U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
CONSTANTINE RESERVOIR
ST, JOSEPH COUNTY
MICHIGAN
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 218
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
J^GPO 697-O32
-------
REPORT
ON
CONST/ME RESERVOIR
ST, JOSEPH COUNTY
MICHIGAN
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 218
WlTH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND THE
MICHIGAN NATIONAL GUARD
FEBRUARY, 1975
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Forward i i
List of Michigan Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake Characteristics 2
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 3
V. Literature Reviewed 7
VI. Appendices 8
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS*
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)j, clean lakes [§314(a,b)L
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
* The lake discussed in this report was included in the National
Eutrophication Survey as a water body of interest to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. Tributaries and nutrient sources
were not sampled, and this report relates only to the data obtained
from lake sampling.
-------
m
. Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources for professional involvement and to the
Michigan National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling
phase of the Survey.
A. Gene Gazlay, former Director, and David H. Jenkins, Acting
Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; and Carlos
Fetterolf, Chief Environmental Scientist, and Dennis Tierney,
Aquatic Biologist, Bureau of Water Management, Department of Natural
Resources, provided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during
the course of the Survey. John Vogt, Chief of the Bureau of Environ-
mental Health, Michigan Department of Public Health, and his staff
were most helpful in identfying point sources and soliciting municipal
participation in the Survey.
Major General Clarence A. Schnipke (Retired), then the Adjutant
General of Michigan, and Project Officer Colonel Albert W. Lesky,
who directed the volunteer efforts of the Michigan National Guardsmen,
are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
• STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MICHIGAN
LAKE NAME
Allegan Res.
Barton
Belleville
Betsie
Brighton
Caro Res.
Charlevoix
Chemung
Constantine Res
Crystal
Deer
Ford
Fremont
Higgins
Holloway Res.
Houghton
Jordon
Kent
Long
Macatawa
Manistee
Mona
Muskegon
Pentwater
Pere Marquette
Portage
Randall
Rogers Pond
Ross
St. Louis Res.
Sanford
Strawberry
Thompson
Thornapple
Union
White
COUNTY
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Wayne
Benzie
Livingston
Tuscola
Charlevoix
Livingston
St. Joseph
Montcalm
Marquette
Washtenaw
Newago
Roscommon
Genesee, Lapeer
Roscommon
Ionia, Barry
Oakland
St. Joseph
Ottawa
Manistee
Muskegon
Muskegon
Oceana
Mason
Houghton
Branch
Mecosta
Gladwin
Gratiot
Midland
Livingston
Livingston
Barry
Branch
Muskegon
-------
-------
CONSTANTINE RESERVOIR
STORE! NO. 2621
I. INTRODUCTION
Constant!ne Reservoir was included in the National Eutrophication
Survey as a water body of interest to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources. Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled,
and this report relates only to the data obtained from lake sampling.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data show that Constant!'ne Reservoir is eutrophic.
Of the 35 Michigan lakes sampled in the fall when essentially
all were well-mixed, nine had less mean total phosphorus, four
had less mean dissolved phosphorus, and 20 had less mean inor-
ganic nitrogen; of all 41 lakes sampled, 39 had less mean chloro-
phyll a_, and 27 had a greater mean Secchi disc transparency*.
Survey limnologists noted rooted aquatic vegetation along
the north shore and observed algal blooms in June and September.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that Constant!'ne Reservoir
was phosphorus limited at the time the sample was collected
(09/17/72). The reservoir data indicate phosphorus limitation
in November but a marginal nitrogen limitation in June.
See Appendix A.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 555 acres*.
2. Mean depth: unknown.
3. Maximum depth: >10 feet.
4. Volume: unknown.
B. Precipitation**:
1. Year of sampling: 40.7 inches,
2. Mean annual: 32.2 inches.
* Fetterolf, 1973.
