0.610
492523
8/9/94
0.276
1 314
5.636
492523
7/9/96
0 110
0 180
0 500
492523
8/25/94
0.025
0 623
2 428
492523
7/23/96
0.062
0.210
0 290
492523
9/13/94
0.025
0.928
4 894
492523
8/1/96
0.088
0 330
0 090
492523
9/28/94
0.025
0.554
2.920
492523
8/6/96
0 025
0.194
0.100
492523
10/20/94
0 025
0.350
1.909
492523
8/21/96
0 025
0.100
0.180
492523
11/8/94
0.025
0.325
1 224
492523
8/27/96
0.025
0.110
0.120
492523
11/22/94
0 025
0.486
1.678
492523
9/3/96
0.066
0 170
0210
492523
12/30/94
0025
0.255
1.160
492523
9/10/96
0.056
0 130
0.120
492523
9/17/96
0 025
0.140
0.320
492523
1/12/95
0.025
0.569
2 762
492523
9/24/96
0 072
0.430
0.180
492523
1/31/95
0.025
0.319
1 561
492523
10/1/96
0 071
0.174
0.200
492523
2/15/95
0.025
0.346
1.703
492523
10/8/96
0 085
0.213
0.130
492523
2/28/95
0.030
0 190
1.107
492523
10/15/96
0.057
0214
0.200
492523
3/8/95
0.025
0.263
1.330
492523
10/22/96
0064
0.137
0.290
492523
3/24/95
0 025
0.110
1.086
492523
10/23/96
0 025
0 106
0.560
492523
4/4/95
0.025
0.123
0 926
492523
10/29/96
0 025
0.086
0.440
492523
4/20/95
0.025
0 106
0.680
492523
11/5/96
0 025
0.099
0.330
492523
5/3/95
0.025
0.130
0 550
492523
11/12/96
1.120
0 069
0.280
492523
5/16/95
0.025
0.126
0.420
492523
11/19/96
0 391
0.053
0.420
492523
5/30/95
0.025
0.063
0 330
492523
11/26/96
0 390
0.049
0.340
492523
6/15/95
0.025
0 100
0.130
492523
12/3/96
0.170
0.065
0.570
492523
6/29/95
0 025
0 060
0.200
492523
12/3/96
0.096
0.094
0.520
492523
7/11/95
0 079
0.120
0.560
492523
12/10/96
0.069
0 088
0.370
492523
7/25/95
0.154
0 160
0 880
492523
12/17/96
0 113
0 036
1 320
492523
8/8/95
0.025
0.360
1 430
492523
12/27/96
0 301
0 221
0 980
86
-------
3RET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492523
12/31/96
0.243
0 371
1.520
STORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492524
9/25/92
0.025
1.305
3.688
492523
1/14/97
0.025
0.186
1 420
492524
11/5/92
0.025
0 480
1.933
492523
1/28/97
0.053
0.087
1 130
492523
1/30/97
0.056
0.073
0.420
492524
1/21/93
0.025
0.914
4.150
492523
2/11/97
0.025
0 278
1.170
492524
4/1/93
0.025
0 169
1 494
492523
2/25/97
0 025
0.344
2.700
492524
4/15/93
0.025
0.112
1.288
492523
3/11/97
0 025
0 151
1.020
492524
4/28/93
0.025
0.115
0.846
492523 ¦
3/25/97
0 025
0 137
1.010
492523
4/8/97
0025
0.070
0.650
492524
6/28/94
0.025
0 460
2 155
492523
4/22/97
0.065
0 088
0 480
492524
7/14/94
0.025
0.972
4.305
492523
5/6/97
0.025
0.100
0 540
492524
7/26/94
0025
1.597
1 993
492523
5/14/97
0 025
0 126
0.290
492524
8/9/94
0066
1 551
6 527
492523
5/20/97
0.025
0 138
0.240
492524
8/25/94
0.054
1.222
5 469
492523
6/3/97
0 025
0 137
0.230
492524
9/13/94
0.025
1.580
6.024
492523
6/17/97
0.025
0 036
0 340
492524
9/28/94
0 025
0 888
4.848
492523
7/1/97
0 025
0.270
0.220
492524
10/20/94
0 025
0 404
2.097
492523
7/15/97
0.025
0.290
0.180
492524
11/8/94
0.025
0 465
1 768
492523
7/29/97
0 062
0 224
0.290
492524
11/22/94
0.025
0.826
2.722
492523
8/6/97
0 025
0.247
0 180
492524
12/30/94
0 133
0.431
2.307
492523
8/12/97
0051
0.288
0.290
492523
8/26/97
0 025
0.243
0.300
492524
1/12/95
0.025
0 377
492523
9/9/97
0.064
0.284
3.230
492524
1/31/95
0.025
0.563
2.641
492523
9/23/97
0 025
0 287
0410
492524
2/15/95
0.025
0.665
3.329
492523
10/7/97
0 025
0.338
1.230
492524
2/28/95
0.030
0.250
1.367
492523
10/21/97
0.025
0.489
0.300
492524
3/8/95
0.162
0 305
1.399
492523
10/21/97
0.025
0 179
0.760
492524
3/24/95
0 025
0.135
1.253
492523
11/4/97
0.025
0.117
1.040
492524
4/4/95
0.025
0 150
0968
492523
11/18/97
0.026
0 205
1.080
492524
4/20/95
0.025
0.124
0 790
492523
12/2/97
0.025
0 226
0.990
492524
5/3/95
0.025
0.123
0.520
492523
12/16/97
0.125
0.120
1.610
492524
5/16/95
0.025
0 249
0.610
492523
12/30/97
0.075
0.044
0 650
492524
5/30/95
0 025
0 067
0.300
492524
6/15/95
0.025
0.060
0 200
492524
1/17/90
0.025
1 074
492524
6/29/95
0.025
0.060
0.220
492524
1/25/90
0.025
492524
7/11/95
0.050
0 120
0.650
492524
4/5/90
0.025
0.225
492524
7/25/95
0.025
0.180
0.890
492524
6/19/90
0.025
0.387
492524
8/8/95
0.050
0.370
1.990
492524
9/6/90
0 025
2 097
492524
8/22/95
0.062
0.340
1.700
492524
10/10/90
0 025
1 180
492524
9/5/95
0 186
0 400
1 500
492524
12/11/90
0.050
0.960
492524
9/19/95
0.025
0 340
1 860
492524
10/3/95
0.066
0.530
2510
492524
2/20/91
0.100
0.471
1 898
492524
10/17/95
0 025
0.450
2.030
492524
5/8/91
0.025
0.132
0 471
492524
10/31/95
0 025
0.570
1.690
492524
10/8/91
0.025
0.770
0.054
492524
11/14/95
0.025
0 240
1.190
492524
11/26/91
0025
0 350
1.275
492524
11/28/95
0.025
0.310
0950
492524
12/12/95
0.058
0.360
I 800
492524
1/30/92
0.070
1.418
3 051
492524
12/26/95
0.100
0.790
2.730
492524
2/13/92
0.110
2 135
492524
3/18/92
0.050
0.360
1.237
492524
1/9/96
0.086
0.430
2.000
492524
4/21/92
0.055
0 674
2.184
492524
1/23/96
0.088
0.390
1.630
492524
6/24/92
0 025
1.513
4.171
492524
2/6/96
0.121
0.450
1 610
492524
8/6/92
0025
3.947
9 593
492524
2/20/96
0.202
0 380
0.920
-------
>RET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492524
3/6/96
0.088
0410
1.810
STORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492524
3/19/96
0.099
0 240
1.070
492524
10/7/97
0 025
0 386
1.720
492524
4/2/96
0.090
0 220
0.480
492524
10/21/97
0.025
0 963
1.710
492524
4/16/96
0052
0.090
0.580
492524
11/4/97
0.025
0.155
0.910
492524
4/30/96
0.025
0.070
0.390
492524
11/18/97
0.025
0.198
0 650
492524
5/14/96
0.025
0.100
0 320
492524
12/2/97
0.025
0.123
0 830
492524
5/28/96
0.025
0.100
0 560
492524
12/16/97
0.152
0 300
2.280
492524
6/11/96
0 025
0.190
1.040
492524
12/30/97
1.260
0.380
0.910
492524 •
6/25/96
0.025
0 250
0 790
492524
7/9/96
0.122
0 330
0.650
492525
2/20/91
0.050
5.312
492524
7/23/96
0.076
0.390
0.350
492525
2/21/91
0 130
492524
8/6/96
0.025
0.190
0.220
492525
5/8/91
0.025
2 189
492524
8/21/96
0 025
0.110
0 270
492525
8/7/91
0.120
492524
8/27/96
0 025
0.070
0.130
492525
9/19/91
0 090
15 560
492524
9/3/96
0.065
0 200
0.310
492525
10/8/91
0 090
6 428
492524
9/10/96
0 052
0.120
0.160
492525
11/26/91
0.025
6 177
16.414
492524
9/17/96
0 025
0.120
1 030
492524
9/24/96
0 077
0.570
0 200
492525
1/30/92
0.025
5.992
11.992
492524
10/1/96
0 080
0.156
0 190
492525
2/13/92
0710
15 734
492524
10/8/96
0.025
0.317
0 220
492525
3/18/92
0 025
4.937
16 236
492524
10/15/96
0025
0 223
0.870
492525
4/21/92
0.025
5 664
16.229
492524
10/22/96
0.025
0.081
0.320
492525
6/24/92
0.025
6.260
19.034
492524
10/29/96
0.025
0.038
0 360
492525
8/6/92
0 025
5.814
17 787
492524
U/5/96
0 025
0.106
0.410
492525
9/24/92
0.025
5 639
16.837
492524
11/12/96
1.730
0 071
0.250
492525
11/5/92
0.025
5.096
19.924
492524
11/19/96
0.351
0 040
0.480
492524
11/26/96
0.980
0 091
0.380
492525
1/21/93
0 252
5.511
18 824
492524
12/3/96
0.082
0.053
0.510
492525
4/1/93
0.025
1 368
7.918
492524
12/10/96
0.052
0 065
0 340
492525
4/15/93
0.025
2.077
10.083
492524
12/17/96
0.154
0.242
0.630
492525
4/28/93
0.057
2.327
10 050
492524
12/27/96
0.370
0 283
1.130
492525
5/11/93
0.025
1 280
4.975
492524
12/31/96
0.275
0491
1.470
492525
5/27/93
0.025
1.192
7.391
492525
6/9/93
0.025
1.770
7.899
492524
1/14/97
0.025
0.194
1 560
492525
7/20/93
0.025
3.584
14.546
492524
1/28/97
0.056
0 076
1.100
492525
8/24/93
0.025
3.268
16 534
492524
2/11/97
0.025
0 207
0.960
492525
9/22/93
0.069
4.145
13 004
492524
2/25/97
0 148
0.255
1.180
492525
10/27/93
0.025
5.191
18.470
492524
3/11/97
0.025
0.138
0910
492525
11/23/93
0.025
3.828
19.387
492524
3/25/97
0.025
0 137
1.080
492524
4/8/97
0.025
0 078
0.720
492525
1/13/94
0.025
4.909
18 341
492524
4/22/97
0.062
0.129
0.570
492525
2/17/94
0 175
4 238
0.556
