-------
REPORT
ON
WHITE BEAR LAKE
RAMSEY AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No,
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
AND THE
MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD
DECEMBER, 1974
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Minnesota Study Lakes iv, V
Lake and Drainage Area Map vi
Sections
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 1
III. Lake Morphometry 2
IV. Precipitation 2
V. Lake Water Quality Summary 3
VI . Appendix 8
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration cornniitnient 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 [ 3O3(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 3l4(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ lO6 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 lake of special interest to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. For this reason, tributaries and nutrient sources were not sampled
and this report relates only to data obtained from lake sampling.
-------
111
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 Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency for professional involvement and to the Minnesota National
Guard for conducting the tributary sampling phase of the Survey.
Grant J. Merritt, Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, John F. McGuire, Chief, and Joel G. Schilling, Biologist,
of the Section of Surface and Groundwater, Division of Water Quality,
provided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the course
of the Survey; and the staff of the Section of Municipal Works, Divi-
sion of Water Quality, were most helpful in identifying point sources
and soliciting municipal participation in the Survey.
Major General Chester J. Moeglein, the Adjutant General of
Minnesota, and Project Officer Major Adrian Beltrand, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Minnesota National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Albert Lea Freeborn
Andrusia Beltrami
Badger Polk
Bartlett Koochiching
Bear Freeborn
Bemidji Beltrami
Big Stearns
Big Stone Big Stone, MN; Roberts,
Grant, SD
Birch Cass
Bi ackduck Bel trami
Blackhoof Crow Wing
Budd Martin
Buffalo Wright
Calhoun Hennepin
Carlos Douglas
Carrigan Wright
Cass Beltrami, Cass
Clearwater Wright, Stearns
Cokato Wright
Cranberry Crow Wing
Darling Douglas
Elbow St. Louis
Embarass St. Louis
Fall Lake
Forest Washington
Green Kandlyohi
Gull Cass
Heron Jackson
Leech Cass
Le Homme Dieu Douglas
Lily Blue Earth
Little Grant
Lost St. Louis
-------
f EAeI4
,11 / /
V / / /
/ / / /
W14 IT E, B E A R L A 1< E ,‘
// ‘ ‘
WHITE I3EAR LAKE
X i...... lake s mpiau 3 5 te
.urbâ
MAP LOC*T OPd
/3ear
Lo’Ae
7 //
13L-
/ /
G41 JOOD
-------
V
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Madison Blue Earth
Malmedal Pope
Mashkenode St. Louis
McQuade St. Louis
Minnetonka Hennepin
Minnewaska Pope
Mud Itasca
Nest Kandiyohi
Pelican St. Louis
Pepin Goodhue, Wabasha, MN;
Pierce, Pepin, WI
Rabbit Crow Wing
Sakatah Le Sueur
Shagawa St. Louis
Silver McLeod
Six Mile St. Louis
Spring Washington, Dakota
St. Croix Washington, MN; St. Croix,
Pierce, WI
St. Louis Bay St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI
Superior Bay St. Louis, MN; Douglas, WI
Swan Itasca
Trace Todd
Trout Itasca
Wagonga Kandiyohi
Wailmark Chisago
White Bear Washington
Winona Douglas
Wolf Beltrami, Hubbard
Woodcock Kandiyohi
Zumbro Olmstead, Wabasha
-------
WHITE BEAR LAKE
STORE! NO. 27BO
I. INTRODUCTION
White Bear Lake was included in the National Eutrophication Survey
as a water body of interest to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
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 White Bear Lake is mesotrophic.
Of the 60 Minnesota lakes sampled in the fall when essentially
all were well-mixed, none had less mean total and dissolved
phosphorus, and only eight had less mean inorganic nitrogen.
Of the 80 Minnesota lakes sampled, only eight had less mean
chlorophyll a_, and only two had greater Secchi disc transpar-
ency.
Dissolved oxygen was depleted in the deepest samples at
stations 1 and 2 in August.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate that the lake was phos-
phorus limited at the time the sample was collected. The lake
data indicate phosphorus limitation at the other sampling
times as well.
-------
2
III. LAKE MORPHOMETRY*
A. Surface Area: 2,659 acres.
B. Mean Depth: 22.6 feet.
C. Maximum Depth: 80 feet.
D. Volume: 60,093 acre feet.
IV. PRECIPITATION
A. Year of Sampling: 31.4 inches.
B. Mean Annual: 30.9 inches.
* DNR lake survey map (1954); mean depth by random-dot method.
-------
3
V. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
White Bear Lake 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 three
stations on the lake and from a number of depths at each station (see
map, page vi). During each visit, a single depth-integrated (15 feet or
near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the last 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 78 feet at station 1, 34 feet at station 2, and 15 feet at
station 3.
