2019 WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT Draft

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "2019 WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT Draft"

Transcription

1 2019 WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION REPORT Draft 5/15/2020 For the 2018 Year PREPARED BY: DESERT ROSE ENVIRONMENTAL Park City, UT PREPARED FOR: WASATCH COUNTY & PROVO RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL

2 Table of Contents 2017 Quality Implementation Report CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER THREE CHAPTER FOUR CHAPTER FIVE CHAPTER SIX CHAPTER SEVEN CHAPTER EIGHT CHAPTER NINE APPENDIX A APPENDIX B BACKGROUND AND GOALS MONITORING PROGRAM AND ANALYSIS PROJECTS IN THE WATERSHED THE UPPER PROVO RIVER JORDANELLE AND TRIBUTARIES MIDDLE PROVO RIVER IN HEBER VALLEY DEER CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LOWER PROVO AND TRIBUTARIES CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STREAM WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY SUMMARIES Table of Contents-1

3 Chapter One Background and Goals FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR BACKGROUND plays a vital role in the development of the West. Productivity and economy are closely tied to maintaining access to abundant high quality sources of water. One of Utah s best water resources, the Provo River, provides water for use by over a million Utah residences for drinking, agricultural, industrial, and recreational purposes. The Provo River supports a delicate ecosystem of invaluable living organisms. Along the Provo River, Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs water management plans have helped make this water available for public and private use. The river and reservoirs are vital to the surrounding communities. One of the main challenges facing those in charge of managing the reservoirs is the control of eutrophication. Eutrophication is a natural process that occurs in lakes and reservoirs when there is an abundance of nutrients. It simply means that there are enough of the right nutrients present to incur algae growth. Excessive algae growth can seriously deteriorate water quality causing taste and odor problems, which in turn increase treatment costs. Additionally, through industrial activities, commercial and residential development and agricultural practices, erosion can occur which has the potential of introducing other pollutants into the Provo River and reservoirs in the system. FORMATION OF THE JORDANELLE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (JTAC) Because of eutrophication evidences in the Deer Creek Reservoir, in 1981 Utah Governor Scott Matheson established the Jordanelle Reservoir Quality Technical Advisory Committee (JTAC) for the purpose of developing a reservoir management plan for Deer Creek Reservoir and the then future Jordanelle Reservoir. Thus, JTAC was created with the representation of over twenty federal, state, local agencies, and private companies. The Quality Management Plan for Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs was implemented by JTAC in This plan directs JTAC to conduct a water sampling program that monitors the condition of water quality throughout the year. It also requires that an annual report be released that analyzes and presents the resulting data. THE PROVO RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL (PRWC) In 2006 the Jordanelle Technical Advisory Committee s name was changed to better suit the scope and direction of the Committee. Due to the fact that the group was focusing their efforts on monitoring, reporting and project development for a sustainable watershed, the name Provo River shed Council was chosen. The mission and goals for the PRWC are: Page 1-1

4 MISSION Promote and support watershed best management practices to ensure high quality water for all users and to meet designated beneficial uses in the Provo River shed. GOALS Promote awareness and education about watershed issues Provide a forum for information exchange, analysis and debate of issues to promote collaborative, consensus-based decision making and planning Enhance stakeholder partnerships and respect local social and cultural values Monitor and document water quality trends Maximize communication, relationships and partnerships among members Encourage a sustainable, watershed level, ecosystem approach to planning and activities PURPOSE AND SCOPE The is released to fulfill the requirement by the 1984 Quality Management Plan for the Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs. As directed by the plan, this report will: Present the results of water quality sampling, Identify exceedances of water quality standards, Identify trends in the water quality, Analyze the effectiveness of current management practices, and Recommend action for further progress towards water quality improvement. OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT For the purpose of analysis, the Provo River shed is broken into five sub-watersheds that are shown in Figure 1-1 Sub-watersheds. They include: Upper Provo River Jordanelle Reservoir and Tributaries including Big Dutch Pete Hollow, McHenry Creek, Ontario Drain Tunnel Middle Provo River in Heber Valley and tributaries including Spring Creek Deer Creek Reservoir and Tributaries including Main Creek, Snake Creek, Provo River, Lower Charleston Canal and Daniels Creek Lower Provo River below Deer Creek Reservoir Page 1-2

5 FIGURE 1-1 SUBWATERSHEDS Page 1-3

6 Chapter Two Monitoring Program and Analysis FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR MONITORING Phosphorus the Limiting Nutrient The PRWC water sampling program includes many water quality parameters, some of these include physical and chemical properties, metals, and nutrients present in the water. The most critical water quality constituent for this analysis, however, is phosphorus. In general, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient that controls the growth of algae. By decreasing the reservoir s phosphorus loads into the algae growth will also decrease. In the Provo River shed, a variety of natural sources contribute to the formation of phosphorus, but human factors also are a substantial contributor. The goal of PRWC is to reduce pollution from these sources by encouraging the implementation of projects, efficient management practices, and smart planning. Another constituent often related to phosphorous concentrations is Total Suspended (TSS). TSS is used to evaluate the amount of inorganic salts and other materials suspended in water. It is also used to determine the degree of treatment needed to ready the water for consumption. By removing TSS, many pollutants including phosphorus will also be removed. PRWC Monitoring Program The PRWC monitoring program uses a method of systematically taking samples from streams and reservoirs in the watershed. During the water year, approximately 425 samples from 54 sites are collected for the purpose of water quality analysis. There are up to 25 stream, seven reservoir, and 2 QA/QC sampling locations. At the seven reservoir sampling locations, samples were collected at multiple depths. The sampling locations were selected with the purpose of analyzing the progress towards the goals set in A six-digit STORET number for the State s system of identification identifies each sampling location. The table on page 4 lists the sites, their corresponding STORET numbers, and descriptions. A summary of data is presented in the Appendices for the water year. Over 23,000 discrete pieces of data were provided from various agencies for the development of this report. station_id Description Provo River ab Hailstone Junction Weber Provo Canal Diversion at US Provo River above Woodland at USGS gage McHenry Creek below Mayflower Big Dutch Pete stream bl Mayflower in Jord. State Park Spring Creek at entrance to Provo River E of WWTP

7 Provo River at River Road Bridge Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Provo River at Heber - Midway Bridge Sagebrush-Spring cnl at 1200 North, Heber London Ditch at US40 Xing Northwestward to Provo R. (Flood Control) Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br Lower Charleston Canal ab Daniels Ck Snake Creek above Deer Creek Res Main Creek abv US189 at driveway bridge Daniels Creek 100 feet below cnfl w/ LCC Provo River at Murdock Diversion Provo River at Olmsted Diversion Lower South Fork Provo R at Vivian Park Lower North Fork of Provo R at Wildwood Little Deer Creek above cnfl with Provo River Upper South Fork ab Confluence w/ Provo River Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Reservoir Monitoring There are four locations on Deer Creek Reservoir and three on Jordanelle Reservoir where reservoir sampling occurred. Reservoir stations are generally sampled at various depths where possible. Considering each depth as a distinct sampling location yields a up to 24 reservoir sampling sites. Field data is gathered, along with turbidity measurements for the determination of water clarity of the reservoir. Further analyses are then conducted at the laboratories for nutrients and dissolved metals, In addition to the reservoir sampling as described above, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, redox potential, turbidity and ph data were gathered at the seven reservoir sites at various depths to produce a profile of the reservoirs for these parameters. Groundwater Monitoring The United States Geological Survey (USGS) monitors a series of wells in the Heber Valley each year. Data that is collected is submitted to the National Groundwater Monitoring Network. The network is a repository of current and historical data including water levels, water quality, lithology, and well construction. E. coli Monitoring PRWC participates in the monitoring of E. coli in Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoirs, as well as the rivers and streams in the watershed. E. coli is a type of bacteria commonly found in the intestines and feces of healthy warm-blooded animals and humans. E. coli is monitored because it is a good indicator of the presence of fecal contamination and possible disease-causing bacteria or viruses in water. The State Standards for E. coli are: Page2-2

8 Domestic 1C Recreation 2A 30-Day Mean Maximum ANALYSIS Surface Classifications & Quality Standards Each stream and reservoir in the State of Utah is classified according to its beneficial uses. The classifications are used to determine the required standards for water quality parameters. The following classifications have been assigned to the surface waters pertinent to this report: Description Classification Provo River and tributaries 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Deer Creek Reservoir 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A, 4 Jordanelle Reservoir 1C, 2A, 3A, 4 The classifications are defined as: Class 1C: Protected for domestic purposes with prior treatment processes as required by Utah Department of Health. Class 2A: Protected for primary contact recreation such as swimming. Class 2B: Protected for secondary contact recreation such as boating, wading, and similar uses. Class 3A: Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in the food chain. Class 4: Protected for agricultural uses including stock watering and irrigation of crops. This information can be found in detail in Utah Administrative Code R317-2 Standards of Quality for s of the State. The State of Utah has established water quality standards that are based upon the beneficial uses as determined by previously described classifications. TMDL Targets In 2002 a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis and report were prepared for Deer Creek Reservoir. In this report target end points were identified to maintain the water quality in Deer Creek Reservoir. These end points were used in this implementation report like the State s water quality standards to determine water quality exceedances. Below is a listing of the TMDL Targets. Page2-3

9 Loading Calculations and Assumptions Loading calculations are based on the water quality data gathered by PRWC and average daily flow measurements, typically taken from a USGS gage station or through field measurement. Loading is typically determined at each location for three water quality parameters, total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and dissolved total phosphorus (DTP). All samples with constituent concentrations below the detectable limit were assumed to have no concentration of that constituent. Loads were calculated by multiplying the mass concentration of the substance (mg/l) by the daily flow rate (cfs) in the stream to determine the daily mass loading rate. Each daily mass loading rate was then averaged with the mass loading rate of the previous sampling date and multiplied by the number of days between samples to obtain the total mass load for that period. Loading for the period between October 1st and the first sampling date was calculated using the daily loading rate for the first sampling date and multiplying it by the number of days between October 1st and the first sampling date. Likewise, the loading for the period between the year s last sampling date and September 31st was calculated in the same manner. The annual mass loading rate was determined by summing the load for each period. This methodology assumes that mass loading rates are steady and that fluctuations are relatively gradual. This calculation method is in accordance with the statistical report published in the 1992 implementation report. Loading calculations for all stream sampling sites are included in Appendix A for the water year. DWQ Quality Assessment To meet the State s obligations under the Clean Act, DWQ compiles all existing and readily available data to determine whether water quality is sufficient to meet the beneficial uses assigned to Utah s waters. Results are summarized biennially in the Integrated Report (IR). The IR consists of three parts. Part 1 describes the assessment methods, Part 2 is a summary of the overall condition and significant water quality threats to the beneficial uses of Utah s waters (305(b) Report), and Part 3 is the list of impaired waters that fail to meet water quality standards or are biologically impaired (303(d) List). This report allows DWQ to prioritize where limited resources can be most efficiently and effectively applied to address water quality problems. Page2-4

10 Chapter Three Projects in the shed FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR Each Year the Provo River shed Council monitors, advises and supports various projects and activities that are planned or implemented within the watershed. These projects and their sponsors deserve recognition for their attention that they give to monitoring, maintaining and/or improving water quality within the Provo River System. DEER CREEK RESERVOIR ALGAL BLOOM MONITORING 2018 The Division of Quality (DWQ) visited Deer Creek Reservoir for routine E.coli sampling on September 11, 2018, and observed what appeared to be algal blooms at the Main Boat Launch, Rainbow Bay Beach, and Island Park Marina. The bloom was evident from dried algae on the shore and algae dispersed in the water column that resembled small green grass clippings. The monitoring crew observed algae in the water column at all three locations and dried algae on the shore at Rainbow Bay Beach, and Island Park Beach. DWQ collected elbow-depth integrated samples from all three locations. Toxin strip-test results were non-detect for microcystins and anatoxin-a. The DWQ and Wasatch y Health Department (WCHD) visited Deer Creek Reservoir on September 18, 2018, to conduct follow-up monitoring. DWQ and WCHD visited three sites on the reservoir. They observed a bloom along the shore on the surface of the water at the Rainbow Bay monitoring location. The bloom was consolidated along the shore but appeared to be evenly distributed through the water column further out into the reservoir. Wave action from wind and boating appeared to consolidate the bloom along the shore. The Wasatch y Health Department (WCHD) posted Warning Advisory signs at the entrances to Island Resort and Rainbow Bay on September 20th. Signs were modified to explain that cyanobacteria are accumulated along the shoreline and not dispersed throughout the reservoir. Wind and wave action at the reservoir in the early afternoon appear to disperse blooms that accumulate along the shoreline in the morning. The Division of Quality (DWQ) collected samples at three sites at Deer Creek Reservoir on October 18, Toxin test results were non-detect for anatoxin-a at Island Park, the only site tested for anatoxin-a. Microcystin levels at all three sample sites, however, exceeded the recreation health-based threshold for a Warning Advisory. By November 21, 2018 the Wasatch y Health Department had lifted the HAB Warning Advisory at Deer Creek Reservoir.

11 JORDANELLE RESERVOIR ALGAL BLOOM MONITORING 2018 The Division of Quality (DWQ) observed a small, localized harmful algal bloom at Jordanelle Reservoir on September 11, 2018, during routine E. coli monitoring. The monitoring crew collected an elbowdepth integrated sample. Toxin strip-test results showed anatoxin-a levels at approximately 2.5 micrograms per liter (µg/l), which exceeds the recreation health-based threshold for a Warning Advisory. The toxin strip test was non-detect for microcystin. The bloom was not visible on the surface of the water, but the DWQ monitoring crew noticed a small, bright green patch of algae on the shore. It was hard to tell if the cyanobacteria were dispersed through the water column because the water was very turbid. The crew collected E. coli samples from two other areas of the reservoir and did not observe any indicators that the bloom was widespread at the reservoir; rather, it appeared to be localized near Aqua Cove and Boat Rental Beach. QUAGGA REQUIREMENTS LIFTED: DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DELISTED In January 2018 after three years Deer Creek Reservoir is no longer suspected of having quagga mussels in it. The Division of Wildlife Resources indicated that quagga mussels had not been found in the reservoir since five juvenile mussels were discovered in a water sample in October Because the reservoir has gone three years without further detection, effective Jan. 11, Deer Creek is no longer classified as a quagga-suspected water. Preventing quagga mussels from establishing in Deer Creek was a team effort between government agencies, water districts, and the public. The effort included funding from the Utah Legislature and boaters, anglers and personnel from the DWR, Utah State Parks, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Provo River shed Council and the Central Utah Conservancy District teaming together to keep additional mussels out of the reservoir. During the past three years, staff at the park inspected more than 30,000 boats. They professionally decontaminated about 2,000 of them. FIRE DESTROYS TIMBER HOME AT SUNDANCE A large timber cabin at Sundance was destroyed Friday, October 13, 2018 in a fire first spotted by the cabin's caretaker. North Fork Fire Chief Dave Marsella said the agency received a report of the fire at 11 a.m. Friday at 9247 N. Mile 23 Lane in Sundance. A caretaker had gone to the home to check on a few things when she discovered the basement on fire. The second level was full of smoke. Fire crews found fire coming from the third floor of the structure as well. The Fire department worked diligently to diver and reduce the amount of foam that could enter the nearby waterway. WASATCH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Development reviews occurred for the following properties and developments: Black Rock Ridge April 2018 Black Rock Ridge Revisions April 2018 Canyon Meadows Plat Amendments July 2018 Mayflower Master Plan amendment July 2018 Mayflower Master Plan August 2018 MIDA Mayflower EA December 2017 Page2-2