492524
5/6/97
0.025
0.104
0.480
492525
3/23/94
0 025
22 320
5.703
492524
5/20/97
0.025
0.305
0 180
492525
4/5/94
0 025
5.455
492524
6/3/97
0.025
0.065
0.230
492525
4/19/94
0.025
3.065
7.670
492524
6/17/97
0.025
0.175
0.250
492525
6/15/94
0.025
3.504
14.661
492524
7/1/97
0.025
0 195
0.260
492525
8/9/94
0 132
4 131
19.681
492524
7/15/97
0.025
0 086
0.180
492525
9/20/94
0.025
3.320
21.426
492524
7/29/97
0 061
0.218
0 260
492525
11/15/94
0.025
4.103
13.500
492524
8/12/97
0 025
0.332
0.340
492525
12/30/94
0.154
6 383
11.850
492524
8/26/97
0.025
0.309
0.350
492524
9/9/97
0.084
0.326
0.090
492525
1/12/95
0 025
4.174
492524
9/23/97
0.025
0 275
0 350
492525
2/15/95
0.025
3.172
15 695
-------
DRET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492525
3/8/95
2.200
3.535
9.602
STORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492525
3/24/95
0.135
1.457
5.829
492525
10/22/96
0.025
0.415
0.760
492525
4/4/95
0.025
2616
7.599
492525
10/29/96
0025
0.186
0.970
492525
4/20/95
0 433
2 330
7 550
492525
11/5/96
0.103
0.229
1.270
492525
5/3/95
0 025
1 786
7 130
492525
11/12/96
11.300
0 704
0 760
492525
5/16/95
0 025
2.984
9.150
492525
11/19/96
1.280
492525
5/30/95
0 025
2.068
6.650
492525
11/26/96
4.420
0.289
0.600
492525
6/15/95
0 025
1.040
6.200
492525
12/3/96
0.365
0.236
0.910
492525
6/29/95
0.025
1.350
5.800
492525
12/4/96
0 157
0245
0.760
492525
7/11/95
0.050
2.570
10.130
492525
12/10/96
0 500
492525
7/25/95
0.025
2 570
13 660
492525
12/27/96
2.440
1.760
4.370
492525
8/8/95
0.050
3 450
18.040
492525
8/22/95
0.071
3.270
18.200
492525
1/14/97
0.209
1 152
6810
492525
9/5/95
1 800
3.900
10 400
492525
1/28/97
0.055
0.800
6.430
492525
9/19/95
0.103
3710
17.370
492525
1/30/97
0 050
0.508
4.270
492525
10/3/95
0 094
3 940
16 680
492525
2/11/97
0 025
1 139
6.450
492525
10/17/95
0 025
3.530
15.220
492525
2/25/97
0.742
1.500
4 730
492525
10/31/95
0 025
3.070
10.590
492525
3/11/97
0 950
0 884
0 400
492525
11/14/95
0 052
2.770
8 440
492525
3/25/97
0.089
0.970
5.410
492525
11/21/95
0 163
4.200
10 100
492525
3/25/97
0 173
1.079
4 840
492525
11/28/95
0.057
3.180
6.080
492525
4/8/97
0310
492525
12/12/95
0.067
2 940
9.140
492525
4/22/97
0.076
4 054
4.760
492525
5/6/97
0.025
1.275
4.470
492525
1/9/96
0 083
3 180
10.780
492525
5/14/97
0 025
1.562
3.930
492525
1/23/96
0 690
3.040
9 990
492525
5/20/97
0.051
1 427
3.280
492525
2/1/96
0 445
4.220
12 160
492525
6/3/97
0.025
1 234
4.330
492525
2/6/96
0.133
3.540
9.940
492525
6/17/97
0.025
2 393
4.790
492525
2/20/96
0 654
4.230
9.950
492525
7/1/97
0.025
1.573
1.110
492525
3/5/96
2 050
3 290
1.570
492525
7/10/97
0.070
0.279
0.970
492525
3/6/96
0.064
1 960
12 050
492525
7/15/97
0.025
0.784
1.550
492525
3/19/96
0.080
2.240
7 300
492525
7/29/97
0 054
1.798
2.790
492525
4/2/96
0 025
1.380
4.940
492525
8/6/97
0.025
1.190
3.080
492525
4/16/96
0.107
1.170
6.110
492525
8/12/97
0.053
0.385
1.610
492525
4/17/96
0025
1 090
5 930
492525
8/26/97
0.025
1.636
2 090
492525
4/30/96
0.065
1.650
6.040
492525
9/9/97
0.122
1.466
0.290
492525
5/14/96
0.863
1.630
5.530
492525
9/23/97
0.025
1 963
1.560
492525
5/28/96
0.058
2.140
9.330
492525
9/25/97
0.025
3.310
4.240
492525
6/11/96
0 025
3 460
20 060
492525
10/7/97
0 064
1.907
12.360
492525
6/25/96
0 025
3.080
9.060
492525
10/21/97
0.0%
2.868
9.150
492525
7/9/96
0.104
3.320
5.200
492525
10/21/97
0 064
0.936
8.440
492525
7/23/96
28.200
2.900
2.700
492525
11/4/97
0.025
0.527
6.510
492525
8/1/96
0 069
2 960
0 950
492525
12/11/97
0.050
0 930
9.450
492525
8/6/96
0 068
0 980
0 850
492525
12/16/97
0 765
1.470
8.780
492525
8/21/96
0 025
0.270
0.810
492525
8/27/96
0.025
0.230
0.560
492526
1/17/90
0.025
0.041
492525
9/3/96
0.073
0 300
0 790
492526
1/25/90
0 025
492525
9/10/96
0.067
0 140
0.740
492526
4/5/90
0 025
0.011
492525
9/17/96
0 025
0.540
0.760
492526
6/11/90
0.262
492525
9/24/96
0 095
2.930
0810
492526
6/19/90
0.025
0 051
492525
10/1/96
0.053
0 396
0 720
492526
8/29/90
0.060
492525
10/15/96
0.020
0 923
0.050
492526
9/6/90
0 025
0 126
492525
10/22/96
0 025
0.672
0 790
492526
9/27/90
-------
3RET
Date
NH3-N
TP DN02/3
492526
10/10/90
0 025
0 070
STORE!
Date
NH3-N
TP DN02/3
492526
12/11/90
0.025
0.040
492526
12/30/94
0025
0015
0 423
492526
2/20/91
0 100
0 113
0.578
492526
1/12/95
0025
0 058
492526
2/21/91
0 130
492526
1/31/95
0.025
0 027
0.310
492526
5/8/91
0.025
0.096
0 176
492526
2/15/95
0.025
0.065
0.398
492526
8/7/91
0 080
492526
2/28/95
0 030
0.059
0.526
492526
9/19/91
0 420
492526
3/8/95
0.025
0 087
0 534
492526"
10/8/91
0025
0.050
0.152
492526
3/24/95
0 025
0.080
0.877
492526
11/26/91
0.025
0.055
0.294
492526
4/4/95
0.025
0 054
0.465
492526
4/20/95
0.025
0.038
0.510
492526
1/30/92
0.090
0.090
0 626
492526
5/3/95
0 025
0.108
0.900
492526
2/13/92
0 025
0.535
492526
5/16/95
0.025
0 178
0.190
492526
3/18/92
0 025
0.036
0 204
492526
5/30/95
0.025
0.060
0 120
492526
4/21/92
0.062
0.068
0.159
492526
6/15/95
0025
0.050
0 030
492526
6/24/92
0.025
0099
0.010
492526
6/29/95
0 025
0.040
0.110
492526
8/6/92
0 098
0.104
0010
492526
7/11/95
0.025
0 080
0 660
492526
9/24/92
0 025
0.080
0.010
492526
7/25/95
0.271
0.040
0.250
492526
11/5/92
0.025
0.020
0.572
492526
8/8/95
0 025
0.030
0.180
492526
8/22/95
0.058
0.160
0.100
492526
1/21/93
0.025
0 048
0.661
492526
9/5/95
0.025
0 030
0.100
492526
4/1/93
0 025
0 099
1.200
492526
9/19/95
0 025
0030
0.130
492526
4/15/93
0.025
0 029
0 659
492526
10/3/95
0 025
0.030
0.240
492526
4/28/93
0 025
0.035
0 530
492526
10/17/95
0 025
0005
0.070
492526
5/11/93
0 025
0.094
0.722
492526
10/31/95
0.025
0.020
0.140
492526
5/27/93
0.235
0.091
0.179
492526
11/14/95
0.025
0.020
0 290
492526
6/9/93
0.025
0022
0.386
492526
11/21/95
0 052
0.030
0 280
492526
7/20/93
0.025
0.259
0739
492526
11/28/95
0 057
0.020
0.370
492526
8/24/93
0 025
00)9
0316
492526
12/12/95
0.057
0.030
0.690
492526
9/22/93
0 025
0.017
0.272
492526
12/26/95
0 079
0 030
0 730
492526
10/27/93
0 025
0 074
0.283
492526
11/23/93
0 025
0.021
2 606
492526
1/9/96
0.073
0.050
0.310
492526
1/23/96
0.085
0.040
0.560
492526
1/13/94
0 025
0.076
0.659
492526
2/1/96
0.117
0 050
0.590
492526
2/17/94
0.025
0.046
0 636
492526
2/6/96
0.122
0.050
0.480
492526
3/23/94
0 092
0.086
0791
492526
2/20/96
0.160
0.220
0.420
492526
4/5/94
0.025
0.032
0 031
492526
3/5/96
0 113
0 100
0 470
492526
4/19/94
0.025
0.093
0.030
492526
3/6/96
0 080
0010
0.580
492526
5/3/94
0.025
0.125
0.303
492526
3/19/96
0 097
0.070
0.500
492526
5/17/94
0 025
0 069
0.241
492526
4/2/96
0.918
0.180
0.430
492526
6/1/94
0 025
0.038
0 040
492526
4/16/96
0 025
0.040
0.550
492526
6/15/94
0 025
0.028
0.010
492526
4/30/96
0025
0 050
0.320
492526
6/28/94
0025
0.034
0.091
492526
5/14/96
0 056
0 060
0.280
492526
7/14/94
0.051
0 071
0.010
492526
5/28/96
0.025
0.040
0.340
492526
7/26/94
0.025
0.059
4 929
492526
6/11/96
0.025
0.050
0.010
492526
8/9/94
0.025
0.089
0.275
492526
6/25/96
0 025
0 030
0.280
492526
8/25/94
0 025
0.048
0.010
492526
7/9/96
0 108
0 060
0.280
492526
9/13/94
0.025
0.028
0.010
492526
7/23/96
0.098
0 050
0 090
492526
9/28/94
0.025
0.019
0010
492526
8/1/96
0.140
0.040
0010
492526
10/20/94
0.025
0 230
0.224
492526
8/6/96
0 025
0 038
0 130
492526
11/8/94
0 025
0.025
0.010
492526
8/21/96
0.025
0.010
0.110
492526
11/22/94
0.025
0.029
0410
492526
8/27/96
0.025
0.010
0 220
90
-------
ORET
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492526
9/3/96
0.025
0.010
0.230
492526
9/10/96
0.062
0.040
0.040
492526
9/17/96
0.025
0.040
0.190
492526
9/24/96
0.055
0.005
0 110
492526
10/1/96
0.077
0.100
0.010
492526
