DWQ-2024-004840

June Sucker Recovery Program
“20 Years and Beyond”
Russ Franklin
05/21/23
Utah Lake
Utah Lake
•Large (96,000 acres)
•Shallow (Max Depth 14’)
•Eutrophic
•Increasingly urban watershed
•13 Native fish species: ~2 remain
Utah Lake
“. . . the greatest sucker pond in the universe.”
David Starr Jordan 1889
•Supported first nations with food
•Plentiful cutthroat trout and suckers
•Gathering place for trade
•Early residents showed European settlers fishing techniques
•Supported settlers during crop failures
Utah Lake Has a Rich History
Collapsing Fisheries
Fish Car Era
Fish Car Revolutionary Technology
Name:
Address:
Location of Pond:
Nearest Railroad Station:
Nearest Express Office:
Nearest Telegraph Office:
Name of Railroad:
Area in Acres of Pond:
Character of Bottom: Muddy, Boggy, or Gravelly
Kind of Fish In Pond:
$2 Buys you a $8.25
*For an extra $2 you can get expedited shipping
Carp Arrive in Utah
•1881 –130 Carp Shipped to Utah
•1882 –200 Carp Shipped to Utah
•1886 –11,960 Carp Shipped to Utah
•1888-1889 –17,400 Carp Shipped to Utah
“To the Honorable Legislature of Utah. The total
number of choice fishes I have secured and planted
in the public waters of Utah, without cost to the
State, is 10,579,220.... So that now we have had put
into our lakes and streams shad from the Potomac
and Delaware Rivers; white fish from Lake Erie; black
bass, perch, crappie and sunfish from the Illinois
River; rock bass and crappie from the Missouri River;
brook trout and rainbow trout from several eastern
and western points; scale, leather and mirror carp
from the Potomac; eels from the Potomac; catfish
from the Mississippi River; lake trout from Lake
Michigan, and gold and silver fish from the Sandwich
Islands and the Potomac, and the expense to Utah
has been practically nothing.”
(Letter from Musser to the State Legislature, January 14, 1896)
Amos Milton Musser
Utah Fish Commissioner
1883*-1896
•Common carp stocked in 1880’s altered the native fish communities
•Carp were a supplement dwindling native fish populations from over utilization and diversion of water resources.
Altering a Fish Community
“We found the lake trout had done
poorly, because of the low and
consequently muddy water; and
then the carp, which have thriven
immensely, have eaten off the mosses
and similar growth along the bottom of
the lake, so that the trout have not
had enough to eat.
Carp are a good deal like the English
sparrow –once they get into a place
they are there to stay.”
-US Fish Commissioner Tulian
1901
Deseret News –March 20, 1937
Back to the Future
1980’s –The Extinction Predicament
“June suckers are precariously near to extinction.
They remain only as a rapidly shrinking and aging remnant population, without recent successful reproduction.
This demographic observation, combined with the overwhelming dominance of non-native fishes in Utah Lake and current water management practices, may preclude their survival in nature.”
Scoppettone and Vinyard 1991
June Sucker Listing Package
Endangered with Critical Habitat –April 30, 1986
•Reasons for listing included habitat alteration (physical and hydrological), fisheries and nonnative introductions, and loss of recruitment.
•Critical Habitat was designated as the lower 7.8 km (4.9 miles) of the Provo River from Utah Lake upstream to the Tanner Race Diversion.
•FWS gave June sucker a recovery priority which applies to a species with a high threat of extinction, a low recovery potential and the presence of conflict.
Less than 1,000 Individuals
“The species had a documented wild population of fewer than 1,000 individuals at the time of
listing. The current estimates of
the wild adult spawning population size in Utah Lake is closer to 300 individuals (Keleher
et al 1998).”