12 Skyridge Conditions for Final Approval July 2018 Skyridge Preliminary Plan May 2018 Tuhaye Lone Peak Preliminary July 2018 Tuhaye Moondance Plat Amendment and Conditional Use July 2018 Tuhaye Revised Master Plan December 2017 Tuhaye Whispering Hawk September 2018 Victory Ranch Barn Overlook Phase 4 January 2018 Victory Ranch Juniper Cabins October 2017 Victory Ranch Juniper Draw2 September 2018 Victory Ranch Plat R-2 October 2017 Victory Ranch Plat W-2 February 2018 Victory Ranch Plat W-2 Final April 2018 Victory Ranch Plat Y April 2018 Victory Ranch Plat Y Final July 2018 JULY 2018 COUNCIL MEETING: SUMMER TOUR Spring Creek E. coli TMDL, North Fields Project Sandy Wingert with Utah Division of Quality began the tour by welcoming the group. She talked about the upcoming TMDL that will cover numerous areas of the watershed. Various parameters are not meeting water quality standards in different areas. Aluminum is an issue in the upper reaches of the Provo River. Arsenic exceeds the standards in Snake Creek. E. coli is high in Spring Creek. All of these, along with other issues will be addressed in a single TMDL. Dax Reid talked about the North Fields Project which explores the concept of open space / conservation easements for property. A meeting of stakeholders was organized to describe the concept and gage interest by property owners. Utah Open Lands is interested in participating with land owners to develop the easements and provide long-term management of the lands. On the drive over to the Heber Valley Special Service District offices the group stopped along Spring Creek, the Sagebrush Canal, London Ditch, and Rock Ditch to observe the waterways. Heber Valley Special Services District Dennis Gunn, General Manager, provided a tour of the Heber Valley Special Service District s reclamation facilities. They recently developed a rapid infiltration basin to take treated wastewater. A tour of the initial treatment process was given. A drive was then taken around the sewage lagoons and 1500 acre-foot storage ponds. The tour culminated at the 400 acre farm that gets irrigated from the storage ponds. Crops are generally grown on 360 acres of the farm. Page2-3

13 Midway Fish Hatchery A tour of the hatchery was a highlight of the day. We first walked to the spring which fed the water to the hatchery for many years. Due to high nutrients and the possibility of whirling Disease from the spring the water source was changed over to a shallow well. Then the tour progressed to the building where the hatchlings are grown. There were approximately 460,000 cutthroat trout and 284,000 rainbow trout hatchlings. Then we went to the Egg Room where up to 2 million eggs are fertilized. We went to the raceways which are now covered and saw where the larger fish are grown. The Raceways are supplemented with oxygen. Also on the tour was the wastewater treatment processing area where we observed the settler and vacuum filter. Page2-4

14 Chapter Four The Upper Provo River FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR This chapter will present and analyze the water quality monitoring for the Upper Provo River. STREAM MONITORING STATIONS In the area of the Upper Provo River PRWC monitored three stream sampling locations. The monitoring locations are as follows: station_id Description Provo River ab Hailstone Junction Weber Provo Canal Diversion at US Provo River above Woodland at USGS gage Each stream monitoring location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. s are highlighted in red. More detailed analyses of the data are included in the Appendix. Provo River above Woodland, STORET # This monitoring location represents water coming from the headwaters of the Provo River in the Uinta Mountains. It is located on the Provo River approximately 4 miles upstream of Woodland near USGS flow gage # A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. The location was sampled ten times during the water year. The TMDL target for total phosphorus was exceeded two times, once in March and again in April. Total Phosphorus exceeded the target two times, once in October of 2017 and again in April However, data for DTP was missing for March of T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River above Woodland at USGS gage Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20

15 Provo River above Hailstone, STORET # This monitoring site is located in the Provo River just upstream of the Jordanelle Reservoir near USGS flow gage # This location represents the water that flows into Jordanelle Reservoir from the Provo River. A summary of the data is shown below. This location was monitored ten times during the water year, but some data was missing for March The TMDL Target concentration for dissolved phosphorus was exceeded once. The TMDL target for total phosphorus was exceeded twice during the year, once in April 2018 and again in August T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River ab Hailstone Junction Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Weber Provo Canal Diversion, STORET # This monitoring site is located where the Weber-Provo Canal flows into the Provo River at a point approximately 3 miles south of Kamas. The Weber-Provo Canal diverts water from the Weber River through Kamas into the Provo River. A summary of the data is shown below. This site was monitored five times during the water year. Phosphorous concentrations exceed the TMDL target in October T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Weber Provo Canal Diversion at US189 Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus 5 0 0% >=.03 Temperature 5 0 0% >=20 Page4-2

16 TRENDS IN THE WATERSHED A summary of water quality data for the upper Provo River sites is shown in Table 4-1. The Upper Provo River and tributaries are still exhibiting somewhat high levels of total phosphorus compared to historical values prior to 2010 as can be seen in FIGURE 4-1. The increases seen in 2010 and 2011 are most probably due to the fact that flow was higher at all of the stations. In reviewing historical records from the 1990s it appears that the years from 2009 to 2018 are similar to the 1990s. For some reason the period from 2002 to 2008 were low phosphorus years. FIGURE 4-1 UPPER PROVO RIVER AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS VS. FLOW Total Suspended, however, are still quite low for the upper portions of the watershed as shown in FIGURE 4-2. In 2010 there appeared to be some disturbance. The loads during 2018 are similar to prior years and lower than 2017 due to higher runoff and general flows in FIGURE 4-2 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS LOAD VS FLOW FOR UPPER PROVO RIVER Page4-3

17 TABLE 4-1gives a summary of the water quality in the sites in the Upper Provo River shed for 2011 to the current water year. FIGURE 4-3 and FIGURE 4-4 show the long term trends for Total and Total Phosphorus from December 1990 to September 2018 at Hailstone Junction. The Total Phosphorus concentrations have stayed steady at approximately mg/l. The dark line in these graphs is the TMDL limits of 0.02 for Total Phosphorus and 0.03 Total Phosphorus. Jordanelle Basin Provo River at Woodland, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 11,797 1,525 2,256 1,933 3,823 1,454 7,495 1,353 1,004 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 3, ,118 2, ,084 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 4,833,251 1,341, ,143 10,766,377 1,333, ,570 11,239, ,876 1,020,388 Weber Provo Canal, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 10, , , ,531 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 5,515, , ,930, , ,647 2,128, ,786 1,910,463 Provo River at Hailstone, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 8,240 14,620 3,239 10,374 5,304 1,951 20,870 2,205 4,288 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 1,763 4,908 1,726 1, , ,891 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 2,557, , ,914 10,275,530 1,331,450 1,028,684 16,606, ,653 3,000,373 Provo River below Jordanelle, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 3,725 2,718 2,383 2,117 2,261 3,344 6,510 3,344 4,093 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 3, ,126 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 0 181, , , ,430 TABLE 4-1 WATER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR UPPER PROVO RIVER MONITORING SITES FIGURE 4-3 TP CONCENTRATIONS AT HAILSTONE JUNCTION DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2018 Total Phosphorus concentrations have actually decreased from a high of approximately mg/l in 1990 to 0.02 mg/l in The Total Phosphorus has also decreased from a high of.01mg/l in 1990 to.007 mg/l. Page4-4

18 FIGURE 4-4 DTP CONCENTRATIONS AT HAILSTONE JUNCTION DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2018 SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON For treatment plant operators other water quality parameters can have more importance than nutrients. has a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect its quality and treatability. Understanding these characteristics and their interrelationships can help to determine treatment techniques and chemical dosages. Alkalinity is one of the significant parameters. The alkalinity of water is a measure of the water s capacity to neutralize an acid. Therefore, it is related to the water s buffering capacity, that is, its capacity to resist a change in ph as acid is added. Alkalinity levels affect the efficiency of the coagulation process during treatment. All surface waters contain some level of organic chemicals. These natural compounds, found in soil and vegetation, enter into the surface water. Agricultural runoff and industrial contamination can also contribute significant amounts of organic chemicals. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in source waters comes from decaying natural organic matter as well as synthetic sources. Some detergents, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, industrial chemicals, and chlorinated organics are examples of synthetic sources. Before source water is treated for disinfection, TOC provides an estimate of the amount of naturally organic matter in the water source which may have an effect on residuals in finished water. FIGURE 4-5 shows the correlation between the two parameters. The figure shows the typical relationship between TOC and Alkalinity at this site. TOC has a reverse relationship to Alkalinity at this site which is the Provo River site just upstream from the Jordanelle Reservoir. Page4-5

19 FIGURE 4-5 PROVO RIVER AT HAILSTONE ALKALINITY VS. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON FIGURE 4-6 shows the relationship between Total Suspended and TOC. In this case the two have a close correlation. As TSS goes up so does TOC. FIGURE 4-6 PROVO RIVER AT HAILSONE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS VS. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON Page4-6

20 DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS The dissolved metal concentrations were analyzed for samples from several sites on the Provo River. Few dissolved metals were detectable; however, aluminum continues to be a problem in the upper reaches of the Provo River shed. Aluminum exceeded the 3A cold water fishery standard at one site in the upper watershed. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo River above Woodland at USGS gage Aluminum Yes Provo River above Woodland at USGS gage Zinc No Weber Provo Canal Diversion at US189 Arsenic No Weber Provo Canal Diversion at US189 Chromium No 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS The Utah DWQ has identified the following water bodies in the Upper Provo River Basin as not meeting the state s water quality standards for the listed parameters. These sections of the Provo River are located between Woodland to the headwaters. The aluminum listing is supported by the metals exceedances found in the water quality data. Year First Listed Reach Description Location AU_DWQCat Parameter Use Categories 2016 Provo River-5 Provo River from Jordanelle Reservoir to Woodland Not Supporting Aluminum, 3A Low 2014 Provo River-6 Provo River and tributaries from Woodland to headwaters Not Supporting Aluminum, 3A High 2014 Provo River-6 Provo River and tributaries from Woodland to headwaters Not Supporting Zinc, 3A High ECOLI MONITORING Ecoli monitoring occurred throughout the various stream segments. For the most part ecoli was not a problem in this portion of the watershed. There were no threshold exceedances in the Upper Provo River for the 2018 Year. TMDL Priority Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo River ab Hailstone Junction Escherichia coli No Provo River above Woodland at USGS gage Escherichia coli No Weber Provo Canal Diversion at US189 Escherichia coli No Page4-7

21 Chapter Five Jordanelle and Tributaries FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR STREAM MONITORING STATIONS In the area surrounding Jordanelle Reservoir PRWC and DWA monitored three stream locations. The monitoring locations are as follows and are shown in Figure 5-1. station_id Description Provo River ab Hailstone Junction Big Dutch Pete stream below Mayflower in Jordanelle State Park McHenry Creek below Mayflower Provo River below Jordanelle Dam FIGURE 5-1 JORDANELLE AREA SAMPLING SITES Each stream monitoring location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. More detailed analyses of the data are included in the Appendices. Red highlighted results within tables identifies that the water quality standards or the TMDL limits were exceeded. Page 5-1

22 Provo River above Hailstone, STORET # This monitoring site is located in the Provo River just upstream of the Jordanelle Reservoir near USGS flow gage # This location represents the water that flows into Jordanelle Reservoir from the Provo River. A summary of the data is shown below. This location was monitored ten times during the water year. The TMDL Target concentration for dissolved phosphorus was exceeded once, while the TMDL target for total phosphorus was exceeded twice during the year, in April and August. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River ab Hailstone Junction Number of Samples Percent s Big Dutch Pete Stream Below Mayflower, STORET # Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 This monitoring site is located on the west side of Jordanelle Reservoir upstream of where it flows into the reservoir. It is situated within the tent camping sites at the Jordanelle State Park. Big Dutch Pete Stream lays in the same drainage as the Mayflower mine. Traditionally we see a large amount of metals within this stream due to the abundance of mine activity that took place in the area. A summary of the water quality data is provided below. The site was monitored nine times during the water year. The TMDL limit for dissolved phosphorus was exceeded four times, or 50% of all measurements. The total phosphorus concentration exceeded the TMDL limit twice. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Big Dutch Pete stream bl Mayflower in Jord. State Park Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Page 5-2

23 McHenry Creek Below Mayflower, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the west side of Jordanelle Reservoir where McHenry Creek flows into the reservoir. The site is also serves as a detention pond for Highway 40. McHenry Creek lays in the same drainage as the Mayflower mine and tailings ponds that pose a risk of surface water contamination. Development activities by Deer Valley Ski Resort further up in the drainage may also contribute to surface water contamination. There was no data for this location in the DWQ s AWQMS database system. Samples were not collected by the PRWC as this site is dry most of the year. Provo River below Jordanelle Dam, STORET # This station is located below the outlet works of Jordanelle Dam and samples the water that is released from Jordanelle Reservoir. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Ten samples were taken below Jordanelle Dam during the water year. One exceedance was recorded for TP in May. Phosphorus concentrations exceed the TMDL limit in October This site traditionally has low levels of phosphorus and solids. Figure 5-2 illustrates both Total Phosphorus and Total at this station for the past twelve years. The reservoir helps reduce the concentrations of phosphorus and solids downstream. Page 5-3

24 FIGURE 5-2 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TSS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW JORDANELLE DAM TRENDS IN THE WATERSHED The data from stream samples that were collected are used with flow data to calculate river loadings of three constituents: TSS, TP, DTP. In the Jordanelle Basin these loads are calculated for the Provo River at Hailstone and the Provo River below the Dam. A summary of this information for 2008 to 2018 can be found in Table 5-1. s of TMDL limits are highlighted. Calculations can be found in the Appendix for the current Year. In general, average concentrations were lower for all sites during the water year. This may be due to the fact that it was a dry year and flows were generally very low. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show the long-term trends for Total and Total Phosphorus from December 1990 to September 2018 at the Provo River at Hailstone and below Jordanelle. Concentrations for both of these constituents have been reduced over the 28-year period. The TP at Hailstone varies just slightly, but the change below Jordanelle is significant from mg/l in 1990 to mostly undetectable in DTP has decreased at Hailstone from 0.01 to undetectable. DTP has decreased below Jordanelle also from.012 to undetectable as well. This change has helped to improve the water quality in the Heber Valley streams and has most likely helped contribute to good conditions in Deer Creek Reservoir. Page 5-4

25 Jordanelle Basin TABLE 5-1 JORDANELLE BASIN WATER QUALITY SUMMARY Provo River at Woodland, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 5,255 10,472 11,797 1,525 2,256 1,933 3,823 1,454 7,495 1,353 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 237 9,759 3, ,118 2, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 1,494,235 31,379,371 4,833,251 1,341, ,143 10,766,377 1,333, ,570 11,239, ,876 Weber Provo Canal, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 1,985 4,677 10, , , DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 0 3, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 1,077,200 5,809,961 5,515, , ,930, , ,647 2,128, ,786 Provo River at Hailstone, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 6,904 26,485 8,240 14,620 3,239 10,374 5,304 1,951 20,870 2,205 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) ,975 1,763 4,908 1,726 1, , TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 5,391,711 38,303,033 2,557, , ,914 10,275,530 1,331,450 1,028,684 16,606, ,653 Provo River below Jordanelle, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 0 3,481 3,725 2,718 2,383 2,117 2,261 3,344 6,510 3,344 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 0 1,129 3, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) , , ,772 0 FIGURE 5-3 TP AT PROVO RIVER AT HAILSTONE (UPPER) AND BELOW JORDANELLE (LOWER) DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2018 Page 5-5