10/8/96
0.061
0.005
0.040
492526
10/15/96
0.025
0018
0 050
492526
10/22/96
0.025
0.025
0.230
492526
10/22/96
0.025
0 037
0.260
492526
10/29/96
0.025
0011
0.280
492526
11/5/96
0.025
0 039
0.260
492526
11/12/96
0.056
0.012
0.170
492526
11/19/96
0 025
0 032
0.300
492526
11/26/96
0.025
0.005
0.320
492526
12/3/96
0.062
0.026
0 450
492526
12/4/96
0.056
0.029
0.750
492526
12/10/96
0.025
0.077
0.310
492526
12/17/96
0.025
0.067
0.420
492526
12/27/96
0.051
0.056
0.500
492526
12/31/96
0.025
0.060
0.370
492526
1/14/97
0.025
0.013
0 460
492526
1/28/97
0.025
0.016
0.490
492526
1/30/97
0 025
0.129
1 110
492526
2/11/97
0 025
0.055
0.400
492526
2/25/97
0 025
0.021
0 440
492526
3/11/97
0.025
0.080
0.400
492526
3/25/97
0.025
0.086
0 860
492526
4/8/97
0.025
0 005
0.500
492526
4/22/97
0.025
0.096
0.410
492526
5/6/97
0.025
0.102
0.290
492526
5/14/97
0.025
0 115
0.230
492526
5/20/97
0.025
0 104
0.200
492526
6/3/97
0.025
0 096
0 170
492526
6/17/97
0.025
0.336
0 280
492526
7/1/97
0 025
0 060
0.400
492526
7/15/97
0 025
0 143
0 090
492526
7/29/97
0 025
0 060
0.070
492526
8/6/97
0.025
0.043
0.010
492526
8/12/97
0.025
0 075
0.130
492526
8/26/97
0.025
0.056
0 060
492526
9/9/97
0.025
0.154
2 040
492526
9/23/97
0.025
0.119
0.160
492526
10/7/97
0.058
0.490
0.160
492526
10/21/97
0.025
0.533
0.400
492526
10/21/97
0.058
0.198
0.010
492526
11/4/97
0 025
0.094
0.220
492526
11/18/97
0.025
0.081
0.260
492526
12/2/97
0 052
0.014
0.350
492526
12/16/97
0 066
0.030
0.500
492526
12/30/97
2.170
0484
-------
STORET
Type
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
STORET
Type
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492513
21
6/28/94
0.025
0018
0010
492513
21
4/30/96
0.025
0.070
0.080
492513
29
6/28/94
0 058
0 233
0.303
492513
29
4/30/96
0.067
0210
0 290
492513
21
7/14/94
0 025
0.015
0010
492513
21
5/29/96
0 053
0.040
0 070
492513
29
7/14/94
0.025
0.202
0.352
492513
29
5/29/96
0.092
0 150
0.330
492513
21
7/26/94
0.025
0.048
0 338
492513
21
6/27/96
0 084
0.160
0.010
492513
29
7/26/94
0.025
0 020
0.010
492513
29
6/27/96
0.052
0.010
0.330
492513
21
8/11/94
0 025
0.012
0010
492513
21
7/9/96
0 053
0 020
0010
492513
29
8/11/94
0.025
0.213
0.295
492513
29
7/9/96
0 025
0 030
0010
492513
21
8/25/94
0 025
0 067
0010
492513
21
7/23/96
0.025
0.010
0.010
492513
29
8/25/94
0 080
0.263
0.118
492513
29
7/23/96
0.052
0 170
0.410
492513
21
9/13/94
0 025
0.051
0.010
492513
21
8/8/96
0 025
0.021
0010
492513
29
9/13/94
0.061
0.239
0.134
492513
29
8/8/96
0025
0 095
0.260
492513
21
9/28/94
0.025
0.037
0010
492513
21
8/23/96
0 025
0010
0010
492513
29
9/28/94
0.125
0.269
0010
492513
29
8/23/96
0 025
0.170
0.370
492513
21
10/20/94
0 025
0.076
0.010
492513
21
9/10/96
0 060
0.020
0.010
492513
29
10/20/94
0.174
0 281
0010
492513
29
9/10/96
0.066
0.190
0.340
492513
21
11/8/94
0 025
0.106
0010
492513
21
9/26/96
0.058
0 022
0.010
492513
29
11/8/94
0.025
0.109
0010
492513
29
9/26/96
0056
0 024
0010
492513
21
11/22/94
0.071
0 151
0.010
492513
21
10/8/96
0.079
0.005
0.010
492513
29
11/22/94
0.069
0.148
0010
492513
29
10/8/96
0.076
0.166
0.150
492513
21
4/4/95
0.025
0.133
0 073
492513
21
11/5/96
0 025
0 055
0 020
492513
29
4/4/95
0.025
0.143
0 261
492513
29
11/5/96
0 025
0 060
0 040
492513
21
4/20/95
0 041
0 095
0.080
492513
21
4/18/97
0 025
0.105
0.010
492513
29
4/20/95
0.025
0 192
0 380
492513
29
4/18/97
0 025
0.086
0.160
492513
21
5/3/95
0.025
0.090
0.100
492513
21
5/15/97
0.155
0.082
0.030
492513
29
5/3/95
0.025
0 102
0.160
492513
29
5/15/97
0.130
0.123
0 140
492513
21
5/16/95
0.070
0.083
0010
492513
21
6/13/97
0.073
0.095
0.020
492513
29
5/16/95
0 080
0.124
0.300
492513
29
6/13/97
0.139
0 105
0.150
492513
21
5/30/95
0.025
0.062
0.110
492513
21
7/18/97
0.025
0.048
0.010
492513
29
5/30/95
0 025
0.153
0.320
492513
29
7/18/97
0 065
0.144
0 330
492513
21
6/13/95
0.025
0.040
0.040
492513
21
9/9/97
0 053
0 063
0010
492513
29
6/13/95
0 025
0 170
0.400
492513
29
9/9/97
0 052
0.145
0.340
492513
21
7/3/95
0 025
0.030
0.010
492516
21
6/2/92
0.025
0.091
0.010
492513
29
7/3/95
0.058
0.110
0 270
492516
23
6/2/92
0.025
0.093
0.010
492513
21
7/11/95
0 025
0.020
0010
492516
27
6/2/92
0.025
0.174
0.235
492513
29
7/11/95
0.050
0.180
0410
492516
29
6/2/92
0.262
0.344
0.256
492513
21
7/27/95
0 025
0.020
0.010
492516
21
9/1/92
0 025
0 063
0010
492513
29
7/27/95
0.025
0.190
0.440
492516
23
9/1/92
0 098
0 171
0.010
492513
21
8/10/95
0.025
0010
0.010
492516
27
9/1/92
0.342
0.378
0.010
492513
29
8/10/95
0 025
0 180
0.390
492516
29
9/1/92
0.346
0.391
0.010
492513
21
8/22/95
0.025
0.010
0.010
492516
21
7/12/93
0 025
0.016
0.010
492513
29
8/22/95
0.025
0.080
0.200
492516
23
7/12/93
0 025
0.032
0.044
492513
21
9/7/95
0.025
0.020
0.010
492516
27
7/12/93
0.025
0 064
0.139
492513
29
9/7/95
0 090
0.210
0.420
492516
29
7/12/93
0.121
0.270
0 595
492513
21
9/26/95
0 025
0.010
0.010
492516
21
9/1/93
0.025
0017
0010
492513
29
9/26/95
0 104
0.240
0 340
492516
23
9/1/93
0.025
0.019
0.010
492513
21
10/26/95
0.025
0.020
0.010
492516
27
9/1/93
0 025
0.104
0.332
492513
29
10/26/95
0.025
0010
0010
492516
29
9/1/93
0.240
0.284
0.705
492513
21
11/15/95
0 025
0 050
0010
492516
21
6/28/94
0.025
0.019
0.010
492513
29
11/15/95
0.025
0.080
0 020
492516
23
6/28/94
0.025
0.066
0.010
492513
21
4/4/96
0.025
0.120
0 090
492516
27
6/28/94
0.025
0.155
0 280
492513
29
4/4/96
0.058
0.120
0.160
492516
29
6/28/94
0 107
0.289
0 178
-------
STORET Type
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
Date
NH3-N
7/14/94
0 025
7/14/94
0 025
7/14/94
0 025
7/14/94
0.341
7/26/94
0.025
7/26/94
0.025
7/26/94
0.025
7/26/94
0.025
8/11/94
0 025
8/11/94
0.025
8/11/94
0.025
8/11/94
0 298
8/25/94
0 025
8/25/94
0.025
8/25/94
0.025
8/25/94
0.025
9/13/94
0.025
9/13/94
0.025
9/13/94
0.025
9/13/94
0.284
9/28/94
0 025
9/28/94
0 057
9/28/94
0.077
9/28/94
0.383
10/20/94
0 025
10/20/94
0.122
10/20/94
0.167
10/20/94
0 447
11/8/94
0.051
11/8/94
0.025
11/8/94
0.101
11/8/94
0 493
11/22/94
0 163
11/22/94
0.121
11/22/94
0 110
11/22/94
0 170
1/31/95
0.025
1/31/95
0.025
1/31/95
0.065
1/31/95
0 141
4/4/95
0.025
4/4/95
0.025
4/4/95
0 025
4/4/95
0 063
4/20/95
0 037
4/20/95
0.044
4/20/95
0 034
4/20/95
0.025
5/3/95
0.076
5/3/95
0 287
5/3/95
0 025
5/3/95
0 025
T P DN02/3
0.013
0.010
0 033
0010
0 029
0.010
0 298
0.010
0017
0.010
0019
0.010
0.146
0.265
0.280
0 252
0 021
0.010
0.021
0.010
0 183
0 395
0.299
0.010
0.046
0.045
0.032
0.010
0211
0 284
0.222
0 257
0 034
0010
0.031
0 045
0 176
0.150
0.327
0.010
0.037
0 026
0.186
0 045
0214
0.083
0.336
0.010
0.075
0.010
0.222
0.010
0281
0.010
0.383
0.010
0.120
0010
0.115
0.010
0.158
0.010
0.387
0.010
0.196
0.010
0 182
0010
0 166
0.010
0 208
0.454
0.143
0.010
0.153
0.038
0 171
0 098
0 232
0.145
0.136
0.287
0 132
0 120
0.135
0 251
0 149
0.201
0 106
0.050
0.102
0.070
0.123
0.190
0 180
0 450
0.094
0 060
0.093
0.090
0.121
0.250
0.167
0 380
STORET Type
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
492516
23
492516
27
492516
29
492516
21
Date
NH3-N
5/16/95
0.025
5/16/95
0.060
5/16/95
0 070
5/16/95
0.050
5/30/95
0.025
5/30/95
0.025
5/30/95
0.070
5/30/95
0.090
6/13/95
0.025
6/13/95
0 025
6/13/95
0.050
6/13/95
0.070
7/3/95
0.025
7/3/95
0.025
7/3/95
0 025
7/3/95
0 050
7/11/95
0.025
7/11/95
0.025
7/11/95
0 025
7/11/95
0 062
7/27/95
0 025
7/27/95
0.025
7/27/95
0.025
7/27/95
0.025
8/10/95
0 025
8/10/95
0 025
8/10/95
0.050
8/10/95
0 122
8/22/95
0 025
8/22/95
0.025
8/22/95
0.025
8/22/95
0.203
9/7/95
0.025
9/7/95
0 025
9/7/95
0.025
9/26/95
0.025
9/26/95
0.025
9/26/95
0 025
9/26/95
0.261