June Sucker Recovery Plan 1999
Biggest “Problem” with ESA –“No off ramps”
•Cooperative effort between state, federal, and local agencies
•Comply with the Endangered Species Act (Sufficient Progress)
•Ecosystem approach to recovery
•Goals:
•Recover June sucker so that it no longer requires protection under the Endangered Species Act
•Allow continued operation of existing water facilities and future development of water resources for human use in the Utah Lake Drainage Basin
•Partner Agencies
JSRIP Formation 2002
o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
o Utah Department of Natural Resources
o Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission
o U.S. Department of Interior
o U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
o Central Utah Water Conservancy District
o Provo River Water Users Association
o Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District
o Outdoor and Environmental Interests
Recovery Elements
1.Nonnative and Sport Fish Management
2.Habitat Development and Maintenance
3.Water Management and Protection to Benefit June Sucker
4.Research, Monitoring and Data Management
5.Information and Education
Common Carp
•Macrophytes vs Algae
•Ecosystem Drivers
•Loss of refuge habitat
•Carp removal project started in 2009
•Over 29.7* million pounds of carp removed
Non-Native and Sportfish Management
•Acquire water for instream flows through conservation projects
•1995: 5,000 acre feet, now up to 29,672 acre feet
•Largest expense for the Program
•Provo River flows augmented since 1995
Water Management and Protection
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Apr May Jun Jul
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

(
cf
s
)
Provo River Flow Targets
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
150 200 250 300 350
Ap
p
a
r
e
n
t

s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
TL at release (mm)
2011 2013
Over 1,000,000 June suckers stocked into Utah Lake
Genetic Integrity and Augmentation
Missing Piece?
June Sucker Life Cycle and Recruitment Research
Research
Adults
Juveniles
Eggs Yolk -sacLarvae Youngof Year
FeedingLarvae
Hobble Creek Delta Restoration –A Pilot Study….. Sort Of
Waiting for Response
June Sucker Progress
•10’s of thousands of JS in Utah Lake today
•Downlisted from Endangered to
Threatened –February 4, 2021
50 CFR Part 17 –Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of the Endangered June Sucker to Threatened with a Section 4(d) Rule
What about delisting?
Delisting
•Must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available
•5-factor analysis:
•The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
•Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
•Disease or predation;
•The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
•Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
•The Secretary shall delist a species if [based on] the best scientific and commercial data available the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. . . not necessarily whether it
meets recovery criteria..” 50 C.F.R. 424.11(d)(2) 1984
Analyzing Response
How Do You Tell The Natal Origins Of June Sucker?
Fin Rays
Fin Rays –Background
•Underlying geology influences microchemical signature of source.
•Elements incorporated into hard parts of fish.
•Otoliths
•Fin rays
•Fin rays made from CaCO3
•Accretion of elements and isotopes
Image from geology.utah.gov
Source of Fish/Fin Rays
2017 2020
Camp Creek Camp Creek
Fisheries Experimental Station Fisheries Experimental Station
Red Butte Reservoir Red Butte Reservoir
Rosebud Ponds*
Springville Ponds*
Utah Lake Utah Lake
* Grow-out facility
Fin Ray Processing
Small section of fin ray cut with specialized cutters
2020/2021 Methods
•Fin rays of untagged June Suckers (n=263)
•Hobble Creek, Spanish Fork, Utah Lake
•Fin rays from sources and known origin June Suckers (n=96)
•Prioritized source fin rays over known origin
Methods
•250-300µm ablation core or edge
•Ablated material analyzed by ICP-MS
Post-ablation processing
•Ablation paths
•Removed values below limits of detection
•Data standardized to element/Ca mmol/mol
•All element/Ca ratios checked for normality and ratios with non-normal distributions log transformed
•Quadratic discriminant function analysis
•Analysis performed in two parts:
1.Model training
2.Classification of untagged fish
Known Origin Classification
Unknown Sample Classification
Code Natal sources % n samples
CRS Camp Creek Reservoir 3.0%8
RBU Red Butte Reservoir 3.8%10
FES Fisheries Experimental
Station
80.2%211
UTL Utah Lake 12.9%34
Management implications
•Size range of wild classified June Suckers (305–562 mm TL) indicates that wild recruitment occurred over multiple years.
•Elemental microchemistry has the discriminatory power to distinguish wild recruitment.
•Utah Lake differentiated from other sources
•Some wild recruitment occurring (12.9% of unmarked fish).
