U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
BUDDLAKE
MARTIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 89
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•fa GPO 697-O32
-------
REPORT
ON
BUDDLAKE
MARTIN COUNTY
MINNESOTA
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No,
WlTH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
AND THE
MINNESOTA NATIONAL GUARD
DECEMBER, 1974
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Minnesota Study Lakes iv, v
Lake and Drainage Area Map vi
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 12
VI. Appendices 13
-------
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 procedure s selecteLd 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 [ 5303(c)], clean lakes [ 5314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ 5106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
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
Bl 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
Enibarass St. Louis
Fall Lake
Forest Washington
Green Kandiyohi
Gull Cass
Heron Jackson
Leech Cass
Le Honinie Dieu Douglas
Lily Blue Earth
Little Grant
Lost St. Louis
-------
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
Walimark Chisago
White Bear Washington
Winona Douglas
Wolf Beltrami, Hubbard
Woodcock Kandiyohi
Zumbro Olmstead, Wabasha
-------
Luedtke
Map Location
BUDD LAKE
Tributary Sampling Site
Lake Sampling Site
Direct Drainage Area Limits
-------
BUDD LAKE
STORET NO. 27A8
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others (Miller and Smith,
1964) indicate that Budd Lake is eutrophic. Of the Minnesota
lakes sampled in the fall-when essentially all were well—mixed,
37 had less mean total phosphorus, 39 had less mean dissolved
phosphorus, and 43 had less mean inorganic nitrogen. Of all
80 lakes sampled, 48 had less mean chlorophyll a, and SO had
greater Secchi disc transparency.
Survey limnologists noted that the lake was very turbid
on all sampling trips. During the July sampling period, an
algal bloom was in progress, and hydrogen sulfide was detected
in the deeper samples.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
A significant loss of nutrients occurred in the algal assay
sample between the time of collection and the beginning of the
assay, and the results are not indicative of conditions in the
lake at the time of sampling. However, the lake data show
nitrogen limitation at all sampling times (N/P ratios were less
than 10/1 on all occasions).
C. Nutrient Controllability:
Other than septic tanks, there were no known point sources
impacting Budd Lake during the sampling year. Nonetheless, it
-------
2
is calculated that Budd Lake received a total phosphorus load
at a rate nearly three times the rate proposed by Vollenweider
(in press) as “dangerous”; i.e., a eutrophic rate (see page 11).
Of this load, nearly 96% was contributed by the Hall Lake outlet.
Hall, Amber, and Wilmert lakes are upstream water bodies, all of
which have been identified as naturally eutrophic by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (McGuire, 1974). Therefore, there is
little likelihood of control of the phosphorus load to Budd Lake.
-------
3
Name ______________ __________
Hall Lake — Budd Lake connection
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage -
Totals
2. Outlet —
Budd Lake — Sisseton Lake
connection
C. Precipitation:
1. Year of sarnpling***: 30.6 inches.
2. Mean annual: 28.5 inches.
t DNR lake survey map (1956); mean depth by random dot method.
* Drainage areas are accurate within ±5%; mean daily flows are accurate
within ±10%; and ungaged flows are accurate within ±10 to 25% for
drainage areas greater than 10 mi 2 .
** Includes area of lake.
See Working Paper No. 1, “Survey Methods”.
-‘ ;. I -y:’
v- ... ••
‘.
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 222 acres.
2. Mean depth: 11.4 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 17 feet.
4. Volume: 2,531 acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 125 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage
area*
Mean
9.7
flow*
cfs
37.0
mi 2
0.9
mi 2
0.5
cfs
37.9
mi 2
10.2
cfs
38.2 mi 2 ** 10.2 cfs
-------
4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Budd 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 one station on
the lake and from a number of depths (see map, page vi). During each
visit, a single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was
collected from the station for phytoplankton identification and enum-
eration; and during the last visit, a single five-gallon depth-integrated
sample was collected for algal assays. Also each time, a depth—integrated
sample was collected for chlorophyll a analysis. The maximum depth sam-
pled was 13 feet.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B, and the
data for the fall sampling period, when the lake essentially was well—
mixed, are summarized below. Note, however, the Secchl disc summary
Is based on all values.
For differences in the various parameters at the other sampling times,
refer to Appendix B.
-------
5
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
(10/29/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.6
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.9
Conductivity ( imhos) 440 440 440 440
pH (units) 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8
Alkalinity (mg/i) 143 144 144 145
Total P (mg/i) 0.071 0.077 0.078 0.081
Dissolved P (mg/i) 0.056 0.057 0.057 0.058
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.360 0.377 0.370 0.400
Ani onia mg/i) 0.120 0.137 0.130 0.160
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (Inches) 20 32 36 40
-------
6
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton —
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
07/01/72 1. Anabaena 12,432
2. Melosira 4,594
3. Flagellates 1,802
4. Dinobryon 1,081
5. Cryptomonas 360
Other genera 1 ,443
Total 21,712
08/30/72 1. Anabaena 790
2. Cyclotella 211
3. Flagellates 163
4. Oocystis 126
5. Melosira 114
Other genera 242
Total 1 ,646
10/29/72 1. Anabaena 3,015
2. Flagellates 3,015
3. Dinobryon 1,508
4. Scenedesmus 1,156
5. Navicula 603
Other genera 2,813
Total 12,110
-------
7
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 Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( pg/i )
07/01/72 01 47.6
08/30/72 01 6.4
10/29/72 01 11.4
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
There was a significant loss of nutrients in the algal assay
sample between the time of collection and the beginning of the
assay, and the results are not indicative of lake conditions at
the time of sampling. However, the lake data show nitrogen
limitation at all sampling times; i.e., N/P ratios were less than
10/1 on all occasions, and nitrogen limitation would be expected.
