U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
BLACK LAKE
NATCHITOCHES AND RED RIVER PARISHES
LOUISIANA
• EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No. 531
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
BUCK LAKE
NATCHITOCHES AND RED RIVER PARISHES
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No. 531
UlTH THE COOPERATION OF THE
LOUISIANA HILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION
AND THE
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON BLACK LAKE
NATCHITOCHES AND RED RIVER PARISHES, LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
by
National Eutrophication Survey
Water and Land Monitoring Branch
Monitoring Applications Laboratory
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Eutrophication Survey Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
Working Paper No. 531
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March, 1977
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Louisiana Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 2
III. Lake Characteristics 3
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
V. Literature Reviewed 8
VI. Appendices 9
-------
ii
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 freshwater lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concen-
trations, 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 nonpoint source pollution abatement in lake water-
sheds.
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
watershed 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
L§303(c)], clean lakes [§314(a,b)], and water quality monitoring
[§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
Ill
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condition
are being made to advance the rationale and data base for refine-
ment of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's freshwater
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 the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Louisiana Wild Life and
Fisheries Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control for
professional involvement, to the Louisiana National Guard for
conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey, and to
those Louisiana wastewater treatment plant operators who pro-
vided effluent samples and flow data.
Robert A. Lafleur, Chief; J. Dale Givens, Assistant Chief;
Lewis P.. Still, Biologist; Louis Johnson, Biologist; Lee Cau-
barreaux, Biologist; Darrell Reed, Engineer; Dempsey Alford,
Biologist; and Elwood Goodwin, Water Quality Control Technician,
all of the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, Division
of Water Pollution Control reviewed the preliminary reports and
provided critiques most useful in the preparation of this
Working Paper Series.
Major General O'Neil Daigle, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Louisiana, and Project Officer Colonel Lawrence P. Dupre, who
directed the volunteer efforts of the Louisiana National Guards-
men, are also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to
the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
LAKE NAME
Anacoco Lake
Lake Bistineau
Black Bayou
Black Lake
Bruin Lake
Bundicks Lake
Caddo Lake
Cocodrie Lake
Cocodrie Lake (Lower)
Concordia Lake
Cotile Lake
Cross Lake
D'Arbonne Lake
False River Lake
Indian Creek Reservoir
Saline Lake
Turkey Creek Lake
Lake Vernon
Lake Verret
PARISH
Vernon
Bienville, Webster
Caddo
Natchitoches and Red River
Tensas
Beauregard
Caddo (Menon and Harrison
in Texas)
Concordia
Rapides
Concordia
Rapides
Caddo
Union
Pointe Coupee
Rapides
LaSalle
Franklin
Vernon
Assumption
-------
•31°50
BLACK LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
10 Km.
Scale
Mi.
93°10
-------
REPORT ON BLACK LAKE, LOUISIANA
STORE! NO. 2219
I. INTRODUCTION
Black Lake was included in the National Eutrophication
Survey (NES) as a water body of interest to the Louisiana Stream
Control Commission and Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission.
Tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled, and this report
relates only to the data obtained from lake sampling.
Black Lake is a reservoir located in Natchitoches and Red
River Parishes in Northwestern Louisiana. Most of the area known
as Black Lake is thick with vegetation, while much of the adjacent
area known as Clear Lake is open water. The lakes, which have been
designated the Northwest Game and Fish Preserve, are used heavily
for recreation, and there exist numerous camps in the south shore
of Clear Lake. The remainder of the Black-Clear shoreline is
sparsely developed (Shampine, 1971).
Runoff from logging operations, salt water and septic tank
contributions from shoreline campgrounds are the major causes of
water quality deterioration in Black Lake. In addition, future
strip mining for lignite may result in further lake degradation
(Leslie Johnson, personal communication).
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Survey data indicate that Black Lake is eutrophic,
i.e., nutrient rich and highly productive. Whether such
nutrient enrichment is to be considered beneficial or dele-
terious is determined by its actual or potential impact
upon designated beneficial water uses of each lake.
Chlorophyll a^ levels ranged from 8.2 ug/1 to 19.1 yg/1
with a mean of 12.7 yg/1. Of the 19 Louisiana water bodies
sampled in 1974, 7 had greater median total phosphorus, 7
had greater median orthophosphorus, 4 had greater median
inorganic nitrogen, and 12 had lower mean Secchi disc trans-
parency than Black Lake.
Survey limnologists did not report any nuisance con-
ditions in the lake. However, the Louisiana Hi Id Life and
Fisheries Commission (Leslie Johnson, personal communication)
reports that Black Lake has had chrpnic submerged weed problems
which were temporarily suppressed at the time of sampling by
a water draw-down program completed a short time before.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
No algal assay samples were collected at Black Lake.
However, the lake data suggest phosphorus limitation during
the May sampling round and nitrogen limitation in August.