•Natal origin assignments linked to PIT tags and capture information.
•Wild recruited fish collected 2016–2020
•Spatial patterns?
Provo River Delta Restoration Project (2024)
Delta Design Zones
Delta Zone –Anticipated Water Depths
Reconnecting the Delta
March 2nd 2023, the river was diverted into the Delta. Final Completion will be Summer 2024.
Questions?
Monitoring the response of the Utah Lake
ecosystem to common carp control and
dynamic lake levels
Timothy E. Walsworth
Kevin Landom
Department of Watershed SciencesThe Ecology Center
Utah State University
Utah Lake Science PanelProvo, UTJune 29, 2023
Utah Lake Ecosystem Monitoring History
•June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program
•How does the ecosystem June sucker rely on respond to restoration activities?
•Began with a workshop in 2006
•Monitoring Plan developed 2007 by SWCA
Utah Lake Ecosystem Monitoring History
•Water Quality
•Phytoplankton
•Zooplankton
•Macroinvertebrates
•Macrophytes
•Fish community
Utah Lake Ecosystem Monitoring History
•Water Quality
•Phytoplankton
•Zooplankton
•Macroinvertebrates
•Macrophytes
•Fish community
Utah Division of Water Quality
Utah State University
Utah Lake Ecosystem Monitoring History
•Water Quality
•Phytoplankton
•Zooplankton
•Macroinvertebrates
•Macrophytes
•Fish community
How have the different components of the
Utah Lake ecosystem responded to ongoing
restoration efforts and concurrent
environmental changes?
Primary drivers of interest
•Common carp population
•Dynamic lake level conditions
Photo: ShutterstockPhoto: Kevin Landom
Common carp population
•>90% of fish biomass in early
2000s
•Mechanical removal 2009 –2022
•Statistical catch-at-age model
•Abundance/biomass
•Recruitment
•Gear efficiency
Photos: Junesuckerrecovery.org
Common carp population
•Biomass declined through
2017, before increasing to
intermediate levels
•Challenges
•Compensatory recruitment
•Selective gears
•Lake level effects on recruitment
Walsworth et al. 2023
Common carp population
•Biomass declined through
2017, before increasing to
intermediate levels
•Challenges
•Compensatory recruitment
•Selective gears
•Lake level effects on recruitment and gear efficiency
Walsworth et al. 2023
Lake Level changes
•Fluctuates more than 2m
across years
•Large fluctuations within years
•Rapidly changes inundation of vegetated habitats
•Productivity
•Carp gear efficiency
How have the different components of the Utah Lake
ecosystem responded to carp population control and
concurrent lake level changes?
Ecosystem Monitoring Project
General design
•Nine strata
•One in Provo Bay
•Eight in main body of lake
•Sample each community within
each strata
•Monthly: Zooplankton, macrophyte
transects, water quality
•Spring/fall: Macroinvertebrates, lake-
wide macrophytes
•August: Fish community
Macrophytes
•Emergent and submerged aquatic plants
•Important rearing habitat for juvenile June sucker and sport fishes
•Common carp uproot vegetation during foraging
•Water depth and light critical
Photo: Manny May
Photo: Christian Fischer
Macrophytes
•Multiple approaches
•Field surveys
•Monthly transects
•Spring and fall presence/absence surveys coinciding with macroinvertebrate sampling
•Remote sensing
•Manny May, MS Thesis (2023)
•Landsat 8
•Images from September, 2014-2022
Macrophytes -Field sampling
•Dominated by hardstembullrush and Phragmites
•Species richness increases beginning in 2016
•Period of lowest carp biomass
•Submerged plants appear same time
•Coverage does not expand
Macrophytes –Field Sampling
•Dominated by hardstembullrush and Phragmites
•Species richness increases beginning in 2016
•Period of lowest carp biomass
•Submerged plants appear same time
•Coverage does not expand
Macrophytes –Field Sampling
•Multiple regression of
probability of occurrence by
taxa
Macrophytes –Field Sampling
•Multiple regression of
probability of occurrence by
taxa
Increase
with reduced
carp biomass
or lake level
Macrophytes –Field Sampling
•Multiple regression of
