Heart Lake 2018 Alum Treatment Report - Anacortes, WA

HEART LAKE 2018 ALUM TREATMENT REPORT

Prepared for Anacortes Parks and Recreation

Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.

HEART LAKE 2018 ALUM TREATMENT REPORT

Prepared for Anacortes Parks and Recreation

904 Sixth Street P.O. Box 547

Anacortes, Washington 98221

Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.

2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080

April 22, 2019

i pjj 15-06096-002_heartlake2018alumtrtmtrpt.docx

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................ v

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Alum Treatment Activities and Observations .............................................................................................. 3

2.1. Alum Dose ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2. Chemical Materials ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3. Preparation ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4. Equipment Staging and Chemical Storage ......................................................................................... 5

2.5. Chemical Application ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6. Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 8

2.6.1. Amphibian Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 8

2.6.2. Trout Mortality............................................................................................................................. 9

2.7. Permit Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 11

2.7.1. Permit Restrictions ................................................................................................................... 11

2.7.2. Ecology Notification ................................................................................................................ 12

2.7.3. Public Notification and Sign Posting ................................................................................ 13

3. Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 15

3.1. Treatment Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 15

3.2. Lake Monitoring Locations ...................................................................................................................... 16

3.3. Jar Test ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

3.4. Treatment Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.1. Twice-Daily Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 18

3.4.2. Random Daily Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 19

3.4.3. Short-Term Impact Monitoring ........................................................................................... 21

3.5. Post-Treatment Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 25

3.5.1. Water Temperature .................................................................................................................. 27

3.5.2. Secchi Depth .............................................................................................................................. 28

3.5.3. Chlorophyll .................................................................................................................................. 29

3.5.4. Phosphorus ................................................................................................................................. 30

3.5.5. Nitrogen ....................................................................................................................................... 31

ii pjj 15-06096-002_heartlake2018alumtrtmtrpt.docx

3.5.6. Total Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio ................................................................................. 32

3.5.7. Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................................... 32

4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................ 37

5. References............................................................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDICES Appendix A Daily Application Logs

Appendix B Institute for Watershed Studies Monitoring Report Appendix C Edge Analytical Reports

iii pjj 15-06096-002_heartlake2018alumtrtmtrpt.docx

TABLES Table 1. Daily Application Amounts and Areas for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum

Treatment. ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 2. Amphibian Observations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. .................................... 9

Table 3. Trout Mortality Observed Following the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ................... 10

Table 4. Alum Treatment Objectives for Summer Trophic Status in Heart Lake. ............................ 16

Table 5. Jar Test Results for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ..................................................... 17

Table 6. Treatment Monitoring Design for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ....................... 18

Table 7. Daily Mean Values of Field Parameters for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ................................................................................................................................................. 19

Table 8. Random Daily pH Data Summary for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ................. 20

Table 9. Short-Term Impact Monitoring Results (Deep Station) for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 10. Comparison of Toxicity Criteria to Total Aluminum Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ................................................................................................... 24

Table 11. Year 1 Post-Treatment Water Quality Results for the Heart Lake 2018 alum Treatment. ................................................................................................................................................. 26

FIGURES Figure 1. Heart Lake Watershed, Monitoring Locations, and Treatment Sign Locations. ................ 2

Figure 2. Alum Application Track Lines for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ........................... 7

Figure 3. Deep, Shallow, and Random Monitoring Locations in Heart Lake. ..................................... 20

Figure 4. Water Temperature Profiles for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment Post-Treatment Period. ................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 5. Secchi Depths for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ....................................................... 28

Figure 6. Chlorophyll a Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ......................... 29

Figure 7. Total Phosphorus Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ................ 30

Figure 8. Total Nitrogen Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. ...................... 31

Figure 9. Phytoplankton Concentrations (cells/mL) in Heart Lake for the Summer of 2018. ............................................................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 10. Phytoplankton Composition for Pretreatment (2016) and Post-Treatment (2018) Summers at the Deep Station in Heart Lake. ................................................................. 34

v pjj 15-06096-002_heartlake2018alumtrtmtrpt.docx

Acknowledgements This project was funded by a Freshwater Algae Program grant from the Washington Department of Ecology to Anacortes Parks for the preparation and implementation of an algae management plan to reduce phosphorus and control algae blooms in Heart Lake. Jonn Lunsford (Anacortes Parks & Recreation) was instrumental in the project success by recognizing the importance of the project, obtaining funding, and managing project activities. Dave Oicles (Anacortes Parks & Recreation) effectively navigated the water quality monitoring boat. Michael Lawlor (Western Washington University Institute for Watershed Studies [IWS]) diligently and adaptively collected water quality, amphibian, and fish data, prepared the monitoring report, and provided the cover photo of this treatment report. Dr. Robin Matthews (IWS) applied extensive limnological expertise in directing the laboratory analysis and data reporting, with valuable assistance by Joan Pickens. Dr. John Holz and Tadd Borrow with HAB Aquatic Solutions performed the alum treatment with precision and professionalism.

vii pjj 15-06096-002_heartlake2018alumtrtmtrpt.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Heart Lake is located 2 miles south of the City of Anacortes in Skagit County, Washington, in the Community Forest Lands managed by the City of Anacortes Parks and Recreation (Anacortes Parks & Recreation). Heart Lake is a naturally eutrophic, nutrient-rich lake that is very productive biologically. The lake experiences excessive amounts of algae and aquatic plants in the summer that interfere with its beneficial recreational uses (swimming, boating, and fishing). Problem algae growth primarily consists of blooms of toxic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that have caused closure of the lake to contact recreation due to the public health risk.

Anacortes Parks & Recreation is committed to improving water quality in Heart Lake and received a Freshwater Algae Program Grant from Washington Department of Ecology for fiscal year 2018 to prepare and implement an algae management plan for Heart Lake to reduce phosphorus and control algae blooms in the lake. The plan included treatment of the entire lake with buffered aluminum sulfate (alum) to inactivate sediment phosphorus with the objective of reducing algae growth in the lake for at least 5 years.

The 2018 alum treatment occurred as planned over a 2-day period on April 3 and 4, 2018. A total of 16,537 gallons of alum and 8,400 gallons of sodium aluminate (buffer) were applied to the lake within 1 percent of the planned amounts at the planned ratio of 2 parts alum to 1 part sodium aluminate. The total dose of aluminum (Al) applied was 1,362 kg (16 percent) less than the planned amount of 8,361 kg because the sodium aluminate had a lower aluminum content than expected. As a result, the actual dose was 10.8 mg Al/L versus the planned dose of 12.9 mg Al/L on a volumetric basis. The reduced aluminum dose is expected to meet water quality objectives for at least 5 years because it is nearly equivalent to the 10.9 mg Al/L dose applied to nearby Lake Erie and Lake Campbell, which were both considered effective for over 8 years (Herrera 2018).

Oversight and short-term water quality monitoring were conducted before, during, and after the treatment (2 days, 8 days, and 14 days) to ensure proper material application, prevent potential impacts to fish from low or high pH, and meet permit requirements. Public notifications and signs were used to inform and educate park users of the alum treatment, and lake access was closed during the treatment.

The condition of the amphibian egg masses and fish behavior in Heart Lake was monitored before, during, and after the alum treatment. No abnormal behaviors or mortalities were observed before or during the alum treatment. However, a total of 32 fish mortalities were observed in the first 5 days following treatment (April 4 through 9, 2018) that primarily consisted of trout, which apparently represented a small portion of the 8,561 catchable trout planted in the lake in April 2017. The observed mortalities were likely attributed to a combination of stressors that included both the alum treatment and a pre-existing algae bloom. The algae

April 2019

viii Heart Lake 2018 Alum Treatment Report

bloom produced super-saturated dissolved oxygen concentrations (up to 144 percent saturation) and high pH (average of 8.8) that affect fish health. Although the alum application reduced the pH from 8.8 to 8.2 and no trout gill abnormalities were observed, aluminum concentrations exceeded toxicity criteria during the alum treatment and likely contributed to the observed fish mortality.

Post-treatment water quality monitoring was performed on six occasions from May through October 2018. The post-treatment water quality objectives were met for total phosphorus (summer mean less than 24 µg/L) and Secchi depth (summer mean greater than 2.0 meters). The summer mean chlorophyll a concentration (8.8 µg/L) was slightly higher than the post-treatment water quality objective for Heart Lake (7.2 µg/L). Compared to pretreatment monitoring conducted in 2016, the alum treatment greatly reduced the amount of phytoplankton and improved the algae composition by shifting dominance from cyanobacteria to green algae species. The water quality goal of no lake closures due to toxic cyanobacteria was achieved in 2018.

April 2019

Heart Lake 2018 Alum Treatment Report 1

1. INTRODUCTION Heart Lake is located 2 miles south of the City of Anacortes in Skagit County, Washington, in the Community Forest Lands managed by the City of Anacortes Parks and Recreation (Anacortes Parks & Recreation) (Figure 1). It is fed by seasonal streams and wetlands and itself is the headwaters of the Ace of Hearts Creek which ultimately flows into Fidalgo Bay.

Heart Lake is a eutrophic, nutrient-rich lake that is very productive biologically. The lake experiences excessive amounts of algae and aquatic plants in the summer that interfere with its beneficial recreational uses (swimming, boating, and fishing). Excessive aquatic plant growth is being managed by Anacortes Parks & Recreation as part of an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (IAVMP). Problem algae growth primarily consists of blooms of toxic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that have caused closure of the lake to contact recreation due to the public health risk. Lake closures occurred in September 2012, July 2013, and August 2014 due to algae blooms. In addition, dense floating mats of decaying filamentous green algae also impact recreation and aesthetic values of the lake.

Anacortes Parks & Recreation is committed to improving water quality in Heart Lake and applied for and received a Freshwater Algae Program grant from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) to conduct a water quality study and prepare the Heart Lake Water Quality Study Report (Herrera 2017). The study evaluated water quality conditions, estimated phosphorus loadings, and recommended treatment of the entire lake with buffered aluminum sulfate (alum) to inactivate sediment phosphorus with the objective of reducing algae growth in the lake for at least 5 years. The water quality study also outlined the necessary steps for conducting an alum treatment in the spring of 2018.

Alum treatments are designed to inactivate the internal cycling of inorganic and organic phosphorus. The alum is applied near the water surface and it removes phosphorus from the water column as it flocculates and settles. It then covers the bottom sediments to further prevent the internal release of phosphorus from the sediments.

Anacortes Parks & Recreation also received a Freshwater Algae Program grant from Ecology for fiscal year 2018 to prepare and implement an algae management plan for Heart Lake to reduce phosphorus and control algae blooms in the lake. The Heart Lake Alum Treatment Plan (Herrera 2018) presented background information about the lake, refined the alum dose and cost estimate presented in the water quality study, provided additional details about the treatment procedures and timing, and presented an oversight and monitoring plan for the alum treatment.

This report describes how the 2018 alum treatment was performed, presents methods and results of engineering oversight and water quality monitoring conducted during the treatment, and presents and evaluates post-treatment water quality monitoring results collected during the first summer following the treatment.

!(

HeartLake

Anacortes

PATRICIA LANE

RAY AU

LDDR

IVE

WELCH LANE

HIC K ORY DRIVE

ERIE

MOUN

TAIN

DRIVE

HAVE

KOST

ROAD

HEAR

T LAK

E ROA

DDeep

Shallow

K:\Projects\Y2015\15-06096-000\Project\vicinity_map.mxd (2/1/2018)

0 900 1,800450Feet

LegendBathymetry contour

0 to 5 ft5 to 10 ft10 to 15 ft15 to 20 ftTreatment sign locationLake station

!( Lake outletWatershedTrailStreamCity limit

^

P A C I F I CO C E A N

WASHINGTON

BRITISH COLUMBIA

IndexForks

TacomaShelton

Seattle

Everett

Chehalis

Cle Elum

Bremerton

Darrington

Bellingham

Leavenworth

Ocean Shores

Port Angeles

Mount Vernon

Olympia

Figure 1.Heart Lake Watershed, Monitoring Locations, and Treatment Sign Locations.

Prepared for King County by Herrera

±

April 2019


2. ALUM TREATMENT ACTIVITIES AND OBSERVATIONS

The contractor (HAB Aquatic Solutions) conducted the 2018 alum treatment of Heart Lake on April 3 and 4, 2018. The alum treatment was observed by a construction manager from Herrera during each day of treatment to record material quantities, observe application procedures, and modify application procedures if needed. Daily application logs are presented in Appendix A. Treatment activities performed by the contractor and observations by Herrera are described separately below for each planned activity.

The Herrera construction manager also conducted jar tests and reviewed water quality data provided by a qualified water quality monitor from Western Washington University Institute for Environmental Studies (IWS) on a regular basis. Water quality monitoring methods and results are presented in Section 3.

2.1. ALUM DOSE For the Heart Lake Water Quality Study Report (Herrera 2017), the alum dose was calculated as the amount of aluminum required to control (inactivate) phosphorus in both deep and shallow sediments, and phosphorus present in the water column. Based on additional considerations for the Heart Lake Alum Treatment Plan (Herrera 2018), the initial dose of 14.3 mg Al/L on a volumetric basis and 41.0 g Al/m2 on an areal basis was reduced to 12.9 mg Al/L on a volumetric basis and 32.1 g Al/m2 on an areal basis. The final planned aluminum dose is higher than aluminum doses applied in 1985 to nearby Lake Erie (10.9 mg Al/L and 20 g Al/m2) and Lake Campbell (10.9 mg Al/L and 26 g Al/m2) that lasted over 8 years (Herrera 2018).

The planned aluminum dose was based on the following factors:

• Inactivate available phosphorus in the top 10 cm of sediments based on an average available phosphorus concentration of 0.025 mg/cm3 in the shallow sediments and 0.032 mg/cm3 in deep sediments covering areas of 42.4 and 21.9 acres, respectively.

• Inactivate total phosphorus in the epilimnion (254,291 m3 above 10 feet deep) and hypolimnion (392,545 m3 below 10 feet deep) based on total phosphorus concentrations of 36 and 292 mg/m3 for each layer, respectively.

• Use a ratio of 10 parts aluminum to 1 part aluminum-bound phosphorus formed to calculate a total aluminum dose of 8,361 kg based on 7,123 kg to inactive sediment phosphorus and 1,238 kg to inactivate water phosphorus.

April 2019

4 Heart Lake 2018 Alum Treatment Report

• Apply a total of 16,722 gallons of alum and 8,361 gallons of sodium aluminate based on a ratio of 2 parts alum to 1 part sodium aluminate (by volume), and amounts of aluminum present in liquid alum (0.22 kg/gallon) and sodium aluminate (0.56 kg/gallon)

• Anticipate a total of four trucks will be required for the alum and three trucks for the sodium aluminate based on a truck capacity of 4,500 gallons and weight restrictions limiting each alum truck to 4,200 gallons and each sodium aluminate truck to 3,800 gallons.

• Extend the application from 1 to 2 consecutive days at approximately 50 percent each day to allow more settling of the alum floc and reduce aluminum concentrations in the water.

Chemical materials and the application procedures followed the technical specifications outlined in the Heart Lake Alum Treatment Plan (Herrera 2018) to achieve maximum effectiveness with protection of fish and other aquatic organisms. The technical specifications included additional details on the materials and application procedures to ensure proper handling, dosing, floc formation, and distribution of the materials in the lake. The technical specifications also included requirements for public notification and equipment calibration and maintenance that are specified in the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Permit (Permit) issued by Ecology (2016). The permit-required water quality monitoring results are presented in Section 3.

2.2. CHEMICAL MATERIALS HAB Aquatic Solutions applied 16,537 gallons (183,560 pounds) of alum from four truckloads and 8,400 gallons (98,280 pounds) of sodium aluminate from two truckloads (see Bill of Lading in Appendix A). The total amount of alum applied (16,537 gallons) was slightly less than the planned amount (16,722 gallons). The total amount of sodium aluminate applied (8,400 gallons) was slightly more than the planned amount (8,361 gallons).

The average aluminum (Al) content of alum was 8.09 percent as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) by weight and the average Al content of sodium aluminate was 14.56 percent as Al2O3 by weight (see Bill of Lading in Appendix A). The Al mass applied in kilograms (kg) was calculated from multiplying the pounds applied by the Al content as Al2O3 for each material, and converting pounds to kg and then kg Al2O3 to kg Al based on the ratio of molecular weights for Al2 and Al2O3 (54:102). Based on the applied material weights and aluminum contents, 3,566 kg of aluminum was added from the alum and 3,433 kg of aluminum was added from the buffer, for a total aluminum dose of 6,999 kg.

Due to the lower percentage of aluminum oxide in the sodium aluminate (average of 14.56 percent or 0.429 kg Al/L) compared to the initial dose calculations (18.96 percent or 0.56 kg Al/L), the actual amount of aluminum applied from the sodium aluminate was 1,249 kg (27 percent) less than the planned amount of 4,682 kg and the total dose of aluminum applied was 1,362 kg (16 percent) less than planned amount of 8,361 kg. As a result, the actual dose was

April 2019


10.8 mg Al/L versus the planned dose of 12.9 mg Al/L on a volumetric basis (based on a lake volume of 646,836 m3), and was 26.9 g Al/m2 versus the planned dose of 32.1 g Al/m2 on an areal basis (based on a lake area of 260,173 m2). The reduced aluminum dose of 10.8 mg Al/L is expected to last at least 5 years because it is nearly equivalent to the 10.9 mg Al/L dose applied to nearby Lake Erie and Lake Campbell, which both lasted over 8 years (Herrera 2018).

The alum and sodium aluminate were drinking water treatment grade as specified by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), and contained no substances in quantities capable of producing deleterious or injurious effects on public health or water quality.

2.3. PREPARATION HAB Aquatic Solutions conducted all operations in such a way as to:

• Comply with any and all Permit conditions for this project.

• Prevent damage to the lake, equipment, and surrounding properties.

• Prevent damage to the aquatic environment from hydraulic fluid leaks by using a biodegradable hydraulic fluid in all equipment.

• Prevent damage to the lake by ensuring that no aquatic invasive species are introduced into the lake. This shall include decontaminating all equipment and gear that will come into contact with lake water prior to bringing such equipment to the staging area.

• Maintain orderly appearance at the staging area an on the treatment vessel (e.g., barge or boat) while the treatment is occurring.

• Prevent damage to the aquatic environment if temporary on-shore storage tanks are used at the staging area.

• Prevent damage to all utilities and below ground infrastructure at the staging area.

2.4. EQUIPMENT STAGING AND CHEMICAL STORAGE Temporary, on-shore storage tanks were deployed in the parking lot by HAB Aquatic Solutions for staging the chemicals to ensure that the application of alum and sodium aluminate was successfully completed in the required application timeframe of 2 working days (see photo). On-shore and on-board chemical storage tanks and associated spill containment equipment met local state and federal regulations. No structural damage or chemical spills occurred at the staging area.