*See Appendix C.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:*
A. Surface area: 52.24 km2.
B. Mean depth: 2.6 meters.
C. Maximum depth: 4.6 meters.
D. Volume: 134.450 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation:
A. Year of sampling: 179.9 cm.
B. Mean annual: 128.1 cm.
*Provided by the State of Louisiana.
-------
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Black Lake was sampled two times during the open-water
season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter.
Each time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were
collected from two stations on the lake and from one or more
depths at each station (see map, page v). During each visit,
depth-integrated samples were collected from each station for
chlorophyll a^ analysis and phytoplankton identification and enu-
meration. Maximum depths sampled were 1.5 meters at Station 01
and 0.6 meters at Station 02. For a more detailed explanation
of NES methods, see NES Working Paper No. 175.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B
and are summarized in IV-A for waters at the surface and at the
maximum depth for each site. Results of the phytoplankton counts
and chlorophyll ^determinations are included in IV-B. Results of
the limiting nutrient study are presented in IV-C.
-------
oLiCK
STO-ET C^OE 221S
N*
KANQL
MEDIAN (METERS)
N*
AND
CHARACTERISTICS
B/23/7tt )
MAX
• = 2 DEPTH
KANGE
(METERS)
TE-'PE«ATU-E (DtG CENT)
0.-1.5 M r-EPTH
WAX D<;PTH«»
DISSOLVED OAY6EN
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
"A*. OEPTri**
CONDUCTIVITY UIWHi
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
4
2
(Mfc/L)
2
2
OM
4
2
25.4- 26.5
25.4- 26. B
3.4- 4.4
3.4- 4.4
110.- ia7.
110.- 113.
26.1
26.1
B.si
1.*
112.
112.
0.0-
0.6-
n.6-
0.6-
0.0-
0.6-
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3
2
3
2
3
a
30.0-
30.0-
5.6-
5.6-
125.-
125.-
30.0
30.0
6.4
6.4
175.
175.
30.0
30.0
6.2
6.0
125.
ISO.
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.0-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Pri (STANDARD UNITb>
0.-1.5 M DE^TH .
MAX DEPTH**
TOTAL ALC.ALINITY
0.-1.5 M DEPTH
MAX DEPTh**
TOTAL P (MG/L)
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
DISSOLVED OKTHO P
0,-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
N02*N03 (MG/L)
O.-l.S M UtPTH
MAX DEPTH**
AMMONIA (MO/L)
O.-l.S M DEPTH
MAX DEPTH**
KjELDAHL N
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
2.
Sampling
Date
05/30/74
08/23/74
Chlorophyll a^
Sampling
Date
05/30/74
08/23/74
Dominant
Genera
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Flagellates
Kirchneriella
Attheya
Blue-green filament
Cryptomonas
Other genera
Total
Lying by a
Dactyl ococcops is
Anabaenopsis
Aphanothece
Spermatozoopsis
Other genera
Total
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
Algal
Units
per ml
1,199
1,133
1 ,066
799
666
5,131
9,994
9,900
2,903
1,340
670
670
3,420
18,903
Chlorophyll a
(yg/liter)
19.1
8.2
10.9
-------
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
Black Lake was not sampled in either March or November
1974. Consequently, no algal assay sample for this lake was
obtained. However, the lake data indicate that Black Lake was
phosphorus limited in May; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen to
orthophosphorus (N/P) ratio was 16/1. Nitrogen limitation was
indicated in August (the mean N/P ratio was less than 2/1, and
nitrogen limitation would be expected). The overwhelming domin-
ance of the algal flora by blue-green forms in August substan-
tiates nitrogen limitation at that time.
-------
8
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Johnson, Leslie. 1977. Personal Communication, (water quality of
Black Lake). Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission.
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Shampine, W.J. 1971. Chemical Biological and Physical Data for
the Major Lakes and Reservoirs in Louisiana. Louisiana Dept.
of Public Works, Report #5. Baton Rouge, La.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975. National Eutrophication
Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper No. 175. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada and Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10 = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 = cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL DATA
-------
T PET'-T
28.5
Zh.d
30.0
30.0
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.065
0.064
0.134
0.120
00300
00.