10/26/95
0.025
10/26/95
0.025
10/26/95
0 025
10/26/95
0 522
11/15/95
0 025
11/15/95
0.246
11/15/95
0.588
2/14/96
0.067
2/14/96
0.057
2/14/96
0 120
2/14/96
0.185
3/6/96
0.076
T P DN02/3
0.077
0.100
0.083
0.090
0.099
0.140
0.178
0410
0 062
0.100
0.064
0.100
0.090
0.150
0.236
0.410
0.050
0.040
0.050
0.020
0.060
0.120
0.210
0 470
0.030
0.010
0.020
0010
0.040
0010
0.230
0.510
0.010
0.010
0.030
0.010
0.140
0.040
0.210
0.460
0.010
0.010
0010
0.090
0210
0 220
0510
0.010
0.010
0010
0.010
0.060
0.100
0.220
0.390
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0 120
0.200
0 250
0.200
0010
0.010
0.010
0.460
0.160
0010
0.005
0 020
0.010
0.050
0 140
0410
0.240
0.100
0.030
0.010
0.100
0 050
0 170
0.290
0 330
0.010
0 040
0010
0 250
0 050
0 350
0010
0.100
0.020
0.100
0.040
0 120
0.020
0.140
0 080
0 090
0 020
-------
rORET
Type
Dale
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492516
23
3/6/96
0 052
0 090
0.050
STORET
Type
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
492516
27
3/6/96
0.099
0.120
0.140
492516
29
11/5/96
0 229
0.275
0.140
492516
29
3/6/96
0.241
0.160
0.200
492516
21
4/18/97
0.025
0 081
0.020
492516
21
4/4/96
0.025
0 130
0.140
492516
23
4/18/97
0 025
0 082
0.210
492516
23
4/4/96
0.068
0 120
0.440
492516
27
4/18/97
0.025
0.115
0.430
492516
27
4/4/96
0 114
0 130
0.250
492516
29
4/18/97
0.025
0.119
0.450
492516
29
4/4/96
0.299
0 200
0.200
492516
21
5/15/97
0 141
0 091
0.010
492516
21
4/30/96
0 025
0.070
0010
492516
23
5/15/97
0.137
0.085
0.030
492516
23
4/30/96
0.025
0.080
0.010
492516
27
5/15/97
0 058
0 110
0 100
492516
27
4/30/96
0 025
0 100
0 170
492516
29
5/15/97
0051
0.169
0 440
492516
29
4/30/96
0.063
0.170
0 380
492516
21
6/13/97
0 025
0 090
0.030
492516
21
5/29/96
0.025
0 040
0.040
492516
23
6/13/97
0.025
0.088
0.060
492516
23
5/29/96
0.025
0.050
0.030
492516
27
6/13/97
0.079
0 065
0.120
492516
27
5/29/96
0.126
0.070
0 130
492516
29
6/13/97
0 192
0 274
0 380
492516
29
5/29/96
0 084
0 130
0 370
492516
21
7/18/97
0 025
0 065
0010
492516
21
6/12/96
0.025
0010
0010
492516
23
7/18/97
0 065
0.040
0 030
492516
27
6/16/96
0.025
0.030
0010
492516
27
7/18/97
0 060
0 J21
0 250
492516
29
6/16/96
0 060
0.200
0.430
492516
29
7/18/97
0.025
0 194
0.400
492516
23
6/27/96
0 025
0010
0010
492516
21
9/9/97
0 025
0 059
0010
492516
27
6/27/96
0.025
0.020
0010
492516
23
9/9/97
0 025
0 081
0.040
492516
29
6/27/96
0 128
0.220
0.390
492516
27
9/9/97
0.025
0.130
0.450
492516
21
7/9/96
0.025
0.020
0.010
492516
29
9/9/97
0.025
0.206
0 460
492516
23
7/9/96
0.097
0 020
0010
492517
21
6/2/92
0 025
0.093
0.010
492516
27
7/9/96
0.099
0 020
0 020
492517
29
6/2/92
0 096
0 282
0 465
492516
29
7/9/96
0.073
0.170
0.410
492517
21
9/1/92
0 025
0.044
0.010
492516
21
7/23/96
0.025
0.010
0.010
492517
29
9/1/92
0.168
0.321
0.010
492516
23
7/23/96
0.025
0010
0010
492517
21
7/12/93
0.025
0 022
492516
27
7/23/96
0.025
0 140
0.410
492517
29
7/12/93
0.060
0.239
0.719
492516
29
7/23/96
0 133
0.200
0.490
492517
21
9/1/93
0.025
0 024
0 039
492516
21
8/7/96
0 025
0.020
0.010
492517
29
9/1/93
0 127
0 254
0 435
492516
23
8/8/96
0.025
0.020
0.010
492518
21
6/2/92
0.025
0 105
0.010
492516
27
8/8/96
0 025
0 053
0 080
492518
29
6/2/92
0 025
0 165
0.132
492516
29
8/8/96
0150
0.022
0 420
492518
21
9/1/92
0.025
0.094
0.010
492516
21
8/23/96
0 060
0.010
0.010
492518
21
7/12/93
0.025
0.024
0010
492516
23
8/23/96
0.025
0.010
0.030
492518
29
7/12/93
0 051
0 233
0 584
492516
27
8/23/96
0 025
0 150
0.460
492518
21
9/1/93
0.025
0.035
0.010
492516
29
8/23/96
0 174
0.250
0 360
492518
29
9/1/93
0.055
0.129
0.280
492516
21
9/10/96
0 025
0.020
0010
492518
21
6/28/94
0.025
0.026
0010
492516
23
9/10/96
0.025
0.020
0.010
492518
29
6/28/94
0.025
0.221
0.350
492516
27
9/10/96
0.025
0.090
0.280
492518
21
7/14/94
0.025
0.024
0.010
492516
29
9/10/96
0.246
0 230
0.280
492518
29
7/14/94
0 025
0.475
0 350
492516
21
9/26/96
0 053
0 024
0010
492518
21
7/26/94
0.025
0.018
0.261
492516
23
9/26/96
0 025
0.024
0010
492518
29
7/26/94
0 025
0.252
0.010
492516
27
9/26/96
0.025
0.032
0.040
492518
21
8/11/94
0.025
0 024
0.010
492516
29
9/26/96
0.106
0.192
0.400
492518
29
8/11/94
0.079
0.234
0.194
492516
21
10/8/96
0.025
0 005
0.010
492518
21
8/25/94
0.025
0.030
0.010
492516
23
10/8/96
0025
0.023
0010
492518
29
8/25/94
0.098
0.287
0.096
492516
27
10/8/96
0025
0.190
0 360
492518
21
9/13/94
0.025
0.042
0.052
492516
29
10/8/96
0.249
0.291
0.240
492518
29
9/13/94
0.085
0.244
0.010
492516
21
11/5/96
0.025
0.084
0.150
492518
21
9/28/94
0 025
0 047
0.010
492516
23
11/5/96
0.025
0.074
0.030
492518
29
9/28/94
0 153
0.343
0010
492516
27
11/5/96
0025
0.076
0.030
492518
21
10/20/94
0 025
0.078
0.010
-------
rORET
Type
Date
NH3-N
492518
29
10/20/94
0.025
492518
21
11/8/94
0.025
492518
29
11/8/94
0 025
492518
21
11/22/94
0.060
492518
29
11/22/94
0.059
492518
21
4/4/95
0.025
492518
29
4/4/95
0.068
492518
21
4/20/95
0.029
492518
¦ 29
4/20/95
0.041
492518
21
5/3/95
0.025
492518
29
5/3/95
0025
492518
21
5/16/95
0 025
492518
29
5/16/95
0.050
492518
21
5/30/95
0.025
492518
29
5/30/95
0 025
492518
21
6/13/95
0.025
492518
29
6/13/95
1.500
492518
21
7/3/95
0.025
492518
21
7/11/95
0.025
492518
29
7/11/95
0.074
492518
21
7/27/95
0.025
492518
29
7/27/95
0.025
492518
21
8/10/95
0.025
492518
29
8/10/95
0.025
492518
21
8/22/95
0 025
492518
29
8/22/95
0 025
492518
29
9/6/95
0.082
492518
21
9/7/95
0.025
492518
21
9/26/95
0 025
492518
29
9/26/95
0.124
492518
21
10/26/95
0.025
492518
29
10/26/95
0.025
492518
21
11/15/95
0.025
492518
29
11/15/95
0 079
492518
21
4/4/%
0 085
492518
29
4/4/96
0.063
492518
21
4/30/96
0.025
492518
29
4/30/96
0 025
492518
21
5/29/96
0.025
492518
29
5/29/96
0.076
492518
29
6/16/96
0 059
492518
21
6/27/96
0.025
492518
29
6/27/96
0.114
492518
21
7/9/96
0.054
492518
29
7/9/96
0.069
492518
21
7/23/96
0 025
492518
29
7/23/96
0.025
492518
21
8/8/96
0 025
492518
29
8/8/96
0.052
492518
21
8/23/96
0.025
492518
29
8/23/96
0.060
492518
21
9/10/96
0 055
T P DN02/3
0.134
0 031
STORET
Type
0.107
0.010
492518
29
0 119
0.010
492518
21
0.142
0.010
492518
29
0 150
0010
492518
21
0145
0.209
492518
29
0.193
0.320
492518
21
0 106
0.030
492518
29
0.154
0.280
492518
21
0.103
0.100
492518
29
0 127
0 170
492518
21
0.075
0.130
492518
29
0.157
0210
492518
21
0.065
0.110
492518
29
0 187
0.130
492518
21
0 050
0.030
492518
29
0.160
0 330
492518
21
0.030
0.010
492518
29
0 030
0010
0210
0.430
0.010
0.010
0.110
0.210
0 020
0010
0 190
0 420
0.020
0010
0.140
0.300
0 230
0 430
0010
0010
0.020
0.010
0.270
0.260
0.020
0.010
0.110
0.110
0.050
0.010
0.090
0.050
0 140
0310
0 120
0.210
0.060
0.010
0.110
0210
0.040
0.050
0.130
0.310
0.170
0 380
0 020
0.020
0 070
0.060
0.020
0.010
0.160
0.320
0 020
0.010
0.190
0 430
0 498
0 010
0.191
0.420
0.010
0 030
0 240
0.470
0010
0.010
Date
NH3-N
TP
DN02/3
9/10/96
0.090
0.230
0.340
9/26/96
0.053
0 020
0.010
9/26/96
0.134
0.204
0.250
10/8/96
0.074
0 005
0010
10/8/96
0 175
0.298
0.240
11/5/96
0 025
0 062
0 030
11/5/96
0.025
0 057
0.020
4/18/97
0.025
0.080
0.200
4/18/97
0.025
0.083
0.290
5/15/97
0.096
0.102
0 070
5/15/97
0.088
0.160
0.280
6/13/97
0.089
0 148
0.060
6/13/97
0.084
0.319
0 370
7/18/97
0.025
0 055
0.010
7/18/97
0 081
0 156
0.340
9/9/97
0 061
0 064
0.010
9/9/97
0 074
0.166
0 420
-------
APPENDIX E
Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature Profiles
-------
APPENDIX E
WATER COLUMN PROFILES
Column Sequence: Depth (meters), Temperature (C), pH, Dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and Conductivity (umhos)
12.0
93
80