April 2019


2.5. CHEMICAL APPLICATION The alum and sodium aluminate application was performed by HAB Aquatic Solutions on April 3 and April 4, 2018. Mobilization occurred on April 3, 2018, and demobilization was completed on April 4, 2018.

A mixture of liquid aluminum sulfate (alum) and liquid sodium aluminate (buffer) was injected below the lake surface from the treatment vessel (see photo). The alum and sodium aluminate did not come in contact with one another outside of the water. The treatment vessel position in the lake was controlled by a global positioning system (GPS) to continuously adjust the application rate of liquid alum and sodium aluminate mixture based on boat speed and water depth. This ensured complete and uniform chemical coverage during application.

The treatment vessel contained chemical storage tanks with secondary containment, and applicator equipment for even chemical distribution. The system of chemical distribution met the proposed application rate of approximately 12,500 gallons per day of combined alum and sodium aluminate. The chemicals were delivered to the lake water from a boom system at an approximate depth of 1 to 2 inches below the water surface from a minimum of 12 pairs of alum and sodium aluminate injection tubes (nozzles or small hoses) spaced 8 to 12 inches between pairs, and with the alum and sodium aluminate injection tubes within each pair spaced 2 to 4 inches apart. The injection tubes were alternating so that the closest tubes in each direction were always tubes of the other chemical. The alum treatment did not begin until the boom system was approved by the Herrera construction manager.

Material quantities and application areas for each day are summarized in Table 1 from the daily application logs and bill of lading (Appendix A). Maps of the application track lines are presented in Figure 2.

Alum Treatment Staging Area and Application

April 2019


Table 1. Daily Application Amounts and Areas for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

Date Start Time End Time Alum Applied

(gallons) Sodium Aluminate Applied (gallons)

Application Area (acres)

4/3/2018 1010 1545 8,269 4,200 31.5 4/4/2018 810 1240 8,268 4,200 32.5

Total – – 16,537 8,400 64.0

a Total volume of alum is reduced from the reported daily sum of 82,244 gallons based on actual volumes in bills of lading

Figure 2. Alum Application Track Lines for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

April 2019


The materials were applied at a volumetric ratio of 2 parts alum to 1 part sodium aluminate at variable rates to achieve a water column average aluminum concentration of 10.9 mg Al/L, which was 16 percent less than the planned dose of 12.9 mg Al/L. Most of the total lake area of 64.3 acres was evenly covered with approximately half of the lake being covered each day (see Table 1). Small areas excluded from treatment include shallow waters located around water lilies or woody debris extending into the lake (see Figure 2).

In accordance with the Permit, the lake pH, and alkalinity if needed, were monitored in surface water samples as described in Section 3. Work was to be suspended if the pH of lake water is consistently less than 6.5 (± 0.05) or greater than 8.5 (± 0.05) in the collected water samples. The threshold for re-starting treatment was a pH between 6.6 and 8.4 (± 0.05) and an alkalinity of at least 10 mg/L (± 0.5 mg/L). As discussed in Section 3, the treatment was initiated when the pH slightly exceeded the upper threshold due to an algae bloom. The treatment reduced the pH to within acceptable limits on the second day of treatment without a need to suspend the treatment.

A final inspection of the staging area was conducted by Anacortes Parks & Recreation on April 4, 2018. All contractor equipment had been removed and the site appeared to be in the same condition it was before the project began. Anacortes Parks & Recreation also confirmed that all of the public notification signs had been removed in accordance with the Permit.

2.6. FISH AND WILDLIFE MONITORING

2.6.1. Amphibian Monitoring

Surveys for rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa) and other amphibians were conducted before and after the alum treatment. The surveys were conducted by trolling the perimeter of the lake in search of egg masses, as well as dip netting for larvae and adults in the southwest lobe of Heart Lake. The surveys were conducted using a 650-micron dip net to sweep the lake bottom and aquatic vegetation for adult and larvae at depths of 0.2 to 1.5 meters.

No rough-skinned newt adults, larvae, or egg masses were found. The absence of eggs may have been due to the lack of submerged vegetation present in the lake as a result of the 2017 Sonar™ (fluridone) treatment (Herrera 2018). Rough-skinned newts conceal their eggs by laying them singly and attached to submerged vegetation. Although rough-skinned newts were not found, there were three distinct types of amphibian egg masses (see photos) identified along the shoreline, as summarized in Table 2.

Long-Toed Salamander Egg Mass (M. Lawlor, April 6, 2018).

April 2019


Table 2. Amphibian Observations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. Species Pretreatment Observations Post-Treatment Observations

Rough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa)

No rough-skinned newt adults, larvae, or egg masses were found.

No rough-skinned newt adults, larvae, or egg masses were found.

Northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile)

At least 10 round, rigid gelatinous egg clusters found adhering to aquatic vegetation and woody debris. All embryos appeared to be alive and without deformities.

Egg sac abundance appeared to increase. Embryos increased noticeably in size between monitoring days, developed front legs and gill, and some larvae were emerging during the final short-term monitoring visit (April 18, 2018).

Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)

Approximately 25 embryos found floating among the cattails. All embryos appeared to be alive and without deformities.

No embryos were found, possibly due to difficulty finding the small egg masses in the dense cattails.

Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla)

None observed Egg clusters found. Larvae exhibited growth and showed no signs of deformation.

After the alum treatment, the Northwestern salamander egg sac abundance seemed to increase. This was likely due to both sampling variation and the deposition of additional Northwestern salamander egg masses between sampling dates. Due to their abundance, development of Northwestern salamander egg masses was monitored as an indicator of whether the alum treatment affected the amphibian populations of Heart Lake. The Northwestern salamander embryos increased noticeably in size between monitoring days, with some developing front legs and gills. Emergence of larvae from egg clusters was observed during the final short-term monitoring visit on April 18, 2018. These observations indicate that the alum treatment did not affect amphibian populations in Heart Lake.

2.6.2. Trout Mortality

The condition of the fish in Heart Lake was monitored by observing changes in behavior and mortality before, during, and after the alum treatment. No abnormal behaviors or mortalities were observed before or during the alum treatment.

In the first 5 days following treatment (April 5 through 9, 2018), a total of 33 fish mortalities were observed with most (23) of the mortalities observed at 2 days after the treatment (Table 3).

Northwestern Salamander Egg Mass (M. Lawlor, April 6, 2018)

April 2019


In addition, two adult trout exhibited signs of distress by gasping at the water surface and delayed reaction times. The dead fish gills were examined and there were no signs of chemical precipitates or burned gills (personal communication, M. Lawlor, April 6, 2018). These observations were immediately reported to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in accordance with the Permit. Example trout photographs are shown below.

Table 3. Trout Mortality Observed Following the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

Species Size

Fish Mortality Total

April 5, 2018 April 6, 2018 April 9, 2018

Adult rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

28 to 36 cm 1 22 4

15 cm 0 0 1 6 to 7 cm 1 1 3

Total 2 23 8

a Fish mortality observations on April 5, 2018, and April 9, 2018, were recorded by D. Oicles (Anacortes Parks). Fish mortality observations on April 6, 2018, were recorded by D. Oicles (Anacortes Parks) and M. Lawlor (IWS).

Distressed Trout (M. Lawlor, April 6, 2018)

Dead Trout (D. Oicles, April 5, 2018) Trout Gills (M. Lawlor, April 6, 2018)

The observed mortalities were likely attributed to a combination of stressors that included both the existing algae bloom and the alum treatment. The algae bloom developed before the alum

April 2019


treatment and produced supersaturated dissolved oxygen concentrations, reaching levels up to 144 percent saturation on the day before the treatment. Such conditions can have deleterious effects on fish and have been linked to gas bubble disease and improper inflation of the swim bladder (Weitkamp and Katz 1980).

Water quality monitoring data were collected continuously throughout the alum treatment process (see Section 3). The alum application reduced the pH from 8.8 to 8.2, which may have reduced trout stress caused by the algae bloom. Aluminum concentrations exceeded chronic toxicity criteria in surface water samples and acute toxicity criteria in bottom water samples collected immediately following the second day of treatment. The aluminum criteria exceedance during the treatment and the onset of mortality on the day after the treatment suggests that the trout mortalities may have been caused by aluminum toxicity. Trout stress from supersaturated conditions, high pH, and possibly the physical presence of the alum floc may have increased trout sensitivity to aluminum toxicity. Although the alum application reduced the pH from 8.8 to 8.2 and no trout gill abnormalities were observed, exceedance of aluminum toxicity criteria during the alum treatment indicates that the treatment likely contributed to the observed fish mortality.

2.7. PERMIT CONDITIONS The alum treatment was conducted in accordance with the Permit. A notice of intent (permit application) was submitted to Ecology by Anacortes Parks & Recreation for the 2017 herbicide treatment, which was subject to a 30-day public comment period and included published notification. The permit is valid for 5 years through 2021 and was updated in November 2017 to include alum in addition to the listed herbicides (personal communication, J. Lunsford, November 27, 2017).

2.7.1. Permit Restrictions

Permit restrictions for alum treatments include:

• Timing restrictions (Table 4 in Ecology 2016):

o None for fish, but check the WDFW timing table for other priority species (WDFW 2016).

o Resident cutthroat and waterfowl concentration are listed for Heart Lake, but do not have any treatment window restrictions.

o Early spring or fall treatment if aquatic plant biomass may interfere with inactivation of sediment phosphorus.

• No lake use restrictions or advisories.

April 2019


• Treatment restrictions (Table 4 in Ecology 2016):

o Application must cease when wind speed is greater than 15 miles per hour.

o Powdered alum must be mixed with water to form a slurry before applying to the water surface.

o The pH of lake water during treatment must remain between 6.0 and 8.5 based on the lake average.

o Only aluminum compounds suitable for water treatment may be used.

o Buffering materials must be available for use.

• Other restrictions (Table 4 in Ecology 2016):

o A jar test must be completed prior to whole lake treatments only if a buffer other than sodium aluminate is used or a ratio of liquid alum to liquid sodium aluminate differs from 2:1 by volume.

o An onsite storage facility is required for any treatment requiring 9,000 gallons of alum or more, or the project proponent must have a plan to store any unused alum or buffering products.

• Monitoring requirements (Section S6.B in Ecology 2016):

o Minimum monitoring is one surface water pH measurement in the morning prior to any alum addition and one surface water pH measurement 1 hour after alum addition has stopped for that day.

o Monitoring for pH must continue for the duration of the treatment and for 24 hours following treatment completion.

o Monitoring locations must be representative of water-body-wide conditions.

The Permit allows for short- and long-term exceedances of Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A) provided that the Permittee complies with any short-term modifications of water quality criteria authorized in writing by Ecology. Water quality degradation is allowed if the degradation does not significantly interfere with or become injurious to existing or designated water uses or cause long-term harm to the environment (WAC 173-201A-410).

2.7.2. Ecology Notification

Anacortes Parks submitted pre- and post-treatment information to Ecology as required by the Permit.

April 2019


2.7.3. Public Notification and Sign Posting

In accordance with Permit requirements, Anacortes Parks & Recreation notified the public at least 10 days in advance and at most 42 days before the first day of treatment, and provided Ecology and the Washington Department of Natural Resources with a copy of the notice.

Anacortes Parks & Recreation provided and installed the required shoreline and public access notification signs as per the posting requirements of the Permit. General signage requirements included the following:

• Use the templates provided on the Permit webpage.

• Post signs no more than 48 hours prior to treatment.

• Post signs so that they are secure from the normal effects of weather and water currents.

• Make best efforts to ensure that the signs remain in place and are legible until the end of the period of water use restrictions.

• Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restrictions.

Anacortes Parks posted 2- by 3-foot signs at the shoreline public access areas:

• One single sign at the boat launch (see Figure 1) and a second sign at the park entrance.

• The signs were clearly visible to the public access area and constructed of durable weather-resistant material.

• An 8.5- by 11-inch weather resistant map of the lake was attached to each sign designating the following:

o “Treatment area includes the entire lake area below a depth of 2 feet for both chemicals” (located within the lake area)

o Start and Stop Address marked and labeled as WDFW Boat Launch (at Latitude 48.47518210, Longitude -122.62847670)

o Reader’s Location marked and labeled

• Signs included the word “CAUTION” in bold black type at least 2 inches high, and used a font at least 0.5 inches high for all other words.

Anacortes Parks posted public pathways along a treated waterbody with 8.5- by 11-inch signs:

• Posted at approximately five locations on trails around the lake (see Figure 1).

• Constructed of durable weather-resistant material.

April 2019


3. WATER QUALITY MONITORING This section describes the treatment goals and objectives and the lake monitoring locations, and then presents the water quality monitoring results for the following three components of the Heart Lake alum treatment:

• Jar test

• Treatment monitoring

• Post-treatment monitoring

3.1. TREATMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The objectives of the jar test prior to the alum treatment were to ensure that:

• pH levels >6.5 for protection of aquatic biota from aluminum toxicity

• Determine if the aluminum sulfate to sodium aluminate ratio proposed was sufficient based on the materials delivered to the site

The objective of the water quality monitoring conducted during the alum treatment were to ensure that:

• Average pH >6.5 and <8.5

• Average alkalinity >10 mg/L

The objectives of post-treatment monitoring are to determine if the following long-term water quality objectives are met for at least 5 years (2018 through 2022):

• The lake will not be closed to recreational uses due to toxic cyanobacteria

• Summer average total phosphorus concentration <24 micrograms per liter (μg/L)

• Summer average chlorophyll α concentration <7.2 μg/L

• Summer average Secchi depth (clarity) >2.0 meters (6.6 feet)

The post-treatment objectives for the trophic state parameters are compared to 2016 monitoring results in Table 4.

April 2019


Table 4. Alum Treatment Objectives for Summer Trophic Status in Heart Lake.

Parameter Treatment Objective

Pretreatment 2016 Monitoring

Summer Mean Summer Range

Trophic Class Mesotrophic Eutrophic Meso-Eutrophic Trophic State Index <50 54 50 to 56 Secchi Depth (meters) >2 2.0 1.5 to 2.5 Chlorophyll a (µg/L) <7.2 12.7 2.6 to 25 Total Phosphorus (µg/L) <24 36 21 to 59

µg/L = micrograms per liter

3.2. LAKE MONITORING LOCATIONS Water quality monitoring was conducted at two stations on Heart Lake (see Figure 1):

• Deep station: Located at the deepest point (approximately 5 meters) in Heart Lake

• Shallow station: Located near the treatment staging area/boat launch (approximately 2.5 meters)

The jar test was conducted in parking area east of the treatment staging area/boat launch.

3.3. JAR TEST Approximately 1 hour prior to beginning the alum treatment, the Herrera construction manager conducted a jar test using the specified dose and different material ratios. Four 5-gallon plastic buckets were filled with lake water and tested for pH (see photo). Three buckets were treated with aluminum sulfate and sodium aluminate directly taken from the storage tanks, and added in three different volumetric ratios of liquid alum to sodium aluminate (2.2:1, 2.0:1, and 1.8:1), to ensure correct buffering under current treatment conditions. One bucket was left untreated as a control. The pH of the treated and control waters was tested at 2, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after dosing.

The jar tests results are presented in Table 5. For each material ratio, the pH immediately decreased from approximately 9.4 to 8.6 and typically remained constant while the alum floc settled during the 1-hour test. The pH results did not vary appreciably among the three

Jar Test Dosing

April 2019


material ratios, perhaps due to inaccuracies of dosing less than 1 mL of material into each bucket. The alum application proceeded as planned at a material ratio of 2:1 with the expectation that the pH would decrease to approximately the upper limit of 8.5 to prevent potential aluminum toxicity within the treated waters.

Table 5. Jar Test Results for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Control

Ratio of liquid alum to sodium aluminate by volume 2.2:1 2.0:1 1.8:1 NA Planned aluminum dose (mg/L) 12.9 12.9 12.9 0 10.8 10.8 10.8 0 pH before dose 9.35 9.36 9.37 9.35 pH at 2 minutes 8.55 8.70 8.64 9.35 pH at 15 minutes 8.58 8.76 8.65 9.31 pH at 30 minutes 8.57 (8.15a) 8.67 (8.05a) 8.60 (8.43a) 9.37 (9.12a) pH at 1 hour (settled floc) 8.65 9.00 8.67 9.42

pH at 1 hour (stirred floc) 8.45 8.78 8.60 NA

a pH measurement using the IWS water quality multimeter that was used for lake monitoring.

mg/L = milligrams per liter

NA = not applicable

3.4. TREATMENT MONITORING Treatment monitoring consisted of twice daily, random daily, and short-term impact monitoring as summarized in Table 6. The following sections describe the monitoring design and present the monitoring results for each monitoring component.

Data quality information was reviewed for meeting measurement quality objectives specified in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix B in Herrera 2018). Field and laboratory data were evaluated for completeness, methodology, holding times, method blanks, duplicates, matrix spikes, control standards, and sample representativeness. All measurement quality objectives were met with the following exception:

• Reporting limits were elevated for total phosphorus (4 µg/L versus objective of 2 µg/L) and soluble reactive phosphorus (2.8 µg/L versus objective of 1 µg/L).

April 2019


Table 6. Treatment Monitoring Design for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment. Monitoring Component Sampling Locationsa Analytical Parameters

Sampling Frequency

Twice daily • Deep monitoring station (surface, bottom)

• Shallow monitoring station (surface, bottom)

• Secchi depth • Temperature/DO/pH/conductivity

profile • Alkalinity (field) • Dissolved aluminum (if pH <6.5) • Total aluminum (if pH <6.5)

• Morning before each day of treatment

• Evening after each day of treatment

Random daily Treatment sites (surface, bottom)

• pH profile • Alkalinity (if pH <6.5)

At least every 2 hours during

treatment Short-term

impact Deep monitoring station

(surface, bottom) • Secchi depth • Temperature/DO/pH/conductivity

profile • Alkalinity • Hardness • Dissolved organic carbon • Dissolved aluminum • Total aluminum • Total phosphorus • Soluble reactive phosphorus • Chlorophyll a

• Day before treatment

• 2 days after treatment

• 2 weeks after treatment

a Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 1.

Al = aluminum; TP = total phosphorus; SRP = soluble reactive phosphorus; DO = dissolved oxygen

3.4.1. Twice-Daily Monitoring

Twice-daily monitoring consisted of measuring field parameters at the Deep Station and the Shallow Station (see Figure 1) in the morning before treatment began, and in the afternoon or evening when treatment ended. Field parameters included Secchi depth and vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity at 1-meter intervals. In addition, water samples collected from 0.5 meter below the water surface and 0.5 meter above the lake bottom at each of the two stations, were sent to a laboratory for further analysis of additional parameters. In addition, alkalinity was measured in the field. Twice-daily monitoring results are presented in Appendix B and C.