MG/L
4.4
6.2
6.4
32217
CHLrtPHYL
A
UG/L
19.1
10.9
lltMALtS 21112ii2
4 0010 FEtT On-rn
00077 00044 00400 00410 00610 On62r> 0063U nOs>71
TK6NSP CMJUCTVT Pit T ALK MM3-N TOT KJtL (>i02^N03 PHOS-DIS
^eccni FIELD
INCHES MICHOMHO SU
54 127 7.00
113 6.40
125 7.1o
125 7.00
00031
INCDT LT
RPMNING
PEHCENT
1.0
1.0
CAC03 TOTAL N N-TOTAL O^ITHO
MG/L MG/L *G/L MR/L MG/L r
10K 0.080 O.»00 0.070 0.011
10K O.OHO O.bOO O.OrtO 0.010
16 0.050 1.200 0.020K 0.0»6
15 0.070 0.400 0.020K 0.086
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
STO-ET
NATL EUTdOPi->IC4T IOV sjHvEY
EDA-LAS
31
00.0 1)^3 Ub 00.0
LAKE
LOUISIANA
DATE TI-'E DEPTH
FPOM OF
TO Da' FEET
74/05/30 14 4& 0000
14 45 OOOi!
74/08/33 16 05 0000
llt^LES
4
00010
TEMP
CENT
2s!4
30.0
00300
00
MG/L
3.4
5.6
0 00 7 7
SECCnl
INCHES
36
48
000*4
CNOUCTVY
FIELD
110
110
175
004QO
PH
SU
6.20
6.90
00*10
r ALK
CAC03
Mu/L
10K
10K
15
211
UOOb
00610
TOTAL
MG/L
0.100
0.120
0.040
FEtT L'E-
00*i.?6
TOT KJEL
N
1G/L
O.nOO
0.500
0.600
T-
00610
N-TOTflL
M(5/L
0.110
n.i40
0.020K
01^71
OWTlO
M(i/L »»
0.01 1
0.015
00665
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT
FRO* OF
TO DAY FEET MG/L P
74/05/30 1* 45 0000 0.068
14 45 000? 0.077
74/08/23 16 05 0000 0.127
16 05 0005
32217 00031
CHLriPHYL INCUT LT
A 4EMMNG
UG/L PEWCENT
a.2
l.OL
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN
INDICATED
-------
APPENDIX C
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF LOUISIANA
-------
LAKr DATA TO SE
IN RANKING*!
LAKE
COUt LAKE
500-
MEAN
15-
ANACOCO
22T?
2c'jj
220*.
220S
2207
220*
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2219
2220
BLACK
8UNDICK LAKE
COCODME L4KF
COTILE LAKE
CONCORDTA LAKE
CPOSS i.A'
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES *ITH HIGHER VALUES !NUM9rR of LAKES WITH HTr,HE« VALUES)
LAKE
COOfc LAKE NAME
3201 ANACOCO LAKE
8202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE BISTINEAU
2204 BLACK BAYnu
2205 BiJNOICK LAKE
22C7 COCOORIE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCOROIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
22U SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VEBNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODRIE
4807 CADDO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
92 (
61 (
50 (
72 (
11 (
28 (
83 (
44 (
56 (
78 (
33 (
92 (
17 (
0 <
6 (
100 (
39 (
22 (
67 (
16)
11)
9)
13)
2)
5)
15)
8)
10)
14)
6)
16)
3)
0)
1)
18)
7)
4)
12)
MEDIAN
INORG N
83
11
58
72
33
0
58
83
83
58
39
28
6
17
58
44
22
100
94
( 14)
( 2)
( 9)
( 13)
( 6)
( 0)
( 9)
( 14)
( 14)
( 9)
( 7)
( 5)
( 1)
( 3)
( 9)
( 8)
( 4)
( 18)
( 17)
500-
MEAN SEC
<>7
33
61
78
33
11
94
39
28
56
89
50
0
22
6
100
72
17
44
( 12)
( 15)
( 11)
( 14)
( 6)
( 2)
( 17)
( 7)
( 5)
( 10)
( 16)
( 9)
( 0)
( 4)
( 1)
( 18)
( 13)
( 3)
( 8)
MEAN
CHLOPA
89
61
72
56
44
11
83
22
6
94
28
39
67
33
0
100
78
17
50
( 16)
( 11)
( 13)
( 10)
( 8)
( 2)
( 15)
( 4)
( 1)
( 17)
( 5)
( 7)
( 12)
( 6)
( 0)
( 18)
( 14)
( 3)
< 9)
15-
MIN DO
83
0
42
50
78
100 <
33 i
14 I
72 i
42 1
6 1
14 1
94 (
22 I
56 I
28 (
67 (
61 (
89 (
( 15)
( 0)
( 7)
( 9)
( 14)
( 18)
I 6)
t 2)
1 13)
[ 7)
[ 1)
; 2)
: 17)
4)
10)
5)
12)
11)
16)
MEDIAV
DISS ORT-<0 P
94
50
33
81
0
17
61 >
81 <
69 i
56 i
28 l
69 I
22 1
11 (
6 <
100 <
39 (
44 (
89 (
( 17)
( -)
( *•)
( 14(
( 0)
( 3)
( 11)
t 14)
[ 1?)
I 10)
1 5)
1 12)
: 4i
2)
i)
18)
7)
8)
If-)
------- |