probability of occurrence by
taxa
Increase
with greater
carp biomass
or lake level
Macrophytes –Field Sampling
•Multiple regression of
probability of occurrence by
taxa
No significant
relationship with
carp biomass or lake
level
Macrophytes –Field Sampling
•Emergent taxa presence is
positively related to lake level
•Except for alkali bulrush
(negative)
•Sago pondweed presence is negatively related to common
carp biomass
•Lake-wide scale Landsat 8 imagery
•Analyze reflectance across spectral bands to determine probability each pixel contains emergent vegetation, submerged vegetation, or open water
•Submerged = fully below water surface
•Emergent = inundated but above water surface
•Sum probabilities across all pixels to get annual coverage estimate
Macrophytes –Remote Sensing
Manny May,
MS thesis
Macrophytes –Remote Sensing
•Submerged = fully below water surface
•Emergent = inundated but
above water surface
•Strong effect of lake level
•Positive effect on emergent
•Negative effect on submerged
•Strong effect of lake level
•Positive effect on emergent
•Negative effect on submerged Manny May,
MS thesis
Macrophytes –Remote Sensing
•Submerged = fully below water surface
•Emergent = inundated but
above water surface
•Strong effect of lake level
•Positive effect on emergent
•Negative effect on submerged
•No effect of carp biomass
Manny May,
MS thesis
Macrophyte response to ongoing change
•Positive responses to carp control at small scales
•Increased richness
•Increased probability of occurrence for submerged taxa
•Lake level has strong impacts on both
emergent and submerged vegetation
coverage at lake scale
•Masking carp effects?
•Implications for the lake food web
Macroinvertebrates
•Aquatic insects and other non-
zooplankton invertebrates (annelids,
oligochaetes,…)
•Important prey species for fishes in
lakes and rivers
•Sensitive to environmental change
Photo: Kelly O. Maloney
Macroinvertebrates
•Spring and fall samples from nine
strata around the lake
•Samples collected from within macrophyte habitats and in bare
sediment habitats
Photo: Kevin Landom
Macroinvertebrates
•Dominated by Chironomids and
Oligochaeta
•Biomass greater in macrophyte habitats than bare sediment habitats
Macroinvertebrates
•Dominated by Chironomids and
Oligochaeta
•Biomass greater in macrophyte habitats than bare sediment habitats
•Biomass and species richness greater in submerged and mixed macrophyte habitats than emergent macrophyte
habitats
Ryan Dillingham,
MS thesis
Macroinvertebrates
•Responses to carp and lake level
vary by taxa
•Chironomids and Oligochaeta negatively related to both carp
biomass and lake level
Macroinvertebrates
•Respond to changes in both carp
biomass and lake level
•Macrophytes are important, productive habitats for
macroinvertebrates
Zooplankton
•Important prey item for fishes
•Important grazers of phytoplankton
•Community composition and size-
structure respond quickly to changes in food web structure
Zooplankton
•Monthly samples from nine strata
around lake
•Biomass dominated by Daphnia spp. and Calanoid copepods
•Small-bodied taxa declined in biomass after 2017
Zooplankton
•Biomass CPUE increases with low carp biomass and low lake levels
•Individual taxa either respond positively or do not respond to carp biomass reductions
•Lake level impacts are less consistent across taxa
•Positive: Diaphanosoma, calanoid copepods, and Leptodora•Negative: Bosmina, Ceriodaphnia, cyclopoid copepods, and rotifers
Zooplankton
•Body size of many zooplankton taxa is negatively related to carp
biomass
Cristina Chirvasa,
undergraduate
research project
Zooplankton
•Body size of many zooplankton taxa is negatively related to carp
biomass
Zooplankton
•Body size of many zooplankton taxa is negatively related to carp
biomass
•Size-selective predation
•Carp prey selectively on largest Daphnia
•June sucker demonstrate similar pattern
Zooplankton
•Large-bodied zooplankton density increases as carp biomass is
reduced