Daily mean values for both stations and all depths are presented in Table 7. For comparison, Table 7 includes daily mean values for short-term impact monitoring conducted before and after the treatment (described in Section 3.4.3). These results show that average water quality conditions in Heart Lake before, during, and after treatment showed a decrease in pH (8.8 to 7.5) and dissolved oxygen (14.6 to 9.3 mg/L). Temperature (9.1 to 10.3°C) and conductivity (198.4 to 228.3 microsiemens per centimeter [µS/cm]) both increased, with conductivity peaking

April 2019


at 235 µS/cm at 2 days after treatment (Post-Treatment Day 2). Secchi depth increased from 1.4 meters prior to treatment to 5.4 meters at 14 days after treatment (Post-Treatment Day 14).

Table 7. Daily Mean Values of Field Parameters for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

Event Date pH

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

Temp. (°C)

DO (mg/L)

DO (percent

sat.) Cond.

(µS/cm)

Secchi Depth

(meters)

Pretreatment 4/2/18 8.8 66 9.0 14.4 125 199 1.4 Treatment Day 1 4/3/18 8.7 57a 9.2 14.2 124 206 1.6 Treatment Day 2 4/4/18 8.2 54a 9.3 14.3 124 232 1.8 Post-Treatment Day 2 4/6/18 8.1 61 9.4 13.7 120 235 2.7

Post-Treatment Day 8 4/12/18 7.6 61 10.3 10.5 93 232 5.2

Post-Treatment Day 14 4/18/18 7.5 61 10.3 9.3 83 228 5.4

a Analyzed in the field for surface and bottom samples from both stations versus other values analyzed by the IWS lab for surface and bottom samples from the Deep station only.

NA = Not analyzed; Cond. = conductivity; DO = dissolved oxygen; Temp. = temperature; °C = degrees Celsius

mg/L = milligrams per liter; µS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter

Alkalinity was measured in the field by the Herrera construction manager during the 2 treatment days. The alkalinity did not change much from the treatment, decreasing from an average of 58 mg/L (as calcium carbonate [CaCO3]) before Treatment Day 1 to 54 mg/L after Treatment Day 2. Alkalinities measured by the IWS laboratory for short-term impact monitoring were higher at 66 mg/L for pretreatment and decreasing to 61 mg/L on each of the post-treatment days (see Table 7).

In addition to the planned twice-daily monitoring parameters, water samples collected from surface and bottom depths at the Shallow and Deep stations before and after treatment on Treatment Day 2 were analyzed for total aluminum. Although aluminum analysis was not required because the pH was above 6.5, these analyses were added to the planned monitoring in response to the elevated pH observed during the treatment. The twice-daily aluminum test results are presented below with other aluminum data collected for short-term monitoring

3.4.2. Random Daily Monitoring

Random daily monitoring consisted of measuring pH at the treatment site during the alum application at a frequency of at least once every 2 hours. The pH was measured at 1-meter intervals at the location where alum was applied approximately 1 hour before the time of sample collection. The 1-hour delay in sampling allowed for settling of the alum floc and stabilization of water quality conditions. Random daily monitoring results are summarized in Table 8 and are presented in Appendix B. Locations where random daily monitoring results were collected are shown on Figure 3.

April 2019


Table 8. Random Daily pH Data Summary for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

Event Date Number

of Samplesa Average pH Minimum pH Maximum pH

Treatment Day 1 4/3/2018 41 8.6 7.2 9.2 Treatment Day 2 4/4/2018 36 8.3 7.4 8.9

a Measurements made at 0.3 meters from the surface and then at 1-meter intervals.

Figure 3. Deep, Shallow, and Random Monitoring Locations in Heart Lake.

April 2019


The random daily monitoring results show that lake pH averaged 8.6 and ranged from 7.2 to 9.2 on Treatment Day 1, and averaged 8.3 and ranged from 7.4 to 8.9 and on Treatment Day 2. Thus, the upper limit of 8.5 for the average lake pH was slightly exceeded on Treatment Day 1 but not treatment Day 2. Alkalinity was not tested because none of the random daily monitoring results fell below the acceptable low of 6.5.

3.4.3. Short-Term Impact Monitoring

Short-term impact monitoring consisted of measuring field parameters and collecting water samples from 0.5 meter below the water surface and 0.5 meter above the lake bottom at the Deep Station. A total of six water samples were collected from the lake on four occasions:

• Pretreatment on the day before the first day of treatment (April 2, 2018)

• 2-Day Post-Treatment at 2 days following the last day of treatment (April 6, 2018)



The following parameters were measured in the field:

• Secchi depth

• Temperature (1-meter intervals)

• Dissolved oxygen (1-meter intervals)

• pH (1-meter intervals)

• Conductivity (1-meter intervals)

The collected samples were sent to a laboratory to be analyzed for the following parameters:

• Total alkalinity (by IWS)

• Total hardness (by Edge Analytical)

• Dissolved organic carbon (by Edge Analytical)

• Total aluminum (by Edge Analytical)

• Dissolved aluminum (by Edge Analytical)

• Total phosphorus (by IWS)

• Soluble reactive phosphorus (by IWS)

April 2019


• Chlorophyll a (by IWS)

• Total nitrogen (by IWS)

• Nitrate+nitrite nitrogen (by IWS)

Nitrate+nitrite nitrogen and total nitrogen were added by IWS to the planned list of parameters for informational purposes. In addition, surface and bottom water samples collected for 2 days post-treatment were also analyzed for dissolved arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc evaluate the potential for heavy metal toxicity. Field and laboratory results of short-term impact monitoring are presented in Appendix B and C.

Laboratory results of short-term impact monitoring are summarized in Table 9 for surface and bottom water samples collected at the Deep station. These results show that the alum treatment reduced total phosphorus concentrations in surface and bottom waters at 2 days (45.5 and 42.6 µg/L, respectively) and 2 weeks (32.8 and 32.6 µg/L, respectively) after treatment compared to pretreatment (130 and 68.2 µg/L, respectively). Soluble reactive phosphorus was also reduced in surface and bottom waters at 2 days (3.8 and 3.1 µg/L, respectively) and 2 weeks (2.5 and 2.3 µg/L, respectively) after treatment compared to pretreatment (4.4 and 6.5 µg/L, respectively).

Chlorophyll a concentrations (amount of algae) in surface and bottom water decreased 2 days (12.8 and 13.3 µg/L, respectively) and 2 weeks (1.3 and 1.6 µg/L, respectively) after treatment compared to pretreatment (84.9 and 18.7 µg/L, respectively). The lowest chlorophyll a concentrations were recorded 8 days post-treatment (0.5 µg/L in surface and bottom waters). The initial decrease in algae concentrations improved Secchi depth (water clarity) from 1.4 to 5.4 meters (see Table 7), indicating that a sufficient amount of alum was applied to create enough floc to settle algae and other suspended particles present in the lake.

The alum treatment increased concentrations of aluminum in the surface and bottom waters for at least 2 weeks after treatment. Average total aluminum concentrations increased from undetected (<0.01 mg/L) before treatment to between 1.17 and 2.65 mg/L at 2 days after treatment, and then decreased to 0.54 mg/L at 8 days after treatment. Average dissolved aluminum concentrations increased from undetected (<0.01 mg/L) to between 0.13 and 0.52 mg/L at 2 days after treatment, and to 0.31 mg/L at 8 days after treatment.

Total aluminum concentrations are compared to freshwater aquatic toxicity criteria recently finalized by the US EPA (2018) in Table 10. Data for before and after the second day of treatment are included with the pretreatment and post-treatment results measured for short-term impact monitoring. Acute and chronic criteria are calculated from pH, hardness, and dissolved organic carbon results included in Table 10. Acute criteria are based on a 1-hour average concentration and chronic criteria are based on a 4-day average concentration (or period of exposure).

April 2019


Table 9. Short-Term Impact Monitoring Results (Deep Station) for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

Parameter

Pretreatment 2-Day Post-Treatment

8-Day Post-Treatment

2-Week Post-Treatment

Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

65.8 65.3 61.6 59.8 61.2 61.3 61.3 61.4

Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)

88.0 87.1 69.7 73.3 89.6 87.0 66.1 60.9

Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L)

12.0 11.6 9.63 7.66 8.70 8.76 9.31 9.28

Total aluminum (mg/L)

0.01 <0.01 1.17 2.65 0.54 0.54 0.33 0.31

Dissolved aluminum (mg/L)

<0.01 <0.01 0.52 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.24

Total phosphorus (µg/L)

130 68.2 45.5 42.6 31.2 33.1 32.8 32.6

Soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L)

4.4 6.5 3.8 3.1 3.7 3.5 2.5 2.3

Chlorophyll a (µg/L) 84.9 18.7 12.8 13.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.6

Nitrate+nitrite nitrogen (µg/L)

49.2 131 41.0 52.6 44.5 44.0 31.2 33.1

Total nitrogen (µg/L)

1,234 963 794 746 801 816 910 904

Dissolved arsenic (µg/L)

– – 0.45 J 0.4 J – – – –

Dissolved cadmium (µg/L)

– – <0.25 <0.25 – – – –

Dissolved copper (µg/L)

– – 0.6 J 0.5 J – – – –

Dissolved lead (µg/L)

– – 0.055 J 0.026 J – – – –

Dissolved zinc (µg/L) – – 0.6 J 0.1 J – – – –

J = estimated value between method detection limit and practical quantitation limit

– = not analyzed

April 2019


Table 10. Comparison of Toxicity Criteria to Total Aluminum Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

Sampling Event Station-Depth pH

Hard-ness

(mg/L) DOC

(mg/L)

Acute Criterion (mg/L)

Chronic Criterion (mg/L)

Total Aluminum

(mg/L)

Pretreatment Deep-Surface 9.1 88.0 12.0 4.1 2.2 0.01 Deep-Bottom 8.0 87.1 11.6 4.3 1.1 <0.01

Treat Day 2—Before

Deep-Surface 8.6 85 J 10 J 4.4 1.7 1.16 Deep-Bottom 7.9 85 J 10 J 4.0 1.1 1.70

Shallow-Surface 8.9 85 J 10 J 4.2 2.1 0.99 Shallow-Bottom 8.1 85 J 10 J 4.2 1.2 1.10

Treat Day 2—After

Deep-Surface 8.7 85 J 10 J 4.4 1.8 3.80 Deep-Bottom 7.9 85 J 10 J 4.0 1.1 5.16

Shallow-Surface 8.2 85 J 10 J 4.3 1.3 2.00 Shallow-Bottom 7.4 85 J 10 J 3.3 0.86 3.80

2-Day Post-Treat Deep-Surface 8.3 69.7 9.6 4.2 1.4 1.17 Deep-Bottom 7.8 73.3 7.7 3.5 1.0 2.65

8-Day Post-Treat Deep-Surface 7.7 89.6 8.7 3.6 0.96 0.54 Deep-Bottom 7.6 87.0 8.8 3.5 0.92 0.54

2-Week Post-Treat Deep-Surface 7.5 66.1 9.3 3.2 0.87 0.33 Deep-Bottom 7.4 60.9 9.3 3.0 0.83 0.31

a Toxicity criteria calculated from pH, hardness, and dissolved organic carbon (US EPA 2018). Bold values exceed the chronic criterion based on a 4-day average. Bold underlined values exceed the acute criterion based on a 1-hour average.

The toxicity criteria comparison shows that total aluminum concentrations exceeded acute criteria only in the bottom water samples collected in the afternoon following the second and final day of treatment (Treatment Day 2). Chronic criteria were exceeded in the bottom water sample collected from the Deep station before Treatment Day 2, in surface water samples collected from both stations after Treatment Day 2, and in the bottom water sample collected from the Deep station on Post-Treatment Day 2. As noted above, trout mortality primarily occurred on Post-Treatment Day 2 and was not observed during either treatment day. The timing of these observations together with the aluminum toxicity criteria comparison indicate that the alum treatment may have contributed to trout mortality by chronic exposure to aluminum in the lake.

The dissolved heavy metal concentrations in the surface and bottom water samples collected on Post-Treatment Day 2 (see Table 9) were very low (<1 µg/L) and well below chronic criteria established by Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A). These results indicate that there was no heavy metal contamination of the applied chemical materials.

April 2019


3.5. POST-TREATMENT MONITORING Post-treatment monitoring was conducted during the summer of 2018 to evaluate the initial long-term effects of the 2018 alum treatment. It is anticipated that post-treatment monitoring will continue for at least 4 more years (summers of 2019–2022). Post-treatment monitoring is designed to evaluate whether the following water quality objectives for Heart Lake are being met:

• The lake will not be closed to recreational uses due to toxic cyanobacteria

• Summer average total phosphorus concentration <24 micrograms per liter (μg/L)

• Summer average chlorophyll α concentration <7.2 μg/L

• Summer average Secchi depth (clarity) >2.0 meters (6.6 feet)

Post-treatment monitoring was conducted by IWS on six occasions from May through October 2018 according to the monitoring plan (Herrera 2018). Field parameters included Secchi depth and vertical profiles of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity at 1-meter intervals at the Deep Station. In addition, water samples collected from 0.5 meter below the water surface and 0.5 meter above the lake bottom at the Deep Station for laboratory analysis by IWS of total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and phytoplankton (algae) identification and cell counts.

Water quality data for surface and bottom samples collected from the Deep station in 2018 are summarized in Table 11 and included in Appendix B. The Year 1 post-treatment water quality monitoring results are summarized separately below for each water quality parameter.

Data quality information was reviewed for meeting measurement quality objectives specified in the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (Appendix B in Herrera 2018). Field and laboratory data were evaluated for completeness, methodology, holding times, method blanks, duplicates, matrix spikes, control standards, and sample representativeness. All measurement quality objectives were met with the following exception:

• Chlorophyll a results were not reported for the surface and bottom samples collected from the Deep station on July 13, 2018, due to a laboratory error.

April 2019


Table 11. Year 1 Post-Treatment Water Quality Results for the Heart Lake 2018 alum Treatment.

Sample Date

Sample Depth

Temp-erature

(°C)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Dissolved Oxygen (percent

sat.) pH

Specific Cond.

(μS/cm)

Secchi Depth

(m) Total P (ug/L)

Total N (ug/L)

TN:TP Ratio

5/10/2018 Surface 17.7 9.9 104.2 7.8 230 5.2 3.8 28.1 771 27 Bottom 12.4 0.3 2.6 6.9 241 4.5 32.5 1345 41 Mean 15.8 6.8 70.4 7.4 233 4.1 30.3 1058 35


7/13/2018 Surface 22.9 10.4 122 8.4 247 4.5 NA 17.4 723 42 Bottom 20.5 2.7 29.8 7.1 251 NA 22.6 876 39 Mean 22.0 8.7 100.7 8.0 248 20.0 800 40




Summer Mean

Surface 19.0 9.0 97.2 7.8 249 3.8 8.5 21.3 864 43.1 Bottom 17.3 4.0 41.0 7.2 264 9.1 25.4 1012 41.6 Mean 18.4 7.7 81.9 7.6 252 8.8 23.3 938 42.4

Mean = Arithmetic mean of all 1-meter depth interval values for field meter data and of surface and bottom values for laboratory parameter data.

Total P = total phosphorus; Total N = total nitrogen; TN: TP ratio= total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio

°C = degrees Celsius; μS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter; µg/L = micrograms per liter; NA = not available

April 2019


3.5.1. Water Temperature

Heart Lake followed typical seasonal patterns, warming from May through August, then cooling in September and October 2018 (Figure 4). Thermal stratification was observed in May 2018, but was not observed from June through October 2018 except for weak stratification in July 2018. The summer mean temperature ranged from 13.7 to 22.7 degrees Celsius (°C) (see Table 11) and exceeded the Washington State Surface Water Quality Standard temperature criterion for core summer salmonid habitat of 16°C (based on a 7-day average maximum in lakes; WAC 173-201A) between June and September 2018.

Figure 4. Water Temperature Profiles for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment Post-Treatment Period.

April 2019


3.5.2. Secchi Depth

Secchi depth is a measurement of the turbidity or clarity of surface water that typically relates to the amount of phytoplankton present in the water. The Secchi depth ranged from 2.0 to 5.2 meters during the Year 1 post-treatment monitoring period (Figure 5 and Table 11). The maximum Secchi depth was observed on May 10, 2018. Thereafter, Secchi depth gradually decreased to a low of 2.0 meters on October 11, 2018.

The mean Secchi depth for the Year 1 (summer 2018) monitoring period was 3.8 meters, which meets the post-treatment monitoring objective of greater than 2.0 meters and nearly doubles the 2016 (pretreatment) value of 2.0 meters (see Table 4). A Secchi depth of 3.8 meters is equivalent to a trophic state index of 41, which is in the lower portion of the 40 to 50 mesotrophic range.

Figure 5. Secchi Depths for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

April 2019


3.5.3. Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll a is a measure of phytoplankton biomass and is used to determine trophic state of lakes. The post-treatment monitoring objective for chlorophyll a in Heart Lake is a summer average of 7.2 μg/L in the epilimnion (surface water samples), representing mesotrophic conditions. Chlorophyll a concentrations in Heart Lake ranged from 2.1 to 18.4 µg/L, with an average value of 8.5 μg/L for surface water samples collected during the Year 1 (2018) post-treatment monitoring period (Figure 6 and Table 11). Chlorophyll a concentrations were similar in bottom water samples with a summer average value of 8.8 μg/L.

Chlorophyll a remained low (<6 µg/L) until the September 13, 2018, monitoring date when the concentration increased to 18.4 µg/L at the surface and 18.0 µg/L at the bottom. This spike in chlorophyll a coincided with a decrease in Secchi depth from 4.0 meters (August 9, 2018) to 2.1 meters (September 13, 2018). The amount of algae decreased slightly in October 2018 to 13.4 µg/L.

The 2018 summer average chlorophyll a concentration of 8.5 µg/L is substantially less than the 2016 (pretreatment) value of 12.7 µg/L (see Table 4), but it represents eutrophic conditions (TSI of 51.5) and does not meet the alum treatment objective of less than 7.2 µg/L (TSI less than 50). As noted below, however, the moderate amount of algae biomass observed in Year 1 was not dominated by cyanobacteria like it was in 2016 before the alum treatment.