The results obtained are presented in full in the Appendix and the
data for the fall sampling period, when the lake 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 the Appendix.
-------
4
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
(11/05/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 10.9 11.2 11.2 11.6
Conductivity (iimhos) 250 257 255 270
pH (units) 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
Alkalinity (mg/i) 109 112 112 114
Total P (mg/i) 0.010 0.013 0.012 0.017
Dissolved P (rng/l) 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.009
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.030 0.035 0.030 0.050
Am onia mg/l) 0.050 0.059 0.060 0.070
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 104 136 122 175
-------
5
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
06/29/72 1. Microcystis 897
2. Dinobryon 784
3. Fragilaria 271
4. Chroococcus 136
5. Flagellates 83
Other genera 369
Total 2,540
08/27/72 1. Microcystis 1,160
2. Dinobryon 542
3. Chroococcus 279
4. Fragilaria 166
5. Anabaena 136
Other genera 392
Total 2,675
11/05/72 1. Flagellates 1,859
2. Dinobryon 1,231
3. Anabaena 402
4. Fragilaria 327
5. Nitzchia 251
Other genera 1 ,332
Total 5,402
-------
6
2. Chlorophyll a -
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following values may be in error by plus or minus 20 percent.)
Sampling
Date
06/29/72
Station
Number
01
02
03
Chlorophyll a
(pg/i)
4.2
5.9
6.9
01
02
03
01
02
03
Ortho P Inorganic N
Conc. (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i )
3.3
4.8
3.4
8.3
7.3
2.5
08/27/72
11/05/7 2
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Maximum yield
Spike (mg/i ) ___________ ___________ ( mg/i—dry wt. )
Control 0.003 0.081 0.3
0.006 P 0.009 0.081 1.4
0.012 P 0.015 0.081 1.6
0.024 P 0.027 0.081 1.6
0.060 P 0.063 0.081 1.6
0.060 p + 10.0 N 0.063 10.081 34.8
10.0 N 0.003 10.081 0.3
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the primary productivity of White
Bear Lake was quite low at the time the sample was collected.
The signficant increase in yield with the first phosphorus
N/P
Ratio
27/1
9/1
5/1
160/1
spike but lack of significant chancies in yield with subsequent
-------
7
P-spikes indicates that White Bear Lake was narrowly
phosphorus limited. Note that the addition of only
6 ig/l of orthophosphorus shifted the sample from
phosphorus limitation (N/P = 27/1) to nitrogen limi-
tation (N/P = 9/1).
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation at
the other sampling times as well (N/P ratios were
14/1 or greater).
-------
8
VI. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Allen, Gerald S., 1963. Report on investigation of pollution
of White Bear Lake. MN Dept. of Health, Minneapolis.
-------
VII. Appendix
9
-------
STORET PETOIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
27 300 I
‘.5 03 55.0 092 58 28.0
WHITE REAR LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
1 IEPALES
3
2111202
0050 FEET DEPT 4
OATE TIHE r)f ’r I
F O 1 OF
TO DAY FEFI
77/06/24 IC 20 0000
77/39/77 OQ 30 0000
72/11/05 15 30 0000
3’2 I F
CHL ”HYL
a
UG/L
c VALUE CthwN To LESS
00010
DATE TIUE DEPTH WATFP
FPDM OF TEMP
TO DAY FEET CENT
00300 00077
DO TRANSP
SECCH I
MG/L INCHFS
00094
CNDUCTVY
FIELD
MICROMNO
21. 5
21.5
18.0
10.0
19.9
20.0
19.9
77/0,/29 10 70 0000
10 20 0015
10 20 0025
10 20 0035
72/09/?? 09 30 0000
09 10 0004
09 30 0010
09 30 0015
09 30 00 20
09 30 00?5
09 10 0035
09 30 0045
72/Il/OS IS 00 0000
IS 00 0034
IS 00 0015
15 00 0075
15 00 0035
15 00 0045
15 00 0055
IS 00 0065
IS 00 0079
7.9 170 250
250
260
3.0 265
I ?? 240
7.’ 270
7.5 240
7.5 240
0.0
00400 00410
PH 7 ALK
CACO3
SU M /L
8.30 113
8.30 Ilk
8.00 118
7.20 120
8.40 105
8.40 103
8.35 111
8.40 lii
110
108
118
7.05 124
8.20 110
8.20 109
8.20 109
4.20 109
8.20 112
8.20 114
8.20 II)
R.?0 112
8.20 114
00630
9024N03
N-TOTAL
MG/I
0.050
0.130
0.170
0.150
0.050
0.060
0.040
0.0 10K
0.050
0.040
0.040
0.100
0.040
0.040
0.040
0 • 040
0.030
0.040
0.030
0 • 050
0.030
6.1 11.2
6.3 1 ( 1.9
6.3 11.2
11. 1
6.2 11.0
A 7 10.9
6.2 10.9
6.’ 11.1
00610
9H3—N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.040
0.060
0.060
O • 070
0 • 040
0.060
0.0 70
0.020
0.0 70
0.060
0.140
0 • 440
0.050
0.0 60
0.060
0.0 60
0.050
0.0 60
0.0 50
0.0 70
0.0 60
00665
PHOS— TOT
MG/L P
0.012
0.0 14
0.017
0.0 35
0.01?