•Size-selective predation also causes body size of large bodied
zooplankton to increase as carp
biomass is reduced
•Food web effects
Fish community
•Sampled in August using large commercial seine hauls from
standardized sites across nine lake
strata
•Catch per unit effort
•Body condition
•Metric of relative weight (higher =
better)
•Reflects growth rate
Illustrations: Duane Raver
Photo: June Sucker Recovery Program
Fish community -CPUE
•White bass and channel catfish are most abundant taxa after common carp
•White bass biomass CPUE has generally increased through time
•Fish kill event in spring 2022
•Only white bass CPUE is negatively related to carp CPUE
•Benthic species negatively related to lake level
Fish community -CPUE
•White bass and channel catfish are most abundant taxa after common carp
•White bass density has generally increased through time
•Fish kill in spring 2022
•Only white bass CPUE is negatively related to carp CPUE
•Benthic species negatively related to lake level
Fish community -Condition
•Body condition of most taxa
responds negatively to carp
biomass
•Suggests competitive release
•Benthic species condition negatively related to lake level
Fish community -Diets
•Chironomid larvae and pupae are
important prey for fishes of Utah
Lake
•Carp, white bass, and June sucker
have very similar diets
•Competition
Fish community
•Carp biomass reduction drives
changes in abundance and
condition of other species
•White bass have demonstrated
greatest response
•Evidence of competitive release for species with diet overlap
•Including June sucker
Photo: June Sucker Recovery Program
Illustrations: Duane Raver
Ecosystem Dynamics
•Principal Components Analysis of
all monitored ecosystem
components
•PC1 = Lake level effects
•PC2 = Carp biomass effects
Ecosystem Dynamics
•Principal Components Analysis of
all monitored ecosystem
components
•PC1 = Lake level effects
•PC2 = Carp biomass effects
Ecosystem Dynamics
•Principal Components Analysis of all monitored ecosystem components
•PC1 = Lake level effects
•PC2 = Carp biomass effects
•Can track evolution of ecosystem state
•Initial carp and lake level decline
•Lake level increase
•Carp and lake level increase
•Lake level decline
Ecosystem Dynamics
•Principal Components Analysis of all monitored ecosystem components
•PC1 = Lake level effects
•PC2 = Carp biomass effects
•Can track evolution of ecosystem state
•Initial carp and lake level decline
•Lake level increase
•Carp and lake level increase
•Lake level decline
Summary
•Substantial changes in carp biomass and lake level across the period of monitoring
•Both drivers impact all trophic levels of the lake
•Lake level strongly impacts macrophyte habitat
•Broad changes through time
•Increase in large zooplankton densities
•Increased body condition of fish species competing with carp
•Increased macrophyte species richness, but not cover
Questions?
•Acknowledgements
•Funding:
•June Sucker Recovery Implementation Program
•Support:
•Utah Division of Wildlife Resources•Utah Division of Water Quality•Central Utah Water Conservancy District
•Loy Fisheries
•USU Ecology Center•USU Dept. of Watershed Sciences
•Previous PIs:
•Jereme Gaeta•Todd Crowl
•QFAEL grads and techs
•Ellie Wallace, Rae Fadlovich, Manny May, Skylar Rousseau
•Cristina Chirvasa, Austin Garner, Julia Bennion, Tom Doolittle, Nikki Basilli, Adam Johnson, Andrew Helfrich, Payton Hanni
Fish community –Prey selectivity
•Chironomids are
strongly selected for
across all predators
•Zooplankton selectivity
varies among
individuals for all taxa
Macrophytes –Remote Sensing
•Lake-wide scale
•Submerged = fully below water surface
•Emergent = inundated but above water surface
•No effect of carp biomass
•Strong effect of lake level
•Positive effect on emergent
•Negative effect on submerged
Integrated Solutions for Utah Lake
Timpanogos Special Service District
June 29, 2023
©Jacobs 2023
How can we actually reduce harmful algal blooms (HABs) in Utah Lake?
2
Riley Lake, MNLake Wingra, WI
Image: Lathrop et al.