Figure 6. Chlorophyll a Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

April 2019


3.5.4. Phosphorus

Total phosphorus is also used to determine the trophic state of lakes because phosphorus is typically the most limiting nutrient for freshwater phytoplankton and relates well with chlorophyll and Secchi depth. The total phosphorus post-treatment monitoring objective for Heart Lake was for the summer mean to be less than 24 µg/L in the epilimnion (surface water samples).

Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 13.3 to 33 µg/L during the Year 1 (2018) post-treatment monitoring period (Figure 7 and Table 11). The lowest total phosphorus concentration of 13.3 µg/L was measured in the surface sample collected on August 9, 2018, coinciding with the lowest chlorophyll a concentration. The highest total phosphorus concentration of 33 µg/L was measured in the bottom sample collected on September 13, 2018.

A mean total phosphorus value of 21.3 µg/L was observed in surface water samples collected during the Year 1 (2018) post-treatment monitoring period, which meets the goal of less than 24 µg/L and is substantially less than the 2016 (pretreatment) value of 36 µg/L (see Table 4). An average total phosphorus concentration of 21.3 µg/L is equivalent to a trophic state index of 48, which is in the upper portion of the 40 to 50 mesotrophic range. Total phosphorus concentrations were similar in bottom water samples with a summer mean of 23.3 µg/L. These results indicate that the 2018 alum treatment was effective in maintaining low total phosphorus concentrations throughout the water column during the first summer following the treatment.

Figure 7. Total Phosphorus Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

April 2019


3.5.5. Nitrogen

Total nitrogen is the sum of organic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen, which is composed of nitrate+nitrite and ammonia nitrogen. Total nitrogen can be the most limiting nutrient for freshwater phytoplankton when total phosphorus is high, which can occur in hypereutrophic lakes that have excessively high nutrients loads (i.e., human or animal waste). Although there is no total nitrogen goal for Heart Lake, limnologists have suggested a total nitrogen threshold of 650 µg/L for eutrophic lakes (Cooke et al. 2005).

Total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 723 to 1,345 µg/L during the Year 1 (2018) post-treatment monitoring period (see Figure 8 and Table 10). The lowest total nitrogen concentration of 723 µg/L was observed in the surface sample collected on July 13, 2018. The highest total nitrogen concentration of 1,345 µg/L was observed in the bottom sample collected on May 10, 2018.

A mean total nitrogen value of 938 µg/L was observed during the Year 1 (2018) post-treatment monitoring period, which is above the 650 µg/L threshold recommended for eutrophic lakes.

Figure 8. Total Nitrogen Concentrations for the 2018 Heart Lake Alum Treatment.

April 2019


3.5.6. Total Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratio

The total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio by weight (total N:P) is often used to evaluate which of the two nutrients limit phytoplankton growth. Total N:P ratios in algae vary with the type of algae and their nutrient supply. It is generally accepted that phosphorus is the primary limiting nutrient in lakes and nitrogen is the primary limiting nutrient in marine waters. A recent review of nutrient limitation literature concluded that, while phosphorus appears to control phytoplankton growth in oligotrophic lakes over the long term (years), most lakes appear to be limited over the short term (months) by both phosphorus and nitrogen (co-limitation), and possibly by other resources such as iron (Sterner 2008). One study evaluated nutrient relationships in 221 lakes and found phosphorus-limitation consistently at total N:P ratios greater than 22, and nitrogen limitation consistently at total N:P ratios less than 9 (Guildford and Hecky 2000).

Based on these limits, the summer mean total N:P ratio of 43 observed in surface water samples (see Table 11) indicates that phytoplankton growth in from Heart Lake was limited by phosphorus following the 2018 alum treatment. In contrast, N:P ratios during pretreatment sampling on April 2, 2018, indicate co-limitation of both nutrients during the algae bloom when the surface N:P ratio was 9.5 and the bottom N:P ratio was 14 (see Table 9).

3.5.7. Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton are microscopic floating algae that live suspended in bodies of water and that drift about because they cannot move by themselves or because they are too small or too weak to swim effectively against a current. In the presence of sunlight, phytoplankton take up nutrients from the water, producing oxygen though photosynthesis, and providing the food base for most lake organisms, including fish. Phytoplankton populations vary widely from day to day, as life cycles are short. Phytoplankton impact water clarity when they bloom (grow excessively), and certain species of the blue-green algae group (cyanobacteria) form surface scums and produce toxins that present a public health threat. Knowing the abundance of each phytoplankton species is important for understanding the basis of the lake ecosystem, and how it may affect human and wildlife uses.

Phytoplankton data for the post-treatment period are presented and discussed separately for phytoplankton groups and cyanobacteria species.

3.5.7.1. Phytoplankton Groups

Algae cell concentrations were determined for the following major phytoplankton groups:

• Cyanaophyta (cyanobacteria/blue-green algae)

• Chlorophyta (green algae)

April 2019


• Chrysophyta (diatoms)

• Others (Cryptophyta [cryptomonads], Dinophyta [dinoflagellates], Euglenophyta [euglenoids], and Ochrophyta [golden algae])

Phytoplankton concentrations in cells/mL are presented for each group in Figure 9 and compared to 2016 data in Figure 10. In 2016 before the alum treatment, Heart Lake phytoplankton were dominated by cyanobacteria (ranging from 612 to 15,542 cells/mL Cyanophyta) and lesser amounts of green algae (ranging from 126 to 3,195 cells/mL Chlorophyta), and others (0 to 921 cells/mL Chrysophyta and Other Algae).

Figure 9. Phytoplankton Concentrations (cells/mL) in Heart Lake for the Summer of 2018.

April 2019


Figure 10. Phytoplankton Composition for Pretreatment (2016) and Post- Treatment (2018) Summers at the Deep Station in Heart Lake.

Phytoplankton composition changed substantially in the summer following the 2018 alum treatment. The maximum cyanobacteria concentration was only 1,062 cells/mL and was observed on the first post-treatment monitoring data (May 10, 2018). No cyanobacteria were observed on July 14, 2018, or October 11, 2018. Only 9 cells/mL were observed on September 3, 2018. Green algae (Chlorophyta) were typically the dominant algae species observed during the post-treatment period, ranging in concentrations from 409 to 3,835 cells/mL.

3.5.7.2. Cyanobacteria Species

The following cyanobacteria groups were observed in the summer of 2016 in Heart Lake (prior to the 2018 alum treatment):

• Aphanizomenon (Aphanizomenon flosaquae)

• Dolichospermum (Dolichospermum crassum, Dolichospermum flosaquae, Dolichospermum planctonicum)

• Woronichinia (Woronichinia naegelianum)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2016 2018

Alga

e Co

unt (

cells

/mL)

CyanophytaChlorophytaChrysophytaOther Algae

April 2019


The following groups of cyanobacteria were observed in the summer of 2018 in Heart Lake (after the 2018 alum treatment):

• Aphanizomenon (Aphanizomenon flosaquae) was observed on May 10, 2018 (surface) and June 4, 2018 (surface and bottom), and then was not observed for the remainder of the 2018 monthly monitoring dates.

• Aphanocapsa/Aphanothece was only observed on August 9, 2018 (surface).

• Dolichospermum was observed in a very small amount (9 cells/mL) on Sept. 3, 2018 (surface and bottom) and in a larger amount (271 cells/mL) on October 11, 2018 (bottom).

• Phormidium was only observed on June 4, 2018 (surface).

• Merismopedia was only observed on July 14, 2018 (bottom) and October 11, 2018 (bottom).

• Pseudanabaena (137 cells/mL) was only observed on July 14, 2018 (bottom).

Of the species observed in 2018, Aphanizomenon, Dolichospermum, and Phormidium are common producers of cyanotoxins (US EPA 2019).

April 2019


4. CONCLUSIONS The 2018 alum treatment occurred as planned over a 2-day period on April 3 and 4, 2018. A total of 16,537 gallons of alum and 8,400 gallons of sodium aluminate (buffer) were applied to the lake within 1 percent of the planned amounts at the planned ratio of 2 parts alum to 1 part sodium aluminate. The total dose of aluminum applied was 1,362 kg (16 percent) less than the planned amount of 8,361 kg because the sodium aluminate had a lower aluminum content than expected. As a result, the actual dose was 10.8 mg Al/L versus the planned dose of 12.9 mg Al/L on a volumetric basis. The reduced aluminum dose is expected to meet water quality objectives for at least 5 years because it is nearly equivalent to the 10.9 mg Al/L dose applied to nearby Lake Erie and Lake Campbell, which were both considered effective for over 8 years (Herrera 2018).

Oversight and short-term water quality monitoring were conducted before, during, and after the treatment (2 days, 8 days, and 14 days) to ensure proper material application, prevent potential impacts to fish from low or high pH, and meet permit requirements. Public notifications and signs were used to inform and educate park users of the alum treatment, and lake access was closed during the treatment.

The condition of the amphibian egg masses and fish behavior in Heart Lake was monitored before, during, and after the alum treatment. No abnormal behaviors or mortalities were observed before or during the alum treatment. However, a total of 32 fish mortalities were observed in the first 5 days following treatment (April 4 through 9, 2018) that primarily consisted of trout, which apparently represented a small portion of the 8,561 catchable trout planted in the lake in April 2017. The observed mortalities were likely attributed to a combination of stressors that included both the alum treatment and a pre-existing algae bloom. The algae bloom produced super-saturated dissolved oxygen concentrations (up to 144 percent saturation) and high pH (average of 8.8) that affect fish health. Although the alum application reduced the pH from 8.8 to 8.2 and no trout gill abnormalities were observed, aluminum concentrations exceeded toxicity criteria during the alum treatment and likely contributed to the observed fish mortality.

Post-treatment water quality monitoring was performed on six occasions from May through October 2018. The post-treatment water quality objectives were met for total phosphorus (summer mean less than 24 µg/L) and Secchi depth (summer mean greater than 2.0 meters). The summer mean chlorophyll a concentration (8.8 µg/L) was slightly higher than the post-treatment water quality objective for Heart Lake (7.2 µg/L). Compared to pretreatment monitoring conducted in 2016, the alum treatment greatly reduced the amount of phytoplankton and improved the algae composition by shifting dominance from cyanobacteria to green algae species. The water quality goal of no lake closures due to toxic cyanobacteria was achieved in 2018.

April 2019


5. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Anacortes Parks & Recreation continue with post-treatment monitoring from May through October of each year to track the trophic state of the lake and the continued effectiveness of the 2018 alum treatment. Ideally, the same methodology used for post-treatment monitoring in 2018 would be used in each year.

If funding is insufficient for sustaining this level of monitoring, then some of the parameters may be eliminated from the post-treatment monitoring program, but the monitoring frequency should not be reduced from monthly in May through October of each year. At a minimum, the monitoring program should include monthly measurements of the three trophic state parameters to include Secchi depth and analysis of total phosphorus and chlorophyll a in one sample collected from a depth of 0.5 meter at the deep station. Summer average values of those three parameters should then be compared to treatment objectives and historical data. This monitoring could be performed by Anacortes Parks & Recreation with sample analyses by IWS or a commercial laboratory certified by Ecology. The addition of temperature/dissolved oxygen profiles and bottom water sample analysis of total phosphorus would be useful for interpreting between-year differences in trophic state.

It is recommended that Anacortes Parks & Recreation continue to observe the lake for algae scums; and if blue-green algae scums are present, then collect a scum sample for cyanotoxin testing through the Washington State Toxic Algae Program.

If water quality objectives are not met in 1 year, then monitoring should continue for at least 1 additional year before considering another alum treatment or other water quality management technique.

April 2019


6. REFERENCESCooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and S.A. Nichols. 2005. Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. 3rd edition. Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida.

Ecology. 2016. Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit, A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Issued March 2, 2016; effective April 1, 2016; expires March 31, 2021. <https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/e8/e8ce4f84-6df5-4209-8199-9b24005e655b.pdf>.

Guilford, S.J. and R.E. Hecky. 2000. Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Nutrient Limitation in Lakes and Oceans: Is there a common Relationship? Limnology and Oceanography 45:1213–1223.

Herrera. 2017. Heart Lake Water Quality Study Report. Prepared for Anacortes Parks and Recreation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. June 30.

Herrera. 2018. Heart Lake Alum Treatment Plan. Prepared for Anacortes Parks and Recreation by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. February 23.

Sterner, R. 2008. On the Phosphorus Limitation Paradigm for Lakes. Review Paper. International Review of Hydrobiology. 93(4–5):433–445.

US EPA. 2018. Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum 2018. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-18-001. December.

US EPA. 2019. Cyanobacteria/Cyanotoxins. US Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed January 2019. <https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/cyanobacteriacyanotoxins#what4>.

WDFW. 2016. Recommended Fish and Wildlife Treatment Windows for Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Permit. Prepared by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. February. <https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Aquatic-pesticidepermits/Aquatic-plant-algae-management>.

Weitkamp, D.E. and M. Katz. 1980. A Review of Dissolved Gas Supersaturation Literature. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 109(6):659–752.

https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/e8/e8ce4f84-6df5-4209-8199-9b24005e655b.pdf

https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/e8/e8ce4f84-6df5-4209-8199-9b24005e655b.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/cyanobacteriacyanotoxins#what4

https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Aquatic-pesticidepermits/Aquatic-plant-algae-management

https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Permits-certifications/Aquatic-pesticidepermits/Aquatic-plant-algae-management

APPENDIX A

Daily Application Logs

Heart Lake Alum Treatment 2018 Daily Application Log Date: April 3, 2018 Application start time: 10:10 Application end time: 15:45 Workforce: 3 Weather conditions: cloudy, winds 0 – 5 mph, high temp of 51 F Quantity of alum applied: 8,303 gallons Quantity of sodium aluminate applied: 4,230 gallons (exact volumes will be determined from bills of lading at end of project) Approximate application location area: 31.5 acres

Summary of alum deliveries

3 trucks Summary of sodium aluminate deliveries:

1 trucks

Heart Lake Alum Treatment 2018 Daily Application Log Date: April 4, 2018 Application start time: 8:10 Application end time: 12:40 Workforce: 3 Weather conditions: cloudy, rain, winds 0 – 5 mph, high temp of 48 F Quantity of alum applied: 8,303 gallons Quantity of sodium aluminate applied: 4,230 gallons (exact volumes will be determined from bills of lading at end of project) Approximate application location area: 32.5 acres

Summary of alum deliveries

1 truck Summary of sodium aluminate deliveries:

1 truck Project Summary: Quantity of alum applied: 16,537 gallons Quantity of sodium aluminate applied: 8,400 gallons (These are exact volumes and verified from bills of lading) Final alum to sodium aluminate ratio: 1.97 Approximate application area: 64 acres Summary of alum deliveries

4 trucks

Summary of sodium aluminate deliveries: 2 trucks

Dates of application: 4/3/18 to 4/4/18 (2 days)

Product Truck BOL # Shipped Date Pounds Gallonsa %AL2O3 kg Al2O3 kg AlALUM 1 81219249 4/3/2018 45,820 4,128 8.08 1,679 889ALUM 2 81219248 4/3/2018 44,080 3,971 8.08 1,616 855ALUM 3 81219688 4/3/2018 47,100 4,243 8.10 1,731 916ALUM 4 81219689 4/4/2018 46,560 4,195 8.10 1,711 906

Total Alum 183,560 16,537 6,736 3,566

LSA 1 83069058 4/3/2018 54,880 4,691 14.43 3,592 1,902LSA 2 16753841 4/4/2018 43,400 3,709 14.69 2,892 1,531

Total LSA 98,280 8,400 6,484 3,433

ALUM:LSA Liquid Ratio 1.97 Total Al 6,999a Gallons ALUM = Pounds ALUM/11.1; Gallons LSA = Pounds LSA/11.7

APPENDIX B

Institute for Watershed Studies Monitoring Report

Heart Lake Monitoring Project2018 Final Report

Mr. Michael LawlorDr. Robin A. Matthews

Ms. Joan Pickens

Institute for Watershed StudiesHuxley College of the Environment

Western Washington University

January 10, 2019

Funding for this project was provided by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. We thankMichael Hilles and Marilyn Desmul (IWS staff); Jonn Lunsford (Anacortes Parks DepartmentManager, Operations and Forestland); and Rob Zisette (Herrera Environmental Consultants) forassistance with this project.

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Methods 3

2.1 Short-term Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Monthly Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Results 5

3.1 Short-term Monitoring, Pre-treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 Short-term Monitoring, Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.3 Short-term Monitoring, Post-treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.4 Monthly Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.5 Wildlife Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 References 11

5 Tables 13

6 Annotated Figures 15

A Water Quality Data 29

B Heart Lake Algae 43

C Quality Control 47

i

Heart Lake 2018 Report Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Heart Lake is a 61.4 acre lake (0.248 km2) located about 2 miles (3.2 km) south ofAnacortes off of Heart Lake Road (Table 1; Figure 1). Heart Lake is separated intotwo basins and has a total shoreline length of 1.64 miles (2.645 km). The westernbasin is slightly larger and deeper that the eastern basin, but the maximum depthand average depth of the lake is only 5.8 and 2.7 meters, respectively. There aresix seasonal sources of water flowing into the lake, including streams, wetlands,and runoff. The lake is situated at the headwaters for the Ace of Hearts Creek,which flows through Anacortes and empties into Fidalgo Bay.

Heart Lake is in the center of Fidalgo Island and is about 338 ft (103 m) above sealevel. With the exception of Heart Lake Road, the gravel parking lot, and the trailnetwork, the surrounding watershed is relatively intact. Most of the vegetation isnative to the area, and there is a stand of old growth forest with the southwesternend dominated by old growth forest (City of Anacortes, 2012).

Heart Lake is part of the Anacortes Community Forest Lands and is a popularrecreational destination. Activities on the lake include fishing for the biannuallystocked rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) as well as swimming, boating,birding, and picnicking (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2017). Thewatershed surrounding the lake contains an extensive recreation trail network thatallows dog, horse, pedestrian, and mountain bike traffic (City of Anacortes, 2012).There is an active granite quarry just outside of the watershed boundary on thewestern end of the lake.

Historically, Heart Lake hosted a diverse aquatic plant community (Cityof Anacortes, 2012; Herrera, 2014) that included Hornwort (Ceratophyllumdemersum), Slender water-nymph (Najas flexilis), Stonewort (Nitella spp.), Leafypondweed (Potamogeton foliosus), Bladderwort (Utricularia sp.), Fragrant waterlily (Nymphea odorata), Sago Pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata), Yellow waterlily (Nuphar polysepala), Common elodea (Elodea canadensis), Floating leafpondweed (Potamogeton natans) and Star duckweed (Lemna trisulca). In 1994the native Myriophyllum sibiricum was discovered in Heart Lake, and in 1998 thenon-native Myriophyllum spicatum was discovered in the lake (City of Anacortes,2012). These two milfol species produced a highly invasive hybrid, which was


found to be the dominant macrophyte species in Heart Lake in 2010 (City ofAnacortes, 2012). In addition, Herrera (2014) found that many of the aquaticmacrophytes previously reported from Heart Lake were no longer present, orwere present in such low densities that they were not encountered during the 2010plant survey. Heart Lake was treated with Sonar (fluridone) during the summer of2017, with the goal of eradicating the milfoil hybrid. Aquatic vegetation surveysconfirmed the absence of milfoil following the fluridone treatment (Herrera,2018a). Fluridone is a broad-spectrum herbicide that is often toxic to otherspecies of aquatic macrophytes, so most submerged vegetation in Heart Lake waseradicated by the treatment.