** See Working Paper No. 1, "Survey Methods, 1972".
-------
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Lake Constant!ne was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1972 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each
time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected
from two stations on the reservoir and from a number of depths at each
station (see map, page v). During each visit, a single depth-integrated
(near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the second
visit, a single five-gallon depth-integrated sample was composited for
algal assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was collected
from each of the stations for chlorophyll a_ analysis. The maximum
depths sampled were 10 feet at station 1 and 10 feet at station 2.
*
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B, and the
data for the fall sampling period, when the reservoir essentially was
well-mixed, are summarized below. Note, however, the Secchi disc
summary is based on all values.
For differences in the various parameters at the other sampling
times, refer to Appendix B.
-------
4
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
Parameter Minimum
Temperature (Cent.) 7.0
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) 10.4
Conductivity (umhos) 500
pH (units) 7.8
Alkalinity (mg/1) 194
Total P (mg/1) 0.025
Dissolved P (mg/1) 0.006
N00 + N0q (mg/1) 0.810
>nia fmg/1) 0.080
FALL VALUES
(11/12/72)
Mean Median
Maximum
7.0
10.5
500
7.9
196
0.027
0.008
0.820
0.090
7.0
10.5
500
7.9
196
0.027
0.008
0.820
0.090
7.1
10.6
500
8.0
197
0.029
0.010
0.820
0.110
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 35
44
36
60
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton* -
Sampling
Date
09/17/72
11/12/72
2. Chlorophyll a. -
Dominant
Genera
1 . Lyngbya
2. Melosira
3. Raphidiopsis
4. Scenedesmus
5. Synedra
Other genera
Total
1. Cyclotella
2. Melosira
3. Asterionella
4. Stephanodiscus
5. Achnanthes
Other genera
Total
(Because of instrumentation problems during
the following values
Sampling
Date
06/13/72
09/17/72
11/12/72
may be in error by plus
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Number
per ml
6,847
5,586
1,532
991
901
7,747
23,604
1,501
226
127
126
115
608
2,703
the 1972 sampling,
or minus 20 percent.)
Chlorophyll a
(ug/1)
72.3
53.5
24.3
26.0
26.4
33.4
* The June sample was lost in shipment.
-------
0.023
0.033
0.043
0.073
0.073
0.073
0.023
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
5.460
10.460
10.460
8.7
10.3
10.9
11.9
29.0
33.6
8.5
20/1
14/1
11/1
6/1
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield N/P
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mg/1-dry wt.) Ratio
Control
0.010 P
0.020 P
0.050 P
0.050 P + 5.0 N
0.050 P + 10.0 N
10.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Constantine Reservoir was quite high at the time the
assay sample was collected (09/17/72). Also, the increased
yields with increased levels of orthophosphorus indicate
phosphorus limitation (note the lack of yield response when
only nitrogen was added).
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in November
as well (N/P ratio = 114/1) but a marginal nitrogen limitation
in June (N/P = 13/1).
-------
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Fetterolf, Carlos, 1973. Personal communication (area of
reservoir). MI Dept. of Nat. Resources, Lansing.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
26AO HOLLOWAT RESERVOIR
26A1 CARO RESERVOIR
26A2 BOAKDMAN HYDRO POMD
2603 ALLEGAN LAKE
2606 BARTON LAKE
2609 BELLEVILLE LAKE
2610 BETS1E LAKE
2613 BHIGHTON LAKE
2617 LAKE CHARLEVOU
2618 LAKE CHEMUNG
2621 CONSTANTINE RESERVOIR
2629 FORD LAKE
2631 FREMONT LAKE
26<>0 JORDAN LAKE
26*3 KENT LAKE
2648 LAKE MACATAWA
26*9 MANISTEE LAKE
2659 MUSKEGON LAKE
2665 PENTWATER LAKE
2671 RANDALL LAKE
2672 ROGERS POND
2673 ROSS RESEKVOIK
2674 SANFORD LAKE
2683 THORNAPPLE LAKE
2685 UNION LAKE
2688 WHITE LAKE
2691 MONA LAKE
2692 LONG LAKE
MEAN
TOTAL P
0.062
0.117
0.006
0.123
0.121
0.118
0.025
0.109
0.007
0.044
0.027
0.105
0.372
0.180
0.040'
0.197
0.018
0.087
0.027
0.246
0.026
0.034
0.016
0.042
0.083
0.027
0.307
0.163
-ran. VALUL:
MEAN
01SS P
0.043
0.022
0.005
0.057
0.086
0.048
0.008
0.073
0.006
0.014
0.008
0.058 .