3.5
667
14 0
6.3
77
14
731
9.0
11.3
8.2
0.7
646
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
130
76
79
2.9
686
16.0
60
76
09
732
100
99
8.2
0.4
647
07/12/93
14 0
7 2
7.8
2.6
697
180
57
7.6
1.4
731
11 0
8.7
8.2
0.4
660
15.0
65
7.8
2.3
703
20 0
56
7.6
0.8
736
12 0
8.2
82
04
660
00
19 1
8.5
78
531
160
6.2
7.7
22
707
24.0
54
7.6
3.9
736
13 0
7.6
82
03
665
1 0
190
8.5
7.8
535
170
6.0
7.7
2 1
710
28 0
5.3
7.5
40
747
14 0
74
82
0.3
661
20
186
85
7.7
536
180
5.9
7.7
I 9
712
32 0
50
75
4.5
739
16.0
7.1
82
03
666
30
18.3
85
7.5
536
190
58
77
1 7
715
36 0
48
76
06
766
180
6.6
82
03
669
40
17.5
85
7.0
541
200
5.7
7.7
1 7
719
38.7
4.7
75
0.3
764
20.0
6.2
8.2
03
665
50
16.8
84
6.5
546
21 0
5 7
77
1 7
723
24 0
57
8 2
03
672
60
15.9
83
60
549
22.0
56
77
1 6
720
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
28 0
54
82
0.3
673
70
15.2
83
56
554
23 0
55
77
1.6
716
08/11/94
32 0
52
8 1
0.3
677
80
130
8.1
4.7
559
24.0
55
77
1.6
715
36 0
5 1
8 1
0.2
670
90
11.1
80
45
578
25.0
54
7.6
1.5
715
0.0
20.1
8.3
7.8
616
40 0
50
8.1
0.3
680
10 0
10.4
79
46
583
260
53
7.6
1.5
716
1 0
20 1
8 3
7 8
614
41.5
5.1
8 1
0.2
686
11.0
9.8
79
48
596
27 0
53
76
1 4
719
20
20 9
8.3
78
616
12.0
9 1
7.9
4.8
618
28 0
5 2
7.6
1.4
722
3.0
20 8
83
78
608
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
13 0
8.6
7.8
4.8
636
290
5.2
7.6
1.2
724
40
20.8
8.3
78
614
11/08/94
14 0
82
7.8
4.6
643
300
5 1
73
1.0
726
5.0
20 8
8.3
7.8
614
15 0
7.6
77
4.4
658
31 0
50
7.6
0.8
722
6.0
20.8
84
78
616
00
73
8 1
7.5
656
16.0
7.0
76
38
685
32.0
50
77
06
729
7.0
20 8
83
7.8
620
20
7.3
8 1
74
657
17.0
6.6
7.6
35
694
33.0
49
75
0.4
731
8.0
18 1
77
1.2
630
40
7.3
82
75
656
18.0
6.3
7.5
3.2
702
34.0
42
75
0.2
733
9.0
15.0
76
04
640
60
7.3
8.2
75
656
19.0
6.1
7.5
3.1
710
35 0
47
75
0.1
734
100
12.0
76
03
649
80
7 3
8.2
7.5
656
20 0
60
7.5
2.9
708
360
4.7
7.5
0.1
734
110
110
76
0.3
660
10 0
73
8 1
7.3
659
21 0
5.9
7 5
28
720
37 0
4.6
7.5
0 1
735
120
83
75
03
662
120
7 3
8 1
6.7
659
22 0
5.6
74
25
736
38 0
46
7.5
0 1
735
13 0
70
75
0.3
672
14 0
7.2
80
5 8
662
23.0
55
7.4
2 3
726
390
45
7.5
0 1
736
14.0
66
74
04
670
16.0
7 1
7.9
42
672
24 0
54
7.4
2.2
744
400
45
75
0.1
736
15.0
63
7.4
04
676
20 0
6.9
7 8
23
674
25 0
5.3
74
2.2
831
41.0
4.5
75
0 1
738
16.0
6 1
74
03
672
24 0
68
7.7
0.9
672
26 0
5.3
7.4
2.1
732
42.0
45
75
0 1
740
17.0
6 1
74
02
672
28 0
67
7.6
0.4
674
27 0
5.2
74
2.1
730
43 0
44
75
0 1
742
18.0
60
74
0 1
673
32 0
66
76
0.4
678
28 0
5.1
7.4
2.1
760
440
44
75
0 1
744
190
59
7.4
0 1
674
36.0
62
76
0.4
678
29.0
50
7.4
1.9
750
45 0
4.4
75
0.1
745
20.0
57
7.4
02
673
30 0
4.9
74
1 9
753
460
4.4
7.5
0 1
745
22.0
57
74
02
675
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
31 0
4.8
7.4
1 9
753
490
4.3
7.5
0.1
747
24 0
5.5
7.4
0.1
677
11/22/94
32.0
4.8
74
1.8
753
500
4.3
7.5
0 1
748
26 0
5.2
74
0 1
651
34 0
4.5
7.3
0.8
765
502
4 3
7.5
0.1
749
28 0
52
74
0 1
681
00
5.1
7.8
7 2
685
36.0
4.3
73
0.8
782
30.0
5.0
74
0 1
685
1.0
5.1
7.8
72
683
38.0
4.2
73
04
780
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
32.0
49
74
0 1
687
20
5.1
7.8
7.2
685
40.0
4 1
7.3
02
777
06/28/94
34.0
4.8
7.4
0 1
689
40
5.1
7.8
74
680
45.0
4.0
7.3
0 1
780
36.0
48
74
00
691
6.0
5.1
78
74
686
50.0
40
7.3
0 1
780
38.0
47
7.4
00
691
8.0
5.1
78
74
687
52 0
40
7.3
0.0
793
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
40.0
47
7.4
00
693
100
5.1
7 8
7.4
689
07/26/94
42.0
46
7.3
00
694
12.0
5.1
7.8
7.4
689
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
440
4.6
7.3
0.0
694
14 0
5.1
7.8
74
692
06/28/94
00
20 9
8.6
8.3
633
46 0
4.6
7.3
00
695
160
5.1
7.8
7.4
682
1 0
20 8
8.6
7.6
635
47 0
4.6
73
00
695
180
5.1
7.8
7.7
698
00
20.6
8.5
85
620
20
20 8 .
8.6
76
634
200
5.1
7.8
.7.9
700
1 0
20 1
86
8.5
622
3.0
20 8
86
76
637
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
22 0
50
7.9
8.0
687
20
19.8
86
8.4
621
4.0
20 8
86
76
632
09/13/94
24.0
5 1
7.9
8.1
689
3.0
196
86
8.3
624
5.0
20.8
86
74
633
26 0
50
79
82
666
40
19.3
86
8.1
623
6.0
20 8
86
76
632
00
17.3
90
75
617
28.0
50
79
8 1
687
50
19.0
8.6
75
626
7.0
20 8
86
76
637
1.0
173
9.0
74
621
30.0
50
79
82
680
6.0
159
85
54
648
80
19.0
83
40
647
2.0
17 3
9.0
73
619
34 0
50
79
82
672
70
155
8.4
5 1
647
90
15 8
8.0
2.7
657
30
17 3
90
7.3
619
38 0
5.0
7.8
75
692
8.0
14 5
8.3
46
657
10.0
13 1
7.9
1.8
675
40
17 3
90
7.3
621
41.3
4.8
7.9
85
690
9.0
13.2
8.2
4.2
650
110
10 1
7.8
1.8
701
6.0
17 3
90
72
622
100
11.9
82
4.1
659
120
8 1
78
1.5
712
70
17 3
89
6.2
630
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
11.0
10.6
8.1
39
660
13.0
68
7.7
1.5
121
80
138
8 3
1 0
642
04/04/95
97
-------
0.0
5.1
76
96
728
16 0
4 3
80
76
754
29.0
50
80
5.6
750
21.0
65
8 1
63
728
1.0
5.1
8.1
94
726
17 0
4 2
80
75
753
30.0
49
80
5.1
749
22 0
62
8 1
6 1
734
2.0
5.1
8 1
94
726
18.0
4 1
7.9
7.3
756
31.0
48
7.9
49
750
22.2
60
8.1
5.3
740
30
5.1
8.1
94
727
190
40
79
7.0
758
32.0
48
79
4.8
759
4.0
5.1
8 1
94
727
20 0
4.0
7.9
69
762
33.0
47
79
4.7
759
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
50
5.0
8 1
94
728
21.0
40
7.9
68
763
34.0
47
7.9
46
758
05/30/95
60
50
8 1
94
727
22 0
4.0
79
6.8
762
35.0
47
7.9
44
764
70
50
8 1
9.3
728
23 0
40
79
6.7
763
36.0
47
7.9
43
761
0.0
12.9
8.3
88
592
80
50
8 1
93
727
37.0
4.6
7.9
42
761
1.0
12.8
84
86
588
90
50
8.1
9.3
727
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
38.0
46
7.9
4 1
759
2.0
12.5
84
87
586
100
4.9
8 1
9.2
728
04/04/95
39.0
46
79
40
758
3.0
12 3
84
8.6
587
11.0
4.9
8 1
9.2
727
40.0
46
7.9
40
759
40
122
8.4
86
593
120
4.9
8.1
9 1
727
00
58
82
10.8
719
41.0
46
7.9
40
760
50
12 1
8.4
8.8
594
13.0
49
8.1
9.0
727
1.0
58
83
10.6
724
42.0
4.6
7.9
40
760
60
11.2
83
8.9
565
14 0
49
8 1
9.0
726
20
58
82
10.5
726
43.0
46
79
40
761
70
10.9
83
86
580
15.0
48
8 1
90
727
3.0
37
82
10.5
726
44.0
4.5
79
39
761
80
10.2
8 2
84
557
160
4.8
8 1
8 8
728
4.0
57
8.2
10.2
726
45.0
45
7.9
39
761
90
9.9
82
86
567
170
4.8
8 1
87
727
50
54
82
10.1
725
46.0
45
7.9
38
761
100
97
82
88
569
18.0
4.6
8.0
8.5
727
60
5.4
82
9.9
727
47 0
45
7.8
37
762
110
9.6
82
93
574
190
44
79
8.0
733
70
5.2
8.2
9.8
726
49.0
4.5
7.8
36
762
12.0
9.3
82
83
572
20 0
44
7.9
7.8
740
80
5.2
8.2
9.6
727
50.4
4.5
78
2 8
764
14.0
8.5
8 1
8.0
607
21 0
4.3
7.8
7.4
744
9.0
5.1
8.2
9.5
727
16.0
77
8.0
76
650
22.0
43
7.8
73
744
10.0
5.0
8.1
9.4
726
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
18.0
6.9
79
6.7
675
23.0
4.3
7 8
72
746
110
50
8.1
93
728
05/18/95
20.0
66
7.9
6.4
679
24.0
43
78
72
744
12.0
4.9
8.1
92
728
22.0
6 1
7.8
6.2
699
25.0
42
78
7.1
748
130
4.9
8.1
9.2
729
0.0
10.5
8.5
90
626
24.0
5.6
7.8
5.7
706
26.0
42
78
70
752
14 0
4.8
8.1
89
729
1.0
10.5
8.5
90
623
27 0
4.1
78
68
752
15 0
49
8.1
88
728
20
10.4
85
9.0
620
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
28 0
4.1
77
67
752
160
46
80
87
731
30
10.4
85
90
613
05/30/95
29.0
4.0
77
66
758
170
4.6
80
84
739
40
10.3
85
90
615
30.0
4.0
77
65
761
18.0
4.4
80
80
740
5.0
10.0
85
88
629
00
13.0
8.4
95
612
31.0
39
7.7
6.3
772
190
44
79
7.9
740
6.0
96
8.5
88
668
1.0
12.7
84
9.1
612
32 0
38
77
6.0
776
20.0
44
79
7.6
743
7.0
9.0
85
86
638
20
12.4
84
90
615
33 0
3.7
77
5 9
781
80
8.7
84
8.4
638
30
12 1
84
9 1
617
340
3.6
7.6
57
786
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
9.0
86
84
82
658
4.0
11 9
8.4
92
616
35.0
3.6
7.6
56
789
05/18/95
100
8.1
8.4
79
673
50
11 8
84
9.2
616
36 0
3.6
7.6
55
789
11 0
8.0
83
77
675
60
117
84
90
615
37.0
3.6
7.6
54
790
00
114
86
9.8
675
120
7.9
83
76
675
7.0
11 7
8.4
8.9
616
38 0
3.5
7.6
5 ?