One challenging problem with controlling aquatic vegetation in lakes is that theremoval of one type of plant may result in excessive growth of another type ofplant. For example, successful eradication of milfoil may be followed by analgae bloom, especially if the lake contains large concentrations of phosphorus.In Heart Lake, dense growth of filamentous green algae were common on thesurface of submerged macrophytes (City of Anacortes, 2012). Although thefilamentous green algae may interfere with fishing, boating, and other recreationaluse of the lake, it is non-toxic and comparatively innocuous. But beginning inabout 2012, there have been dense summer blooms of potentially toxic blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) that caused the lake to be closed to fishing andrecreational activities. While it is difficult to determine whether the frequency ofblue-green algae blooms has increased, Heart Lake contains high concentrationsof phosphorus and low concentrations of inorganic nitrogen (the type of nitrogenrequired by most plants), which favors the growth of blue-green algae.

1.2 Project Description

Heart Lake has had annual water quality and algae samples collected by theInstitute for Watershed Studies (IWS) since 2006 as part of the Northwest LakesMonitoring Project (www.wwu.edu/iws). The Northwest Lakes MonitoringProject is a public service project that samples approximately 60 lakes inWhatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Island Counties. In addition to the NorthwestLakes Project, there has been several assessments done by students fromWestern Washington University (WWU) and a number of studies conducted byenvironmental consulting companies.

www.wwu.edu/iws


Previous restoration work in Heart Lake focused on removal or control of thehybrid milfoil, which had become an increasing problem, as the plant now infeststhe entire lake. But the lake also develops dense blue-green algae blooms,including toxic blooms that occasionally closed the lake for fishing and otherrecreational activities. In April 2018 the lake was treated with alum to help reducephosphorus concentrations, which is an important nutrient needed for growth byall algae (Herrera, 2018b).

To support the existing restoration efforts, and to help develop a morecomprehensive lake management strategy to deal with the blue-green algaeblooms, IWS was contracted by Herrera Environmental Consultants to provideassistance during the alum treatment process, followed by six months of waterquality sampling, from May through October 2018, and provide a report of thecurrent water quality condition in Heart Lake. In addition to the water qualitysampling, algae samples were collected and analyzed by Dr. R. Matthews todocument algal blooms and taxonomic diversity in the lake.

2 Methods

Water quality monitoring was conducted by the Institute for Watershed Studiesusing the methods summarized in Table 2, which followed the monitoringmethods specified in Appendix B of the Heart Lake Alum Treatment Plan(Herrera, 2018b). All water quality data are included in Appendix A, startingon page 29. Monitoring efforts included short-term impact monitoring, whichwas designed to assess water quality prior to alum treatment, during the treatmentprocess, and for the two weeks following alum treatment; and post-treatmentmonitoring, which was conducted for six months following alum treatment. Twosampling locations were identified for water quality monitoring (Figure 1) basedon information from the 2016 Heart Lake Final Report (Wensloff, et al., 2017).One site (”deep site”) was located in the deepest portion of the lake, which wasapproximately 5 meters deep. The second site (”shallow site”) was located in theeastern basin, and was approximately 3 meters deep. Sampling sites were locatedusing GPS, then an anchor was deployed to remain stationary during monitoring.


2.1 Short-term Monitoring

The short-term samples were collected 1 day prior to alum treatment (1x per day;deep site only); during the 2 days of treatment (2x per day; deep and shallow sites);and 2, 8, and 14 days following treatment (1x per day; deep site only). Additionalrandomly located Heart Lake sites (Figure 2) were sampled approximately onehour after alum application to measure water temperature, dissolved oxygen,conductivity, and pH. If pH values dropped below the lower bound of the pHcriteria for alum application (6.5), an alkalinity sample was collected.

A YSI field meter was used to measure vertical profiles for water temperature,dissolved oxygen, percent oxygen saturation, pH, and conductivity from thesurface (0.3 m) to the bottom. Water samples were collected 0.5 m below thesurface and 0.5 m above the lake bottom using a horizontal Van Dorn sampler.All samples were placed on ice until lab analyses could be conducted. TheInstitute for Watershed Studies analyzed the samples for total alkalinity,1 solublephosphate (orthophosphate), total phosphorus, total nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, andchlorophyll. Secchi depth was collected at the deep and shallow monitoringstations during all short-term sample collections; Secchi depth was not collectedat the randomly located monitoring sites. Samples were also delivered to EdgeAnalytical Laboratories to be analyzed for total hardness, dissolved organiccarbon, dissolved aluminum, and total recoverable aluminum.

Although not part of the original scope of work, a survey for rough-skinned newts(Taricha granulosa) was conducted during the short-term monitoring period. Thissurvey was conducted by trolling the perimeter of the lake in search of egg masses,as well as dip netting for larvae and adults in the southwest lobe. The survey wasconducted using a 650 µm dip net to sweep the lake bottom and aquatic vegetationfor adult and larvae at depths of 0.2 to 1.5 m. Wildlife observations were alsorecorded, paying special attention to distressed behavior and mortalities.

2.2 Monthly Monitoring

The deep site was sampled monthly from May through October 2018. A YSIfield meter was used to measure temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, andpH profiles from 0.3 m to the bottom of the lake. Water samples were collected

1Alkalinity samples collected during alum treatment were analyzed in the field by Herrera.


0.5 m below the surface and 0.5 m above the bottom; the samples were analyzedby the Institute for Watershed Studies for total phosphorus, soluble phosphate(orthophosphate), total nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, and chlorophyll.2

Phytoplankton samples were collected and preserved using Lugol’s iodinesolution for density calculation, and live phytoplankton samples were collectedusing a phytoplankton net (20 µm mesh) and transported to the laboratory foralgal identification. Settling chambers were used to concentrate Heart Lake algaefrom raw water samples that were preserved using Lugol’s iodine solution. Themethod was adapted from the procedure described by Hamilton, et al. (2001), andis described in detail in the 2016 Heart Lake Final Report (Wensloff, et al., 2017).All algae counts are included in Appendix B, beginning on page 43.

2.3 Quality Control

All water quality data described in this report were analyzed by the Institute forWatershed Studies at Western Washington University, which is accredited by theWashington State Department of Ecology (Laboratory ID #A543). The qualitycontrol results are discussed in Appendix C (page 47).

3 Results

3.1 Short-term Monitoring, Pre-treatment

Water quality measurements were collected on April 2, one day prior to the alumtreatment (Tables A1-A2 in Appendix A). Water temperatures were cool, rangingfrom 8.5◦ C at 5 m to 9.4◦ C at the surface. The lake was well oxygenated at alldepths, and exhibited super-saturated conditions in the upper portion of the watercolumn. The lake was alkaline, with the pH ranging from 8.0 at 5 m, to 9.1 atthe surface. The surface and bottom samples had similar alkalinities (65.8 mg/Land 65.3 mg/L, respectively). The water clarity was poor, with a Secchi depth of1.6 m. The combination of poor water clarity, super-saturated dissolved oxygenconcentrations, and elevated pH were likely the result of an observed algae bloom.

2The July chlorophyll data were excluded due to analysis error.


Rapid photosynthesis during algal blooms will cause super-saturated daytimeoxygen concentrations because oxygen is a direct product of photosynthesis. Therapid photosynthetic rate also raises the daytime pH by reducing the availabilityof carbon dioxide, which would otherwise react with water to form carbonic acid.The surface and bottom samples contained high concentrations of chlorophyll(84.9 and 18.7 µg/L, respectively) and total phosphorus (129.8 and 68.2 µg-P/L,respectively).

Both the surface and bottom samples collected from Heart Lake on April 2 wouldbe classified as eutrophic (TSIchl >50) based on Carlson’s trophic state index(Carlson, 1977):

TSIchl = 9.81 × ln(Chl, µg/L) + 30.6

Heart Lake surface TSIchl = 9.81 × ln(84.9) + 30.6 = 74

Heart Lake bottom TSIchl = 9.81 × ln(18.7) + 30.6 = 59

3.2 Short-term Monitoring, Treatment

The algae bloom mentioned above was still present on April 3, resulting in super-saturated oxygen concentrations (139%) and elevated pH (8.9) at the lake’s surface(Table A1 in Appendix A). Alkalinity samples were collected by IWS staff andanalyzed by Herrera personnel at 0.5 m below the surface and above the bottom ofthe lake at the deep and shallow sites. The samples were analyzed immediately; allwere above the required 10 mg/L threshold required for alum treatment (personalcommunications, R. Zisette, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.) Alumtreatment was initiated on April 3. Prior to treatment, the early morning (∼4am) average pH in the water column was 8.4 and alkalinities were 56–60 mg/L.Jar tests were performed to select an alum-to-buffer ratio that would slightly lowerthe lake pH to be within the target range of 6.5–8.5 for protection of aquatic biotafrom potential aluminum toxicity (personal communications, R. Zisette, HerreraEnvironmental Consultants, Inc.).

The pH values from the post-treatment vertical profiles remained above thethreshold of 6.5 at both the deep and shallow sites during the two days of alumtreatment. Similarly, the surface and bottom alkalinity samples remained above


10 mg/L on both treatment days (personal communications, R. Zisette, HerreraEnvironmental Consultants, Inc.). Water column monitoring at random locationsconfirmed that the pH did not drop below the lower limit (6.5) during eithertreatment day. No signs of distressed or deceased wildlife were observed duringalum treatment; however, fish mortalities and distressed behavior were observedduring the short-term post-treatment monitoring (see discussion of fish monitoringon page 10).

3.3 Short-term Monitoring, Post-treatment

Two days post-treatment: The vertical profile displayed a reduction in pH anddissolved oxygen, although the oxygen concentrations were still slightly super-saturated (Table A2 in Appendix A). These changes were most likely causedby the alum treatment, which greatly reduced the phytoplankton in the watercolumn, resulting in a decrease in chlorophyll concentrations (Table A2). Thealum treatment introduced dissolved substances into the lake, which resulted in anincrease in conductivity. Water clarity improved, and the Secchi depth increasedto 2.7 m. The alum treatment successfully reduced the nutrient concentrations(total phosphorus, total nitrogen, soluble phosphate, and nitrate) within the watercolumn compared to pre-treatment concentrations.

Eight days post-treatment: Based on the chlorophyll concentrations, the algaebloom had subsided by April 12 (Table A2). The pH dropped from ≥8.5 prior totreatment to 7.6-7.7, and the dissolved oxygen concentrations dropped to slightlybelow saturation (Table A1). The water clarity greatly improved, with a Secchidepth of 5.2 m. The conductivities remained slightly elevated compared to pre-treatment conditions, and were similar to the 2 day post-treatment values.

Fourteen days post-treatment: The chlorophyll concentrations remained low(<2 µg/L) on April 18, and the dissolved oxygen was about 80-85% of saturation(Tables A1-A2 in Appendix A). The pH dropped to 7.4–7.5, and the water clarityremained good, with a Secchi depth of 5.2 m. The conductivities were similar tothe previous post-treatment values.


3.4 Monthly Monitoring

The monthly water quality and algae data are summarized in Figures 3–13 and theraw data are listed in Appendices A–B.

Heart Lake was thermally stratified in May, but was destratified in June, withnearly uniform temperature, oxygen, pH, and conductivity values throughout thewater column (Figures 3–7). This pattern is typical for shallow, polymictic lakes(Wetzel, 2001; Wilhelm and Adrian, 2008). Unstable stratification developedin July and August, accompanied by oxygen depletion near the bottom of thewater column. The water column was destratified again in September andOctober. The 5 meter sample from September indicated a small residual areaof oxygen depletion present near the lake bottom; by October the water columnwas completely mixed. Low oxygen concentrations were present near the bottomduring May, July, August, and September, which is typical for shallow, polymicticlakes during periods of stratification.

The total phosphorus concentrations dropped abruptly following alum treatment,and remained relatively low throughout the monitoring period (Figure 8).Although the total phosphorus concentrations were slightly higher in the May-October bottom samples, the concentrations were not high enough to suggest anysignificant release of phosphorus. Phosphorus reduction is a major goal whenusing alum treatments in lakes, and the reduced phosphorus concentrations shouldhelp reduce Cyanobacteria blooms in Heart Lake.

The total nitrogen concentrations remained relatively high, and were usuallyhigher in the bottom samples (Figure 9). High concentrations of nitrogen relativeto phosphorus creates an environment that favors a more diverse algal community,so this too should help reduce Cyanobacteria blooms in Heart Lake.

A major goal in treating Heart Lake with alum was to reduce harmful algalblooms, especially blooms of potentially toxic Cyanobacteria, by reducingphosphorus concentrations in the water column. One of the best indicatorsof the effectiveness of alum treatment in Heart Lake is the drop in surfacechlorophyll concentrations that occurred immediately following treatment (Figure10). Lower chlorophyll concentrations were maintained throughout most ofthe post-treatment monitoring period. The chlorophyll concentrations increasedslightly in September and October, but the algal community was dominated bygreen algae, cryptomonads, and diatoms rather than Cyanobacteria (Table C1 in


Appendix B). The reduced chlorophyll concentrations changed the lake’s tropicstate from eutrophic to mesotrophic (Figure 11) and resulted in an increase inwater clarity (Figure 12). The median May-October water quality results met thechlorophyll, TSI, total phosphorus, and Secchi depth objectives listed in the HeartLake Alum Treatment Plan (Herrera, 2018b):

May-October, 2018Treatment Shallow & Deep Water Quality

Parameter Goal Min Median Mean MaxChlorophyll (µg/L) <7.2 2.1 5.0 8.8 18.4Trophic index <50† 38 46 49 59Total phosphorus (µg-P/L) <24 13.3 22.5 23.3 33.3Secchi depth (m) >2 2.0 4.3 3.8 5.2†Mesotrophic

3.5 Wildlife Monitoring

Amphibian monitoring: Prior to the alum treatment the lake was surveyed forrough-skinned newts (Taricha granulosa). This survey was conducted by trollingthe perimeter of the lake in search of egg masses, and using dip nets to search forlarvae and adults in the southwest lobe of Heart Lake. The survey was conductedusing a 650 µm dip net to sweep the lake bottom and aquatic vegetation for adultand larvae at depths of 0.2–1.5 m. No rough-skinned newt adults, larvae, or eggmasses were captured or seen after more than 25 attempts. Their absence maybe partly due to the behavior of the rough-skinned newts, as they conceal theireggs by laying them singly and attached to submerged vegetation. In addition, thereduction in submerged vegetation following the 2017 Sonar (fluridone) treatmentmay have reduced the substrates available for egg attachment.

Although rough-skinned newts were not found, there were three distinct types ofamphibian egg masses identified along the shoreline. These egg masses belongedto the Northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), the long-toed salamander(Ambystoma macrodactylum), and the Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla).Approximately 25 long-toed salamander embryos were found floating among thecattails, while at least 10 round, rigid, gelatinous egg clusters of the Northwesternsalamander were found adhering to aquatic vegetation and woody debris. Allembryos appeared to be alive and without deformities.


After the alum treatment, the Northwestern salamander egg sac abundance seemedto increase. This was likely due to both sampling variation and the depositionof additional Northwestern salamander egg masses between sampling dates.Immediately following the alum treatment, we were unable to locate any long-toedsalamander embryos, possibly due to difficulty finding the small egg masses in thedense cattails. Due to their abundance, we continued to monitor the developmentof Northwestern salamander egg masses, which we used as an indicator of whetherthe alum treatment affected the amphibian populations of Heart Lake. TheNorthwestern salamander embryos increased noticeably in size increases betweenmonitoring days. The embryos also developed front legs and gills. Emergenceof larvae from egg clusters was observed during the final short-term monitoringvisit on April 18. The Pacific chorus frog egg clusters were only observed duringthe post-treatment monitoring, but the larvae also exhibited growth and showedno signs of deformation.

Fish monitoring: The condition of the fish in Heart Lake was monitored byobserving changes in behavior and mortality before, during, and after alumtreatment. No abnormal behaviors or mortalities were observed before or duringtreatment. In the first five days following treatment (April 4–9, 2018), a totalof 32 fish mortalities were observed. The mortalities included adult rainbowtrout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), as well as adult and juvenile yellow perch (Percaavescens). The rainbow trout that were recovered ranged in size from 28–36 cm,while the one juvenile yellow perch measured 6 cm in length.

On April 5, two fish mortalities were reported (one rainbow trout and oneyellow perch; personal communications, D. Oicles, City of Anacortes Parks andRecreation). On April 6, 23 fish mortalities were observed (22 rainbow trout andone yellow perch) and two adult rainbow trout were observed exhibiting signsof distress, which included gasping at the surface and delayed reaction times.Seven more fish mortalities were reported on April 9, (4 rainbow trout and 3yellow perch; personal communications, D. Oicles, City of Anacortes Parks andRecreation).

The observed mortalities and distressed behavior were likely attributed to acombination of stressors that included both the alum treatment and the pre-existing algae bloom. The algae bloom that was present prior to alum treatmentproduced super-saturated dissolved oxygen concentrations that reached as highas 143.5% saturation. Such conditions can have deleterious effects on fish and


have been linked to gas bubble disease and improper ination of the swim bladder(Weitkamp and Katz, 1980).

4 References

APHA, 2017. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,23st Edition. American Public Health Association, American Water WorksAssociation, and Water Environment Federation, Washington D. C.

Carlson, R. E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology andOceanography 22:361–369.

City of Anacortes, 2012. Heart Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation ManagementPlan, June 2012.

Hamilton, P.B., M. Proulx, and E. Earle. 2001. Enumerating phytoplanktonwith an upright compound microscope using a modified settling chamber.Hydrobiologia 444: 171–175.

Herrera. 2018a. Heart Lake 2018 Aquatic Plant Survey Report. Prepared forAnacortes Parks and Recreation Department, February 23, 2018, HerreraEnvironmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

Herrera. 2018b. Heart Lake Alum Treatment Plan. Prepared for Anacortes Parksand Recreation Department, November 26, 2018, Herrera EnvironmentalConsultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

Herrera. 2014. 2014 Milfoil Control Pilot Study, Heart Lake. Prepared for theCity of Anacortes Parks and Recreation Department, December 12, 2014,Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington.

