U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
FALSE RIVER LAKE
mm COUPE PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No, 540
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
FALSE RIVER LAKE
mm COUPE PARISH
LOUISIANA
EPA REGION VI
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION
AND THE
LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD
MARCH, 1977
-------
REPORT ON FALSE RIVER LAKE
POINTE COUPEE PARISH, 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. 540
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 1
III. Lake Characteristics 3
IV. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
V. Literature Reviewed 10
VI. Appendices 11
-------
ii
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophicatlon Survey was Initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophicatlon 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 R. 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 LOUISIANA
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
-------
91'30'
91-28'
9V 26'
91*24'
FALSE RIVER LAKE
x Lake Sampling Site
• 30'42
30"40'
-30'38'
-------
REPORT ON FALSE RIVER LAKE, LOUISIANA
STORE! NO. 2212
I. INTRODUCTION
False River 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.
II. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:*
Survey data indicate that False River Lake is eutrophic,
i.e., nutrient rich and highly productive. Whether such nutrient
enrichment is to be considered beneficial or deleterious is
determined by its actual or potential impact upon designated
beneficial water uses of each lake.
Chlorophyll a^ values ranged from 14.6 yg/1 in the spring to
42.9 yg/1 in the summer with a mean of 24.5 yg/1. Potential for
primary production as measured by algal assay control yields was
high, and severe dissolved oxygen depression was observed during
summer sampling at both lake sites. Survey limnologists reported
submerged weeds along approximately 15% of the lake shoreline,
*See Appendix C.
-------
scattered patches of water hyacinths and hydrogen sulfide production
during summer sampling of Station 02. Other sources (M.B. Watson,
personal communication) indicate that False River Lake, also
experiences massive summer algal blooms and periodic fish kills
during prolonged summer stagnation and fall overturn.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
Spring algal assay results indicate that False River Lake was
limited by available nitrogen levels. The lake data indicate
nitrogen limitation during all three sampling occasions; inorganic
nitrogen to orthophosphorus ratios (N/P) were 10/1 or lower on all
occasions. However, the fall assay results do not indicate either
phosphorus or nitrogen to be limiting growth at the time of assay
sample collection. A low N/P ratio is further supported by the
dominance of blue-green algal forms on all three sampling occasions.
-------
III. LAKE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:*
A. Surface area: 11.78 km2.
B. Mean depth: 7.1 meters.
C. Maximum depth: 19.8 meters.
D. Volume: 83.328 x 106 m3.
B. Precipitation:
A. Year of sampling: 174.5 cm.
B. Mean annual: 171.2 cm.
*Provided by the State of Louisiana.
-------
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
False River Lake was sampled three times during the open-
water season of 1974 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey heli-
copter. Each time, samples for physical and chemical parameters
were collected from two stations on the lake and from one of 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
enumeration. During the first and last visits, 18.9-liter
depth-integrated samples were composited for algal assays.
Maximum depths sampled were 16.1 meters at Station 01 and
10.7 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 a_ determinations are included in IV-B. Results of
the limiting nutrient study are presented in IV-C.
-------
STO-tT COnc.' 2212
P"V5-ICAL
CntMlCAL CHAriAC TcK I ST Kb
PA-A-'fTEri
LtNM
DISSOLVED 0»Yi>tM (M
H.-l.S M DEPTH
CONDUCTIVITY i" r/Er-TH
"AX DEPTH**
KJELL/AHL f.' (M5/I.)
0 ,-l.s M ilEPlH
MAX. DEPTH**
StCCnl DISC
•»««<•
rj" K U NlGt
2
2
I
0
2
'2
*
2
2
2
L)
2
<
2
J
20.3-
ooooo-o
1.2-
20fl.-
b.O-
7.4-
131.-
130.-
0.056-0
'). 0^9-0
0.014-0
0.019-0
0.0.10-0
0.040-n
0.020-0
0.020-0
u.600-0
0.500-0
19. S.
oooa
b.b
237.
B.I
135.
130.
.061
.102
.014
.060
.040
.310
.020
.020
.600
.600
= ?
«tOI AN
20 . 4
1H.U
0 u 00 <•
3.9
233.
217.
3.0
7.6
133.
130.
0.05o
O.OBU
U.014
0.039
0.03 =
0.17 =
0.020
0.020
O.S50
r>. A N j
0.0-
oooo.
0.0-
6.1-
0.0-
n.o-
6.1-
0.0-
6.1-
0.0-
6.1-
0.0-
6.1-
0.0-
6.1-
0.0-
6.1-
H
t
o.n
3.2
00000
0.0
tl.2
0.0
8.2
0.0
8.2
0.0
a. 2
0.0
8.2
0.0
8.2
0.0
y.2
0.0
H.2
N.
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
KANbE
2r).6- 29.3
21.1- 26.*
H.4- tf.8
0.4- 1.0
30b.- 308.
283.- 310.
d.9- 9.0
135.- 139.
140.- 142.