791
1 0
112
86
94
676
130
7.7
8 3
7 1
677
8.0
11 6
8.4
89
617
39.0
35
76
53
791
2.0
11.1
8.6
9.2
673
14.0
7.5
82
68
690
90
11.5
8.4
8.9
619
40.0
35
76
5.2
793
30
11 1
86
90
676
14 5
7.3
8.2
6.3
695
10.0
11 3
8.3
8.7
616
41.0
35
76
5.2
795
40
11.0
86
9.1
673
11.0
10.5
82
88
604
42 0
35
76
5 1
793
5.0
11.0
86
9.3
673
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
12.0
96
8.2
7.9
619
43 0
35
76
50
795
6.0
11.0
86
9.0
673
05/18/95
13.0
88
8.2
75
656
440
3.5
7.6
5.0
794
70
110
8.6
89
672
14.0
75
8.1
68
684
45 0
3.5
76
5.0
795
8.0
11.0
8.6
9.1
670
0.0
11 6
86
9 1
667
15.0
7 1
8.0
6.7
690
9.0
10.8
8.6
89
673
1 0
114
86
9 1
669
16.0
7 1
8.0
6.7
690
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
100
10.7
86
87
678
20
11.3
86
8 8
672
17.0
65
7.9
64
694
04/04/95
110
10.6
86
87
675
30
11.3
86
9.1
669
18.2
63
79
6.3
700
120
9.0
8.5
8.0
683
40
11.3
86
89
669
00
6.7
8.5
10 6
741
13 0
85
8.5
80
692
5.0
112
86
8.9
669
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
1 0
67
8.5
10 3
741
140
7.9
84
7.7
709
60
110
8.6
8.9
666
05/30/95
20
64
8.5
10 3
738
15.0
7.4
8.4
76
720
70
108
86
8.8
673
3.0
64
8.5
10.2
737
160
69
83
7.6
725
80
106
88
89
672
0.0
13.6
88
8.8
625
4.0
58
8.5
10.2
735
17.0
6.5
8.3
7.2
732
90
103
86
8.7
680
1.0
12.7
87
8.8
621
50
5.8
84
10.1
733
18.0
6 1
8.2
69
736
10 0
10 1
85
87
676
20
12 3
8.6
8.8
622
6.0
59
84
10.0
731
19.0
5.9
82
6.8
745
110
97
85
8.3
681
3.0
12.2
8.6
8 8
621
7.0
59
84
100
731
20 0
57
82
6.6
745
12.0
9.0
8 5
8.1
683
4.0
12.2
8.6
8.7
618
8.0
5.8
84
100
732
21 0
57
82
6.4
745
13.0
87
84
7.8
685
5.0
12.0
85
8.7
616
90
5.5
8.3
96
737
22 0
56
8 1
6.4
735
14.0
8.3
84
7.7
691
6.0
12.0
85
87
619
100
49
CO
to
89
739
23 0
5.4
8 1
6.2
745
15.0
8.1
84
7.5
692
7.0
12.0
85
87
622
110
50
8.2
88
739
24 0
5.3
8 1
6.1
735
16.0
7.7
83
7.1
708
8.0
119
8.5
8.7
622
120
48
82
86
747
25 0
5.3
8 1
5.9
746
170
75
83
7.0
711
9.0
11.8
8.5
86
627
130
4.5
8 1
8.4
747
26 0
53
8 1
5.9
735
18.0
7.3
82
6.9
711
10.0
115
8.5
84
632
14 0
4.4
8 1
80
751
27.0
5 1
8 1
5.9
742
190
70
8.2
66
717
110
107
8.4
80
618
15.0
4.3
80
7.8
752
28.0
5 1
80
5 7
744
20 0
6.6
82
6.4
727
120
99
8.3
80
622
-------
13 0
90
83
80
648
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
90
16.0
8 1
63
604
11.0
9.8
86
13 2
648
14 0
86
8.3
78
653
08/22/95
100
14 6
80
52
601
12.0
98
8.6
132
648
15 0
7.8
8.2
77
679
110
13 7
79
50
601
13 0
98
86
13.1
646
16.0
76
8.1
7.4
681
0.0
20 6
8.3
8.8
575
12.0
120
7.9
4.9
619
14 0
97
84
132
652
17.0
72
8 1
74
690
1.0
20.6
83
88
575
130
11.2
78
4.8
625
150
96
8.3
13 2
666
18.0
6.9
8 1
7.2
694
20
20 6
8.3
88
575
140
11 2
77
46
624
160
90
8.0
10 5
715
190
6.7
80
73
699
3.0
20 3
8.4
8.7
575
17 0
8 1
7.8
92
739
20.0
6.6
8.0
7 1
698
4.0
20.9
84
8.7
576
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
180
7.9
78
8.9
737
21.0
6.4
80
7 1
701
5.0
20 1
83
80
580
10/26/95
19.0
77
78
92
737
22.0
6.3
80
75
700
6.0
197
8.3
76
583
20 0
7.6
7.7
94
736
23.0
6.1
7.9
75
701
7.0
19 5
8.3
7.0
583
0.0
98
8 6
136
615
210
75
77
94
736
24 0
6.0
7.9
69
704
8.0
17.8
80
4.6
600
1.0
9.9
86
123
629
22.0
7.4
7.7
94
741
25.0
5.9
79
67
707
90
16.3
78
35
5% .