Horton, S. 2014. Influence of watershed and soil parameters on water qualityin fifty Western Washington lakes. Huxley College of the EnvironmentM. S. thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Lowland Lakes - Heart Lake,http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/93/, downloaded January 27, 2017.

Weitkamp D. E. and M. Katz. 1980. A review of dissolved gas supersaturationliterature. Trans. American Fisheries Soc. 109:659–752.


Wensloff, J., R. A. Matthews, and J. Vandersypen. 2017. Heart Lake MonitoringProject 2016 Final Report. Institute for Watershed Studies Bellingham, WA.

Wetzel, R. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, Third Edition.Academic Press, New York, NY.

Wilhelm, S. and R. Adrian. 2008. Impact of summer warming on the thermalcharacteristics of a polymictic lake and consequences for oxygen, nutrientsand phytoplankton. Freshwater Biology 53:226–237.

YSI. 2010. YSI 6-Series Multiparameter Water Quality Sondes User Manual,Revision G, November 2012. YSI Incorporated, Yellow Springs,OH.


5 Tables

Table 1: Heart Lake morphometric data (adapted from Horton, 2014).

Lake surface area 248,491 m2 (0.248 km2) 61.4 acreLake maximum depth 5.8 m 19.03 ftLake mean depth (m) 2.7 m 8.85 ftLake volume 681,660 m3 (681 × 106 liter) 552.6 acre ft.

Shoreline length 2645 m (2.645 km) 1.64 milesWatershed perimeter 5886 m (5.886 km) 3.68 milesWatershed area 1,514,597 m2 (1.515 km2) 374.3 acre


Table 2: Summary of IWS analytical methods, abbreviations, and detection limitsfor analyses used in the Heart Lake monitoring project.

Method Sensitivity orAbbrev. Parameter Method Det. Limit Confidence limitIWS field measurements:Cond Conductivity YSI (2010) – ± 2 µS/cmDO Dissolved oxygen YSI (2010) – ± 0.1 mg/LpH pH YSI (2010) – ± 0.1 pH unitTemp Temperature YSI (2010) – ± 0.1◦ C

Secchi Secchi depth Lind (1985) – ± 0.1 m

IWS laboratory analyses:Alk Alkalinity APHA (2017) #2320 – ± 0.4 mg/L

TN T. nitrogen APHA (2017) #4500-N C 20.7 µg-N/L ± 12.1 µg-N/LNO3 Nitrate/nitrite APHA (2017) #4500-NO3 I 12.6 µg-N/L ± 15.4 µg-N/L

TP T. phosphorus APHA (2017) #4500-P J 4.0 µg-P/L ± 2.3 µg-P/LSRP Orthophosphate APHA (2017) #4500-P G 2.8 µg-P/L ± 2.0 µg-P/L

Chl Chlorophyll APHA (2017) #10200 H – ± 0.1 µg/L


6 Annotated Figures


Deep Site

Shallow Site

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity

Study Area:Anacortes, WA

Heart Lake

±0 200 400 600

Meters

Sampling LocationWatershed Boundary

Figure 1: Heart Lake deep and shallow sampling sites, April-October 2018.


Deep Site

R1

R2

R3R4

R5

R6

R7

R8

R9

R10

R11

R12

R13

Shallow Site

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunity

Study Area:Anacortes, WA

Heart Lake

±0 100 200 300

Meters

Sampling LocationWatershed Boundary

Figure 2: Heart Lake deep, shallow, and random sampling sites, April-October2018.


●

●

●

●

●

●

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

54

32

10

May

Temp (C)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

54

32

10

June

Temp (C)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

54

32

10

July

Temp (C)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

54

32

10

Aug

Temp (C)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

54

32

10

Sept

Temp (C)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

54

32

10

Oct

Temp (C)

Dep

th (

m)

Figure 3: The Heart Lake water temperature data, May-October 2018. HeartLake followed typical seasonal patterns, warming from May through August, thencooling in September and October. Thermal stratification was observed in May(∆T = 5.3 ◦), but due to the shallow depth of the lake, stratification was lost inJune, and was not fully restored for the remainder of the sampling period. This“polymictic” stratification pattern is very common in shallow lakes (Wetzel, 2001;Wilhelm and Adrian, 2008). Between June and September, the deep site in HeartLake exceeded the temperature criteria for core summer salmonid habitat (- - -); inJuly and August the lake exceeded the temperature criteria for indigenous warmwater species (—) based on the surface water standards in WAC 173-201A-200.


●

●

●

●

●

●

0 5 10 15

54

32

10

May

DO (mg/L)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 5 10 15

54

32

10

June

DO (mg/L)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 5 10 15

54

32

10

July

DO (mg/L)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 5 10 15

54

32

10

Aug

DO (mg/L)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 5 10 15

54

32

10

Sept

DO (mg/L)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 5 10 15

54

32

10

Oct

DO (mg/L)

Dep

th (

m)

Figure 4: Heart Lake dissolved oxygen data, May-October 2018. The top threemeters in Heart Lake were consistently well-mixed and oxygenated. When thewater column was destratified, the oxygen concentrations were fairly uniform,but oxygen depletion was evident in samples near the bottom of the lake fromJuly through September. Based on WAC 173-201A-200, the deep site in HeartLake failed to meet the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for providingsummer habitat for salmonids (- - -) except near the surface in May and July. HeartLake met the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration required for indigenouswarm water species (—) except in the bottom samples during May, July, August,and September. This could be problematic if fish were seeking cooler bottomtemperatures for survival, but as indicated in Figure 3, this site did not providecool water habitat during the summer.


●

●

●

●

●

●

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

54

32

10

May

DO (Pct Sat)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

54

32

10

June

DO (Pct Sat)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

54

32

10

July

DO (Pct Sat)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

54

32

10

Aug

DO (Pct Sat)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

54

32

10

Sept

DO (Pct Sat)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

54

32

10

Oct

DO (Pct Sat)

Dep

th (

m)

Figure 5: Heart Lake oxygen percent saturation data, May-October 2018. TheHeart Lake dissolved oxygen concentrations were at or below saturation (- - -)during most months. Low saturation occurred near the bottom during periodsof stratification (Figure 3). Super-saturation occurred in near-surface samplesduring July. Super-saturation is caused by algae or aquatic plants releasing oxygenfaster than the oxygen can diffuse out of the water column. Unfortunately, thechlorophyll sample from July was lost due to analytical error, but the algal counts(Figure 13) showed a small increase in density, mostly due to blooms of greenalgae. Despite the relatively low cell densities, the oxygen data suggest that thealgae were very actively photosynthesizing.


●

●

●

●

●

●

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

54

32

10

May

pH

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

54

32

10

June

pH

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

54

32

10

July

pH

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

54

32

10

Aug

pH

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

54

32

10

Sept

pH

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

54

32

10

Oct

pH

Dep

th (

m)

Figure 6: Heart Lake pH data, May-October 2018. The pH values wereslightly elevated in the near surface water, especially during stratification, but allvalues fell within the WAC 173-201A-200 range needed to sustain salmonid andindigenous warm-water fished (—). The slightly elevated pH could be due tophotosynthesis. During photosynthesis, algae or aquatic plants remove dissolvedCO2, which in turn reduces the amount of dissolved carbonic acid that forms whenCO2 reacts with water. The pH was lower in bottom samples especially when thelake was stratified and the oxygen concentrations were low. This is usually causedby accumulation of slightly acidic compounds released by the sediments or frombacterial decomposition. The alum floc, which can be slightly acidic, may alsohave contributed to the slightly lower pH in the bottom samples.


●

●

●

●

●

●

220 240 260 280 300 320

54

32

10

May

Cond (µS)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

220 240 260 280 300 320

54

32

10

June

Cond (µS)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

220 240 260 280 300 320

54

32

10

July

Cond (µS)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

220 240 260 280 300 320

54

32

10

Aug

Cond (µS)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

220 240 260 280 300 320

54

32

10

Sept

Cond (µS)

Dep

th (

m)

●

●

●

●

●

●

220 240 260 280 300 320

54

32

10

Oct

Cond (µS)

Dep

th (

m)

Figure 7: Heart Lake conductivity data, May-October 2018. Conductivitywas fairly uniform throughout the water column except in the bottom samples.Conductivity is influenced by the type and amount of dissolved ions in the water.The soil type and land use in the watershed influence the amount of dissolvedions entering the lake via surface runoff and groundwater. Biological activityand chemical interactions determine whether dissolved ions remain in the watercolumn. Conductivity can be influenced by in-lake factors such as decomposition,which often increases conductivity. This is the most likely reason for the slightlyhigher conductivities in most of the bottom samples.


050

100

150

Total Phosphorus

TP

(µg−

P/L

)

04/29 06/18 08/07 09/26

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

● ● ●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

Surface

Bottomalum treatment

treatment objective

Figure 8: Heart Lake total phosphorus data, April-October 2018. The totalphosphorus in Heart Lake is comprised of phosphorus associated with organicmatter (algae, aquatic plants, and other microbiota) plus dissolved or solublephosphate. Phosphorus is usually the nutrient that limits the amount of algae oraquatic plants in a lake. Prior to alum treatment the Heart Lake total phosphorusconcentrations were ranged from 68.2–129.8 µg-P/L (Table A2). The phosphorusconcentrations dropped abruptly immediately following treatment. The averageMay-October phosphorus concentration was 23.3 µg-P/L, and 58% of the sampleswere below the alum treatment objective of <24 µg-P/L (Herrera, 2018b).


600

800

1000

1200

1400

Total Nitrogen

TN

(µg−

N/L

)

04/29 06/18 08/07 09/26

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

Surface

Bottomalum treatment

Figure 9: Heart Lake total nitrogen data, April-October 2018. Total nitrogenincludes nitrogen bound in organic matter (algae, aquatic plants, and othermicrobiota) and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN = nitrate, nitrite, andammonium). There were higher concentrations of total nitrogen in the bottomsamples, except for October. The lower surface nitrogen concentrations may bedue to photosynthetic uptake by algae. Low nitrogen to phosphorus ratios (<15:1)favor Cyanobacteria blooms because many Cyanobacteria can use dissolved N2

gas as a nitrogen source. The average May-Oct ratio of TN:TP was 42:1, whichfavors the growth of a diverse algal community rather than Cyanobacteria.


020

4060

8010

0

Chlorophyll

Chl

orop

hyll

(µg/

L)

04/29 06/18 08/07 09/26

●

●

● ●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

Surface

Bottom

alum treatment

treatment objective

Figure 10: Heart Lake chlorophyll data, April-October 2018 (July results omitteddue to analysis error). Chlorophyll is the primary photosynthetic pigment inalgae and is the best single indicator of the amount of algae present. Prior toalum treatment the chlorophyll concentrations were 18.7–84.9 µg/L. Followingtreatment the chlorophyll concentrations dropped abruptly, which was consistentwith the phosphorus results. The average May-October chlorophyll concentrationwas 5.0 µg-P/L, and 60% of the samples were below the alum treatment objectiveof <7.2 µg-P/L (Herrera, 2018b). The chlorophyll concentrations in Septemberand October were slightly elevated (13.1–18.4 µg.L), so it is not yet clear whetheralgal blooms will continue to be a problem for Heart Lake.


020

4060

8010

012

0

Trophic State Index

TS

I

04/29 06/18 08/07 09/26

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●

●

Surface

Bottom

EutrophicMesotrophicOligotrophic

alum treatment

treatment objective

Figure 11: Heart Lake TSI data, April-October 2018 (July results omitted dueto chlorophyll analysis error). Chlorophyll can be used to classify lakes usingCarlson’s Trophic State Index (see page 5). Lakes with low concentrations ofchlorophyll are biologically unproductive or oligotrophic (TSIchl <30); lakes thathave high chlorophyll concentrations are biologically productive or eutrophic(TSIchl >50); lakes that fall between these concentrations are moderatelyproductive or mesotrophic (TSIchl 30–50). Heart Lake was eutrophic prior toalum treatment, then dropped to oligotrophic or mesotrophic until September andOctober. The average May-October TSI was 46, and 60% of the samples werebelow the treatment objective of <50 (Herrera, 2018b).


02

46

8

Secchi Depth

Sec

chi d

epth

(m

)

04/29 06/18 08/07 09/26

●●●●●●●●●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

treatment objective

Figure 12: Heart Lake Secchi depth data, April-October 2018. Secchi depths aremeasured by lowering a black and white disk into the water column, markingthe depth at which the disk is no longer visible, which is a simple way to assesswater clarity. Water clarity is influenced by suspended particulates from algae andother organic matter like leaf fragments, as well as inorganic particles like silt. InHeart Lake, the water clarity matched the chlorophyll results, with limited waterclarity prior to alum treatment (<2 m), and better clarity following treatment untilSeptember and October. The average May-October Secchi depth was 3.8, and83% of the samples were below the treatment objective of >2 (Herrera, 2018b).


● ●

●

●

●●

010

000

2000

0

Deep Site − Surface

Tota

l Alg

ae

06/18 08/07 09/26

● Total

Bluegreen

Green

Other

●●

●

●

●

●

010

000

2000

0

Deep Site − Bottom

Tota

l Alg

ae

06/18 08/07 09/26

● Total

Bluegreen

Green

Other

Figure 13: Heart Lake algae counts, May-October 2018. The Heart Lakealgae counts indicated that the algal community was no longer dominated byCyanobacteria, as it had been in 2016. The algal density was very low in May, butincreased over the summer and fall (see Table C1). By October, the deep samplescontained relatively high densities of green algae. The high counts in the bottomsamples reflect the increased water clarity, which allowed photosynthesis to bemaintained near the sediments.


A Water Quality Data

Table A1: Heart Lake 2018 field data. See Figures 1–2 for site locations; see Table 2 foranalytical methods, abbreviations, and detection limits.

Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)Pre-treatmentdeep 0.3 Apr 2, 2018 12:23:24 9.4 136.4 15.6 197.4 9.1 1.6deep 1.0 Apr 2, 2018 12:29:00 9.2 136.2 15.7 197.5 9.1 -deep 2.0 Apr 2, 2018 12:35:15 9.2 133.7 15.4 197.6 9.1 -deep 3.0 Apr 2, 2018 12:39:04 9.1 132.2 15.2 197.8 9.0 -deep 4.0 Apr 2, 2018 12:44:02 8.7 109.0 12.7 200.0 8.3 -deep 5.0 Apr 2, 2018 12:48:55 8.5 101.3 11.9 200.8 8.0 -

Minimum 8.5 101.3 11.9 197.4 8.0 -Mean 9.0 124.8 14.4 198.5 8.8 -

Median 9.2 133.0 15.3 197.7 9.1 -Maximum 9.4 136.4 15.7 200.8 9.1 -

continued on next page


Table A1: Heart Lake field data, continued

Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)Treatment - day 1deep 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 4:07:05 9.9 139.2 15.8 209.9 8.9 1.5deep 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:07:56 9.6 136.7 15.6 214.0 8.7 -deep 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:08:43 9.5 132.4 15.1 227.2 8.4 -deep 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:10:59 9.2 121.0 13.9 215.5 8.5 -deep 4.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:12:00 8.6 101.9 11.9 200.8 8.1 -deep 5.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:13:32 8.4 92.6 10.8 202.3 7.9 -

deep 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 8:39:42 9.5 136.4 15.6 197.1 9.1 1.6deep 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 8:42:08 9.5 136.4 15.6 197.2 9.1 -deep 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 8:43:49 9.5 136.1 15.5 197.2 9.1 -deep 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 8:46:57 9.3 129.0 14.8 197.8 8.9 -deep 4.0 Apr 3, 2018 8:49:37 9.2 125.0 14.4 198.1 8.9 -deep 5.0 Apr 3, 2018 8:51:26 8.5 101.1 11.8 200.5 8.0 -deep 6.0 Apr 3, 2018 8:53:05 8.3 82.8 9.7 203.7 7.6 -

shallow 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 4:32:23 9.9 143.5 16.2 200.8 9.2 1.5shallow 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:33:14 9.8 142.6 16.2 199.4 9.2 -shallow 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:35:35 9.4 132.3 15.1 217.3 8.6 -shallow 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 4:36:17 9.3 128.1 14.7 247.6 8.5 -


random1 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 11:26:10 9.7 136.1 15.5 200.4 9.1 -random1 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:27:27 9.7 136.4 15.5 200.0 9.1 -random1 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:28:31 9.6 136.0 15.5 201.1 9.1 -random1 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:29:51 9.6 135.3 15.4 204.0 9.0 -

random2 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 11:38:55 9.7 137.7 15.7 201.0 9.1 -random2 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:39:44 9.6 137.9 15.7 200.5 9.1 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)random2 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:40:40 9.6 138.0 15.7 199.5 9.1 -random2 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:41:36 9.6 137.9 15.7 200.7 9.1 -random2 4.0 Apr 3, 2018 11:44:46 9.4 130.1 14.9 222.1 8.5 -random2 4.4 Apr 3, 2018 11:47:35 8.8 7.7 0.9 230.5 7.3 -




random5 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 2:33:34 9.6 133.5 15.2 205.6 9.0 -random5 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 2:34:34 9.6 133.7 15.2 209.7 8.9 -random5 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 2:35:39 9.6 134.2 15.3 224.2 8.8 -random5 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 2:37:09 9.5 132.8 15.2 232.0 8.5 -random5 4.0 Apr 3, 2018 2:38:24 9.1 116.6 13.5 229.2 8.3 -random5 5.0 Apr 3, 2018 2:39:44 8.5 94.4 11.0 208.6 7.9 -random5 6.0 Apr 3, 2018 2:42:00 8.3 34.1 4.0 238.4 7.2 -

random5 0.3 Apr 3, 2018 3:11:33 9.7 136.4 15.5 212.2 8.9 -random5 1.0 Apr 3, 2018 3:13:44 9.6 136.5 15.5 215.4 8.8 -random5 2.0 Apr 3, 2018 3:14:44 9.6 134.4 15.3 218.3 8.8 -random5 3.0 Apr 3, 2018 3:16:12 9.5 132.0 15.1 229.1 8.7 -random5 4.0 Apr 3, 2018 3:17:27 9.0 109.1 12.6 219.5 8.2 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)random5 5.0 Apr 3, 2018 3:19:12 8.5 100.0 11.7 205.0 8.0 -random5 6.0 Apr 3, 2018 3:21:00 8.3 39.1 4.6 209.1 7.6 -