0.0 19
0.019
0.018
0.0 17
0.0 16
0.0 34
0.071
0.0 10
0.011
0.017
0.013
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.013
0.011
270
119 260
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
250
00666
PHOS—DIS
MO/I P
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.014
0.020
0.023
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.009
0.006
4 • 7J
3•3J
8. 1,)
J VALLJ” r NOwN TO 1E [ N t QO’.
THAN INOICATFI)
-------
STOPET PETPIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
27 13003
45 04 15.0 093 00 24.0
WHITE BEAR LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
2111202
0020 FEET DEPTH
DATE
F P OH
TO
TIME DEPTH
0F
DAY FEET
I 1EPALES
3
72/06/?Q 11 30 0000
11 30 0015
72/08/27 10 30 0000
10 30 0004
10 30 0008
72/11/05 14 35 0000
14 35 0004
14 35 0011
00010
00300
00077
00094
00400
00410
00630
00610
00665
00666
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNOUCTVY
PH
T ALK
NO2&N03
NH3—N
PHOS—TOT
PIIOS—DIS
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
‘2.0
166
230
8.40
109
0.050
0.040
0.012
0.006
20.0
9.0
108
245
262
8.20
8.20
114
105
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.080
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.016
19.0
.7
239
8.15
103
0.100
0.130
0.019
0,020
19.0
.8
119
240
260
8.20
8.20
103
114
0.050
0.030
0.050
0.050
0.020
0.012
0.012
0.006
5.5
)1. ,
255
8.20
113
0,030
0.060
0.012
0.007
5.5
11.5
255
8.20
113
0.030
0.060
0.012
0.007
DATE
FR OH
TO
7?/06/?9
72/08/27
72/11/05
Tj’ ’E DEPTd
OF
UAY FEET
I I 30 0000
I’) 30 0000
14 35 0000
37217
CHLPPHYL
A
IJG/L
(C, • 9J
: 3 •
7 .5J
JQ VALUE NOwrJ TO ‘IF IN ERROr
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
278002
45 05 22.0 092 59 15.0
WHITE REAR LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
1 1EPALES
3
2111202
0040 FEET DEPTH
DATE
F POM
TO
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
00300 00077
DO TRANSP
SE CC ‘-4 1
MG/L INCHES
00094
C ND U C T V V
FIELD
MICROMHO
00630
NO2 NO3
N—TOTAL
MG/I
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
TIME DEPTI-1
OF
DAY FEET
7?/06/29 11 10 0000
11 10 0015
11 10 0030
72/08/27 13 30 0000
13 30 0004
13 30 0015
13 30 0025
13 30 003 +
72/11/05 13 15 0000
13 15 0004
13 15 0015
13 15 0025
00400 00410
PH TALK
CACO3
SU MG/L
00665 00666
PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
MG/L P MG/I P
21.5
7.4
175
245
8.30
112
0.060
0.040
0.012
0.008
20.0
250
8.20
114
0.060
0.050
0.014
0.008
12.5
4.0
260
7.30
117
0.050
0.040
0.037
0.008
20.0
104
240
8.40
106
0.040
0.060
0.010
0.005
20.0
8.0
240
8.40
107
0.050
0.070
0.013
0.005
19.9
7.9
240
8.40
106
0.040
0.070
0.012
0.005
19.2
7.7
240
8.40
106
0.040
0.070
0.010
0.005
13.8
0.0
140
275
270
7.10
8.20
124
112
0.100
0.040
0.500
0.070
0.098
0.011
0.020
0.007
6.1
11.2
260
8.20
111
0.030
0.050
0.013
0.007
6.1
11.2
250
8.20
110
0.030
0.060
0.014
0.007
6.1
11.2
270
8.20
111
0.030
0.070
0.014
0.008
3 2 I?
CHLRPHYL
A
U1,/L
DATE
FROM
TO
7?/06/29
7?/OM/?7
7?/I 1/05
TIME QE’ TH
OF
DAY FEET
11 10 0000
13 30 0000
13 IS 0000
5.9J
4. J
7. 3J
J* VALUE KNOWN TO 8E I J EPRO
-------