0.342 '
0.144
0.015
0.120
0.010
0-.043
0.017
0.183
0.015
0.021
0.008
0.032
0.064
0.019
0.241
0.148
MEAN
INORG N
1.461
3.835
0.3S8
1.168
1.489
1.420
0.273
1.015
0.230
0.132
0.910
1.536
1.406
1.998
0.417
2.358
0.304
0.469
0.496
0.818
0.183
0.460
0.307
1.737
1.252
0.367
0.963
0.749
500-
MEAN SEC
439.375
473.000
363.500
470.222
456.167
46S.250
461.667
456.000
351.250
404.333
456.167
456.167
441.667
427.667
455.000
477.600
451.333
436.444
430.667
457.333
435.500
465.333
. 458.750
442.833
455.500
417.778
451.667
418.400
MEAN
CHLORA
10.678
11.967
1.267
20.311
27.800
28.262
4.567
44.233
3.008
13.483
39.317
14.733
28.500
20.517
33.944
25.600
6.317
9.511
16.083
27.217
8.133
10.383
13.791
14.650
15.667
9.211
27.783
10.067
15-
MIN UO
9.200
9.500
6.600
12.600
14.850
8.200*
7.400
7.500
9.240
14.800
7.500
14.000
14.800
14.900
13.000
12.200
11.330
14.800
14.800
8.020
9.600
8.200
8.300
10.800
8.200
13.400
14.100
13.600
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2693 ST LOUIS RESERVOIR
2694 CRYSTAL LAKE
2695 HIGGINS LAKE
2696 HOUGHTON LAKE
2697 THOMPSON LAKE
2698 PERE MARQUETTE LAKE
2699 STRAWBERRY LAKE
MEAN
TOTAL P
0.134
0.009
0.007
0.018
0.043
0.032
0.069
-THLL VHUUC.3-
MEAN
DISS P
0.093
0.006
0.005
0.008
0.029
0.024
0.050
MEAN
INURG N
1.227
0.164
0.058
0.136
0.436
0.346
0.567
500-
MEAN SEC
462.667
380.000
268.500
420.833
407.889
448.667
419.800
MEAN
CHLOKA
5.583
2.986
1.043
9.217
11.967
11.833
11.117
15-
MIN 00-
8.420
13.000
9.400
8.200
14.800
8.600
13.600
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES XITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
26AO HOLLOWAY RESERVOIR
26Ai CARO RESERVOIR
26A2 BOAKDMAN HYDRO POND
2603 ALLEGAN LAKE
3606 BARTON LAKE
2609 BtLLEVILLE LAKE
2610 BETSIE LAKE
2613 BRIGHTON LAKE
2617 LAKE CHARLEVOIX
2618 LAKE CHEMUNG
2621 CONSTANTINE RESERVOIR
2629 FORD LAKE
2631 FREMONT LAKE
26<»0 JORDAN LAKE
2643 KENT LAKE
26<>a LAKE MACATAMA
2649 MANlSTEE LAKE
2659 MUSKEGON LAKE
2665 PENTWATER LAKE
2671 RANDALL LAKE
2672 ROGERS POND
2673 ROSS RESERVOIR
267* SANFORD LAKE
2683 THORNAPPLE LAKE
2685 UNION LAKE
26B8 HH1TE LAKE
2691 MONA LAKE
2692 LONG LAKE
fALL VALUtS —
MEAN MEAN
TOTAL P UISS P
46
29
97
20
23
26
77
31
91
49
71
34
0
11
57
9
80
37
69
6
74
60
86
54
40
66
3
14
( 16)
( 10)
( 34)
( 7)
( 8)
< 9)
( 271
( 11)