Minimum 8.3 7.7 0.9 197.1 7.2 -Mean 9.4 124.1 14.2 214.3 8.6 -

Median 9.5 134.3 15.3 207.8 8.8 -Maximum 9.9 143.5 16.2 259.0 9.2 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)Treatment - day 2deep 0.3 Apr 4, 2018 1:07:48 9.6 134.8 15.4 215.1 8.7 1.8deep 1.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:09:25 9.5 133.9 15.3 222.7 8.3 -deep 2.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:10:20 9.5 133.0 15.2 229.8 8.1 -deep 3.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:11:11 9.3 126.3 14.5 233.5 8.0 -deep 4.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:12:46 9.4 128.6 14.7 259.8 7.7 -deep 5.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:14:01 9.3 127.9 14.7 264.5 7.7 -deep 5.5 Apr 4, 2018 1:16:32 9.1 110.4 12.7 264.9 7.9 -

deep 0.3 Apr 4, 2018 7:53:35 9.3 130.2 14.9 211.5 8.6 1.9deep 1.0 Apr 4, 2018 7:56:16 9.3 130.8 15.0 211.1 8.6 -deep 2.0 Apr 4, 2018 7:57:31 9.3 130.1 14.9 212.8 8.6 -deep 3.0 Apr 4, 2018 7:58:52 9.3 125.1 14.4 224.0 8.2 -deep 4.0 Apr 4, 2018 8:00:38 9.3 122.1 14.0 239.8 8.0 -deep 5.0 Apr 4, 2018 8:02:01 8.7 102.4 11.9 211.6 7.9 -deep 5.5 Apr 4, 2018 8:03:22 8.5 96.2 11.2 207.4 7.8 -







Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)random7 0.3 Apr 4, 2018 9:53:54 9.4 134.8 15.4 208.9 8.9 -random7 0.5 Apr 4, 2018 9:54:51 9.4 134.8 15.4 209.2 8.9 -random7 1.0 Apr 4, 2018 9:56:32 9.4 134.8 15.4 212.8 8.8 -

random8 0.3 Apr 4, 2018 9:59:15 9.4 135.1 15.5 209.6 8.9 -random8 0.5 Apr 4, 2018 10:00:16 9.4 135.0 15.4 211.0 8.8 -random8 1.0 Apr 4, 2018 10:01:15 9.4 134.9 15.4 213.5 8.8 -


random10 0.3 Apr 4, 2018 11:49:16 9.7 137.1 15.6 215.1 8.9 -random10 1.0 Apr 4, 2018 11:51:20 9.5 134.9 15.4 215.2 8.8 -random10 2.0 Apr 4, 2018 11:52:56 9.5 133.1 15.2 221.9 8.7 -random10 3.0 Apr 4, 2018 11:54:08 9.4 132.1 15.1 223.0 8.5 -random10 4.0 Apr 4, 2018 11:55:03 9.3 128.6 14.7 233.8 8.0 -random10 5.0 Apr 4, 2018 11:56:13 9.1 120.5 13.9 236.1 8.2 -



random13 0.3 Apr 4, 2018 1:52:27 9.7 138.4 15.7 213.6 8.9 -random13 1.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:53:57 9.7 138.8 15.8 215.6 8.9 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)random13 2.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:54:29 9.5 135.4 15.5 220.7 8.6 -random13 3.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:56:12 9.3 127.2 14.6 235.6 8.2 -random13 4.0 Apr 4, 2018 1:57:56 9.2 119.2 13.7 246.4 8.2 -random13 5.0 Apr 4, 2018 2:00:01 8.8 100.7 11.7 215.4 7.9 -random13 6.0 Apr 4, 2018 2:01:15 8.5 87.0 10.2 210.6 7.8 -

Minimum 8.5 63.8 7.4 207.4 7.4 -Mean 9.3 126.5 14.5 230.6 8.3 -

Median 9.4 130.8 15.0 223.3 8.2 -Maximum 9.7 138.8 15.8 311.0 8.9 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)Post-treatment - day 2deep 0.3 Apr 6, 2018 1:23:32 9.7 122.2 13.9 225.3 8.3 2.7deep 1.0 Apr 6, 2018 1:26:17 9.6 122.5 13.9 225.4 8.3 -deep 2.0 Apr 6, 2018 1:27:13 9.5 120.3 13.7 226.6 8.2 -deep 3.0 Apr 6, 2018 1:28:40 9.3 120.1 13.8 229.5 8.2 -deep 4.0 Apr 6, 2018 1:29:55 9.3 120.1 13.8 244.4 8.0 -deep 5.0 Apr 6, 2018 1:31:25 9.1 113.6 13.1 255.5 7.8 -

Minimum 9.1 113.6 13.1 225.3 7.8 -Mean 9.4 119.8 13.7 234.5 8.1 -

Median 9.4 120.2 13.8 228.1 8.2 -Maximum 9.7 122.5 13.9 255.5 8.3 -





Minimum 10.2 92.2 10.4 231.5 7.6 -Mean 10.3 93.3 10.5 231.6 7.6 -

Median 10.3 93.6 10.5 231.5 7.7 -Maximum 10.3 93.7 10.5 232.1 7.7 -





Minimum 10.1 79.7 9.0 228.1 7.4 -Mean 10.3 83.2 9.3 228.3 7.5 -

Median 10.4 84.0 9.4 228.4 7.5 -Maximum 10.5 84.7 9.5 228.4 7.5 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)Monthlydeep 0.3 May 10, 2018 10:33:53 17.7 104.2 9.9 230.3 7.8 5.2deep 1.0 May 10, 2018 10:35:18 17.7 104.1 9.9 230.3 7.8 -deep 2.0 May 10, 2018 10:37:49 17.7 104.1 9.9 230.4 7.8 -deep 3.0 May 10, 2018 10:39:28 16.0 79.1 7.8 232.3 7.4 -deep 4.0 May 10, 2018 10:41:51 13.5 28.2 2.9 234.8 7.0 -deep 5.0 May 10, 2018 10:44:13 12.4 2.6 0.3 240.6 6.9 -

Minimum 12.4 2.6 0.3 230.3 6.9 -Mean 15.8 70.4 6.8 233.1 7.4 -

Median 16.8 91.6 8.9 231.4 7.6 -Maximum 17.7 104.2 9.9 240.6 7.8 -

deep 0.3 Jun 4, 2018 10:23:36 17.8 94.7 9.0 237.8 7.8 5.1deep 1.0 Jun 4, 2018 10:24:11 17.8 95.1 9.0 237.7 7.8 -deep 2.0 Jun 4, 2018 10:25:11 17.7 95.4 9.1 237.7 7.8 -deep 3.0 Jun 4, 2018 10:25:56 17.7 95.2 9.1 237.7 7.8 -deep 4.0 Jun 4, 2018 10:26:53 17.6 95.0 9.1 237.6 7.8 -deep 5.0 Jun 4, 2018 10:28:33 17.5 95.6 9.1 237.4 7.8 -

Minimum 17.5 94.7 9.0 237.4 7.8 -Mean 17.7 95.2 9.1 237.7 7.8 -

Median 17.7 95.2 9.1 237.7 7.8 -Maximum 17.8 95.6 9.1 237.8 7.8 -

deep 0.3 Jul 13, 2018 10:21:18 22.9 121.9 10.4 247.2 8.4 4.5deep 1.0 Jul 13, 2018 10:24:09 22.8 122.2 10.4 247.2 8.4 -deep 2.0 Jul 13, 2018 10:25:43 22.7 122.8 10.5 247.0 8.4 -deep 3.0 Jul 13, 2018 10:27:04 21.8 109.7 9.6 247.2 8.0 -deep 4.0 Jul 13, 2018 10:32:29 21.2 97.8 8.6 247.2 7.7 -deep 5.0 Jul 13, 2018 10:35:27 20.5 29.8 2.7 251.2 7.1 -

Minimum 20.5 29.8 2.7 247.0 7.1 -Mean 22.0 100.7 8.7 247.8 8.0 -

Median 22.2 115.8 10.0 247.2 8.2 -Maximum 22.9 122.8 10.5 251.2 8.4 -




Depth Temp DO DO Cond SecchiSite (m) Date Time (C)) (pct) (mg/L) (µS) pH (m)deep 0.3 Aug 9, 2018 11:09:59 23.3 94.9 8.1 257.1 7.8 4.0deep 1.0 Aug 9, 2018 11:11:34 23.3 93.8 8.0 256.8 7.7 -deep 2.0 Aug 9, 2018 11:12:52 23.1 87.5 7.5 256.8 7.6 -deep 3.0 Aug 9, 2018 11:16:03 22.7 83.5 7.2 256.4 7.6 -deep 4.0 Aug 9, 2018 11:19:22 22.2 53.3 4.6 256.8 7.3 -deep 5.0 Aug 9, 2018 11:22:13 21.3 1.7 0.2 322.8 6.7 -

Minimum 21.3 1.7 0.2 256.4 6.7 -Mean 22.6 69.1 5.9 267.8 7.4 -

Median 22.9 85.5 7.3 256.8 7.6 -Maximum 23.3 94.9 8.1 322.8 7.8 -

deep 0.3 Sep 13, 2018 10:39:53 18.6 78.5 7.3 261.2 7.4 2.1deep 1.0 Sep 13, 2018 10:42:26 18.5 77.0 7.2 261.4 7.5 -deep 2.0 Sep 13, 2018 10:43:07 18.4 74.3 7.0 261.5 7.4 -deep 3.0 Sep 13, 2018 10:44:01 18.4 73.3 6.9 261.4 7.3 -deep 4.0 Sep 13, 2018 10:44:51 18.4 74.1 7.0 261.3 7.3 -deep 5.0 Sep 13, 2018 10:46:23 18.3 27.4 2.6 269.6 7.1 -

Minimum 18.3 27.4 2.6 261.2 7.1 -Mean 18.4 67.4 6.3 262.7 7.3 -

Median 18.4 74.2 7.0 261.4 7.3 -Maximum 18.6 78.5 7.3 269.6 7.5 -

deep 0.3 Oct 11, 2018 10:15:12 13.8 88.9 9.2 260.5 7.7 2.0deep 1.0 Oct 11, 2018 10:18:22 13.8 88.7 9.2 260.5 7.7 -deep 2.0 Oct 11, 2018 10:20:06 13.7 88.2 9.1 260.6 7.7 -deep 3.0 Oct 11, 2018 10:23:01 13.7 89.2 9.2 260.6 7.7 -deep 4.0 Oct 11, 2018 10:24:40 13.7 89.0 9.2 260.6 7.7 -deep 5.0 Oct 11, 2018 10:25:25 13.7 88.7 9.2 260.5 7.7 -

Minimum 13.7 88.2 9.1 260.5 7.7 -Mean 13.8 88.8 9.2 260.6 7.7 -

Median 13.7 88.8 9.2 260.6 7.7 -Maximum 13.8 89.2 9.2 260.6 7.7 -


Table A2: Heart Lake 2018 laboratory data. See Figures 1–2 for site locations; see Table 2for analytical methods, abbreviations, and detection limits.

Depth Chl Alk TN NO3 TP SRPSite (m) Date µg/L mg/L µg-N/L µg-N/L µg-P/L µg-P/LPre-treatmentDeep Surface Apr 2, 2018 84.9 65.8 1234 49.2 129.8 4.4Deep Bottom Apr 2, 2018 18.7 65.3 963 131.4 68.2 6.5

Post-treatment - day 2Deep Surface Apr 6, 2018 12.8 61.6 794 41.0 45.5 3.8Deep Bottom Apr 6, 2018 13.3 59.8 746 52.6 42.6 3.1



MonthlyDeep Surface May 10, 2018 3.75 NA 771 NA 28.1 NADeep Bottom May 10, 2018 4.53 NA 1345 NA 32.5 NA

Deep Surface Jun 4, 2018 4.58 NA 766 NA 24.7 NADeep Bottom Jun 4, 2018 5.42 NA 767 NA 26.4 NA

Deep Surface Jul 13, 2018 NA NA 723 NA 17.4 NADeep Bottom Jul 13, 2018 NA NA 876 NA 22.6 NA

Deep Surface Aug 9, 2018 2.13 NA 857 NA 13.3 NADeep Bottom Aug 9, 2018 4.29 NA 962 NA 16.0 NA

Deep Surface Sep 13, 2018 18.39 NA 992 NA 22.4 NADeep Bottom Sep 13, 2018 18.04 NA 1071 NA 33.3 NA




Depth Chl Alk TN NO3 TP SRPSite (m) Date µg/L mg/L µg-N/L µg-N/L µg-P/L µg-P/LDeep Surface Oct 11, 2018 13.68 NA 1078 NA 21.6 NADeep Bottom Oct 11, 2018 13.11 NA 1050 NA 21.7 NA


B Heart Lake Algae

Table C1: Heart Lake settled algae counts (cells/mL) from preserved, whole-water samplescollected May-October 2018. See Table 2 for a summary of the settling methods andWensloff, et al. (2017) for digital images of algae collected in Heart Lake.

Deep Site - Surface May 10 Jun 4 Jul 14 Aug 9 Sept 3 Oct 11Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)Aphanizomenon flosaquae 1062 290 0 0 0 0Aphanocapsa/Aphanothece 0 0 0 387 0 0Dolichospermum 0 0 0 0 9 0Merismopedia 0 0 0 0 0 0Phormidium 0 97 0 0 0 0Pseudanabaena 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Cyanobacteria 1062 386 0 387 9 0

Chlorophyta (green algae)Ankyra 13 196 175 43 0 0Botryococcus 0 0 0 0 0 0Coelastrum 0 0 0 4 4 0Cosmarium 0 0 0 4 47 0Desmodesmus/Scenedesmus 0 0 0 0 34 671Elakatothrix gelatinosa 9 0 0 0 0 21Oocystis 0 36 2225 0 64 158Planktosphaeria gelatinosa 173 671 1435 316 585 696Sphaerocystis schroeteri 0 0 0 137 269 982Staurastrum 0 0 0 0 0 0Tetraedron minimum 0 0 0 9 342 137Tetraspora lacustris 21 0 0 0 0 0Volvox 193 0 0 0 0 0Total Chlorophyta 409 903 3835 513 1345 2665

Other Algae - Bacilliariophyta (diatoms)Asterionella formosa 0 0 0 0 1414 1661Fragilaria crotonensis 0 0 0 0 43 0Synedra 0 0 0 4 0 0misc diatoms 0 2 0 0 0 0



Table C1: Heart Lake settled algae counts, continued

Deep Site - Surface May 10 Jun 4 Jul 14 Aug 9 Sept 3 Oct 11Other Algae - Cryptophyta (cryptomonads)Cryptomonas (large) 120 13 17 9 9 68Cryptomonas (small or med) 34 117 188 167 1661 978

Other Algae - Dinophyta (dinoflagellates)Ceratium hirundinella 0 0 9 9 30 0Peridinium/Gymnodinium 0 0 0 0 4 0

Other Algae - Euglenophyta (euglenoids)Trachelomonas 0 2 0 0 0 0

Other Algae - Ochrophyta (golden algae)Dinobryon 0 11 21 316 4 128Mallomonas 0 2 0 0 21 0Synura 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Other Algae 154 147 234 504 3186 2836

Total Algae (all groups) 1624 1436 4070 1403 4540 5501continued on next page



Deep Site - Bottom May 10 Jun 4 Jul 14 Aug 9 Sept 3 Oct 11Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)Aphanizomenon flosaquae 0 193 0 0 0 0Aphanocapsa/Aphanothece 0 0 0 0 0 0Dolichospermum 0 0 0 0 9 271Merismopedia 0 0 34 0 0 578Phormidium 0 0 0 0 0 0Pseudanabaena 0 0 137 0 0 0Total Cyanobacteria 0 193 171 0 9 849

Chlorophyta (green algae)Ankyra 0 203 141 64 0 0Botryococcus 0 0 0 4 0 0Coelastrum 0 0 4 4 0 0Cosmarium 0 0 0 0 26 0Desmodesmus/Scenedesmus 0 0 0 0 85 1282Elakatothrix gelatinosa 47 0 0 30 0 36Oocystis 0 38 1960 17 60 1878Planktosphaeria gelatinosa 32 741 1555 367 457 1444Sphaerocystis schroeteri 0 495 0 0 436 5489Staurastrum 0 0 0 0 4 0Tetraedron minimum 0 0 0 0 448 163Tetraspora lacustris 17 0 0 0 0 0Volvox 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Chlorophyta 96 1478 3660 487 1516 10291

Other Algae - Bacilliariophyta (diatoms)Asterionella formosa 0 0 0 0 2118 8648Fragilaria crotonensis 0 0 0 0 0 36Synedra 0 2 0 0 0 0misc diatoms 0 6 4 4 0 0

Other Algae - Cryptophyta (cryptomonads)Cryptomonas (large) 184 17 94 26 9 163Cryptomonas (small or med) 11 199 346 209 1358 1950




Deep Site - Bottom May 10 Jun 4 Jul 14 Aug 9 Sept 3 Oct 11Other Algae - Dinophyta (dinoflagellates)Ceratium hirundinella 0 0 0 4 0 0Peridinium/Gymnodinium 0 0 0 0 0 18

Other Algae - Euglenophyta (euglenoids)Trachelomonas 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Algae - Ochrophyta (golden algae)Dinobryon 0 192 4 9 51 506Mallomonas 2 6 0 0 0 18Synura 0 0 0 0 0 18Total Other Algae 196 423 449 252 3536 11357

Total Algae (all groups) 290 2094 4279 739 5061 22496


C Quality Control

Blanks, laboratory duplicates, check standards, and matrix spiked samples wereused to monitor the quality of the data. Acceptance limits for laboratoryduplicates, check standards, and matrix spiked samples were established bybuilding control charts using the previous two years of data. Blank results must beless than the detection limits. All of the 16 spiked samples, 14 check standards,and 20 laboratory duplicates analyzed for this project were within the controllimits. All blanks were below the analytical detection limits.

Although field duplicates were not specified in the contract, one field duplicatewas collected on May 9 from the bottom of the deep site. The results aresummarized below.