0.068-0.098
0.07b-0.390
0.003-0.006
0.033-0.161
0.040-0.070
0.070-0.100
O.OSO-0.070
0.06U-0.770
0.700-i.iod
0. 700-1.200
= 2
MEDIAN
29.0
23.9
d.6
0.7
308.
297.
9.0
7.6
136.
141.
0.079
0.234
O.OOb
0.097
0.060
o.oab
0.055
0.415
U.750
0.9bO
MAX
DEPTH
(METERS)
0.0-
4.b-
1.5-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
0.0-
4.6-
1 .5
10.7
l.b
10.7
1.5
10.7
1.5
10.7
1.5
10.7
1.5
10.7
l.b
10.7
1.5
10.7
1.5
10.7
1.5
10.7
N" KANCifc.
•» 1^.0- 19. S
« S = MO. OF SITES SAMPLED ON TnlS DATE
-------
B. Biological Characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
03/21/74
05/29/74
11/21/74
Dominant
Genera
1. Aphanizomenon
2. Anabaena
3. Melosira
4. Flagellates
5. Stephanodiscus
Other genera
Total
1. Dactylococcopsts
2. Flagellates
3. Stephanodiscus
4. Nitzschia
5. Oscillatoria
Other genera
Total
1. Dactylococcopsis
2. Oscillatoria
3. Nitzschia
4. Cryptomonas
5. Cyclotella
Other genera
Total
Algal
Units
per ml
7
1,
918
220
394
158
158
158
10,006
23,937
2,462
1,515
1,288
985
7,577
37,764
3,238
2,275
1,138
1,007
963
1,885
10.506
-------
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
Sampling
Date
03/21/74
05/29/74
11/12/74
Station
Number
01
02
01
02
01
02
Chlorophyll a
(ug/1)
14.9
14.6
40.5
42.9
15.3
19.1
-------
8
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
a. 03/21/74
Spike(mg/1)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P +
1.00 N
1.0 N
Ortho P
Cone.(mg/1)
0.020
0.070
0.070
0.020
b. 11/12/74
Spike(mg/l)
Control
0.05 P
0.05 P + 1.0 N
1.00 N
Ortho P
Cone. (mg/1)
0.043
0.093
0.093
0.043
Inorganic N
Cone.(mg/1)
0.088
0.088
1.088
1.088
Inorganic N
Cone!(mg/1)
0.368
0.368
1.368
1.368
Maximum yield
(mg/l-dry wt.)
4.1
3.7
20.1
5.2
Maximum yield
(mg/l-dry wt.)
2.9
1.5
1.4
2.0
-------
2. Discussion -
The control yields of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicate that the potential for primary productivity
was high in False River Lake on both the spring and the autumn
sampling dates. In the spring assay, the increase in yield
with the addition of nitrogen as well as the lack of increase
with the addition of phosphorus indicates nitrogen limitation.
Maximum growth response was achieved with the simultaneous addi-
tion of both nutrients. However, in the fall assay, a growth
response did not accompany the addition of either phosphorus or
nitrogen, suggesting some minor nutrient was limiting growth in
the lake at that time.
The mean N/P ratios in the lake data were 10/1 or lower on
all three sampling occasions, further indicating nitrogen limi-
tation in False River Lake (a mean N/P ratio of 14/1 or greater
suggests phosphorus limitation).
It should be noted that significant chemical changes took
place in Louisiana lake samples between collection and algal assay.
The assay data should be considered in this context and, until
such difficulties are resolved, used with caution for any pre-
diction of actual lake conditions. Such chemical changes are likely
to alter the assay control yield as well as modifying the N/P ratio.
-------
TO
LITERATURE REVIEWED'
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National
Eirtrophication Survey Methods 1973-1976. Working Paper
No. 175. National Environmental Research Center, Las
Vegas, Nevada, and Pacific Northwest Environmental
Research Laboratory, CorvalTis, Oregon.
Watson, M.B. T977. Personal Communication (water quality in
False River Lake). Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries
Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
-------
11
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 10~4 = 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
-------
STOHET RETRIEVAL DATE 7S/12/11
NATL EUTROPnICATION
EPA-LAS VF.ijAS
321301
31 3* <*n.Q 091 2^ 30.0
FALSE Hlvt* LAKE
22 LOUISIANA
DATE
FflO"4
TO
74/03/31
74/05/29
74/11/12
DATE
FROM
TO
74/03/21
74/05/29
74/11/12
TI"E DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 15 0000
15 15 0006
15 15 0012
15 15 0020
13 50 0000
13 50 0005
13 50 0015
10 50 0000
10 50 000=i
10 50 0012
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
15 15 0000
15 15 0006
15 15 0012
15 15 0020
13 50 0000
13 50 0005
13 50 0010
13 50 001?
10 50 0000
10 50 0004
10 50 0005
10 50 0006
10 50 001?