< 32>
( 17)
( 25)
( 12)
( 0)
< 4)
( 20)
( 3)
( 28)
( 13)
( 24)
( 2)
( 26)
( 21)
1 30)
( 19)
( 14)
( 23)
( 1)
( 5)
43
54
97
31
20
37
77
23
91
71
83
29
0
11
69
14
74
40
63
6
66
57
80
46
26
60
3
9
( 15)
( 19)
( 34)
I 11)
( 7)
( 13)
( 27)
< 8)
( 32)
1 25)
( 29)
( 10)
( 0)
( 4)
( 24)
( 5)
( 26)
( 14)
( 22)
( 2)
( 23)
I 20)
( 28)
( 16)
( 9)
( 21)
( 1)
I 3)
MEAN
INORG N
17
0
69
31
14
20
80
34
83
94
40
11
23
6
63
3
77
. 54
51
43
86
57
74
9
26
66
37
46
( 6)
< 0)
( 24)
( 11)
( 5)
( 7)
( 28)
( 12)
( 29)
( 33)
( 14)
( 4)
( 8)
( 2)
( 22)
< 1)
( 27)
( 19)
( 18)
( 15)
( 30)
( 201
( 261.
( 3)
( 9)
( 23)
( 131
( 16)
500-
MEAN
57 (
3 (
91 (
6 (
29 (
11 (
17 (
34 (
94 (
86 (
29 (
29 (
54 I
69 (
40 (
0 <
46 '(
60 (
66 (
23 <
63 (
9 (
20 (
51 (
37 1
80 I
43 I
77 (
SEC
20)
1)
32)
2)
9)
4)
6)
12)
33)
30)
9)
9)
19)
24)
14)
0)
16)
21)
23)
8)
22)
3)
7)
18)
13)
28)
15)
27)
"ALL VALUES
MEAN 15-
CHLORA MIN DO
60
49
94
29
14
11
86
0
89
46
3
37
9
26
6
23
80
69
31
20
77
63
43
40
34
74
17
66
( 21)
( 17)
1 33)
( 10)
( 5)
( 4)
( 30)
( 0)
( 31)
( 16)
( 1)
( 13)
( 3)
( 9)
( 2)
( 8)
( 28)
( 24)
( 11)
( 7)
( 27)
( 22)
( 15)
( 14)
( 12)
( 26)
( 6)
( 23)
63
54
97
40
3
79
94
90
60
11
90
23
11
0
36
43
46
11
11
86
51
79
71
49
79
31
20
27
( 22)
( 19)
( 34)
( 14)
( 1)
(' 26)
( 33)
I 31)
( 21)
( 2)
( 31)
( 8)
( 2)
I 0)
( 12)
( 15)
( 16)
( 2)
( 2)
( 30)
( 18)
( 26)
( 25)
( 17)
( 26)
< 11)
( 7)
( 9)
INDEX
NO
286
189
545 •
157
103
184
431
212
5U8
357
31t>
163
97
123
271
92
403
271
241
184
417
325
374
249
242
377
123
239
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2693 ST LOUIS RESERVOIR
2694 CRYSTAL LAKE
2695 HIGGINS LAKE
2696 HOUGHTON LAKE
2697 THOMPSON LAKE
2698 PERE MARQUETTE LAKE
2699 STRAWBERRY LAKE
MEAN MEAN
TOTAL f UISS P
17
89
94
83
51
63
43
( 6)
( 31)
( 33)
( 29)
( 18)
( 22)
( 15)
17 (
89 (
94 (
86 (
49 (
51 <
34 (
6)
31)
33)
30)
17)
18)
12)
MEAN
INOKG N
29
89
97
91
60
71
49
( 10)
( 31)
( 34)
( 32)
( 21)
( 25)
( 17)
bOO-
MEAN SEC
14
89
97
71
83
49
74
( b)
( 31)
( 34)
( 25)
( 29)
( 17)
( 26)
MEAN
CHLOKA
83
91
97
71
51
54
57
( 29)
( 32)
( 34)
( 25)
( 18)
( 19)
< 20)
15-
MIN 00
69
36
57
79
11
66
27
( 24)
( 12)
( 20)
( 26)
( 2)
( 23)
( 9)
INDEX
NO
229
483
536
481
305
354
284
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 75/02/04
262101
41 50 30.0 085 40 00.0
CONSTANTINE RESERVOIR