Carp exclosure
Panfish & carp exclosure
Image: Dave Florenzano
Riley Lake, MN
Utah Lake: carp +
wind driven
turbidity
No carp
Carp
No carp
Image:
BYU
©Jacobs 2023
Framework for the TSSD Utah Lake Solutions Program
3
Goal
Investigate and develop realistic, holistic, and long-term solutions that are attainable and reduce the intensity, duration, and frequency of future harmful algal blooms in Utah Lake.
Hypothesis
Wastewater treatment facilities are just one small part of the Utah Lake system that may be contributing yo the presence of HABs in Utah Lake.
Approach
Collaborative approach that tackles all three legs of the stool
Work with others to augment and enhance efforts
©Jacobs 2023
TSSD’s studies are intended to be a force multiplier for DWQ’s Utah Lake Water Quality Studies
4
Mean
Ranking -
Feb 2020 TSSD
1 How large is internal vs external loading (how long would recovery take?)2.3 X
2 Sediment budgets (C, N, and P; nutrient flux chambers) 3.6 X
3 Calcite scavenging (how bioavailable is SRP – does bioassay address?) 4.3
4 Adding modules to the WQ models (sediment diagenesis, calcite scavenging)4.3
5 Carp effects on nutrient cycling 7.3 X
6 Lake level (effect on macrophytes) 9.2 X
7 Bioassays that incorporate sediment (next phase mesocosms)9.4 X
8 Macrophyte recovery potential (Provo Bay demo) 10 X
9 Lake-level effects on biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling 10.2
10 Environmental controls on toxin production 11.1
11 Turbidity effect on primary producers 11.2 X
12 Resuspension rates from bioturbation 11.7 X
13 Carp effects on zooplankton (and does this influence algal response) 11.8 X
14 Carp effects on macrophytes 12.1 X
15 Toxin Production and N Species 13.7
16 Recreational surveys 13.8
17 Macrophyte role (to biogeochemistry) 14 X
18 Additional atmospheric deposition data*14.6
19 Alternative models (PCLake – cyano/macrophyte state change) 14.9
Research ideas
©Jacobs 2023
Integrated Solutions for Utah Lake
5
1. WRF Process & Facility Upgrades
2. Manage Expectations –Shaping the Discussion:
Will Nutrient Reductions Improve the Lake?
3. In-Lake Solutions
What does the science tell us?
2020 2021 2022 2023
ULWQ Phase II –Criteria Development
ULWQ Phase III –Implementation Planning
2019
Phase I
Criteria/Plan Approvals
2024
TSSD/Utah Lake Strategies
2025-2030+
ULWQ Phase IV -Implementation
©Jacobs 20236
Managing Expectations –
Shaping the Discussion
The ULWQS’s goal is to develop site specific criteria, identify sources of pollution, develop a TMDL, and reduce nutrient loading
TSSD’s research plan is specifically looking at the additional influence of in-lake nutrient cycling and ecosystem structure
What is their role?
Can we modify their influence?
Can nutrient reductions help?
©Jacobs 2023
Understand the Internal Cycling of Phosphorus in Utah Lake
(red/yellow)
Conceptual model from Te tra Te ch
2020
ULWQS
1. Internal vs
External
Loading/Sediment
Budgets3. Calcite Scavenging
7. Bioassays that
incorporate
sediment12. Resuspension rates from
bioturbation
TSSD
All 6 limnocorrals
will document the
budget and fate of nutrients.
©Jacobs 2023
Understand the Ecological Response to Phosphorus in Utah
Lake (blue)
ULWQS
5. Carp effects on
Nutrient Cycling
6. Lake level effects
on macrophytes8. Macrophyte recovery potential
11. Turbidity effects
on primary
producers12. Resuspension rates from
bioturbation
13. Carp effects on
zooplankton14. Carp effects on macrophytes
15. Macrophyte role
to biogeochemistry
TSSD
Documenting the
populations and dynamics of all
elements of the
foodweb within each
of the 6 limnocorrals.