0 0 0 I 0
* A } E R
TEMP
CENT
2H.3
20.2
20.2
19.9
28.8
28.8
26.8
19.4
19.0
•18.7
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.056
0.055
0.057
0.059
0.098
0.082
0.078
0.096
0.100
0.099
00300
00
MG/L
7.6
7.6
6.6
8.4
1.0
6.0
5.6
5.6
32217
CHLHPHYL
A
UG/L
14.9
40.5
15.3
0 no 7 7
TKAIMSP
SECCHI
INCHES
45
60
60
00031
INCDT LT
RF.MNlNG
PEHCENT
1.0
SO.O
1.0
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
230
230
226
308
308
310
235
231
229
llePALES
4
oo<*oo •
PH
S'i
8.00
8.10
6.10
7.90
9.00
8.95
7.75
7.51
7.55
7.57
00410
T ALK
CACOJ
MG/L
131
129
130
130
139
136
140
142
141
140
211
0024
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.0?0
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.220
0.170
0.140
\C.(ML
FEET otr-
OOhib
TOT "JEL
N
MG/L
0.600
0.600
0.600
0,600
1.100
0.700
0.700
1.000
0.800
0.900
1^
006.10
M02MM03
Ni-TOTAL
i-G/L
0.040
0.030
0.030
0.040
0.070
0.060
0.070
O.?00
0.210
0.220
00o71
PHOS-DIS
OSTnO
MG/L P
0.014
0.016
0.017
0.019
0.00">
0.006
0.033
0.04H
0.047
0.039
-------
STORtT RETRIEVAL OATt 75/12/l'l
NATL EuTflOPHlCATION SUrtvEY
&PA-LAS VECiAS
321302
31 40 10.0 091 tl AS.1
FALSt rtlVE-J LAKt
d
-------
APPENDIX C
PARAMETRIC RANKINGS OF LAKES
SAMPLED BY NES IN 1974
STATE OF LOUISIANA
-------
LAKE DATA TO 8E USF.D IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO LAKE
2202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE 8ISTINEAIJ
2204 SLACK BAYOU
2205 BUNDICK LAKE
2207 COCOORIE LAKE
?208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCOROIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
221* SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODRIE
4807 CAODO LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.031
0.057
0.061
0.046
0.157
0.090
0.037
0.076
0.057
0.038
0.062
0.031
0.111
0.176
0.163
0.018
0.077
0.106
0.049
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.080
0.250
0.100
0.090
0.135
0.400
0.100
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.130
0.150
0.350
0.170
0.100
0.120
0.150
0.050
0.070
500-
MEAN SEC
455.833
450.333
458.000
453.417
469.667
479.000
442.333
468.333
475.250
458.250
442.500
458.333
493.000
477.833
481.428
436.667
454.000
478.333
463.562
MEAN
CHLORA
8.700
16.350
12.933
17.818
20.467
35.300
12.650
32.950
38.385
6.800
24.550
21.467
15.333
21.967
62.02B
4.900
12.733
33.433
20.125
15-
HIN 00
10.400
15.000
13.200
12.200
10.600
7.700
14.000
14.800
11.400
13.200
14.900
14.800
9.600
14.600
12.000
14.400
11.600
11.800
10.000
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
0.007
0.012
0.018
0.009
0.073
0.026
0.011
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.023
0.010
0.025
0.033
0.056
0.007
0.015
0.014
0.008
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMRFh OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
2201 ANACOCO LAKE
2202 BRUIN LAKE
2203 LAKE BISTINE«U
2204 BLACK BAYOU
2205 BnNDICK LAKE
2207 COCOORIE LAKE
2208 COTILE LAKE
2209 CONCORDIA LAKE
2210 CROSS LAKE
2211 D'ARBONNE LAKE
2212 FALSE RIVER LAKE
2213 INDIAN CREEK
2214 SALINE LAKE
2215 TURKEY CREEK LAKE
2216 LAKE VERRET
2217 LAKE VERNON
2219 BLACK LAKE
2220 COCODRIE
4807 CADDO LAKE
MEH1AM
TOTAL P
92
61
^0
7?
11
2«
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
83 (
11 (
58 (
72 (
33 (
0 (
58 (
83 (
83 (
58 (
39 (
28 (
6 (
17 (
58 (
44 (
22 (
100 (
94 (
500-
N MEAN
14)
2)
9)
13)
6)
0)
9)
14)
14)
9)
7)
5)
1)
3)
9)
8)
4)
18)
17)
67
83
61
78
33
11
94
39
28
56
89
50
0
22
6
100
72
17
44
SEC
( 12)
( 15)
( 11)
( 14)
< 6)
( 2)
( 17)
( 7)
( 5)
( 10)
( 16)
( 9)
( 0)
( 4)
( 1)
( 18)
( 13)
( 3)
( 8)
MEAN
CHLOHA
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 (
14 (
72 (
42 <
6 (
14 (
94 (
22 (
56 (
28 (
67 (
61 (
89 (
15)
0)
7)
9)
14)
18)
6)
2)
13)
7)
1)
2)
17)
4)
10)
5)
12)
11)
16)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
94
50
33
81
0
17
61
81
69
56
28
69
22
11
6
100
39
44
89
( 17)
( 9)
( 6)
( 14)
( 0)
( 3)
( 11)
( 14)
( 12)
< 10)
< 5)
( 12)
( 4)
( 2)
( 1)
( 18)
( 7)
( 8)
( 16)
------- |