26 FIGURE 5-4 DTP AT PROVO RIVER AT HAILSTONE (UPPER) AND BELOW JORDANELLE (LOWER) DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER (D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS The Utah DWQ has identified the following stream segments as not meeting the state s water quality standards for the listed parameters. The metals impairment associated with McHenry Creek have been a problem for many years and are due to mine drains in the area. 303(d) Report Year Reach Location Status Parameter Use 2016 Provo River Provo River McHenry Creek 2016 McHenry Creek Provo River and tributaries from Woodland to headwaters, except Little South Fork and Upper South Fork Provo River from Jordanelle Reservoir to Woodland McHenry Creek and tributaries from Jordanelle Reservoir to headwaters McHenry Creek and tributaries from Jordanelle Reservoir to headwaters JORDANELLE RESERVOIR MONITORING Not Supporting Not Supporting Not Supporting Not Supporting Aluminum, 3A TMDL Priority High Aluminum, 3A Low Cadmium, 3A; Low HH3A Zinc, 3A Low On the Jordanelle Reservoir, PRWC monitored three locations during the water year. Reservoir monitoring included samples taken at various depths in each location as well as profiles of physical characteristics at multiple depths to generate a profile of the water characteristics with the most critical characteristic being dissolved oxygen (DO). The three monitoring locations are listed in the table. Each location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented, which lists maximums, minimums, Page 5-6

27 averages, and number of exceedances for temperature, dissolved oxygen, ph, total suspended solids, ammonia, dissolved phosphorus, and total dissolved phosphorus. STORET Location Description Jordanelle Reservoir Provo River Arm Jordanelle Reservoir North Arm Jordanelle Reservoir Above Dam Provo Arm, STORET # The Provo River Arm of Jordanelle Reservoir was sampled six times during the water year. A combined depth summary of the water quality data for the surface and bottom is shown below. JORDANELLE RESERVOIR PROVO ARM, STORET WATER QUALITY SUMMARY Date oxygen (DO) Chlorophyll a Depth Phosphorus, as P Phosphorus, Total as P Temperature, water Turbidity Secchi ph Total Average Total Max Total Min Temperature was a problem at this site in July and August 2018, however, the dissolved oxygen concentrations stayed above 4.0 during this time. North Arm, STORET # The north arm of Jordanelle Reservoir was only sampled four times during the water year. Samples were collected at the surface of the reservoir and the reservoir bottom. A combined depth summary of the water quality data for the surface and bottom is shown below. JORDANELLE RESERVOIR NORTH ARM, STORET WATER QUALITY SUMMARY Date oxygen (DO) Chlorophyll a Depth Phosphorus, as P Phosphorus, Total as P Temperature, water Turbidity Secchi ph Total Average Total Max Total Min The North arm exceeded both in-lake TP and DTP in October Temperature and DO were a problem in July. Temperature also exceeded the state standard in August. Since this site is generally shallow, historically there have been exceedances associated with temperature, phosphorous, and low DO levels. Above Dam, STORET # The Above Dam site was monitored seven times during the water year. A combined depth summary of the water quality data for the Jordanelle Above Dam station is provided below. JORDANELLE RESERVOIR ABOVE DAM, STORET WATER QUALITY SUMMARY Date oxygen (DO) Chlorophyll a Depth Phosphorus, as P Phosphorus, Total as P Temperature,water Turbidity Secchi ph Total Average Total Max Total Min Temperature and Total Phosphorus were both high in October 2017 for this site. Page 5-7

28 SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON For treatment plant operators other water quality parameters can have more importance than nutrients. has a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect its quality and treatability. Understanding these characteristics and their interrelationships can help to determine treatment techniques and chemical dosages. Figure 5-5 shows the correlation between Alkalinity and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) at the Hailstone site. The graphic shows results from January 2014 to October TOC has a reverse relationship to Alkalinity at this site which is just upstream from the Jordanelle Reservoir. Typically, total organic carbon is low for most of the year, however, we see spikes in the spring which correlate to spring runoff. Figure 5-6 Provo River Below Jordanelle Dam Alkalinity vs. TOC shows the two parameters but for the below dam site. The waters are quite different in that above the dam the water quality fluctuates considerably, whereas below the dam the water has a consistent chemical composition throughout the year. FIGURE 5-5 PROVO RIVER AT HAILSTONE ALKALINITY VS TOC FIGURE 5-6 PROVO RIVER BELOW JORDANELLE DAM ALKALINITY VS. TOC Page 5-8

29 JORDANELLE TROPHIC STATE INDEX The Carlson Trophic State Index (TSI) has been used by the State of Utah to rank and compare the trophic status of lakes and reservoirs within the state. This index uses Chlorophyll a or secchi depth data to calculate a biomassrelated value for trophic state classification. Table 5-2 shows Trophic State calculations for Jordanelle Reservoir. The TSI computed to an average 38 for the water year. This puts the Reservoir in the upper oligotrophic range. Figure 5-3 compares the calculated TSI value to historical values that have been calculated since 2000 the the average flow into the reservoir. The reservoir is in a healthy state recently being in the lower Mesotrophic to higher Oligotrophic range. Jordanelle North End Provo Arm Above Dam Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk Depth Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk Depth Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk Depth6 10/24/2017 Average /27/2018 Average /13/2018 Average /17/2018 Average /14/2018 Average /18/2018 Average Total Average TSI Table 5-2 Jordanelle Reservoir trophic state index calculations Page 5-9

30 60 Jordanelle Reservoir Trophic State Index Eutrophic Range 500 Trop[hic State Index Mesotrophic Range Oligotrophic Range Average In (cfs) 20 0 TSI - PR at Hailstone (cfs) FIGURE 5-5 JORDANELLE RESERVOIR TSI VS. AVERAGE FLOW FOR 1999 TO 2018 DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS The dissolved metal concentrations were analyzed for samples from several sites on the Provo River and Big Dutch Pete Stream. Typically, we see high metals concentrations in the waters from Big Dutch Pete Stream because of the mines that drain into this stream. Zinc exceeded the State s 3A Cold water fishery limit in Big Dutch Pete Stream. Aluminum was also above the state standard on the Provo River above Hailstone and below Jordanelle Dam. Below is a summary of the metals exceedances. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Big Dutch Pete Stream BL Mayflow Cadmium Yes Big Dutch Pete Stream BL Mayflow Zinc Yes Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Aluminum No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Arsenic No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Chromium No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Copper No Page 5-10

31 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS JORDANELLE RESERVOIR The Utah DWQ has identified Jordanelle Reservoir as an impaired waterbody due to ph exceedances. The Provo River above Jordanelle is listed as not supporting for Aluminum. Provo River below Jordanelle Dam is listed as not supporting for E.coli. McHenry Creek is listed for Cadmium and Zinc. Year First Listed Reach Description Location Not Supporting Parameter Use Categories 2010 Provo River-4 Provo River from Deer Creek Reservoir to JordaneNot Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B High 2016 Provo River-5 Provo River from Jordanelle Reservoir to WoodlanNot Supporting Aluminum, 3A Low 2014 McHenry Creek McHenry Creek and tributaries from Jordanelle RNot Supporting Cadmium, 3A; HH3A Low 2014 McHenry Creek McHenry Creek and tributaries from Jordanelle RNot Supporting Zinc, 3A Low TMDL Priority Assessment Unit Impaired Impaired Total Maximun IR Lake Assessment Category Description Parameter Beneficia Daily Load Cycle Acres Unit Category Description l Uses Development First Jordanelle Reservoir 5 Not Supporting ph 3A Low ECOLI MONITORING Ecoli monitoring occurred throughout the various stream segments. For the most part ecoli was not a problem in this portion of the watershed. There were no threshold exceedances in segment for the 2018 Year. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Big Dutch Pete stream bl Mayflower in Jord. State Park Escherichia coli 7 Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Escherichia coli No 0 No Page 5-11

32 Chapter Six Middle Provo River in Heber Valley FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR STREAM MONITORING STATIONS In the area of the Heber Valley Basin, PRWC monitored eight stream locations during the water year as follows: station_id Description Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br Provo River at Heber - Midway Bridge Provo River at River Road Bridge Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Spring Creek at entrance to Provo River E of WWTP London Ditch at US40 Xing Sagebrush-Spring cnl at 1200 North, Heber Northwestward to Provo R. (Flood Control) Each stream monitoring location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. s are highlighted in Red. More detailed analyses of the data are included in the Appendix. PROVO RIVER Provo River below Jordanelle Dam, STORET # This station is located below the outlet works of Jordanelle Dam and samples the water that is released from Jordanelle Reservoir. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. Ten samples were taken below Jordanelle Dam during the water year. One exceedance was recorded for TP in May. Phosphorus concentrations exceed the TMDL limit in October This site traditionally has low levels of phosphorus and solids. Figure 5-2 illustrates both Total Phosphorus and Total at this station for the past twelve years. The reservoir helps reduce the concentrations of phosphorus and solids downstream. Page 6-1

33 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 FIGURE 6-1 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TSS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW JORDANELLE DAM Provo River at River Road Crossing, STORET # This station is located midway between the Jordanelle Dam and Deer Creek Reservoir. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in Table below. The site was sampled 10 times. There was one exceedance of DTP and TP exceeded the limit twice, occurring in April and May Phosphorus is generally quite low at this point and mimics the sampling point below Jordanelle Dam. Page 6-2

34 Phosphate, Tot. Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River at River Road Bridge Number of Samples Provo River at Heber-Midway Bridge, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the Provo River below Berkenshaw Pond near to the Heber Valley Special Service District Reclamation Plant. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. There were 10 samples taken at this site. Phosphorus exceeded the TMDL limit in October 2017 and again in June TP also exceeded the limit once in October Phosphate, Tot. Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River at Heber Midway Bridge Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Provo River at McKeller Bridge above Deer Creek, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the Provo River near USGS flow gage # approximately one half mile upstream from Deer Creek Reservoir. The sampling represents the loading into Deer Creek Reservoir from the Provo River. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the following table. This site was monitored ten times during the water year. The Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus concentrations exceeded the TMDL Limit only once each. This is in contrast to past years, as the site historically has a high frequency of phosphorus exceedances. Higher concentrations occurred at the above Deer Creek Site in Page 6-3

35 Phosphate, Tot. Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Figure 6-2 compares the concentrations of Total Phosphorus at various locations on the Provo River through the Heber Valley. The above Deer Creek site consistently exhibits higher concentrations of phosphorus. FIGURE 6-2 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS SITES ON THE PROVO RIVER THROUGH HEBER Page 6-4

36 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND SPRING CREEK y Flood Control Channel at Provo River, STORET # This station is located to sample water flowing northwestwardly from the marsh north of the railroad east of Provo River near Charleston. This site was only monitored once during the water year in May. Total Phosphorus and total phosphorus exceeded the TMDL Limit. Since this is a channel that directs flood waters from Heber City, which includes urban runoff and some irrigation return flow, this site has intermittent flows. Phosphate, Tot. Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Northwestward to Provo R. (Flood Control) Number of Samples Spring Creek at Entrance to Provo River East of WWTP, STORET # This monitoring site is located on Spring Creek where it enters into the Provo River at a point approximately 2 miles north of Deer Creek Reservoir and 2 miles west of Heber City. Spring Creek drains most of the northeastern portion of Heber Valley. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. This site was monitored eight times during the water year. This site rarely meets the TMDL Targets and usually exceeds them by quite of bit. DTP had an 86% exceedance rate and all samples had TP concentrations over the TMDL Target. Figure 6-3 compares the total phosphorus concentrations and flows for the Provo River and Spring Creek. Spring Creek concentrations are excessively high. Both TP and DTP averages for the Spring Creek site have been well above the PRWC target for many years. The Spring Creek concentrations are much greater than the Provo River concentrations. Phosphate, Tot. Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 1 0 0% >=20 Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Page 6-5

37 Report Spring Creek at entrance to Provo River E of WWTP Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 8 0 0% >=20 FIGURE 6-3 PROVO RIVER VS. SPRING CREEK TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND ANNUAL LOADS Page 6-6

38 The two additional sites monitored were the Sagebrush-Spring Creek Canal at 1200 North and the London Ditch in Heber and are shown in Figure 6-4. The flows are difficult to monitor at this point so loading is difficult to predict accurately. FIGURE 6-4 LONDON DITCH SAMPLING SITES Sagebrush-Spring Creek (London Ditch) at 1200 North, STORET # This monitoring site is located west of US40 on 1200 North in Heber (see Figure 6-4). It collects water from the Northeast areas of Heber City. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. This site was sampled Ten times and it exceeded the TMDL limits for TP and DTP each time. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Page 6-7

39 Report Sagebrush Spring cnl at 1200 North, Heber Number of Samples London Ditch at US40 Crossing, STORET # This site is upstream of the Sagebrush Spring Creek site on 1200 North just below US 40 as can be seen in Figure 6-4. This site is the collection of waters for a few property owners on the east side of US40. The site was monitored 10 times during the year. A summary of water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report London Ditch at US40 Xing Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 The US40 site on London Ditch has slightly better water quality characteristic than the site downstream. However, for each of the times that it was sampled DTP limit and TP limit were exceeded. Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6 show TP and DTP comparisons by month for the three sites related to the Spring Creek issue. It can be seen that TP and DTP follow a similar pattern for the three sites. Also, the highest concentration occurs at Sagebrush-Spring Creek (London Ditch) at 1200 North. The concentrations reduce significantly at the site farther to the north at US40 as well as at the Spring Creek site as it enters the Provo River. The average dissolved phosphorus to total phosphorus for all of the sites averages between 65% to 70%. This would imply that pollutants are coming directly from animal wastes. Even though the flows in the London Ditch are minimal compared to the Spring Creek flows, the London Ditch contributes enough phosphorus to the Page 6-8

40 Spring Creek system so that Spring Creek also exceeds the indicator value. FIGURE 6-5 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS FOR THREE SITES BY MONTH FIGURE 6-6 DTP CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS FOR THREE SITES BY MONTH Page 6-9

41 TRENDS IN THE WATERSHED The data from stream samples that were collected are used with flow data to calculate river loadings of three constituents: TSS, TP, DTP. In the Heber Valley area these loads are calculated in five stream locations: Provo River below Jordanelle, Provo River at River Road, Provo River at Heber Midway Road, Spring Creek at Provo River, Provo River above Deer Creek. A summary of this information for 2010 to 2017 can be found in Table 6-1. s of TMDL limits are highlighted. s of TMDL limits are highlighted. Calculations can be found in the Appendix. Provo River & Spring Creek Provo River at River Road Crossing STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 2,344 3,741 2,145 3,426 1,594 2,466 4,269 4,369 2,859 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 291, , , , , ,769 1,073, ,609 1,018,173 Provo River at Heber - Midway Road Crossing blw Berkenshaw Pond, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 4,205 9,865 2,506 2,020 2,132 3,011 4,552 6,885 2,603 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1, , ,427 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 709,334 2,082, , , , ,383 1,613,517 2,033, ,349 Spring Creek at Provo River, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 2,789 1,887 1,887 1,066 1,883 1,274 7,056 2,980 1,211 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1,431 1,086 1, , ,802 2, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 874, , , , , , , , ,500 Provo River above Deer Creek, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 11,448 16,779 4,591 5,154 5,191 6,204 7,353 12,062 7,171 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 6,107 8,710 3,552 2,139 2,394 3, ,644 2,594 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 2,624,819 4,650,676 4,650,676 1,586,209 1,300,584 1,924,547 3,188,454 2,774,817 1,736,343 Provo River Below Jordanelle Reservoir, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 3,481 3,725 2,145 2,383 2,117 2,261 3,344 6,510 2,669 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1,129 3, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) , , , ,986 Snake Creek above Deer Creek, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1,894 1,995 1,995 1,313 1,139 1,063 2,234 2,087 1,487 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1, ,475 1, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 290, , , , ,336 78, , , ,099 TABLE 6-1 PROVO RIVER AND SPRING CREEK CONCENTRATION AND LOADING SUMMARY Page 6-10