26 MICHIGAN
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DA1T FEET
72/06/13 14 01 0000
14 01 0005
14 01 0010
72/09/17 14 10 0000
14 10 0004
72/11/12 12 40 0000
12 40 0006
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
22.0
20.2
19.8
19.3
7.0
00300
DO
MG/L
11.0
8.6
7.6
8.7
10.6
00077 00094
TRANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES M1CHOMHO
36
35
60
500
510
480
445
445
500
500
11EPALES
4
00400
PH
SU
8.40
8.40
8.35
8.25
8.15
7.80
7.90
00410
T AUK
CAC03
MG/L
193
192
193
166
159
197
195
2111202
0010
00630
N02&NU3
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.320
0.360
0.380
0.280
0.310
0.810
0.820
FEET DEPTH
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.060
O.OSO
0.090
0.070
0.070
o.oao
0.080
00 665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.042
0.048
0.047
0.057
O.OS5
0.028
0.025
00666
PHOS-DIS
MG/L P
0.025
0.028
0.036
0.018
0.022
0.006
0.007
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET UG/L
72/06/13 14 01 0000 72.3J
72/09/17 l<* 10 0000 24.3J
72/11/12 12 40 0000 26.4J
J VALUE KNOWN TO BE IN ERROR
-------
bTORET RETRIEVAL DATE /5/02/04
363103
41 51 30.0 Od5 39 30.0
CONSTANT IME RESERVOIR
36 MICHIGAN
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
73/06/13 14 30 0000
14 30 0005
14 30 0010
73/09/17 14 36 0000
14 36 0004
14 36 0007
73/11/13 13 30 0000
13 30 OOU6
00010
TEHP
CENT
33.8
31.0
30.6
19.4
19.5
7.1
11EPALES
003uO
00
MG/L
10.6
9.0
8.3
7.5
7.7
10.4
U6077
TRAiMSP
SECCHi
INCHES
36
36
60
0009t
CiMDUCCVY
FIELD
MICrtUMHO
505
505
510
445
455
450
500
500
4
00400
PH
SU
8. SO
a. 40
8.3U
8.35
8.05
6.08
7.90
8.00
0041U
r ALK
CACU3
M(3/L
194
195
195
168
170
170
194
197
3111302
0010
-00630
N03fcN03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.350
0.370
0.340
0.310
0.350
0.340
O.U30
u.830
FEET DEPTH
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.060
0.030
0.050
0.100
0.110
0.070
0.100
0.110
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L ?
0.046
0.053
0.050
0.057
0.053
0.053
0.027
0.029
00666
PHOS-UIS
MG/L P
0.033
0.031
0.036
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.008
0.010
DATE TIME DEPTH
FROM OF
TO DAY FEET
72/06/13 14 30 0000
73/09/17 14 36 0000
73/11/13 13 30 0000
32217
A
UG/L
53. 5J
26. OJ
33. 4j
J VALUE KNOWN TO BE
tKROW
------- |