20
9.9
87
12.2
630
23 0
7.4
7.7
94
741
26 0
5.6
78
66
708
100
14 6
7.7
29
591
30
99
8.7
12.5
629
24 0
7.2
7 7
9.3
746
27.0
54
7.8
63
709
11.0
129
7.7
2.7
593
40
98
8.7
12 6
618
25 0
72
7.6
9.3
741
28 0
54
7.8
6.3
709
120
11 6
76
2.7
605
5.0
98
8.7
12 6
619
26 0
70
76
93
746
29 0
53
7.7
57
710
13.0
10.4
76
30
634
60
98
87
12 1
630
27.0
70
76
94
750
30 0
50
77
57
710
14 0
95
76
3 1
655
70
98
87
12 I
630
28.0
6.8
76
95
760
31 0
5.2
7.7
55
709
15.0
9 3
75
3 1
666
80
98
8.7
12 1
630
29 0
67
7.6
97
768
32 0
52
77
5.5
709
16.0
89
7.5
3 I
674
90
98
8.7
12 1
629
30.0
64
76
97
768
33.0
5 I
77
5.5
713
17.0
85
75
3 I
695
10.0
9.8
87
124
618
31.0
64
76
97
768
34.0
5 1
7.7
55
713
180
80
75
3 1
695
11.0
9.8
87
12 6
617
32 0
6.4
7.6
97
768
35.0
5.0
7.7
5 2
713
190
7.9
74
30
700
120
95
88
8.7
635
33 0
6.4
75
9.7
768
36 0
50
7.7
52
713
20.0
7.8
74
30
703
13.0
90
8.8
87
635
34.0
6.2
7.6
100
770
37 0
50
76
5.0
713
21.0
75
7.4
29
708
14.0
8.8
8.7
87
684
35.0
6.0
76
99
777
38.0
5.0
76
50
713
22 0
75
74
2.8
710
150
8.5
82
8.4
700
36 0
6.0
76
99
771
39 0
50
76
4.8
713
23.0
75
74
28
713
16.0
79
82
8 1
710
37.0
59
7.6
9.7
772
400
50
76
4 8
713
24 0
74
7.4
2.7
716
17.4
79
8.2
7.8
728
38 0
59
7.6
97
772
41.0
49
76
4.8
713
25.0
7.3
74
26
715
39.0
5.9
7.6
97
772
42.0
49
7.6
4.8
713
26.0
73
7.4
2.5
718
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
400
5.9
7.5
100
772
43.0
49
76
46
714
27.0
70
73
24
723
10/26/95
41 0
5.9
7.5
100
771
44.0
49
76
46
714
28 0
69
73
24
723
42.0
59
75
10.1
770
45 0
49
7.6
45
712
29 0
69
73
23
725
00
98
8.6
14 0
625
43.0
59
75
102
769
46 0
4.9
7.6
45
712
30 0
6.7
7.3
20
730
1.0
98
87
14 8
618
440
59
75
10.5
768
49.0
4.8
7.6
4.0
714
31.0
6.5
7.3
1.9
736
2.0
9.8
87
14 1
632
45 0
5.9
75
10.5
769
51 0
48
7.6
40
713
32.0
64
73
1 9
740
3.0
98
8.7
14 1
630
46 0
59
75
10 5
770
52 0
48
76
38
710
33 0
34 0
63
62
7.2
72
1 2
1 2
743
746
40
50
98
98
8.7
87
14.0
14 4
630
630
47 0
5.9
7.5
10.5
771
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
35 0
60
72
1 0
747
6.0
9.8
87
13 7
632
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
08/22/95
36 0
37.0
60
6.0
7.2
7.2
1 0
1.0
749
750
70
80
98
97
8.7
8.7
137
13 6
632
632
04/30/96
0.0
19.7
8.2
9.7
583
38.0
60
7.2
1.0
750
9.0
97
87
13 6
632
0.0
8 I
8 7
13.0
657
1.0
19.7
8.2
9.7
585
40.0
59
70
08
752
109
07
87
13.2
632
1 0
7.8
8.7
12 2
657
2.0
197
82
9.9
585
41.0
59
70
08
752
11.0
9.7
8.7
13.1
632
2.0
7.8
8.7
12.1
658
3.0
197
8.2
9.6
587
42 0
59
70
08
752
12.0
9.6
8.7
13 5
632
3.0
7.8
8.7
11.9
659
40
197
8.2
93
585
43 0
5.8
7.0
08
751
130
94
8.6
134
632
4.0
7.8
8.7
11 8
658
50
197
8.2
94
589
44.0
5.8
7.0
0.8
749
14 0
90
8 5
12 9
645
5.0
78
87
11.7
659
60
192
8.2
89
590
45.0
5.8
70
0.8
753
15.0
88
84
11.5
663
60
7.7
8.7
11.6
659
7.0
18.9
8 1
84
599
46.0
58
70
08
755
160
84
80
11.3
677
7.0
7.7
8.7
11.6
659
80
17.9
8.1
7.2
601
47 0
5.8
70
08
754
17.0
8.1
8 1
10 9
677
8.0
77
87
116
659
9.0
16 9
8 1
6.4
609
48.0
5.8
70
0.8
754
19 3
78
8.1
98
730
90
76
87
115
661
10.0
15 0
80
5.5
608
49 0
58
7.0
08
753
10.0
7.2
8.6
11.2
668
11.0
13.8
7.9
48
609
50.5
58
70
0.8
753
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
11.0
6.4
8.5
9.7
686
12.0
110
8.0
47
630
10/26/95
120
55
84
89
701
13.0
9.3
7.9
4.6
680
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
13.0
5.4
8.3
80
704
14 0
8.8
77
44
682
08/22/95
00
10 2
8.6
129
658
14.0
5 1
83
8.0
704
15.0
8.4
7.7
4.2
694
1 0
10 1
8.6
12 6
644
15 0
5.0
8.2
75
712
16.0
8.0
76
4.1
703
0.0
20 6
8.1
10 5
578
2.0
100
86
12.0
642
160
50
82
74
712
170
80
76
4.0
711
10
20 6
8 1
10 5
578
3.0
10.0
8.6
120
635
17.0
49
8.2
74
715
18.0
77
7.5
40
711
20
20 6
8.2
10 5
580
40
99
8.6
120
635
18.0
4.8
8.2
7.3
718
19.0
77
75
40
715
30
20 5
82
10.5
583
50
99
80
13.2
648
190
48
82
7.1
721
20.0
74
7.5
39
722
40
20.4
8.2
102
588
60
99
86
13 2
646
200
4 8
82
7.0
723
21.0
73
7.5
4.0
725
5.0
19.9
8 1
96
589
7.0
9.8
86
13.2
646
22 0
46
8 1
68
728
22.0
7.1
75
4.0
727
60
196
82
93
592
8.0
9.9
8.6
133
647
24 0
4.5
8.1
66
732
23 0
7.0
75
40
727
7.0
19 1
8 1
87
599
90
9.8
86
13 1
647
26.0
44
8.1
64
739
80
18.6
8 1
7.7
603
100
98
86
130
640
28.0
43
8 1
6.1
742
-------
30 0
4.1
8.0
58
751
17.0
4.6
85
7.4
736
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
06/27/96
35 0
4.0
8.0
5.3
758
19.4
4.3
85
63
746
06/12/96
400
3.9
8.0
5.1
762
00
19.1
87
8.4
522
41 0
3.8
8.0
4.9
768
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
0.1
20 5
9.0
10.1
535
1 0
19.1
87
83
523
42 0
38
80
48
767
06/12/96
1.0
195
9.0
10.3
536
2.1
19.1
87
82
523
43.0
3.8
80
4.8
765
1.9
19 3
90
10.2
538
3.0
19.0
88
82
523
44.0
3.8
80
4.8
767
00
20 2
8.8
9.7
534
30
192
9.0
10 2
538
40
18 9
88
8.2
524
45.0
3.8
80
4.8
768
1 0
19.3
8.8
98
536
40
15.7
92
126
552
5.0
18 7
88
82
525
46.0
3.8
80
48
768
2 1
19.0
88
98
533
5 1
13.7
9.3
128
569
6.1
17 8
87
8.1
530
46.2
3.8
79
4.6
768
3 1
18.5
88
9.9
536
60
130
9.1
100
573
7.0
15 5
8.7
8.2
545
4.0
17.9
8.9
10.2
537
7 1
12.3
89
8 1
576
8.0
14.2
8.6
8.1
547
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
50
15.2
89
109
545
8.1
12 1
88
7.7
579
8.9
13.4
8.5
7.8
551
04/30/96
6.0
14 5
90
116
556
9 1
11.7
8.7
7.2
579
10.0
12 5
84
7.4
558
7 1
13.7
8.9
106
562
10.0
104
86
69
580
110
119
8.3
5.9
559
00
92
88
12.7
605
79
130
8.9
10 0
568
11.1
105
86
67
589
120
11 1
82
4.9
566
1.0
9 1
88
12.1
607
9.0
12.4
88
8.7
574
12 2
104
8.6
67
591
13 1
104
8.1
4.5
574
2.0
8.8
88
11.7
615
100
12.0
87
7.8
576
130
102
86
6.7
595
14 0
100
8.1
4.4
591
3.0
8.4
8.8
11 7
632
11 1
11.5
86
72
580
14 0
97
86
6.7
607
15.0
95
8.1
45
592
4.0
8.3
8.8
115
640
12 1
107
85
66
589
15.0
9 1
86
6.7
629
16.0
9.3
8.0
4.3
600
6.0
8.1
88
115
649
13.0
10 5
8.5
64
591
16.0
87
86
6.6
643
17.0
85
8.0
4.1
622
7.0
78
8.8
11 3
654
14.0
102
85
63
598
17.0
84
85
6.6
656
18.0
75
7.9
40
654
8.0
7.6
8.8
11 1
652
150
65
84
5 3
711
180
78
85
66
678
190
68
79
39
675
100
6.2
8.8
107
682
16.1
64
8.4
52
717
19.0
7.1
85
66
702
20.1
66
7.9
3.8
679
11.0
53
8.7
9 1
713
17.0
65
8.3
5 1
712
20.0
6.6
85
6.5
713
21.0
64
7.8
3.8
683
120
50
8.7
8 1
721
18.0
62
8.3
50
721
21 0
6.2
85
6.4
721
22.0
63
7.8
3.7
686
130
4.6
87
7.4
737
19.0
6 1
8.3
49
722
21.9
63
8.5
66
724
23.0
6.2
7.8
3.7
688
15.0
4.5
86
69
737
20 2
58
8.3
49
729
23 1
60
85
6.5
727
23.9
6 I
7.8
3.7
690
160
4.4
86
66
748
21 0
5 8
8.2
49
729
24.0
5.9
8.5
6.4
728
25.0
5.8
78
36
698
170
4 3
8.5
63
747
22 0
5.6
82
49
735
25.0
5.8
8.5
6.3
729
21.1
4.2
8.3
55
751
23.1
55
8.2
4.9
738
26.0
5.7
8.4
6.2
733
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
24.0
5 5
82
49
739
27.1
5.6
8.4
60
734
06/27/96
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
24 9
53
82
4.9
744
28 1
5.5
84
60
735
04/30/96
25 7
50
82
4.9
752
29.4
5.4
8.4
6.1
737
00
19 3
83
8.3
526
29 9
5.3
84
60
740
1 0
19 3
86
8 1
524
00
9.2
88
12.5
640
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
32 1
5 2
8.3
5.7
746
20
19 3
86
8.2
523
1 0
88
8.8
12.5
647
06/12/96
34 1
5.0
8.3
5.4
751
30
19 2
8.7
8 1
523
2.0
84
8.8
12 5
649
36 0
4.8
8.2
5.0
761
4.0
192
87
8 1
523
3.0
8 3
8.8
124
650
0 1
21.2
8 8
9.2
539
38.2
4.6
8.2
45
767
50
19.0
8.7
8 1
524
50
8 1
8.5
12 1
652
1 1
20 4
8.8
9.3
539
40 1
8.2
8.2
4.2
768
5.9
177
8.7
8.1
530
60
80
8.8
11.9
655
2.0
200
8.8
9.4
539
42 1
8.2
8.2
4.1
768
7.0
145
8.6
8.8
548
70
7.7
8.8
116
659
1.8
19 8
88
9.3
540
43 8
4.6
8.3
4.2
770
7.0
14 3
8.5
8.9
547
90
7.1
87
112
672
40
17.3
89
12.2
538
46.0
4.5
8.2
4.0
770
8.0
13 2
8.4
7.5
550
10 0
6.8
87
10.5
674
50
15 2
9.1
13.1
551
48 0
44
8.2
40
771
9.0
12 7
8.3
7.1
553
11.0
6.3
87
99
687
6.2
14 0
9 1
12 9
563
49 9
44
8.1
38
771
10.0
12 4
8.3
62
554
130
5.8
87
73
701
70
12 8
90
11.4
576
51 9
44
8.1
36
773
11.0
11.9
8.2
5 1
555
14 0
5.5
86
86
707
8.0
12 3
88
8.1
579
52 4
4.4
8 1
30
774
13.0
110
8.0
4.6
557
15 0
54
8.6
8 1
709
90
12 0
8.7
7.6
579
14.0
100
8.0
4.5
578
17.0
4.6
85
74
736
100
116
8.6
7 1
581
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
15.0
94
7.9
46
599
194
4 3
8.5
63
746
11.0
11.3
8.5
6.7
581
06/27/96
16 0
88
7.9
47
618
12.1
109
8.5
6.6
585
17.0
8.2
79
47
641
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
130
10 6
85
6.4
590
0.0
18.4
8.8
87
526
180
76
79
4.8
656
04/30/96
14 1
10 3
8.5
6.5
592
1.0
18.4
88
86
526
190
72
78
48
668
150
10 1
84
6.4
599
2.1
18.3
8.8
8.6
527
20.0
68
78
4.7
678
0.0
92
OO
0©
125
640
16 1
96
8.4
6.1
613
2.1
18.3
8.8
86
525
21.0
6.5
78
4.5
683
1 0
88
88
12 5
647
170
8.2
8.3
5.6
659
3.0
18.2
8.8
85
526
22.0
63
7 8
44
687
20
84
88
• 12.5
649
17 9
7.2
8.3
55
696
4.0
18.2
8.8
84
527
23.1
6.2
77
4.3
689
30
8.3
88
124
650
190
64
8.3
5.3
718
5.1
18.1
8.8
8.3
526
24.0
62
7.7
4.3
691
50
8 1
85
12.1
652
200
6.1
8.3
5.2
726
6.0
17.7
8.8
80
536
25.0
6.0
7.7
45
694
60
8.0
8.8
11.9
655
21 0
6.1
83
5.1
725
7.0
15.6
86
7.5
574
26 0
5.7
7.7
46
702
70
7.7
88
11.6
659
22 1
5.9
8 2
5.1
730
8.0
13.4
8.5
5.9
572
27 0
55
7.7
47
706
90
7 1
87
11 2
672
23 0
58
8.2
5.0
733
9.1
12.1
8.3
52
564
28.0
53
7.7
45
710
10.0
6.8
8.7
10.5
674
24 0
5.7
8.2
5.0
734
100
11.1
82
4.4
572
29 1
5.3
7.7
42
712
11.0
6.3
8 7
9.9
687
25 0
5.6
8.2
49
737
11.0
104
8 1
4.2
584
30.0
52
76
39
715
130
5.8
87
73
701
26 1
5.5
8.2
49
737
11.2
105
8 1
4 1
584
31.0
5 1
76
38
717
147 0
5.5
86
86
707
26 8
5 5
82
4 8
739
32 0
50
7.6
36
721
15.0
54
86
8 1
709
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
33.0
4.9
7.6
33
722
-------
34 0
4.9
7.6
3.2
724
25.0
62
7.6
3.2
733
14.0
8.4
8.3
24
669
20
195
86
79
555
35.0
48
7.6
30
724
26 0
6 1
7.6
3.2
735
15 0
80
8.2
2.5
682
3.0
19.5
8.6
79.