-------
8
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Minnesota National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the tribu-
tary sites indicated on the map (page vi). Sampling was begun in October,
1972, and was completed in September, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the year
of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by the
Minnesota District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the tributary
sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were deter-
mined by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings*. Nutrient loadings for unsam-
pled “minor tributaries and immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were
estimated by using the means of the nutrient loads, in lbs/mi 2 /year, at
stations C-l, E—1 , G-l, and H—i of Heron Lake and multiplying the means
by the ZZ area in mi 2 .
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal — None
2. Known industrial - None
* See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
9
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
lbs P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Hall Lake - Budd Lake
connection 3,070 95.6
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 60 1.9
c. Known municipal - None
d. Septic tanks* — 50 1.6
e. Known industrial — None
f. Direct precipitatiort** - 30 0.9
Total 3,210 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Budd Lake -
Sisseton connection 3,230
3. Net annual P loss - 20 pounds
* Estimate based on 77 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
10
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbsN/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Hall Lake - Budd Lake
connection 67,390 91.6
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 2,200 3.0
c. Known municipal - None - -
d. Septic tanks* - 1,810 2.5
e. Known industrial - None - -
f. Direct precipitation** - 2,140 2.9
Total 73,540 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet — Budd Lake
Sisseton connection 74,240
3. Net annual N loss - 700 pounds
* Estimate based on 77 lakeshore dwellings; see Working Paper No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
11
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/mi 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Hall Lake - Budd Lake connection 83 1,821
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (1973).
Essentially, his “dangerous” rate is the rate at which the
receiving waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his “permissible” rate is that which would result in the
receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligo-
trophic if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic rate would
be considered one between “dangerous” and “permissible”.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Units Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
lbs/acre/yr 14.5 loss* 331.3 loss*
grams/m 2 /yr 1.62 - 37.1 -
Vo1le weider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Budd Lake:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 0.62
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.31
* There was a slight loss of phosphorus and nitrogen during the sampling
year. This may be due to underestimation of septic tank contributions
or may have resulted from the limits of accuracy of the flow estimates
provided by U.S.G.S. (see page 3).
-------
12
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
McGuire, John F., 1974. Personal communication (trophic state of
Hall, Amber, and Wilmert lakes). MPCA, Minneapolis.
Miller, Richard D., and Wesley E. Smith, 1964. Report on follow-up
survey of the Fairmont Lakes, Martin County. MPCA, Minneapolis.
Schilling, Joel, 1974. Personal communication (lake map). MPCA,
Minneapolis.
Vollenweider, Richard A. (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
A. Hydrol.
-------
13
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
T.fldUTA Y FLOW 1NFO ’lAT!ON FOR MINNESOTA
10/30/74
TOTAL OPA!NA’3E AREA OF LAKE =
SUM OF SU8—fl ALNAGE AREAS =
FLOwS AND 1)AILY FLOWS
YEAP MEAN FLOW flAY
7? 5.’ ! 14
7? ‘.75
7’ 4•f-3 10
73 6.0’
71 5 37
73 53.30 10
73 37.R0 30
71 18.20 IM
73 .72 14
73 6.7’
73 ?.O? S
11 7.?9 4
73 7•2Q
77 5.00 14
7’ ?. 3
77 4.52 10
73 5.94
73 5.14
7 52.90 10
7 1 3 6 •QQ 30
73 17. 0 I
71 6.51 14
71
73 •C, j 5
7 2.?) 4
73
LA F CODE ?7A8 RilOl) LAPc
TOTAL DRAINAGE ARFA OF LA Q
Si n—DRAINAGE
TRIBUTARY APEA JAN
274841 3 . 7O
274881 37.00 L.1
?7ARZZ 1.?! 0.05
3P. ’O
FE
MA
APP
MAY
JUN
2.05
13.16
23.56
18.46
18.56
1. 6
12. O
? .40
17.40
17.50
0.07
0.50
1.02
0.98
0.99
NORMAL ILED
JUL
16.32
15.50
0.9!
SUMMARY
FLOWS
AUG
8.25
7.77
0.43
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
MEAN
11.12
4.83
2.42
2.32
10.22
10.50
4.55
2.27
2.22
9.70
38.20
38.23
DAY
FLOW
4.90
5.60
TOTAL FLOW IN =
TOTAL FLOW OUT =
FLOW
122.41
122.27
FLOW DAY
MEAN MONTHLY
TRIRtITAPY MONTM
274841 10
I I
I-
7
3
4
5
F)
7
10
?7A R1 10
11
1?