42 Figure 6-7 shows the historical TP loads in the Provo River below Jordanelle Reservoir and above Deer Creek. Jordanelle Reservoir has effectively reduced phosphorus loads in the Provo River below the dam. However, in 2017 the load coming out of Jordanelle was high. This load from Jordanelle was primarily made up of particulate P. The reduction in TP is not as apparent in the Provo River as it enters Deer Creek Reservoir since the concentrations of TP at this point are influenced by a number of sources including Spring Creek and the y Flood Control Channel. The load at this point is approximately 30% dissolved phosphorus which is more bioavailable for algae growth. Load from Jordanelle is 5% dissolved phosphorus Load into Deer Creek is 30% phosphorus Phosphorus is more bioavailable and contributes to algae growth FIGURE 6-7 LOADING AND FLOW COMPARISONS PROVO RIVER BELOW JORDANELLE AND ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIRS Figure 6-8 to Figure Figure 6-11 show the long-term trends for Total and Total Phosphorus from January 1990 to September 2016 at the Provo River at River Road and above Deer Creek. Concentrations for both of these constituents have been reduced over the 15-year period. At River Road Total Phosphorus was approximately.03 mg/l and DTP was 0.01 mg/l in By 2018 they both basically nonexistent. At the Above Deer Creek site, the change has been even more dramatic. Average concentrations for TP were in the range of 0.06 mg/l in 1990, but by 2016 the average concentrations were approximately 0.02 mg/l. The DTP concentrations were averaging mg/l in 1990 and have been reduced to averaging less than 0.01 mg/l. This change has had a huge impact on the water quality in the Heber Valley streams and has most likely contributed to good conditions in Deer Creek Reservoir. FIGURE 6-8 TP AT PROVO RIVER AT RIVER ROAD DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 Page 6-11

43 FIGURE 6-9 TP AT PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 FIGURE 6-10 DTP AT PROVO RIVER AT RIVER ROAD DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 FIGURE 6-11 DTP AT PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 In previous sections, it was shown that Spring Creek s concentrations are significantly higher than the Provo River s concentrations. However, the total loads coming from Spring Creek have stayed relatively consistent (except for 2016) as can be seen in Figure The loads in the Provo River vary over time but follow the inflow consistently. It is the concentrations that tell the better story as shown in Figure This chart shows the concentrations at 3 locations: Page 6-12

44 1. Provo River at Heber Midway Road Just upstream from the confluence with Spring Creek 2. Spring Creek at the confluence with Provo River 3. Provo River above Deer Creek Reservoir The flows are also shown in Figure 6-8 for Spring Creek and Provo River above Deer Creek. The concentrations of dissolved phosphorus is much greater than either of the concentrations in the Provo River. The concentrations in the Provo River are also all under the TMDL Target (shown in orange) while the concentrations in Spring Creek are anywhere from two to five times the TMDL Target. FIGURE 6-12 LOADING COMPARISONS FOR PROVO RIVER AND SPRING CREEK FIGURE 6-13 CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS PROVO RIVER AND SPRING CREEK Page 6-13

45 SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON For treatment plant operators other water quality parameters can have more importance than nutrients. has a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect its quality and treatability. Understanding these characteristics and their interrelationships can help to determine treatment techniques and chemical dosages. A discussion of these constituents is included in Chapter Four. Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15show the correlation between Alkalinity and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) below Jordanelle and above Deer Creek Reservoirs. These graphs are for January 2013 to September The figures show the typical relationship between TOC and Alkalinity at these sites. They have a negative correlation. Both sites are similar, but the concentrations at the above Deer Creek site are greater. FIGURE 6-14 PROVO RIVER BELOW JORDANELLE ALKALINITY VS. TOC FIGURE 6-15 PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR ALKALINITY VS. TOC DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS Page 6-14

46 The dissolved metal concentrations were analyzed for samples from several sites on the Provo River. There were no exceedances in this section of the Provo River. Below is a summary of the metal s exceedances. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Aluminum No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Arsenic No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Chromium No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Copper No 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS The Utah DWQ has identified the following water bodies along the Provo River in Heber Valley as not meeting the state s water quality standards for the listed parameters. Year First Listed Reach Description Location Not Supporting Parameter Use Categories TMDL Priority 2010 Provo River-4 Provo River from Deer Creek Reservoir to Jordanelle Reservoir Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B High 2014 Heber Valley Not Supporting Temperature 3A Low 2016 Spring Creek- Heber Spring Creek and tributaries from confluence with Provo River to headwaters Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B Low The fact that Spring Creek is not meeting the E. coli standard is another indication that the pollutants in the spring creek system are from animal wastes. ECOLI MONITORING Ecoli monitoring occurred throughout the various stream segments. For the most part ecoli was not a problem in this portion of the watershed. There were no threshold exceedances in segment for the 2018 Year. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Escherichia coli No Page 6-15

47 Chapter Six Middle Provo River in Heber Valley FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR STREAM MONITORING STATIONS In the area of the Heber Valley Basin, PRWC monitored eight stream locations during the water year as follows: station_id Description Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br Provo River at Heber - Midway Bridge Provo River at River Road Bridge Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Spring Creek at entrance to Provo River E of WWTP London Ditch at US40 Xing Sagebrush-Spring cnl at 1200 North, Heber Northwestward to Provo R. (Flood Control) Each stream monitoring location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. s are highlighted in Red. More detailed analyses of the data are included in the Appendix. PROVO RIVER Provo River below Jordanelle Dam, STORET # This station is located below the outlet works of Jordanelle Dam and samples the water that is released from Jordanelle Reservoir. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. Ten samples were taken below Jordanelle Dam during the water year. One exceedance was recorded for TP in May. Phosphorus concentrations exceed the TMDL limit in October This site traditionally has low levels of phosphorus and solids. Figure 5-2 illustrates both Total Phosphorus and Total at this station for the past twelve years. The reservoir helps reduce the concentrations of phosphorus and solids downstream. Page 6-1

48 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 FIGURE 6-1 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TSS CONCENTRATIONS BELOW JORDANELLE DAM Provo River at River Road Crossing, STORET # This station is located midway between the Jordanelle Dam and Deer Creek Reservoir. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in Table below. The site was sampled 10 times. There was one exceedance of DTP and TP exceeded the limit twice, occurring in April and May Phosphorus is generally quite low at this point and mimics the sampling point below Jordanelle Dam. Page 6-2

49 Phosphate, Tot. Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River at River Road Bridge Number of Samples Provo River at Heber-Midway Bridge, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the Provo River below Berkenshaw Pond near to the Heber Valley Special Service District Reclamation Plant. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. There were 10 samples taken at this site. Phosphorus exceeded the TMDL limit in October 2017 and again in June TP also exceeded the limit once in October Phosphate, Tot. Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River at Heber Midway Bridge Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Provo River at McKeller Bridge above Deer Creek, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the Provo River near USGS flow gage # approximately one half mile upstream from Deer Creek Reservoir. The sampling represents the loading into Deer Creek Reservoir from the Provo River. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the following table. This site was monitored ten times during the water year. The Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus concentrations exceeded the TMDL Limit only once each. This is in contrast to past years, as the site historically has a high frequency of phosphorus exceedances. Higher concentrations occurred at the above Deer Creek Site in Page 6-3

50 Phosphate, Tot. Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 Figure 6-2 compares the concentrations of Total Phosphorus at various locations on the Provo River through the Heber Valley. The above Deer Creek site consistently exhibits higher concentrations of phosphorus. FIGURE 6-2 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS SITES ON THE PROVO RIVER THROUGH HEBER Page 6-4

51 FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND SPRING CREEK y Flood Control Channel at Provo River, STORET # This station is located to sample water flowing northwestwardly from the marsh north of the railroad east of Provo River near Charleston. This site was only monitored once during the water year in May. Total Phosphorus and total phosphorus exceeded the TMDL Limit. Since this is a channel that directs flood waters from Heber City, which includes urban runoff and some irrigation return flow, this site has intermittent flows. Phosphate, Tot. Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Northwestward to Provo R. (Flood Control) Number of Samples Spring Creek at Entrance to Provo River East of WWTP, STORET # This monitoring site is located on Spring Creek where it enters into the Provo River at a point approximately 2 miles north of Deer Creek Reservoir and 2 miles west of Heber City. Spring Creek drains most of the northeastern portion of Heber Valley. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. This site was monitored eight times during the water year. This site rarely meets the TMDL Targets and usually exceeds them by quite of bit. DTP had an 86% exceedance rate and all samples had TP concentrations over the TMDL Target. Figure 6-3 compares the total phosphorus concentrations and flows for the Provo River and Spring Creek. Spring Creek concentrations are excessively high. Both TP and DTP averages for the Spring Creek site have been well above the PRWC target for many years. The Spring Creek concentrations are much greater than the Provo River concentrations. Phosphate, Tot. Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 1 0 0% >=20 Phosphate, Tot. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Page 6-5

52 Report Spring Creek at entrance to Provo River E of WWTP Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 8 0 0% >=20 FIGURE 6-3 PROVO RIVER VS. SPRING CREEK TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AND ANNUAL LOADS Page 6-6

53 The two additional sites monitored were the Sagebrush-Spring Creek Canal at 1200 North and the London Ditch in Heber and are shown in Figure 6-4. The flows are difficult to monitor at this point so loading is difficult to predict accurately. FIGURE 6-4 LONDON DITCH SAMPLING SITES Sagebrush-Spring Creek (London Ditch) at 1200 North, STORET # This monitoring site is located west of US40 on 1200 North in Heber (see Figure 6-4). It collects water from the Northeast areas of Heber City. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. This site was sampled Ten times and it exceeded the TMDL limits for TP and DTP each time. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Page 6-7

54 Report Sagebrush Spring cnl at 1200 North, Heber Number of Samples London Ditch at US40 Crossing, STORET # This site is upstream of the Sagebrush Spring Creek site on 1200 North just below US 40 as can be seen in Figure 6-4. This site is the collection of waters for a few property owners on the east side of US40. The site was monitored 10 times during the year. A summary of water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report London Ditch at US40 Xing Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 The US40 site on London Ditch has slightly better water quality characteristic than the site downstream. However, for each of the times that it was sampled DTP limit and TP limit were exceeded. Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6 show TP and DTP comparisons by month for the three sites related to the Spring Creek issue. It can be seen that TP and DTP follow a similar pattern for the three sites. Also, the highest concentration occurs at Sagebrush-Spring Creek (London Ditch) at 1200 North. The concentrations reduce significantly at the site farther to the north at US40 as well as at the Spring Creek site as it enters the Provo River. The average dissolved phosphorus to total phosphorus for all of the sites averages between 65% to 70%. This would imply that pollutants are coming directly from animal wastes. Even though the flows in the London Ditch are minimal compared to the Spring Creek flows, the London Ditch contributes enough phosphorus to the Page 6-8

55 Spring Creek system so that Spring Creek also exceeds the indicator value. FIGURE 6-5 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS FOR THREE SITES BY MONTH FIGURE 6-6 DTP CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS FOR THREE SITES BY MONTH Page 6-9

56 TRENDS IN THE WATERSHED The data from stream samples that were collected are used with flow data to calculate river loadings of three constituents: TSS, TP, DTP. In the Heber Valley area these loads are calculated in five stream locations: Provo River below Jordanelle, Provo River at River Road, Provo River at Heber Midway Road, Spring Creek at Provo River, Provo River above Deer Creek. A summary of this information for 2010 to 2017 can be found in Table 6-1. s of TMDL limits are highlighted. s of TMDL limits are highlighted. Calculations can be found in the Appendix. Provo River & Spring Creek Provo River at River Road Crossing STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 2,344 3,741 2,145 3,426 1,594 2,466 4,269 4,369 2,859 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 291, , , , , ,769 1,073, ,609 1,018,173 Provo River at Heber - Midway Road Crossing blw Berkenshaw Pond, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 4,205 9,865 2,506 2,020 2,132 3,011 4,552 6,885 2,603 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1, , ,427 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 709,334 2,082, , , , ,383 1,613,517 2,033, ,349 Spring Creek at Provo River, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 2,789 1,887 1,887 1,066 1,883 1,274 7,056 2,980 1,211 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1,431 1,086 1, , ,802 2, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 874, , , , , , , , ,500 Provo River above Deer Creek, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 11,448 16,779 4,591 5,154 5,191 6,204 7,353 12,062 7,171 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 6,107 8,710 3,552 2,139 2,394 3, ,644 2,594 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 2,624,819 4,650,676 4,650,676 1,586,209 1,300,584 1,924,547 3,188,454 2,774,817 1,736,343 Provo River Below Jordanelle Reservoir, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 3,481 3,725 2,145 2,383 2,117 2,261 3,344 6,510 2,669 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1,129 3, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) , , , ,986 Snake Creek above Deer Creek, STORET Weighted Average (cfs) (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1,894 1,995 1,995 1,313 1,139 1,063 2,234 2,087 1,487 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 1, ,475 1, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 290, , , , ,336 78, , , ,099 TABLE 6-1 PROVO RIVER AND SPRING CREEK CONCENTRATION AND LOADING SUMMARY Page 6-10

57 Figure 6-7 shows the historical TP loads in the Provo River below Jordanelle Reservoir and above Deer Creek. Jordanelle Reservoir has effectively reduced phosphorus loads in the Provo River below the dam. However, in 2017 the load coming out of Jordanelle was high. This load from Jordanelle was primarily made up of particulate P. The reduction in TP is not as apparent in the Provo River as it enters Deer Creek Reservoir since the concentrations of TP at this point are influenced by a number of sources including Spring Creek and the y Flood Control Channel. The load at this point is approximately 30% dissolved phosphorus which is more bioavailable for algae growth. Load from Jordanelle is 5% dissolved phosphorus Load into Deer Creek is 30% phosphorus Phosphorus is more bioavailable and contributes to algae growth FIGURE 6-7 LOADING AND FLOW COMPARISONS PROVO RIVER BELOW JORDANELLE AND ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIRS Figure 6-8 to Figure Figure 6-11 show the long-term trends for Total and Total Phosphorus from January 1990 to September 2016 at the Provo River at River Road and above Deer Creek. Concentrations for both of these constituents have been reduced over the 15-year period. At River Road Total Phosphorus was approximately.03 mg/l and DTP was 0.01 mg/l in By 2018 they both basically nonexistent. At the Above Deer Creek site, the change has been even more dramatic. Average concentrations for TP were in the range of 0.06 mg/l in 1990, but by 2016 the average concentrations were approximately 0.02 mg/l. The DTP concentrations were averaging mg/l in 1990 and have been reduced to averaging less than 0.01 mg/l. This change has had a huge impact on the water quality in the Heber Valley streams and has most likely contributed to good conditions in Deer Creek Reservoir. FIGURE 6-8 TP AT PROVO RIVER AT RIVER ROAD DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 Page 6-11

58 FIGURE 6-9 TP AT PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 FIGURE 6-10 DTP AT PROVO RIVER AT RIVER ROAD DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 FIGURE 6-11 DTP AT PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR DECEMBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 In previous sections, it was shown that Spring Creek s concentrations are significantly higher than the Provo River s concentrations. However, the total loads coming from Spring Creek have stayed relatively consistent (except for 2016) as can be seen in Figure The loads in the Provo River vary over time but follow the inflow consistently. It is the concentrations that tell the better story as shown in Figure This chart shows the concentrations at 3 locations: Page 6-12