Parameter Sample Conc. Field Dup. Conc.Alkalinity 59.8 mg/L as CaCO3 60.1 mg/L as CaCO3

Chlorophyll 13.2 µg/L 13.7µg/LTotal nitrogen 745.9 µg-N/L 781.5 µg-N/LNitrate/nitrite 52.6 µg-N/L 59.1 µg-N/LTotal phosphorus 42.6 µg-P/L 46.0 µg-P/LOrthophosphate 3.1 µg-P/L 2.9 µg-P/L

APPENDIX C

Edge Analytical Reports

Burlington, WA Corporate Laboratory (a) 1620 S Walnut St Burlington, WA 98233 800.755.9295 • 360.757.1400

Bellingham, WA Microbiology (b) 805 Orchard Dr Ste 4 Bellingham, WA 98225 360.715.1212

Portland, OR Microbiology/Chemistry (c) 9150 SW Pioneer Ct Ste W Wilsonville, OR 97070 503.682.7802

Corvallis, OR Microbiology (d) 540 SW Third Street Corvallis, OR 97333 541.753.4946

April 13, 2018 Page 1 of 1

Mr. Rob Zisette

2200 - 6th Ave #601Seattle, WA 98121


All samples were analyzed within the accepted holding times and were appropriately preserved and analyzed according to approved analytical protocols, unless noted in the data or QC reports. The quality control data was within laboratory acceptance limits, unless specified in the data or QC reports.

Your project: Heart Lake (Herrera Env), was received on Monday April 02, 2018.

Dear Mr. Rob Zisette,

RE: 18-10754 - Heart Lake (Herrera Env)

Respectfully

If you have questions phone us at 800 755-9295.

QA OfficerPatrick Miller, MS

Chain of CustodyQC ReportsData ReportEnclosures:

FORM: COVER Rev 2

of 1

Burlington, WA Corporate Laboratory (a)1620 S Walnut St - Burlington, WA 98233 - 800.755.9295 • 360.757.1400

Bellingham, WA Microbiology (b)805 Orchard Dr Ste 4 - Bellingham, WA 98225 - 360.715.1212

Portland, OR Microbiology/Chemistry (c)9150 SW Pioneer Ct Ste W - Wilsonville, OR 97070 - 503.682.7802

Corvallis, OR Microbiology/Chemistry (d)540 SW Third Street - Corvallis, OR 97333 - 541.753.4946

Bend, OR Microbiology (e)20332 Empire Blvd Ste 4 - Bend, OR 97701 - 541.639.8425

Data Report

Western Washington UniversityClient Name: 18-10754Reference Number:

Project: Heart Lake (Herrera Env)

Report Date: 4/13/18

2200 - 6th Ave #601Seattle, WA 98121

Date Received:

Approved by:

4/2/18bj

Authorized by:

Patrick Miller, MSQA Officer

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 22632

Deep-S-040918 Heart Lake Sample Date: 4/2/18 10:17 am

Michael LawlorCollected By:Sample Comment:

AnalyzedParameter Result PQL Units CommentMethod Analyst BatchCAS ID# DFMDL Lab

ALUMINUM mg/L0.0100.01 200.7 4/9/18 ANP 200.7_180409a7429-90-5 1.00.004 a

HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate mg/L3.3088.0 200.7 4/9/18 ANP 200.7_180409aE-11778 1.00.01 a

ALUMINUM mg/L0.010ND 200.7/FILTER 4/9/18 ANP 200.7_180409a7429-90-5 1.00.004 a

DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON mg/L0.5012.0 SM5310 B/FILTER

4/11/18 ANP TOC_180411E-10195 1.00.08 a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 22633

Deep-B-040918 Heart Lake Sample Date: 4/2/18 10:42 am



ALUMINUM mg/L0.010ND 200.7 4/9/18 ANP 200.7_180409a7429-90-5 1.00.004 a


ALUMINUM mg/L0.010ND 200.7/FILTER 4/9/18 ANP 200.7_180409a7429-90-5 1.00.004 a


4/11/18 ANP TOC_180411E-10195 1.00.08 a

If you have any questions concerning this report contact us at the above phone number.Form: cRslt_2.rpt

PQL = Practical Quantitation Limit is the lowest level that can be achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions.

Notes:

ND = Not detected above the listed practical quantitation limit (PQL) or not above the Method Detection Limit (MDL), if requested.

D.F. - Dilution Factor

of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Reference Number:

04/13/18Report Date:

18-10754Calibration Check

Batch Analyte Result

True

Value Units Method

%

Recovery Limits* Qualifier Comment

QC

Type

QC

200.7_180409A ALUMINUM 0.99 1 mg/L 200.7 99 90-110 CAL 2

HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 74.1 72.8 mg/L 200.7 102 90-110 CAL 2

toc_180411 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 2.53 2.50 mg/L SM5310 B 101 90-110 CAL 0

*Notation:

% Recovery = (Result of Analysis)/(True Value) * 100

NA = Indicates % Recovery could not be calculated.

Limits are intended for water matrices only. These criteria are for guidance only when reported with soils/solids.

FORM: QCIndependent3.rpt

of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:


18-10754Laboratory Fortified Blank


True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC

200.7_180409A ALUMINUM 0.56 0.5 mg/L 200.7 112 85-115 LFB 0

HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 90.7 86 mg/L 200.7 105 85-115 LFB 0

toc_180411 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 3.97 4.00 mg/L SM5310 B 99 90-110 LFB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:


18-10754Laboratory Reagent Blank


True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC

200.7_180409A ALUMINUM ND mg/L 200.7 0-0 LRB 0

HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate ND mg/L 200.7 0-0 LRB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:


18-10754Method Blank


True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC

200.7_180409A ALUMINUM ND mg/L 200.7 0-0 MB 0

HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate ND mg/L 200.7 0-0 MB 0

toc_180411 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON ND mg/L SM5310 B 0-0 MB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:


18-10754Quality Control Sample


True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC

200.7_180409A ALUMINUM 1.98 2 mg/L 200.7 99 95-105 QCS 0

toc_180411 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 4.31 4.40 mg/L SM5310 B 98 90-110 QCS 0

*Notation:





of 2

Reference Number: 18-10754


SAMPLE DEPENDENTQUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Duplicate, Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate and Confirmation Result Report

Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

UnitsResultResult

QC

CommentsQualifierLimits%RPD Type

Duplicate200.7_180409a

22632 HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 87.2 mg/L88.0 0.9 0-20 DUP

22632 ALUMINUM 0.01 mg/L0.01 0.0 0-20 DUP

22910 HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 100 mg/L99.0 1.0 0-20 DUP

TOC_180411

22633 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 11.9 mg/L11.6 2.6 0-20 DUP

Matrix Spike (MS)/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) analyses are used to determine the accuracy (MS) and precision (MSD) of a analytical method in a given sample matrix. Therefore, the usefulness of this report is limited to samples of similar matrices analyzed in the same analytical batch.

NA = Indicates %RPD could not be calculated

%RPD = Relative Percent Difference

Only Duplicate sample with detections are listed in this report


FORM: QC Dependent.rpt

Reference Number:Report Date:

Page 2 of 2

4/13/201818-10754

Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

SpikeSpikeSpike

Result Result Result Conc Units

Percent Recovery

Limits*%RPDMS MSD Limits*

QC

Qualifier Type Comments

Laboratory Fortified Matrix (MS)200.7_180409a

22632 HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 178 mg/L88.0 86173 105 99 70-130 5.7 0-20 LFM

22632 ALUMINUM 0.56 mg/L0.01 0.500.53 110 104 70-130 5.6 0-20 LFM


TOC_180411

22633 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 15.8 mg/L11.6 4.00 105 70-130 NA 0-20 LFM







of 1

Qualifier Definitions Reference Number:

Report Date: 04/13/1818-10754

Qualifier Definition

IM Matrix induced bias assumed

INH The sample was non-homogeneous

FORM: QualifierDefs

Note: Some qualifier definitions found on this page may pertain to results or QC data which are not printed with this report.






Mr. Rob Zisette

516 High StreetBellingham, WA 98225



Your project: Heart Lake (15-06096-002), was received on Wednesday April 04, 2018.


RE: 18-11236 - Heart Lake (15-06096-002)

Respectfully


QA OfficerPatrick Miller, MS


FORM: COVER Rev 2

of 2






Data Report


Project: Heart Lake (15-06096-002)



Date Received:

Approved by:

4/4/18bj

Authorized by:

Patrick Miller, MSQA Officer

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23568

Heart Lake Deep-B-040418.A Sample Date: 4/4/18 8:04 am



ALUMINUM ug/L101700 200.7/3010A 4/6/18 ANP 200.7_180406B7429-90-5 1.04. a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23569

Heart Lake Deep-S-040418.A Sample Date: 4/4/18 8:10 am




Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23570

Heart Lake Shallow-B-040418.A Sample Date: 4/4/18 8:30 am




Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23571

Heart Lake Shallow-S-040818.A Sample Date: 4/4/18 8:34 am




Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23572

Heart Lake Deep-B-040418.B Sample Date: 4/4/18 1:18 pm




Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23573

Heart Lake Deep-S-040418.B Sample Date: 4/4/18 1:25 pm





Notes:



of 2

Reference Number:

Report Date: 4/10/1818-11236

Data ReportALUMINUM ug/L101354 200.7/3010A 4/6/18 ANP 200.7_180406B7429-90-5 1.04. a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23574

Heart Lake Shallow-B-040418.B Sample Date: 4/4/18 12:52 pm




Sample Description:

Lab Number: 23575

Heart Lake Shallow-S-040418.B Sample Date: 4/4/18 12:57 pm




Form: cRslt_2.rpt


Notes:



of 2





Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

UnitsResultResult

QC


Duplicate200.7_180406B

23575 ALUMINUM 2156 ug/L1959 9.6 0-20 DUP








Page 2 of 2

4/10/201818-11236

Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

SpikeSpikeSpike


Percent Recovery


QC


Laboratory Fortified Matrix (MS)200.7_180406B

23575 ALUMINUM 2490 ug/L1959 500 106 70-130 NA 0-20 LFM











July 23, 2018 Page 1 of 1

Michael Lawlor

516 High Street, Bldg ES604Bellingham, WA 98225



Your project: Heart Lake (15-06096-002), was received on Friday April 06, 2018.

Dear Michael Lawlor,

RE: 18-11657 - Heart Lake (15-06096-002)

Respectfully


Director of Laboratories, Vice PresidentLawrence J Henderson, PhD

Data ReportEnclosures:

FORM: COVER Rev 2

of 1






Data Report




516 High Street, Bldg ES604Bellingham, WA 98225

Date Received:

Approved by:

4/6/18bj

Authorized by:

Lawrence J Henderson, PhDDirector of Laboratories, Vice President

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 24330

Heart Lake Deep-B-040618 Sample Date: 4/6/18 1:37 pm



ALUMINUM ug/L102654 200.7/3010A 4/13/18 ANP 200.7_180413a7429-90-5 1.04. a

HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate mg/L3.3073.3 200.7/3010A 4/13/18 ANP 200.7_180413AE-11778 1.00.01 a

ALUMINUM ug/L10132 200.7/FILTER 4/18/18 ANP 200.7_180418B7429-90-5 1.04. a


4/15/18 ANP TOC_180415E-10195 1.00.08 a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 24331

Heart Lake Deep-S-040618 Sample Date: 4/6/18 2:05 pm



ALUMINUM ug/L101167 200.7/3010A 4/13/18 ANP 200.7_180413A7429-90-5 1.04. a




4/15/18 ANP TOC_180415E-10195 1.00.08 a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 24332

Heart Lake Deep-B-040618.FD Sample Date: 4/6/18 1:50 pm







4/15/18 ANP TOC_180415E-10195 1.00.08 a



Notes:



of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC



200.7_180418B ALUMINUM 1.02 1 mg/L 200.7 102 90-110 CAL 2

TOC_180415 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 2.51 2.50 mg/L SM5310 B 100 90-110 CAL 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC



200.7_180418B ALUMINUM 0.55 0.5 mg/L 200.7 110 85-115 LFB 0

TOC_180415 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 3.84 4.0 mg/L SM5310 B 96 90-110 LFB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC



200.7_180418B ALUMINUM ND mg/L 200.7 0-0 LRB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC



200.7_180418B ALUMINUM ND mg/L 200.7 0-0 MB 0

TOC_180415 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON ND mg/L SM5310 B 0-0 MB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC


HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 127.6 132.3 mg/L 200.7 96 95-105 QCS 1

200.7_180418B ALUMINUM 2.02 2 mg/L 200.7 101 95-105 QCS 0

TOC_180415 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 4.33 4.4 mg/L SM5310 B 98 90-110 QCS 0

*Notation:





of 2





Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

UnitsResultResult

QC


Duplicate200.7_180413A

25225 ALUMINUM 5.77 mg/L5.98 3.6 0-20 DUP

200.7_180418B

25069 ALUMINUM ND mg/LND NA 0-20 DUP


TOC_180415









Page 2 of 2

4/20/201818-11657

Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

SpikeSpikeSpike


Percent Recovery


QC


Laboratory Fortified Matrix (MS)200.7_180413A

25225 ALUMINUM 6.78 mg/L5.98 0.50 160 70-130 NA 0-20 LFMIS

200.7_180418B

25069 ALUMINUM 0.58 mg/LND 0.50.58 116 116 70-130 0.0 0-20 LFM


TOC_180415








of 1


Report Date: 04/20/1818-11657



IS The ratio of the spike concentration to sample background was too low to meet performance criteria

FORM: QualifierDefs







MIchael Lawlor

2200 - 6th Ave #601Seattle, WA 98121



Your project: Heart Lake (15-06046-002), was received on Monday April 23, 2018.

Dear MIchael Lawlor,

RE: 18-13788 - Heart Lake (15-06046-002)

Respectfully




FORM: COVER Rev 2

Revised - 5-8-18 Page 1 of 1






Data Report





Date Received:

Approved by:

4/23/18anp

Authorized by:


Sample Description:

Lab Number: 28637

Heart Lake Deep-B-040618 Sample Date: 4/6/18 1:37 pm



ARSENIC mg/L0.00050.0004 J 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27440-38-2 1.00.00014 a

CADMIUM mg/L0.00025ND 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27440-43-9 1.06.00E-06 a

COPPER mg/L0.00250.0005 J 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27440-50-8 1.04.30E-05 a

LEAD mg/L0.00050.000026 J 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27439-92-1 1.05.00E-06 a

ZINC mg/L0.00250.0010 J 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27440-66-6 1.00.00016 a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 28638

Heart Lake Deep-S-040618 Sample Date: 4/6/18 2:05 pm





COPPER mg/L0.00250.0006 J 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27440-50-8 1.00.00016 a



Sample Description:

Lab Number: 28639

Heart Lake Deep-B-040618.FD Sample Date: 4/6/18 1:50 pm





COPPER mg/L0.00250.0005 J 200.8/FldFilter 4/24/18 BJ 200.8_180424A27440-50-8 1.04.30E-05 a





Notes:








Mr. Rob Zisette




Your project: Heart Lake (15-06096-002), was received on Thursday April 12, 2018.


RE: 18-12469 - Heart Lake (15-06096-002)

Respectfully




FORM: COVER Rev 2

of 1






Data Report





Date Received:

Approved by:

4/12/18bj

Authorized by:


Sample Description:

Lab Number: 25914

Heart Lake Deep-S-041218 Sample Date: 4/12/18 9:44 am





ALUMINUM ug/L10313 200.7/FILTER 4/25/18 ANP 200.7_180425a7429-90-5 1.04. a


4/25/18 ANP TOC_180425E-10195 1.00.08 a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 25915

Heart Lake Deep-B-041218 Sample Date: 4/12/18 9:40 am





ALUMINUM ug/L10307 200.7/FILTER 4/25/18 ANP 200.7_180425a7429-90-5 1.04. a


4/25/18 ANP TOC_180425E-10195 1.00.08 a



Notes:



of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC




TOC_180425 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 2.32 2.50 mg/L SM5310 B 93 90-110 CAL 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC




*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC





*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC




TOC_180425 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 4.49 4.40 mg/L SM5310 B 102 90-110 QCS 0

*Notation:





of 2





Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

UnitsResultResult

QC


Duplicate200.7_180423a

25914 HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 88.6 mg/L89.6 1.1 0-20 DUP

25914 ALUMINUM 0.53 mg/L0.54 1.9 0-20 DUP



TOC_180425









Page 2 of 2

4/30/201818-12469

Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

SpikeSpikeSpike


Percent Recovery


QC


Laboratory Fortified Matrix (MS)200.7_180423a


25914 ALUMINUM 1.23 mg/L0.54 0.501.15 138 122 70-130 12.3 0-20 LFMINH

25933 HARDNESS as Calcium Carbonate 466 mg/L435.8 86474 35 44 70-130 23.4 0-20 LFMIM


TOC_180425








of 1


Report Date: 04/30/1818-12469


IEV Acceptance criteria do not apply to estimated values


INH The sample was non-homogeneous

IS The ratio of the spike concentration to sample background was too low to meet performance criteria

FORM: QualifierDefs






May 22, 2018 Page 1 of 1

Mr. Rob Zisette




Your project: Heart Lake (15-06096-002), was received on Wednesday April 18, 2018.


RE: 18-13154 - Heart Lake (15-06096-002)

Respectfully




FORM: COVER Rev 2

of 1






Data Report





Date Received:

Approved by:

4/18/18bj,lrs

Authorized by:


Sample Description:

Lab Number: 27416

Heart Lake(Deep-S) Deep-S-041818 Sample Date: 4/18/18 9:57 am





ALUMINUM ug/L10250 200.7/FILTER 5/1/18 BJ 200.7_180501A7429-90-5 1.04. a


5/14/18 SRS TOC_180513E-10195 1.00.08 a

Sample Description:

Lab Number: 27417

Heart Lake(Deep-B) Deep-B-041818 Sample Date: 4/18/18 9:51 am





ALUMINUM ug/L10240 200.7/FILTER 5/1/18 BJ 200.7_180501A7429-90-5 1.04. a


5/14/18 SRS TOC_180513E-10195 1.00.08 a



Notes:



of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC

200.7_180427A ALUMINUM 1 1 mg/L 200.7 100 90-110 CAL 2



*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC




TOC_180513 DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON 3.88 4.00 mg/L SM5310 B 97 90-110 LFB 0

*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC




*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC





*Notation:





of 5

SAMPLE INDEPENDENT


Reference Number:




True

Value Units Method

%


QC

Type

QC




*Notation:





of 2





Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

UnitsResultResult

QC


Duplicate200.7_180427A

29613 ALUMINUM 0.51 mg/L0.52 1.9 0-20 DUP

200.7_180501A


TOC_180513









Page 2 of 2

5/22/201818-13154

Batch AnalyteSample

Duplicate

SpikeSpikeSpike


Percent Recovery


QC


Laboratory Fortified Matrix (MS)200.7_180427A

29613 ALUMINUM 1.05 mg/L0.52 0.50 106 70-130 NA 0-20 LFM

200.7_180501A


TOC_180513








of 1


Report Date: 05/22/1818-13154



FORM: QualifierDefs


Heart Lake 2018 Alum Treatment Report - Anacortes, WA

Documents

Transcript of Heart Lake 2018 Alum Treatment Report - Anacortes, WA