©Jacobs 2023
Evaluate a Disruption of the Internal Cycling of Phosphorus
in Utah Lake via Ecosystem Improvements (green/yellow)
Improvements to
Ecosystem Structure
Improvements to
Ecosystem Structure
ULWQS
5. Carp effects on
Nutrient Cycling
6. Lake level effects
on macrophytes7. Macrophyte recovery potential
11. Turbidity effects
on primary
producers12. Resuspension rates from
bioturbation
13. Carp effects on
zooplankton14. Carp effects on macrophytes
15. Macrophyte role
to biogeochemistry
TSSD
Evaluating the effect
of carp removal and
addition of macrophytes upon
water quality and the
ecology within the
limnocorrals
©Jacobs 2023
Evaluate a Disruption of the Internal Cycling of Phosphorus
in Utah Lake via Geochemical Augmentation (green/yellow)
Disrupting Internal
Nutrient Cycling
Disrupting
Internal Nutrient
Cycling
ULWQS
5. Carp effects on
Nutrient Cycling
6. Lake level effects
on macrophytes7. Macrophyte recovery potential
11. Turbidity effects
on primary
producers13. Carp effects on zooplankton
14. Carp effects on
macrophytes
15. Macrophyte role to biogeochemistry
TSSD
Evaluating the effect
of carp removal and
addition of
macrophytes upon water quality and the ecology within the
limnocorrals
ULWQS
1. Internal vs External
Loading/Sediment
Budgets
3. Calcite
Scavenging5. Carp effects on
Nutrient Cycling
7. Bioassays that
incorporate
sediment8. Macrophyte
recovery potential
11. Turbidity effects
on primary
producers12. Resuspension
rates from
bioturbation TSSD
Evaluating the
addition of ACH in
limnocorrals with
and without carp
ACH
©Jacobs 2023
ACH
TSSD’s Utah Lake Studies Focus upon Modifying/Disrupting the Internal
Cycling of Phosphorus in Utah Lake to Improve the Ecological Response
©Jacobs 202312
1. Can watershed inputs of nutrients be reduced?
Utah Lake Water Quality Studies (Division of Water Quality)(1) Goal rephrased by TSSD as a question.
Goal: to develop numeric nutrient water quality criteria for Utah Lake
1. What was the historic ecological and nutrient condition of Utah Lake pre-settlement and how has it changed?
2. What is the current ecological and nutrient condition?
3. What additional information is needed?
4. Can the lake be improved given current management constraints?
TSSD Utah Lake Solutions Program
2. Are there elements of the lake's ecosystem structure that can be improved?
2.1 Is removal of carp a successful means of reducing internal nutrient cycling and reducing the intensity, duration and frequency of HABs?
2.2 Could re-establishment of macrophytes reduce TSS and internal nutrient cycling and reduce the intensity, duration and frequency of HABs?
3. Can lake internal nutrient cycling be disrupted?
Figure 2. Integrating the science required to both measure and monitor water quality and to improve water quality is essential for reducing the
intensity, duration, and frequency of future HABs in Utah Lake.
Are there holistic and long-term solutions that can reduce the intensity, duration, and frequency of
future HABs in Utah Lake?
What is the acceptable waterborne concentration of phosphorus and nitrogen that
prevents impairment of the beneficial uses of the open waters of Utah Lake?(1)
3.1 Is the addition of aluminum salts to Utah Lake a successful means to permanently sequester in-lake phosphorus,
reduce internal nutrient cycling, and reduce the intensity, duration, and frequency of HABs?
©Jacobs 202313
Phase III, 2023 In-Lake Solutions
What does the science tell us?
What solutions can we develop that will move us forward?
1. In-Lake Limnocorrals
Is the lake naturally buffered?
What role do adult carp and wind turbulence play?
Can fisheries management be part of the solution?
Can native mollusks help improve water quality?
2. Shoreline Restoration with Native Plants
Can we stabilize the shoreline to improve water quality and habitat?
©Jacobs 202314
©Jacobs 2023
Shoreline Restoration with Native Plants
15
Taking the next step!
−Can we establish plants at scale?
−What impact will carp have?
Lake -wide Implementation?
TSSD Wetland Mitigation Credits?
©Jacobs 2023
Shoreline Restoration with Native Plants
16
Lake-wide Implementation?
TSSD Wetland Mitigation Credits?
What if?
Questions