59 1. Provo River at Heber Midway Road Just upstream from the confluence with Spring Creek 2. Spring Creek at the confluence with Provo River 3. Provo River above Deer Creek Reservoir The flows are also shown in Figure 6-8 for Spring Creek and Provo River above Deer Creek. The concentrations of dissolved phosphorus is much greater than either of the concentrations in the Provo River. The concentrations in the Provo River are also all under the TMDL Target (shown in orange) while the concentrations in Spring Creek are anywhere from two to five times the TMDL Target. FIGURE 6-12 LOADING COMPARISONS FOR PROVO RIVER AND SPRING CREEK FIGURE 6-13 CONCENTRATION COMPARISONS PROVO RIVER AND SPRING CREEK Page 6-13

60 SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON For treatment plant operators other water quality parameters can have more importance than nutrients. has a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect its quality and treatability. Understanding these characteristics and their interrelationships can help to determine treatment techniques and chemical dosages. A discussion of these constituents is included in Chapter Four. Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15show the correlation between Alkalinity and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) below Jordanelle and above Deer Creek Reservoirs. These graphs are for January 2013 to September The figures show the typical relationship between TOC and Alkalinity at these sites. They have a negative correlation. Both sites are similar, but the concentrations at the above Deer Creek site are greater. FIGURE 6-14 PROVO RIVER BELOW JORDANELLE ALKALINITY VS. TOC FIGURE 6-15 PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR ALKALINITY VS. TOC DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS Page 6-14

61 The dissolved metal concentrations were analyzed for samples from several sites on the Provo River. There were no exceedances in this section of the Provo River. Below is a summary of the metal s exceedances. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Aluminum No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Arsenic No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Chromium No Provo R BL Jordanelle Dam Copper No 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS The Utah DWQ has identified the following water bodies along the Provo River in Heber Valley as not meeting the state s water quality standards for the listed parameters. Year First Listed Reach Description Location Not Supporting Parameter Use Categories TMDL Priority 2010 Provo River-4 Provo River from Deer Creek Reservoir to Jordanelle Reservoir Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B High 2014 Heber Valley Not Supporting Temperature 3A Low 2016 Spring Creek- Heber Spring Creek and tributaries from confluence with Provo River to headwaters Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B Low The fact that Spring Creek is not meeting the E. coli standard is another indication that the pollutants in the spring creek system are from animal wastes. ECOLI MONITORING Ecoli monitoring occurred throughout the various stream segments. For the most part ecoli was not a problem in this portion of the watershed. There were no threshold exceedances in segment for the 2018 Year. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo River bl Jordanelle Dam Escherichia coli No Page 6-15

62 Chapter Seven Deer Creek and Tributaries FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR STREAM MONITORING STATIONS In the area surrounding Deer Creek Reservoir PRWC and DWQ monitored five stream locations. The monitoring locations are as follows and are shown in Figure 7-1. station_id Description Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br Lower Charleston Canal ab Daniels Ck Snake Creek above Deer Creek Res Main Creek above US189 at driveway bridge Provo River below Deer Creek Res. FIGURE 7-1 DEER CREEK AREA SAMPLING SITES Each stream monitoring location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. s are shown in Red. More detailed analyses of the data are included in the Appendices.

63 Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Bridge, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the Provo River near USGS flow gage # approximately one-half mile upstream from Deer Creek Reservoir. The sampling represents the loading into Deer Creek Reservoir from the Provo River. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown in the table below. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River above Deer Creek Res. at McKellar Br. This site was monitored ten times during the water year. The concentrations of Phosphorus and Total Phosphorus only exceeded the TMDL Limit once each. This site historically has phosphorus exceedances, but this year exhibited much better water quality conditions. Provo River below Deer Creek Dam, STORET # This monitoring site is immediately below Deer Creek dam near the USGS gage station # The water released from the reservoir is sampled here for analysis. A summary of the data is shown in the Table below. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 This site was sampled ten times during the water year. The dissolved phosphorus concentration exceeded the TMDL Limit eight times with an average concentration of 0.03 mg/l. The total phosphorus concentration exceeded the TMDL limit six times with an average concentration for the year of 0.03 mg/l. Page 7-2

64 Snake Creek above Deer Creek Reservoir, STORET # This monitoring site is located on Snake Creek slightly upstream from its confluence with Provo River above Deer Creek Reservoir. Snake Creek winds in a southerly direction through the west side of Heber. The Midway Fish Hatchery discharges into Snake Creek approximately one mile above this monitoring site. A summary of the water quality data for this location is shown below. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Snake Creek above Deer Creek Res. At one time Snake Creek was a major contributor of pollution to Deer Creek Reservoir. Then, during the 1980s many cleanup activities were initiated with the dairies and farms in the area. Snake Creek became a very clean creek. However, over the past few years we have seen an increase in both DTP and TP. The site was sampled ten times during the water year. Both DTP and TP exceeded the TMDL limit every time during the water year. Average concentrations for these two constituents were above the TMDL limits. Lower Charleston Canal above Daniels Creek, S TORET # This monitoring site is located just upstream from Daniels Creek just before it flows into Deer Creek Reservoir near USGS gage # Much of the water originates from return flows of agricultural lands in the Charleston area. The site was sampled four times during the year. Each time the concentrations of TP and DTP exceeded the TMDL limits. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Lower Charleston Canal ab Daniels Ck Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 4 0 0% >=20 Page 7-3

65 Daniels Creek 100 feet below LCC, STORET # This monitoring site is located on Daniels Creek just before it flows into Deer Creek Reservoir near USGS gage # After spring snowmelt is completed in Daniels Canyon, much of the water in Daniels Creek originates from return flows of agricultural lands of the east side of Heber Valley. The site was not sampled during the water year. Main Creek above US189 at driveway bridge STORET # This monitoring site is located on Main Creek just before it discharges into Wallsburg Bay of Deer Creek Reservoir. Main Creek drains a large area to the southeast of Deer Creek including Round Valley. The sampling site was moved due to some construction. The previous site was Main Creek at Bridge above Reservoir, STORET # The Main Creek site was sampled six times during the water year. DTP and TP concentrations exceeded TMDL Targets every time. As in prior years, the temperature reading exceeded the limit in August. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Main Creek above US189 at driveway bridge Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature % >=20 STREAM LOADINGS INTO DEER CREEK RESERVOIR The data from stream samples that were collected are used with flow data to calculate river loadings of three constituents: TSS, TP, DTP. In the Heber Valley area these loads are calculated for the three main tributaries: Main Creek, Snake Creek and Provo River above Deer Creek. A summary of this information for 2010 to the current water year can be found in Table 7-1. s of TMDL limits are highlighted in Green. Calculations can be found in the Appendix. Snake Creek continues to show high concentrations of TP. Snake Creek may be one of the areas that needs review to see if BMPs could help reduce the concentrations. Additionally, Main Creek average concentrations have increased over the past few years. Page 7-4

66 Deer Creek Tributaries Main Creek abv Deer Creek STORET & (starting in 2016) STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 1, DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 1,072, ,876 73, ,119 7, , ,626 46,965 Snake Creek above Deer Creek STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 1,894 1,995 1,108 1,313 1,139 1,063 2,234 2,087 1,487 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 1, ,475 1, TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 290, , , , ,336 78, , , ,099 Provo River abv Deer Creek STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 11,448 16,779 4,591 5,154 5,191 6,204 7,353 12,062 5,103 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 6,107 8,710 3,552 2,139 2,394 3, ,644 1,560 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 2,624,819 4,650, ,171 1,586,209 1,300,584 1,924,547 3,188,454 2,774,817 1,219,347 Total TP Load (Input) 13,342 20,335 6,095 6,754 6,676 7,296 9,869 14,665 6,704 Total DTP Load (Input) 7,844 9,805 4,451 2,866 3,323 4,579 2,538 5,091 2,387 Table 7-1 Quality Summary for Deer Creek Tributaries Monitoring Sites Table 7-2 shows how these TP loads compare to TMDL target loads which were identified in the 2002 Deer Creek Reservoir Drainage TMDL Study. All inputs to Deer Creek Reservoir were below TMDL Target Loads which can be partially attributed to a low water year. TABLE 7-2 DEER CREEK RESERVOIR TP LOADING SUMMARY Table 7-3 Summarizes both TP and DTP loads from the major streams entering Deer Creek Reservoir along with estimates for groundwater and storm water. Overall, it is estimated that 64% of the phosphorus load is in the form of dissolved phosphorus. This percentage has been as high as 82% in recent years. phosphorus is significant because it is readily available for algae and plants to use for growth. Page 7-5

67 Tributary TP Load 2018 Loads % Total TP Load DTP Load % Stream Load is TABLE 7-3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND DISSOLVED TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS TO DEER CREEK % of Total DTP Load Provo 5,103 52% 1,560 31% 28% Snake 1,487 15% % 14% Daniels 0 0% 0% Main 114 1% 43 38% 1% Groundwater 2,725 28% 2, % 49% Storm 400 4% % 7% Total 9, % 5,512 64% 100% Monthly Distribution of Loading in the Provo River is shown in Figure 7-2. The majority of TP load typically occurs in the spring during runoff, whereas, the DTP load is normally dispersed throughout the year. However, this year we saw large phosphorus loads in the summer. FIGURE 7-2 PROVO RIVER TP AND DTP LOADING VS. FLOW LONG TERM TRENDS Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-4 show the long-term trends for Total and Total Phosphorus from December 1990 to September 2018 at the above Deer Creek site. Concentrations for both of these constituents have been reduced over the 15-year period. The changes have been dramatic. Average concentrations for TP were in the range of 0.06 mg/l in 1990s, but in 2018 the average concentrations were close to 0.02 mg/l. The DTP concentrations were averaging mg/l in 1990 and have been reduced to averaging less than 0.01 mg/l. The one caveat is that we are still seeing spikes in DTP. The reduction of Page 7-6

68 phosphorus concentrations has had a huge impact on the water quality in the Heber Valley streams and has most likely contributed to good conditions in Deer Creek Reservoir. FIGURE 7-3 TP AT PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR JANUARY 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 FIGURE 7-4 DTP AT PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK RESERVOIR JANUARY 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 2016 SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON For treatment plant operators other water quality parameters can have more importance than nutrients. has a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect its quality and treatability. Understanding these characteristics and their interrelationships can help to determine treatment techniques and chemical dosages. A discussion of these constituents is included in Chapter Four. Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6 show the correlation between Alkalinity and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) above Deer Creek Reservoir and Snake Creek respectively. These graphs are for January 2015 to September The figures show the typical relationship between TOC and Alkalinity at these sites. Of interest is the difference of the water in these two waterways. Snake Creek water is much more alkaline than the Provo River. The Total Organic Carbon is greater in the Provo River. The alkalinity of natural water is determined by the soil and bedrock through which it passes. The main sources for natural alkalinity are rocks which contain carbonate, bicarbonate, and hydroxide compounds. Limestone that is found in the Midway area is rich in carbonates, so waters flowing through limestone regions or bedrock containing carbonates generally have high alkalinity. Page 7-7

69 FIGURE 7-5 PROVO RIVER ABOVE DEER CREEK ALKALINITY VS. TOC FIGURE 7-6 SNAKE CREEK ABOVE DEER CREEK ALKALINITY VS. TOC DISSOLVED METALS ANALYSIS The dissolved metal concentrations were analyzed for samples from several sites on the Deer Creek Reservoir as well as two non-provo River tributaries. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Arsenic No Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Chromium No Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Copper No Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Selenium No Snake Creek above Deer Creek Res. Arsenic No Snake Creek above Deer Creek Res. Zinc No Page 7-8

70 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS The Utah DWQ has identified the following water bodies as not meeting the state s water quality standards for the listed parameters. E. coli is a major issue in the tributaries to Deer Creek. This is most probably due to agricultural practices. The arsenic found in Snake Creek has been documented for many years and appears to be naturally occurring due to hot springs in the area. Deer Creek Reservoir continues to be listed for temperature for cold water fisheries. This is due to high temperatures on the surface of the reservoir during summer. Year First Listed Reach Description Location Not Supporting Parameter Use Categories 2010 Provo River-4 Provo River from Deer Creek Reservoir to Jordane Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B High 2010 Main Creek-1 Main Creek and tributaries from Deer Creek Rese Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B Low 2016 Main Creek-1 Main Creek and tributaries from Deer Creek Rese Not Supporting OE Bioassessment 3A Low 2016 Main Creek-2 Main Creek and tributaries from Round Valley to Not Supporting E. coli 1C; 2B Low 2006 Snake Creek-1 Snake Creek from confluence with Provo River to Not Supporting Arsenic, 1C; HH1C High 2014 Heber Valley Not Supporting Temperature 3A Low TMDL Priority Assessment Unit Description Deer Creek Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load Development IR Cycle First Assessment Unit Category Category Description Impaired Parameter Impaired Beneficial Uses Priority Listed Lake Acres 5 Not Temperature 3A Low 2006 Supporting 2,560 TMDL Approved Oxygen 3A ,560 ECOLI MONITORING E. coli monitoring occurred throughout the various stream segments. As indicated in the 303(D) List of Impaired s for this segment, E. coli exceeded the established threshold in this segment at the Main Creek monitoring station. Below are the results of measurements in this segment for the 2018 Year. Organization Parameter Min Max Mean Upper Threshold > 10% s Provo River below Deer Creek Res. Escherichia coli No Snake Creek above Deer Creek Res. Escherichia coli No Main Creek 0.4 mile AB U.S. Highway 189 at driveway bridescherichia coli , Yes Lower Charleston Canal ab Daniels Ck Escherichia coli No DEER CREEK RESERVOIR MONITORING On the Deer Creek Reservoir, three locations were monitored during the water year. Reservoir monitoring included samples taken at various depths in each location as well as profiles of physical characteristics at multiple depths to generate a profile of the water characteristics. The three monitoring locations listed are as follows: station_id Description Deer Creek Reservoir above dam Deer Creek Reservoir midlake Deer Creek Reservoir Upper end Page 7-9

71 Each location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. s are highlighted. Deer Creek Reservoir Upper End, STORET # The north end of Deer Creek Reservoir near the inlet of the Provo River and Snake Creek is relatively shallow with an average depth of 4.9 meters. This location was monitored four times during the water year. Samples were collected from the surface and the bottom. A combined summary of the water quality data for the surface and bottom is shown below. Usually this site has high water temperatures because of its shallow nature and high phosphorus concentrations. Data for Total Phosphorus was only available for four months and concentration exceeded the TMDL Target once, in October The Total Phosphorus concentration exceeded the TMDL Target in October 2017, and April, July, August and September of The Temperature at the surface did not exceed the limit during the water year. Chlorophyll a exceeded 10 in April. Date oxygen (DO) Chlorophyll a Depth Phosphorus, as P Phosphorus, Total as P Temperature,water Turbidity Secchi ph Total Average Total Max Total Min Midlake, STORET # Samples at this site were collected seven times at various depths; ( surface, above thermocline, middepth, below thermocline and bottom ) depending on the strength of the stratification. A combined summary of the water quality data is provided below. Date oxygen (DO) Chlorophyll a Depth Phosphorus, as P Phosphorus, Total as P Temperature,water Turbidity Secchi ph Total Average Total Max Total Min Typical conditions existed at this site with high phosphorus during the late summer and fall with low D.O. at the bottom of the reservoir and high phosphorus concentrations. But, overall this site had better water quality conditions then previous years. Also there were algae blooms that occurred in April and September. Above Dam, STORET # Samples were collected at various depths at this site on four separate occasions during the water year. A summary of the water quality is given below. Date oxygen (DO) Chlorophyll a Depth Phosphorus, as P Phosphorus, Total as P Temperature,water Turbidity Secchi ph Total Average Total Max Total Min Like the midlake site, the water quality above the dam had generally better conditions than have been recorded in previous years. Typical conditions existed at this site with high phosphorus during the late summer and fall with low D.O. at the bottom of the reservoir and high phosphorus concentrations and high temperatures. Chlorophyll a concentrations were high in April. Page 7-10