558
36.0
4.8
7.5
28
727
27.0
6.0
76
3.3
738
160
76
8.2
2.5
692
4.0
19.4
8.6
79
562
37.0
4.8
75
27
728
28.1
5.9
76
3.3
740
17 1
72
82
2.6
702
50
19.4
86
7.9
553
38.0
4.7
75
2.7
728
29 0
5.8
76
3.2
743
18 0
7 1
8.2
2.6
706
60
19.4
8.6
7.9
553
39.0
47
75
26
730
29.9
57
7.6
3.2
744
19.1
69
8.1
25
709
7.0
19.3
86
79
554
40.0
4.7
7.5
2.4
729
31 0
5.7
7.6
3.2
745
20 0
68
82
2.5
711
8.0
19.3
86
79
557
41 0
47
7.5
24
730
32.0
5.7
7.6
3.0
746
21.0
68
8.1
24
714
9.0
17.2
8 1
2.7
575
42 0
47
7.5
22
731
33.0
57
7.6
3.0
747
22.1
66
8.1
25
712
100
15.5
8.0
1.2
583
43 0
4.7
7.5
2.1
730
340
56
7.6
3.0
748
23.0
66
8.1
2.5
713
110
12.1
7.9
08
592
440
4.7
75
2 1
731
35 0
55
7.6
2.8
753
24.0
6.5
8 1
2.3
716
120
10.2
7 9
I 2
612
45 0
4.7
7 5
2.0
731
36 0
5.3
75
28
757
25.1
64
80
2.3
719
130
84
78
1 7
652
46 1
4.7
7'5
1.9
731
37.0
52
7.5
2.5
753
26.1
63
80
2.3
721
14.0
80
7.8
1 8
647
48.0
4.6
75
1.8
732
38 0
52
75
2.5
762
27 0
62
80
2.3
724
15.0
75
7.7
1 8
668
51.0
46
75
1.3
732
39 1
5.0
7.5
2.3
766
28.0
62
80
2.2
724
16.0
72
77
1 7
682
52.7
4.6
7.5
0.9
735
41.0
50
7.5
2.8
767
29 0
6.1
80
2.2
728
17.0
70
7.7
1 7
680
42.0
49
7.5
2.4
769
30.0
60
8.0
2 2
729
18.0
6.8
7.7
1 8
675
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
42 9
4.8
7.5
1 8
773
30 9
58
80
20
735
19.0
6.7
7.7
1 6
690
07/09/96
32 1
5 7
8.0
1 9
738
20.0
6.6
7.6
1.5
699
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
33 0
5.6
80
1 7
741
21 0
66
7.6
1 6
693
0.0
22.6
88
73
554
08/08/96
34 1
5.5
80
1 5
741
22 0
6.5
7.6
1 7
696
1 1
22 4
8.7
7 3
556
35 0
5.5
80
1 4
745
23 0
6.5
7.6
1.6
698
20
22.1
87
73
556
0.6
13.9
8.6
651
36 0
5.3
79
1 1
749
24 0
64
76
1 6
698
30
21.9
87
74
557
37 0
5.3
79
08
750
25 0
62
7.6
1 5
683
4.0
20.7
8.7
7.5
560
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
38 1
5.2
79
06
751
300
58
7.5
1 1
688
50
18.9
86
76
572
08/08/96
39 0
5.2
79
05
752
35 0
53
7.5
0 1
732
60
18.1
8.6
7.3
574
40.1
5.2
79
04
753
40.0
5.0
7.5
0 1
746
70
16 1
8.4
7 1
585
0.0
20.3
8.5
572
41 0
5.1
7.9
04
756
45.0
49
7.5
0 1
722
80
14 4
8.3
66
591
1.0
20.3
86
575
42 1
5.0
79
03
760
47 4
48
7.4
0.1
737
10.0
12.6
8.1
5.4
596
1.9
20 3
8.6
577
42.9
50
7.9
0.3
760
11.0
11.9
8.0
4.7
599
30
20.1
8.6
578
440
5.0
79
0.3
760
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
120
II.1
7.9
44
604
4.0
20 1
8.6
577
449
5.0
79
03
761
08/23/96
13.0
10.8
79
4.3
609
50
20.1
8.6
577
45 8
5.0
79
0.3
762
14 0
9.9
78
4.1
625
60
199
86
577
00
199
8.6
7 8
558
17.0
96
78
40
678
7.0
196
8.6
586
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
10
199
8.5
78
561
19.0
7.3
78
39
719
79
18 2
84
603
08/08/96
20
197
85
76
563
23.1
64
77
3.9
732
90
17.0
8.2
611
30
195
8.5
76
565
10.0
15.8
8.2
606
0.0
20 3
8.5
7.5
572
40
19.5
85
7.5
557
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
11.1
14.2
8.2
605
1.0
20.3
50
19.5
8.5
7.5
566
07/09/96
12 0
12 3
82
621
60
19.4
8.5
7.3
560
130
11 2
8.2
627
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
7 1
19.3
85
7 1
558
0.0
22 0
86
7.2
555
14.1
100
8.2
645
08/08/%
8.0
19.2
8.5
69
564
1.0
21 9
86
7.1
555
14 8
94
8.1
650
90
18.9
8.4
5.1
575
20
219
86
69
555
15.9
78
8.1
691
00
20 4
8.7
571
10.0
14.6
8.1
1.2
606
3.0
21 8
8.6
70
555
17.2
72
8.1
705
1 2
20 4
8.6
573
10.9
11 8
7.9
04
607
4.0
21 8
86
69
555
18.2
7 1
80
704
20
20.2
8.6
574
12.0
9.9
7.8
0.6
618
5.0
20.0
8.6
67
561
19.1
69
80
710
30
20 1
8.6
575
130
92
7.7
0.7
620
6.0
172
84
64
581
20.0
66
80
716
4 1
20 1
86
575
14 0
8.5
7.6
0.9
647
7.0
159
8.3
6 1
582
50
20 1
8.6
576
150
8.2
7.6
07
656
8.1
14 7
82
56
589
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
60
20.0
86
576
17 9
73
7.6
38
669
9.0
137
8 I
50
587
08/08/96
7 1
19.9
8.5
579
100
12.1
79
36
594
80
198
85
578
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
110
11.4
7.8
32
596
01
20.0
8.6
73
574
90
19 1
8.3
588
08/23/96
12.0
10.7
78
32
605
10
199
87
7 3
575
10 0
15.7
8 1
596
13.0
10.3
77
33
615
20
199
87
73
576
11.0
12.0
82
608
00
200
86
80
550
14 0
9.5
77
34
634
30
199
87
70
574
12.1
10.7
8.4
618
1 0
199
8.5
8.0
552
15.0
8.8
77
34
655
40
19 9
8.7
7 1
574
130
9.8
84
634
20
19 8
85
79
554
16.0
8 1
77
3.5
681
50
199
87
7 1
575
14 2
9.0
00
649
3.0
195
85
78
557
17 0
77
77
3.5
693
6 1
19.8
87
7 1
575
14.9
8.2
83
673
3.9
195
8.5
77
558
18.0
7.2
77
34
710
70
19.8
87
7.2
575
15.5
8.1
82
680
5.1
19.4
8.5
76
559
19.0
7.0
7.6
3.4
714
82
19.8
87
7.3
575
60
19.4
8.5
73
559
20 0
6.8
7.6
3.4
721
90
197
8.6
7.3
575
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
70
19.1
8.5
6.5
564
21.0
67
76
3.3
722
100
15.8
82
3.6
611
08/23/96
80
18.5
83
4.8
574
22 0
65
76
33
726
11.0
13.3
8.2
2.7
604
90
17 1
8 1
32
580
23 0
64
76
3 3
728
120
107
8.4
23
620
00
197
87
79
556
100
15 5
7.9
1 6
583
24 0
62
76
32
731
130
97
8.3
23
640
1 0
196
8.6
7.9
555
11.0
13 1
78
06
5%
-------
120
11 5
77
0.4
623
12.9
10.2
7.7
03
617
140
92
76
05
652
15.0
8.8
76
04
635
200
67
7.5
01
677
22 0
3.4
75
02
676
EAST CANYON RESERVOIR
08/28/96
0.1
22.0
88
8.2
562
1.0
21.8
8.7
7.9
561
20
21 6
8.7
83
560
3.0
21.5
87
84
560
39
21 3
8.7
86
559
5.0
20 0
87
87
564
5.2
20 0
87
86
564
6.1
18.5
85
8.4
593
7.0
17.3
83
79
601
80
16 0
83
76
599
90
13 9
82
7.1
600
10.0
12 5
80
6.0
602
110
11.6
8.0
5.9
605
120
11 1
8.0
5.2
611
13.1
104
79
46
623
14.0
95
7.8
4 3
644
15 0
90
7.8
40
657
16 1
80
78
3.7
683
170
76
78
35
690
180
72
77
3.3
709
23 0
7 1
77
3.1
717
27.1
5.9
7.7
2.6
------- |