7
3
4
5
F)
7
8
9
10
47.00
17.00
25.00
61.00
7.63
1.58
4.70
5.50
47.00
17.00
?5.U0
59.00
‘.52
1.2
-------
c- ’I )r) LAc
FLO S 1 N1) •)AILY FLOW’,
MEAN
7.)
72
7?
73
1 -
7-
4 71
7-
7 71
73
71
TPJr IJTAL i’ FLOI4 1IIFO MATION FUP MINNESOTA
1 • 80
o •
1 • 40
3.30
0.14
0.11
10/30/74
LA
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/10/30
27A80 1
47 40 55.0 096 00 28.0
BIJOD LAKE
27 MINNESOTA
11EPALES 2111202
3 0015 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TR N5P CNDUCTVY PH T ALP( N02&N03 NH3—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO) N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT M(/L INCHES MICROMMO SU MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/I P MG/I P
72/07/01 16 20 0000 25.0 13.8 36 385 9.00 132 0.050 0.060 0.125 0.070
16 ?0 0013 19.5 0.0 440 7.60 159 0.120 1.400 0.520 0.488
7/08/30 15 50 0000 40 400 8.40 137 0.050 0.700 0.260 0.240
15 50 0004 21.’ 6.8 390 8.30 136 0.050 0.680 0.260 0.236
15 50 0010 20.0 1.8 420 7.80 139 0.050 1.200 0.3 1 0.300
7?/10/29 10 00 0000 20 440 7.80 143 0.370 0.120 0.071 0.056
10 00 0004 6.6 8.9 440 7.80 144 0.360 0.130 0.078 0.058
10 00 0010 6.5 8.6 440 7.70 145 0.400 0.160 0.081 0.SS7
3?21 7
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLPPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET UG/L
7?/07/0I 16 20 00 O 47.6J
7?/08/30 15 50 0000 6.4J
7?#’10/29 10 00 0000 11.4J
J VALUE KNOWN TO 4E IN ERROR
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY DATA
-------
ST PET ‘ ETRIFVAL BAIt. 74/10/30
27A 1 LS274841
43 38 30.0 094 28 J0.0
SISSETON LK/ 3UDD L ( CONNECTION
7.5 FAIRMONI
O/ itJDD LAIcE
If D H DG S I EDGE OF FAI ONT
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
006’S 00610 00671 00665
r)ATF TIMr IJEPT.-4 NO7 -’JO3 TOT KJ L NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOSTOT
FPOp l oF N-TOTAL TOTAL OPTrIO
TO DAY FE T r /L 1G/L MG/L t1c,/L P M(,/L
72/10/14 (iR 75 j•Q5( 0. IH O 0.040 0.152
71/01/17 13 75 O.61j 1.050 0.096 0.042 0.063
71/03/10 1 55 1.f’ 0 1.120 0.02h 0.014 0.095
73/04/30 14 10 1.f 40 2.520 0.09A 0.008 0.070
71/05/1 09 00 1. 60 1.100 0.096 0.018 0.085
71/06/14 14 15 2.400 7.100 0.700 0.018 0.065
71/OH/OS 09 30 0.021 4, BO 0.110 0.058 0.175
73/09/04 09 30 r.O1, 7.100 0.038 0.140 0.310
71/10/07 IS 25 J. Ifl O 3. 00 0.13? 0.189 0.525
-------
ST) ET PETPT VAL DATE 74/1(/JO
2748tfl LS27AF B1
43 3R 00.0 094 28 00.0
HALL LK/RUDD LX CONNECTION
27 7.5 FAT’ MONT
I/RU1)1) LAKE
LAIP e D Bp DG S OF FAIRMONT
11EPALES 2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
O0’ 3 ) 0u6’5 OC .610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTi-1 NO NO1 TOT KJEL NH1—N PhOS-DIS PHOS—TOT
F 3 i OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL OPT -lO
TO AY FEFT MC’/L lG/L MC,/L MG/I P MG/L P
72/10/14 14 45 0.3 - 0 1.’OO t .15fl 0.05 0.115
72/12/10 14 iS 1.060 0.HO0 0.078 0.023 0.040
73/01/17 13 5 0.9 (0 1. )0fl 0.245 0.041 0.055
71/01/10 15 )O 7.20) 1.500 0.026 0.010 0.095
73/04/30 14 0 .3(J0 1.260 0.012 0. OU
73/05/18 OQ 10 ?.90) 0.940 0.099 0.0?? 0.095
71/0 /1 14 45 .‘IJ3 h.700 lj.570 0.O0 0.065
7i/0 /05 10 00 0.010K 3.7 0 0.0S7 0.04? 0.198
71/09/04 09 15 0.10 ?.‘00 0.130 0.280
7 /10/0 IS 0.052 0.189 0.690
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS
T i -IAN INDICATE ’)
------- |