72 DEER CREEK TROPHIC STATE INDEX The Carlson Trophic State Index (TSI) has been used by the State of Utah to rank and compare the trophic status of lakes and reservoirs within the state. This index uses Chlorophyll a or secchi depth data to calculate the bio-mass related value. Table 7-4 shows Trophic State calculations for Deer Creek. The TSI computed to an average 41 for the water year. This puts the reservoir in the lower mesotrophic range which indicates an intermediate level of productivity in the reservoir. These lakes are commonly clear water lakes with medium levels of nutrients Year Deer Creek Above Dam Midlake Upper End Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk Depth Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk Depth Chlorophyll a Secchi Disk Depth 10/25/2017 Average /19/2018 Average /24/2018 Average /14/2018 Average /18/2018 Average /15/2018 Average /24/2018 Average Total Average TSI TABLE 7-4 DEER CREEK TROPHIC STATE INDEX CALCULATIONS Figure 7-7 Deer Creek Trophic State Index calculations compares the calculated TSI value to historical values for a 20-year period. For the past nine years the reservoir has been in a very healthy state with lower phosphorus concentrations, clear water, and low algae biomass as compared to the 1980s and 2004 to Page 7-11

73 FIGURE 7-7 DEER CREEK TROPHIC STATE INDEX CALCULATIONS TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) SUMMARY In 2002 a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis and report were prepared for Deer Creek Reservoir. In this report target end points were identified to maintain the water quality in Deer Creek Reservoir. Table 7-5 is a summary of loadings into Deer Creek Reservoir. During the water year the total loads into Deer Creek did not meet the TMDL limit of 15,300 kg/year total phosphorus. August through October TP loads exceeded the TMDL limits. Table 7-6 summarizes the stream and lake phosphorus concentrations and algal biomass for various stations and compares them to the TMDL limits for 2008 to The values are highlighted in red where the TMDL targets are exceeded. Even though Total Phosphorus concentrations are trending up (as shown in Figure 7-8) the Trophic State Index (TSI) indicates that the reservoir is squarely in the Mesotrophic range. However, there has been an uptick in calculated TSI for the 2018 Year. Tributary TP Load 2019 Loads % Total TP Load DTP Load TABLE 7-5 LOADINGS INTO DEER CREEK RESERVOIR FOR TMDL % Stream Load is % of Total DTP Load Provo 10,524 67% 3,292 31% 45% Snake 786 5% % 7% Daniels (estimate) 0 0% 0 0% 0% Main 1,298 8% % 5% Groundwater 2,725 17% 2, % 37% Storm 400 3% % 5% Total 15, % 7,278 46% 100% Page 7-12

74 Instream phosphorus Concentrations Provo River TP Provo River DTP Snake Creek TP Snake Creek DTP Main Creek TP Main Creek DTP Inlake Phosphorus Concentrations Above Dam Midlake Upper End Algal Biomass Above Dam Midlake Upper End TABLE 7-6 DEER CREEK WQ SUMMARY Table 7-7 is a comparison of TMDL targets for 2008 to For the 2018 water year Deer Creek was not meeting most of the TMDL targets. Deer Creek TMDL Targets being Met? TP - 15,300 Kg/YR Total Phosphorus Yes Yes NO NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NO DTP - 9,700 Kg/YR Total Phosphorus Yes Yes NO NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TP (Fall) Kg/Month TP August October NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Yes No No NO DTP (Fall) Kg/Month Total Phosphorus Yes NO NO NO NO NO Yes Yes Yes No Yes August October Fish Habitat No Fish Kills Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Average TSI 40 to 45 NO NO NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NO Oxygen >50% Column with D.O. >4.0 mg/l (Aug. & NO NO NO Yes Yes NO Yes NO Yes Yes NO Sept) In-lake Phosphorus Concentration NO NO NO Yes Yes NO NO NO NO NO NO mg/l TP (All Depths) Algae Biomass 5.1 ug/l Chlorophyll a NO NO NO Yes NO NO NO NO NO Yes NO TABLE 7-7 DEER CREEK TMDL LIMIT SUMMARY Page 7-13

75 FIGURE 7-8 AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS FOR PROVO RIVER, SNAKE CREEK & MAIN CREEK 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS DEER CREEK RESERVOIR The Utah DWQ has identified Deer Creek Reservoir as not meeting the state s water quality standards for temperature. Additionally, Main Creek and the Provo River from Deer Creek to Jordanelle are not supporting the beneficial use for E. coli. Year First Listed Reach Description Location 2010 Provo River-4 Provo River from Deer Creek Reservoir to Jordanelle Reservoir 2010 Main Creek-1 Main Creek and tributaries from Deer Creek Reservoir to Round Valley 2016 Main Creek-1 Main Creek and tributaries from Deer Creek Reservoir to Round Valley 2016 Main Creek-2 Main Creek and tributaries from Round Valley to headwaters Not Supporting Not Supporting Not Supporting Not Supporting Not Supporting 2014 Heber Valley Not Supporting Parameter Use Categories TMDL Priority E. coli 1C; 2B High E. coli 1C; 2B Low OE Bioassessment 3A Low E. coli 1C; 2B Low Temperature 3A Low Assessment Unit Description Assessment Unit Category Category Description Impaired Parameter Impaired Beneficial Uses Total Maximun IR Cycle First Listed Lake Acres Deer Creek Reservoir 5 Not Supporting Temperature 3A Low ,560 TMDL Approved Oxygen 3A ,560 GROUNDWATER MONITORING Table 7-8 show the results of groundwater monitoring in the Heber Valley for Nitrates, Total Phosphorus and. The monitoring locations are shown in Figure 7-7. The bold red Page 7-14

76 indicates higher concentrations of DTP. The gradients show that both nitrates and dissolved solids are consistently increasing throughout the Lake Creek drainage area of the Heber Valley. The reason(s) that these increases are occurring has not been identified. However, it could be due to a lowering of the groundwater in the area, or from irrigation with water with higher concentrations of these constituents, or from other means. A study of the impacts that localized projects may have had on the groundwater quality in the area should be conducted to determine the cause of the increasing concentrations. Wells number 5, 7, and 10 have not been monitored since 2010 due to budget cuts. However, a larger suite of parameters are being tested at the other wells annually. Wasatch y Monitoring Wells USGS Station Nitrates (mg/l) DTP (mg/l) Total (mg/l) Well No. Number Avg Avg Avg N/A N/A N/A TABLE 7-8 GROUNDWATER QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS 2014 TO 2018 FIGURE 7-7 GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS Page 7-15

77 Chapter Eight The Lower Provo River FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR INTRODUCTION This chapter will present and analyze the water quality monitoring for the six-mile stretch of the Provo River and its tributaries starting below Deer Creek Reservoir to the Murdock Diversion. STREAM MONITORING STATIONS This year s monitoring plan included six sites in this area. Below is listed the description of each site with its STORET number. station_id Description Provo River below Deer Creek Reservoir Provo River at Murdock Diversion Provo River at Olmsted Diversion Lower South Fork Provo River at Vivian Park Lower North Fork of Provo River at Wildwood Little Deer Creek above confluence with Provo River Each stream monitoring location is discussed individually in the sections that follow. A summary table of the water quality monitoring results is presented. More detailed analyses of the data are included in the Appendix. Provo River below Deer Creek Dam, STORET # This monitoring site is immediately below Deer Creek dam near the USGS gage station # The water released from the reservoir is sampled here for analysis. s are shown in Red. A summary of the data is shown in the Table below. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum

78 Report Provo River below Deer Creek Res. This site was sampled ten times during the water year. The dissolved phosphorus concentration exceeded the TMDL Target eight times during the water year, with the annual average concentration 0.03 mg/l. The total phosphorus concentration exceeded the TMDL limit six times with an average concentration for the year of 0.03 mg/l. The samples gathered in August 2018 were very high which brought the averages up. This is typical as Deer Creek becomes anoxic in the late summer and early fall. Releases from Deer Creek come from the bottom of the reservoir which has high concentrations due to the anoxic condition. Provo River at Olmsted Diversion, STORET # This monitoring site is located on the Provo River at the Olmsted Diversion about one mile downstream from the South Fork at Vivian Park. This water quality data represents the combined flow of the Lower Provo River with its major tributaries. A summary of the monitoring data is shown below. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River at Olmsted Diversion Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 The water in the Provo River got better downstream. There were nine samples taken at Olmsted with 75% and 56% of the samples exceeding the TMDL limits for DTP and TP respectively. Like the site below the dam, this sampling location experiences high phosphorus concentrations during the later summer and early fall. Provo River at Murdock Diversion, STORET # This site monitored the water quality in the Provo River at the Murdock Diversion located approximately one mile from the mouth of Provo Canyon. This represents the water in the Provo River leaving Provo Canyon entering into Utah Valley. A summary of the monitoring data is shown below. Page 8-1

79 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Provo River at Murdock Diversion The water quality improved downstream. Ten samples were taken at this site and with 56% exceeding the limits for DTP and half of the samples exceeding the limits for TP. Little Deer Creek above Confluence with Provo River, STORET # This monitoring site is located on Little Deer Creek near its confluence with the Provo River just below Deer Creek Dam. This creek drains a large mountainous area nestled in the Wasatch Mountains directly to the north. A summary of the data is shown below. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature % >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Little Deer Creek above cnfl with Provo River Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 8 0 0% >=20 The Little Deer Creek subwatershed experienced a large fire some years ago. Higher concentrations of phosphorus have come from this subwatershed than in years before the fire. DTP concentrations only exceeded the limits in 22% of the samples, with TP concentrations exceeding the limits in 20%. Lower North Fork of Provo River at Wildwood, STORET # This site monitors the North Fork of the Provo River at the point of confluence with the Provo River near Wildwood. The North Fork drains the northern mountainous area surrounding Sundance Ski Resort and Aspen Grove. A summary of the monitoring data is shown below in the Table. Page 8-2

80 This watershed continues to exhibit good water quality in the stream. This is good considering the amount of development that is in the Wildwood / Sundance area. T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Lower North Fork of Provo R at Wildwood This watershed continues to exhibit good water quality in the stream. This is good considering the amount of development that is in the Wildwood / Sundance area. DTP concentrations exceeded the limits 25% of the time, while only one in nine samples showed concentrations of TP higher than the TMDL target. Lower South Fork Provo River at Vivian Park, STORET # This monitoring site is located in Provo Canyon on the Lower South Fork of the Provo River near its confluence with the Provo River by Vivian Park. This creek drains a large mountainous area to the south, which includes some residential/cabin areas and regular recreational activities. A summary of the monitoring data is shown below. Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 9 0 0% >=20 T. Sus. Temp Average Maximum Minimum Report Lower South Fork Provo R at Vivian Park Number of Samples Percent s Criteria Phosphorus % >=.02 Total Phosphorus % >=.03 Temperature 8 0 0% >=20 The TMDL limit for TP was only exceeded one time out of eight samples at this site, while DTP concentrations exceeded the limit twice. Quite a bit of recreational activity occurs in the South Fork drainage, but it does not appear to have a detrimental effect on water quality. Page 8-3

81 LOADING SUMMARY The data from stream samples that were collected are used with flow data to calculate river loadings of three constituents: TSS, TP, DTP. In the Heber Valley area these loads are calculated at the various stream locations. The absence of much flow data puts the mass loading calculations into question for this stretch of the river. A summary of this information for 2008 to 2018 can be found in Table 8-1 Quality Summary for Lower Provo River. s of TMDL limits are highlighted. Calculations can be found in the Appendix for the Year. Provo River and Tributaries Below Deer Creek Provo River below Deer Ck STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) ,037 11,262 12,317 9,239 4,694 6,576 6,873 9,057 8,733 9,194 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) 153 4,989 10,860 7,116 7,661 3,966 5,957 5,561 6,801 5,709 7,163 TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 547, , , , ,912 78, , , , ,211 Little Deer Creek Above Provo River STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 124, , ,477 1,431,091 59,583 55,416 60,795 33,560 37, ,011 20,214 Lower North Fork of Provo River at Wildwood STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 73, , , ,969 14,722 36, ,297 12,391 2,582 Lower South Fork Provo River at Vivian Park STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 30,397 84,784 33, ,849 3,659 27,893 5,606 22,647 41,264 6,420 Provo River at Murdock Diversion STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 56,843 8,891,588 45,757 4,976,056 19,599 75,251 50, , ,090 1,954, ,409 Provo River at Olmsted Diversion STORET Weighted Average (cfs) TP Weighted Average (mg/l) TP Annual Load (kg/yr) 826 2,442 4,291 11, ,111 8,864 3,919 DTP Weighted Average (mg/l) DTP Annual Load (kg/yr) TSS Weighted Average (mg/l) TSS Annual Load (kg/yr) 343, , ,676 2,377,368 37, ,925 68,219 72, ,706 1,298, ,775 TABLE 8-1 WATER QUALITY SUMMARY FOR LOWER PROVO RIVER Page 8-4

82 LONG TERM TRENDS Error! Reference source not found.and Error! Reference source not found. show the long-term trends for Total and Total Phosphorus from December 1990 to September 2016 at the below Deer Creek site. TP concentrations have been reduced over the 30-year period from in 1990 to in The DTP concentrations have held steady over the period at mg/l. However, there are many spikes higher than these averages. SUMMARY OF ALKALINITY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON Figure 8-1Alkalinity vs. total organic carbon for three stations on provo river below deer creek dam shows the correlation between the two parameters. The figure shows the typical relationship between TOC and Alkalinity at these sites. It is interesting to see the change in the water from just below the dam to the mouth of Provo Canyon. These variations make it more difficult for water treatment plant operators as they try to determine treatment methods for water from the Provo River. Page 8-5

Phosphorus. Phosphorus Lake Whatcom Cooperative Management. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/phosphorusban.html

Phosphorus. Phosphorus Lake Whatcom Cooperative Management. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/phosphorusban.html Phosphorus Phosphorus Brochure Lake Whatcom Cooperative Management Reducing Phosphorus Website Washington State Department of Ecology www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/phosphorusban.html Nutrients

More information

LIMNOLOGY, WATER QUALITY

LIMNOLOGY, WATER QUALITY LIMNOLOGY, WATER QUALITY PA RANI ET E R S, AN D c 0 IV D IT I 0 N S AND ECOREGIONS Water Quality Parameters Nutrients are important parameters because phosphorous and nitrogen are major nutrients required

More information

Lesson 4: What Makes Water Healthy?

Lesson 4: What Makes Water Healthy? Lesson 4: What Makes Water Healthy? Activity: Students make observations and measurements of several water samples. This activity helps students think about different ways to determine water quality. Grade

More information

How do you treat water based on water quality from different water sources?

How do you treat water based on water quality from different water sources? How do you treat water based on water quality from different water sources? Why? Authors: Wendy Lane and Kim Sciarrone Seattle Public Schools; Seattle, WA Water from different sources will contain different

More information

Water Quality and Water Usage Surveys

Water Quality and Water Usage Surveys Appendix 1 Water Quality and Water Usage Surveys This appendix contains copies of the Water Quality Survey and the Lake Usage Survey that we used to complete the watershedbased community assessments. We

More information

Part B Integrated Monitoring Design for Comprehensive Assessment and Identification of Impaired Waters Contents

Part B Integrated Monitoring Design for Comprehensive Assessment and Identification of Impaired Waters Contents Part B Integrated Monitoring Design for Comprehensive Assessment and Identification of Impaired Waters Contents Chapter 10. Selecting Metrics or Indicators of WQS Attainment... 10-2 Chapter 11. Monitoring

More information

Pamela Birak, Jordan Lake State Park, Chatham County, NC

Pamela Birak, Jordan Lake State Park, Chatham County, NC Pamela Birak, Jordan Lake State Park, Chatham County, NC 3 Lakes, Reservoirs, and Ponds Forty-six states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (collectively referred to as states in the rest of this

More information

Total Suspended Solids Total Dissolved Solids Hardness

Total Suspended Solids Total Dissolved Solids Hardness Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are solids in water that can be trapped by a filter. TSS can include a wide variety of material, such as silt, decaying plant and animal matter, industrial wastes, and sewage.

More information

Parts per million (ppm) or Milligrams per liter (mg/l): one part by weight of analyte to 1 million parts by weight of the water sample.

Parts per million (ppm) or Milligrams per liter (mg/l): one part by weight of analyte to 1 million parts by weight of the water sample. 2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report St. Johns County Utility CR 214 Mainland We're pleased to present to you this year's Annual Water Quality Report. This report is designed to inform you about the

More information

Welcome to the Understanding Dissolved Oxygen learning module. This section provides information on the following topics:

Welcome to the Understanding Dissolved Oxygen learning module. This section provides information on the following topics: Introduction Welcome to the learning module. This section provides information on the following topics: How dissolved oxygen is defined and measured in numbers Why dissolved oxygen is important Natural

More information

Quantification of Reactive Phosphorus in Lake Mendota Sediments

Quantification of Reactive Phosphorus in Lake Mendota Sediments Quantification of Reactive Phosphorus in Lake Mendota Sediments By: Jeremy, Advisor Dr. Mike Penn Most of the phosphorus (P) that enters lakes from external inputs is attached to soil or sediment. This

More information

Water Treatment Filtration Lab. discharged into an aquatic ecosystem? We had to build a water filtration system with

Water Treatment Filtration Lab. discharged into an aquatic ecosystem? We had to build a water filtration system with Water Treatment Filtration Lab Brandon Lyons P.5 APES Abstract: How could polluted water be remediated so that it could support life when it is discharged into an aquatic ecosystem? We had to build a water

More information

How To Plan A Buffer Zone

How To Plan A Buffer Zone Backyard Buffers Protecting Habitat and Water Quality What is a buffer? A buffer (also called a riparian buffer area or zone) is the strip of natural vegetation along the bank of a stream, lake or other

More information

Chapter 14 Quiz. Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

Chapter 14 Quiz. Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. Chapter 14 Quiz Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. Which of the following is NOT true regarding the Chesapeake Bay? a. it is one of many small

More information

KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA WATER YEAR 2002 WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT

KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA WATER YEAR 2002 WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT KARUK TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES P.O. Box 282 * Orleans, California 95556 WATER YEAR 2002 WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT Klamath River at Iron Gate, Klamath River at Seiad Valley,

More information

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION. Policy for Permitting Surface Water Diversions

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION. Policy for Permitting Surface Water Diversions DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION DOCUMENT NUMBER: 362-2000-003 TITLE: Policy for Permitting Surface Water Diversions EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1998 AUTHORITY POLICY:

More information

Protect Your Pond, Protect Your Health

Protect Your Pond, Protect Your Health Protect Your Pond, Protect Your Health Your role in conserving the health of Cape Cod Ponds We are all responsible for keeping our ponds clean. The ponds on Cape Cod provide many benefits to those living

More information

Ginger Paige and Nancy Mesner University of Wyoming Utah State University

Ginger Paige and Nancy Mesner University of Wyoming Utah State University Effective Water Quality BMP Monitoring Tools Ginger Paige and Nancy Mesner University of Wyoming Utah State University Overview BMP Monitoring Guidance Document for Stream Systems Lessons learned CEAP

More information

Freshwater Resources and Water Pollution

Freshwater Resources and Water Pollution Visualizing Environmental Science Freshwater Resources and Water Pollution Chapter 10 Copyright The Importance of Water Life on Earth would be impossible without water All living organisms contain water

More information

Source Water Assessment Report

Source Water Assessment Report Source Water Assessment Report Public Water Supply: TROY, CITY OF Assessment Areas Include: 516, 517 Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Water Watershed Management Section 1000 SW Jackson

More information

Maine Department of Environmental Protection Program Guidance On Combined Sewer Overflow Facility Plans

Maine Department of Environmental Protection Program Guidance On Combined Sewer Overflow Facility Plans Maine Department of Environmental Protection Program Guidance On Combined Sewer Overflow Facility Plans OVERVIEW The objective of a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Facility Plan is to abate CSO discharges

More information

Nutrient Stewardship. Reducing the Loss of Crop Nutrients to Waterways

Nutrient Stewardship. Reducing the Loss of Crop Nutrients to Waterways ETS & PERFORMANCE FOOD ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE COMPANY Nutrient Stewardship Reducing the Loss of Crop Nutrients to Waterways Crop nutrients help plants grow and produce the food, fiber and fuel we all need.

More information

As stewards of the land, farmers must protect the quality of our environment and conserve the natural resources that sustain it by implementing

As stewards of the land, farmers must protect the quality of our environment and conserve the natural resources that sustain it by implementing N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E C O N S E R V A T I O N As stewards of the land, farmers must protect the quality of our environment and conserve the natural resources that sustain it by implementing conservation

More information

FACT SHEET STATEMENT OF BASIS HARLEY DOME 1 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0025917 NEW PERMIT MINOR INDUSTRIAL

FACT SHEET STATEMENT OF BASIS HARLEY DOME 1 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0025917 NEW PERMIT MINOR INDUSTRIAL FACT SHEET STATEMENT OF BASIS HARLEY DOME 1 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: NEW PERMIT MINOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITY CONTACTS Mitch Burroughs, Operator Mailing Address 1716 E. Lincoln

More information

Water and Wastewater. Sample Collection and Analysis

Water and Wastewater. Sample Collection and Analysis Water and Wastewater Sample Collection and Analysis December 2011 Introduction Accurate testing of drinking water is crucial to maintaining the health and safety of Islanders who rely on this resource.

More information

water quality 2007 annual report Huntington District Our Customer Charter Dear West Virginia American Water Customer,

water quality 2007 annual report Huntington District Our Customer Charter Dear West Virginia American Water Customer, Dear West Virginia American Water Customer, 2007 annual water quality report You are our top priority. And delivering reliable, high-quality water to you all day, every day is our mission. We deliver at

More information

Presented by Paul Krauth Utah DEQ. Salt Lake Countywide Watershed Symposium October 28-29, 2008

Presented by Paul Krauth Utah DEQ. Salt Lake Countywide Watershed Symposium October 28-29, 2008 Basic Nutrient Removal from Water Beta Edition Presented by Paul Krauth Utah DEQ Salt Lake Countywide Watershed Symposium October 28-29, 2008 Presentation Outline Salt Lake County waters / 303(d) listings

More information

A White Paper Describing a Watershed-based Monitoring Network Design for the Purgatoire River Basin

A White Paper Describing a Watershed-based Monitoring Network Design for the Purgatoire River Basin A White Paper Describing a Watershed-based Monitoring Network Design for the Purgatoire River Basin This white paper summarizes a watershed-based monitoring network design for the Purgatoire River Basin,

More information

SPA Annual Report for 2002 September, 2003 Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Page 125. Evaluation and Recommendations

SPA Annual Report for 2002 September, 2003 Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Page 125. Evaluation and Recommendations Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Page 125 Evaluation and Recommendations Monitoring efforts in the Special Protection Areas continue to provide the kind of information needed to

More information

4. Environmental Impacts Assessment and Remediation Targets

4. Environmental Impacts Assessment and Remediation Targets 4. Environmental Impacts Assessment and Remediation Targets 4.1 Environmental Impacts Significant additional development in the Alder Creek watershed is not anticipated at this time; however, there are

More information

Swamp Area Passive Treatment System Kettle Creek Watershed, Clinton County, PA

Swamp Area Passive Treatment System Kettle Creek Watershed, Clinton County, PA Swamp AMD Chemistry Swamp Area Passive Treatment System Kettle Creek Watershed, Clinton County, PA A Technical Report for Trout Unlimited and the Kettle Creek Watershed Association Prepared by Hedin Environmental

More information

Expanded Monitoring Program

Expanded Monitoring Program Expanded Monitoring Program January June 2004 USGS PROGRESS REPORT Page 1 Near Deer Trail, Colorado Progress Report January June 2004 Volume 6, no. 1 CONTENTS Program Overview... 1 Site Map... 2 Questions

More information

DISTRICT VALUES STATEMENTS, GOALS, ACTION ITEMS, AND ONGOING TASKS FOR 2015 Adopted by the Board of Directors December 10, 2014. Values Statements.

DISTRICT VALUES STATEMENTS, GOALS, ACTION ITEMS, AND ONGOING TASKS FOR 2015 Adopted by the Board of Directors December 10, 2014. Values Statements. DISTRICT VALUES STATEMENTS, GOALS, ACTION ITEMS, AND ONGOING TASKS FOR 2015 Adopted by the Board of Directors December 10, 2014 Values Statements. The Board opposes any new transfers of water from the

More information

Nipigon Bay. Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010

Nipigon Bay. Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010 Nipigon Bay Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010 Nipigon Bay is in the most northerly area of Lake Superior. The Area of Concern takes in a large portion of Nipigon Bay and

More information

Briefing Paper on Lower Galveston Bay and Bayou Watersheds Lower Bay I: Armand Bayou to Moses Lake and Adjacent Bay Waters

Briefing Paper on Lower Galveston Bay and Bayou Watersheds Lower Bay I: Armand Bayou to Moses Lake and Adjacent Bay Waters Briefing Paper on Lower Galveston Bay and Bayou Watersheds Lower Bay I: Armand Bayou to Moses Lake and Adjacent Bay Waters Jim Lester, PhD. and Lisa Gonzalez Houston Advanced Research Center Galveston

More information

This Questionnaire is divided into 8 sections referring to different capacity areas on the safe use of wastewater in agriculture:

This Questionnaire is divided into 8 sections referring to different capacity areas on the safe use of wastewater in agriculture: Annex - II Questionnaire to support the Capacity Development Needs Assessment In the framework of the Capacity Development Project on Safe Use of Wastewater 1 in Agriculture Phase I The Food and Agriculture

More information

Wastewater Regulation and Designing Changes in South East Asia

Wastewater Regulation and Designing Changes in South East Asia Chapter 15 Water Security Agency Regulating Wastewater Systems 1.0 MAIN POINTS Effectively regulating public wastewater systems 1 is essential to protecting our environment and in turn, the health and

More information

Pre-Treatment Water Quality in the Aaron Run Watershed

Pre-Treatment Water Quality in the Aaron Run Watershed DNR -533-69 PPRP - 6 Pre-Treatment Water Quality in the Aaron Run Watershed May 3 PPRP i PPRP/AARON RUN PRE-TREATMENT REPORT-MAY 3 PRE-TREATMENT WATER QUALITY IN THE AARON RUN WATERSHED PREPARED FOR:

More information

LR 314 Working Group 5 Final Report

LR 314 Working Group 5 Final Report LR 314 Working Group 5 Final Report I. Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Table 1. NDNR and NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION WATER/INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PLANNING RELATED RESEARCH, STUDIES AND RELATED

More information

INFORMATION SHEET ORDER NO. R5-2011-XXXX TRIANGLE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. FLORIN ROAD AGGREGATE PLANT SACRAMENTO COUNTY

INFORMATION SHEET ORDER NO. R5-2011-XXXX TRIANGLE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. FLORIN ROAD AGGREGATE PLANT SACRAMENTO COUNTY ORDER NO. R5-2011-XXXX INFORMATION SHEET Background Triangle Rock, Inc. (Discharger) submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) on 23 August 2010. The Discharger is expanding the mining operations at

More information

Report for 2003PA14B: Spruce Creek Watershed Keystone Project

Report for 2003PA14B: Spruce Creek Watershed Keystone Project Report for 2003PA14B: Spruce Creek Watershed Keystone Project There are no reported publications resulting from this project. Report Follows Abstract: This proposal seeks support for a graduate assistant

More information

WHISKY CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

WHISKY CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHISKY CREEK DEMONSTRATION PROJECT OCC Tasks 16 and 17 FY 1990 319(h) Sub-Task 200(A) EPA Grant # C9-006704-90-0 Submitted by: Oklahoma Conservation Commission Water Quality Division 413 NW 12 th Oklahoma

More information

WASTEWATER TREATMENT OBJECTIVES

WASTEWATER TREATMENT OBJECTIVES WASTEWATER TREATMENT OBJECTIVES The student will do the following: 1. Define wastewater and list components of wastewater. 2. Describe the function of a wastewater treatment plant. 3. Create a wastewater

More information

Healthy Forests Resilient Water Supply Vibrant Economy. Ecological Restoration Institute

Healthy Forests Resilient Water Supply Vibrant Economy. Ecological Restoration Institute Healthy Forests Resilient Water Supply Vibrant Economy Ecological Restoration Institute How Water Gets to Your Home MOST OF THE VALLEY S WATER SUPPLY comes from winter precipitation and runoff from Arizona

More information

Algal Blooms, Circulators, Waterfowl and Eutrophic Greenfield Lake, NC. Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver, Ellen J. Wambach, and Anna R.

Algal Blooms, Circulators, Waterfowl and Eutrophic Greenfield Lake, NC. Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver, Ellen J. Wambach, and Anna R. Algal Blooms, Circulators, Waterfowl and Eutrophic Greenfield Lake, NC Michael A. Mallin, Matthew R. McIver, Ellen J. Wambach, and Anna R. Robuck Center for Marine Science University of North Carolina

More information

Skaguay Reservoir. FISH SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT DATA Greg A. Policky - Aquatic Biologist (Salida) greg.policky@state.co.

Skaguay Reservoir. FISH SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT DATA Greg A. Policky - Aquatic Biologist (Salida) greg.policky@state.co. FISH SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT DATA (Salida) greg.policky@state.co.us / 719-530-5525 General Information: Skaguay Reservoir, a 114 acre impoundment, offers good fishing for rainbow and brown trout with an

More information

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS LOWER GREAT MIAMI RIVER NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION On behalf of a partnership of Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) WRRFs and other stakeholders with permitted

More information

3.4 DRAINAGE PLAN. 3.4.1 Characteristics of Existing Drainages. 3.4.2 Master Drainage System. Section 3: Development Plan BUTTERFIELD SPECIFIC PLAN

3.4 DRAINAGE PLAN. 3.4.1 Characteristics of Existing Drainages. 3.4.2 Master Drainage System. Section 3: Development Plan BUTTERFIELD SPECIFIC PLAN 3.4 DRAINAGE PLAN This section describes the existing onsite drainage characteristics and improvements proposed within this Specific Plan. Following this description, drainage plan development standards

More information

Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Creek Watershed. Summary Report 2002

Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Creek Watershed. Summary Report 2002 Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Creek Watershed Summary Report 2002 DOE/BP-00005268-5 November 2002 This Document should be cited as follows: "Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon

More information

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION B, ELEMENT 4 WATER RESOURCES. April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT 1

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION B, ELEMENT 4 WATER RESOURCES. April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION B, ELEMENT 4 WATER RESOURCES April 20, 2010 EXHIBIT 1 ELEMENT 4 WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 GOALS AND POLICIES 4.2.A General Goals and Policies 1 4.2.B

More information

Phosphorus inputs to Lough Neagh. The increasing impact of agriculture

Phosphorus inputs to Lough Neagh. The increasing impact of agriculture Phosphorus inputs to Lough Neagh. The increasing impact of agriculture Table of contents Introduction Why does phosphorus create water quality problems? An algal bloom Eutrophication and phosphorus How

More information

STORMWATER MONITORING: POLLUTANTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS

STORMWATER MONITORING: POLLUTANTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS RICHLAND COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION STORMWATER MONITORING: POLLUTANTS, SOURCES, AND SOLUTIONS As part of the federal government s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)

More information

Community Workshop 5. Overarching Goals for Machado Lake Ecosystem and Wilmington Drain Multi-Use Projects

Community Workshop 5. Overarching Goals for Machado Lake Ecosystem and Wilmington Drain Multi-Use Projects City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering Machado Lake Ecosystem Rehabilitation Project & Wilmington Drain Multi-Use Project Community Workshop 5 February 24, 2009 In association

More information

How To Understand And Understand The Effects Of Pollution And Water Quality

How To Understand And Understand The Effects Of Pollution And Water Quality Lesson 2. Pollution and Water Quality Keywords: pollutants, water pollution, point source, non-point source, urban pollution, agricultural pollution, atmospheric pollution, smog, nutrient pollution, eutrophication,

More information

Don t spit in the well - you may need to drink from it! -- Unknown, Russia.

Don t spit in the well - you may need to drink from it! -- Unknown, Russia. Don t spit in the well - you may need to drink from it! -- Unknown, Russia. WATER POLLUTION Water is a unique substance, because it can naturally renew and cleanse itself, by allowing pollutants to settle

More information

Analysis of the Water Quality of Eighteenmile Creek, Erie County, New York:

Analysis of the Water Quality of Eighteenmile Creek, Erie County, New York: Analysis of the Water Quality of Eighteenmile Creek, Erie County, New York: A Comparison of Water Quality Between 1970, 1973 and 2000 By: Kristal Lynn Krasinski Senior Student Department of Geography/Planning

More information

Thunder Bay. Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010

Thunder Bay. Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010 Thunder Bay Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010 The Thunder Bay Area of Concern extends approximately 28 km along the shoreline of Lake Superior from north of Bare Point

More information

SOLOMON RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD. Water Body: Webster Lake Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication

SOLOMON RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD. Water Body: Webster Lake Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication SOLOMON RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body: Wster Lake Water Quality Impairment: Eutrophication Subbasin: Counties: Upper South Fork Solomon Graham, Rooks, Sheridan, Sherman, and Thomas HUC

More information

Appendix A. Lists of Accomplishments and Project Costs. UMRWD 10 Year Plan Update. Appendix A UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT

Appendix A. Lists of Accomplishments and Project Costs. UMRWD 10 Year Plan Update. Appendix A UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT Lists of Accomplishments and Project Costs 10 Year Plan Update UMRWD 10 Year Plan Update Page A 1 UMRWD LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS Since its inception in 1967, the

More information

THE NEW NSF 350 AND 350-1

THE NEW NSF 350 AND 350-1 THE NEW NSF 350 AND 350-1 These American National Standards help in evaluating and approving water reuse treatment technologies. BY TOM BRUURSEMA Figure 1 At the NSF residential wastewater treatment system

More information

Natural Resources. Air and Water Resources

Natural Resources. Air and Water Resources Natural Resources Key Concepts Why is it important to manage air and water resources wisely? How can individuals help manage air and water resources wisely? Air and Water Resources What do you think? Read

More information

Pond Recirculating Production Systems

Pond Recirculating Production Systems SRAC Publication No. 455 November 1997 PR VI Pond Recirculating Production Systems Andrew M. Lazur and Deborah C. Britt* Water conservation and reuse has become a major issue in aquaculture in recent years.

More information

CREATING A GREEN FUTURE THROUGH WATER REMEDIATION

CREATING A GREEN FUTURE THROUGH WATER REMEDIATION CREATING A GREEN FUTURE THROUGH WATER REMEDIATION Cornerstone Principles for Conducting Business Active Treatment Systems, Inc. goes to great lengths to instill in every employee the importance of ethical

More information

The St. Lucie River is 35 miles long and has two major forks, the North Fork and the South Fork. In the 1880s, the system was basically a freshwater

The St. Lucie River is 35 miles long and has two major forks, the North Fork and the South Fork. In the 1880s, the system was basically a freshwater The St. Lucie River is 35 miles long and has two major forks, the North Fork and the South Fork. In the 1880s, the system was basically a freshwater stream flowing into the Indian River Lagoon. An inlet

More information

Clean Water Services. Ecosystems Services Case Study: Tualatin River, Washington

Clean Water Services. Ecosystems Services Case Study: Tualatin River, Washington Viewed broadly, the concept of ecosystem services describes the many resources and services provided by nature. Typically, traditional planning and development practices do not adequately represent the

More information

2014 Report. water Quality. Cleveland Water

2014 Report. water Quality. Cleveland Water 2014 Report water Quality Cleveland Water Commitment to Quality Cleveland Water is committed to providing all of our customers with a virtually unlimited supply of clean, safe, potable water. This commitment

More information

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Leech Lake River Watershed - Update October 28, 2014 Phil Votruba Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency July2007MuskyLeechLake.jpg.lnk

More information

Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Tidal Monitoring Programs Past, Present and Future

Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Tidal Monitoring Programs Past, Present and Future Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Tidal Monitoring Programs Past, Present and Future Bruce Michael Resource Assessment Service Maryland Department of Natural Resources The Future of Water Quality Monitoring in

More information

LYNDE CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 12 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

LYNDE CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 12 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Whitby CLOCA Whitby CLOCA LYNDE CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 12 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT June 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 3 2.0 STUDY AREA AND SCOPE... 4 3.0 METHODOLOGY...

More information

Amherst County Public Schools. AP Environmental Science Curriculum Pacing Guide. College Board AP Environmental Science Site

Amherst County Public Schools. AP Environmental Science Curriculum Pacing Guide. College Board AP Environmental Science Site Amherst County Public Schools AP Environmental Science Curriculum Pacing Guide College Board AP Environmental Science Site REV: 8/12 1 st 9 weeks AP Objectives Energy Resources and Consumption A. Energy

More information

Carson River Mercury Superfund Site Management Strategies and Goals. May 2011

Carson River Mercury Superfund Site Management Strategies and Goals. May 2011 Carson River Mercury Superfund Site Management Strategies and Goals May 2011 Staff at NDEP Responsible for CRMS Jeff Collins - Supervisor Over 21 years experience as environmental consultant working on

More information

DID YOU KNOW... THE IMPACT OF ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS AND ILLICIT DISCHARGES ON THE ROUGE RIVER

DID YOU KNOW... THE IMPACT OF ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS AND ILLICIT DISCHARGES ON THE ROUGE RIVER DID YOU KNOW... THE IMPAT OF ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS AND ILLIIT DISHARGES ON THE ROUGE RIVER by Barry Johnson, P.E., M.S., amp Dresser & McKee and Dean Tuomari, Wayne ounty Department of Environment The

More information

Ponds- Planning, Design, Construction

Ponds- Planning, Design, Construction United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Agriculture Handbook Number 590 Ponds- Planning, Design, Construction This handbook describes the requirements for building a pond. It

More information

BLACK/HARMONY/FAREWELL CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 12 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

BLACK/HARMONY/FAREWELL CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 12 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Harmony Creek subwatershed Harmony Creek subwatershed BLACK/HARMONY/FAREWELL CREEK WATERSHED EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 12 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...

More information

Chapter 9. Selected Watershed Initiatives in the Great Basin Region

Chapter 9. Selected Watershed Initiatives in the Great Basin Region Chapter 9 Selected Watershed Initiatives in the Great Basin Region The Great Basin contains vast areas of sparsely populated desert lands. Lacking an ocean drainage, the Great Basin is a hydrologic sink

More information

Travel Time. Computation of travel time and time of concentration. Factors affecting time of concentration. Surface roughness

Travel Time. Computation of travel time and time of concentration. Factors affecting time of concentration. Surface roughness 3 Chapter 3 of Concentration and Travel Time Time of Concentration and Travel Time Travel time ( T t ) is the time it takes water to travel from one location to another in a watershed. T t is a component

More information

Final Report of the Town Owned Lands Improvement Project for the Town of Brentwood, NH

Final Report of the Town Owned Lands Improvement Project for the Town of Brentwood, NH Final Report of the Town Owned Lands Improvement Project for the Town of Brentwood, NH Project Background In November of 2013 the Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Coastal Communities (GISCC) project

More information

Lesson Plan: How Do We Know What is Healthy Water?

Lesson Plan: How Do We Know What is Healthy Water? Lesson Plan: How Do We Know What is Healthy Water? Estimated Time: 1-3 days ph /Chlorine / Hardness State Standards taught and addressed Grade 8: Standards Taught (and evaluated at end of lesson) Science

More information

Water Security Agency. Plan for 2015-16. saskatchewan.ca

Water Security Agency. Plan for 2015-16. saskatchewan.ca Water Security Agency Plan for 2015-16 saskatchewan.ca Statement from the Minister I am pleased to present the Water Security Agency s Plan for 2015-16. The Honourable Scott Moe Minister Responsible for

More information

A Traditional Island Industry

A Traditional Island Industry A Traditional Island Industry The PEI wild public fishery has remained a productive Island industry for 150 years Wild public oyster fishers still fish in the traditional methods of their ancestors, using

More information

The concepts developed in this standard include the following: Oceans cover about 70% of the surface of the Earth.

The concepts developed in this standard include the following: Oceans cover about 70% of the surface of the Earth. Name Date Grade 5 SOL 5.6 Review Oceans Made by SOLpass - www.solpass.org solpass100@comcast.net Reproduction is permitted for SOLpass subscribers only. The concepts developed in this standard include

More information

Hardness Comparisons

Hardness Comparisons Hardness Comparisons Hardness Adapted from: An original Creek Connections activity. Creek Connections, Box 10, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335. Grade Level: all Duration: 50 minutes Setting:

More information

Rocky EEP Preliminary Findings Report Summary February 2005

Rocky EEP Preliminary Findings Report Summary February 2005 This is a DRAFT summary of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan Preliminary Findings Report. The original, 157 page document can be found here: www.ncsu.edu/weco/rocky. The

More information

Series 2016A-2 (Green Bonds) Final Proceeds Allocation April 2016

Series 2016A-2 (Green Bonds) Final Proceeds Allocation April 2016 Series 2016A-2 (Green Bonds) Final Proceeds Allocation April 2016 James L. McIntire Washington State Treasurer Summary The State of Washington offered green bonds to investors in September 2015, with approximately

More information

City of Green Bay Department of Public Works Engineering Department

City of Green Bay Department of Public Works Engineering Department City of Green Bay Department of Public Works Engineering Department The Difference Between Sanitary & Storm Sewers Contact Information: Department of Public Works City Hall 100 North Jefferson Street,

More information

Package Treatment Plant Policy and Procedure

Package Treatment Plant Policy and Procedure Package Treatment Plant Policy and Procedure PURPOSE There has been increased interest in the use of package treatment plants for new development proposals in the County. Current review procedures are

More information

Daybreak s Environmental History

Daybreak s Environmental History Daybreak s Environmental History Introduction Kennecott Utah Copper s Daybreak Community Development Team is dedicated to building an enduring community in the Salt Lake Valley. We manage our land holdings

More information

The Everglades & Northern Estuaries; St. Lucie River Estuary, Indian River Lagoon & Caloosahatchee Estuary. Water Flows & Current Issues

The Everglades & Northern Estuaries; St. Lucie River Estuary, Indian River Lagoon & Caloosahatchee Estuary. Water Flows & Current Issues The Everglades & Northern Estuaries; St. Lucie River Estuary, Indian River Lagoon & Caloosahatchee Estuary Water Flows & Current Issues Florida Governor Rick Scott August 20, 2013 Upper Chain of Lakes

More information

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT FOR SAGEHEN ALLOTMENT #0208

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT FOR SAGEHEN ALLOTMENT #0208 STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH ASSESSMENT FOR SAGEHEN ALLOTMENT #0208 RANGELAND HEALTH STANDARDS - ASSESSMENT SAGEHEN ALLOTMENT #0208 STANDARD 1 - UPLAND WATERSHED This standard is being met on the allotment.

More information

Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes.

Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy.

More information

WHERE DOES THE WATER GO IN THE WATER CYCLE?

WHERE DOES THE WATER GO IN THE WATER CYCLE? WHERE DOES THE WATER GO IN THE WATER CYCLE? OBJECTIVES Identify the water cycle as a system that is a combination of systems Describe each process in the water cycle, including the changes in state (if

More information

Colorado River Commission of Nevada. Presentation for Water Education Foundation March 11, 2015

Colorado River Commission of Nevada. Presentation for Water Education Foundation March 11, 2015 Colorado River Commission of Nevada Presentation for Water Education Foundation March 11, 2015 State agency established to manage Nevada s allocation of Colorado River water resources and hydroelectric

More information

Report prepared by: Kelly Hagan and Mark Anderson Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road Cambridge ON N1R 5W6

Report prepared by: Kelly Hagan and Mark Anderson Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road Cambridge ON N1R 5W6 2013 Watershed Overview of Wastewater Treatment Plant Performance Report prepared by: Kelly Hagan and Mark Anderson Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road Cambridge ON N1R 5W6 Table of Contents

More information

9.1. Adequacy of Available Data and Monitoring Efforts

9.1. Adequacy of Available Data and Monitoring Efforts 9. DATA MANAGEMENT Data management is a crucial aspect of successful implementation of the ARB IRWMP and its component projects. This section discusses the adequacy of available data and monitoring efforts,

More information

Biennial Review Request for Comments From DEQ (revised 12-30- 14)

Biennial Review Request for Comments From DEQ (revised 12-30- 14) Biennial Review Request for Comments From DEQ (revised 12-30- 14) The State Department of Agriculture and the State Board of Agriculture shall consult with the Department of Environmental Quality or the

More information

Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin Managing Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Combined Sewer Overflows to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water

Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin Managing Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Combined Sewer Overflows to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water United States Office of Water EPA 916-F-01-032 Environmental Protection (4606) July 2001 Agency Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin Managing Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Combined Sewer Overflows

More information

Where does my water come from? Harrisonburg 2013 Hardness Levels

Where does my water come from? Harrisonburg 2013 Hardness Levels Definitions AL (Action Level): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system must follow. MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level): The highest

More information

Watershed Education for Teachers. Cinde Thomas-Jimenez Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

Watershed Education for Teachers. Cinde Thomas-Jimenez Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Watershed Education for Teachers Cinde Thomas-Jimenez Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority In This Presentation Why Watersheds Matter What Is a Watershed Water Quality Parameters Point Source and NonPoint

More information

2010 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Collier County Water Department

2010 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Collier County Water Department Annual Drinking Water Quality Report Collier County Water Department The Collier County Water Department is pleased to present this annual water quality report. We trust that you will read this report

More information

Lesson Plan: How Do We Clean Polluted Water?

Lesson Plan: How Do We Clean Polluted Water? Lesson Plan: How Do We Clean Polluted Water? Oil Spill Cleanup / Phosphate Cleanup / Groundwater Contamination / Water Treatment Simulation Estimated Time: 2-4 days State Standards taught and addressed

More information