U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5044

Prepared in cooperation with the White Bear Lake Conservation District, Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Board of Water and 

Soil Resources, Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, and the Groundwater/Surface-Water 

Interaction Partners

Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near 

White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011
Cover. White Bear Lake at Ramsey County beach, August 7, 2011 (photograph by Perry M. Jones, U.S. Geological Survey).
Groundwater and Surface-Water 

Interactions near White Bear Lake, 

Minnesota, through 2011

By Perry M. Jones, Jared J. Trost, Donald O. Rosenberry, P. Ryan Jackson, 

Jenifer A. Bode, and Ryan M. O’Grady

Prepared in cooperation with the White Bear Lake Conservation District, 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Council, and the Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction 

Partners

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5044

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Jones, P.M., Trost, J.J., Rosenberry, D.O., Jackson, P.R., Bode, J.A., and O’Grady, R.M., 2013, Groundwater and 

surface-water interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5044, 73 p.
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................ix

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................5

Description of Study Area, Hydrology, and Hydrogeology ............................................................5

Previous Investigations......................................................................................................................12

Methods of Study.........................................................................................................................................14

Historical Hydrologic Data ................................................................................................................14

Regression Analyses..........................................................................................................................15

Groundwater-Level Synoptic Studies..............................................................................................17

Water-Quality Data.............................................................................................................................19

Autonomous, Underwater Vehicle Survey ............................................................................19

Lake-Sediment Temperature Surveys ....................................................................................20

Water-Quality Sample Collection, Handling, Analysis, and Quality Control ....................21

Sample Collection.............................................................................................................21

Sample Handling and Analysis.......................................................................................22

Quality Assurance/Quality Control.................................................................................23

Near-Shore Hydraulic-Head Differences, Seepage Rates, and Lake-Sediment 

Characteristics ......................................................................................................................23

Mini-Piezometer and Seepage-Meter Surveys....................................................................23

Lake-Sediment Coring/Penetration Probe.............................................................................24

Water Balance for March and August 2011...................................................................................24

Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions ......................................................................................27

Historical Changes in Lake Level and Volume of White Bear Lake and Their 

Relation to Precipitation.......................................................................................................27

Factors Affecting Water-Level Changes.........................................................................................30

Relations Between Groundwater Levels and Lake Levels .................................................30

Trends in Groundwater Withdrawals .....................................................................................31

Relations Between Water-Balance Components, Groundwater Withdrawals, 

and Water Levels..........................................................................................................32

Groundwater Flow and Regional Surface-Water and Groundwater-Level Changes 

in 2011......................................................................................................................................36

Glacial Aquifers..........................................................................................................................36

St. Peter Aquifer.........................................................................................................................38

Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer.............................................................................................38

Precipitation Effects on 2011 Groundwater Levels ..............................................................38

Water Quality of White Bear Lake ...................................................................................................41

Quality Assurance......................................................................................................................41

Precipitation................................................................................................................................41

Surface-Water Quality ..............................................................................................................41

Autonomous, Underwater Vehicle Survey ...................................................................50

Lake-Sediment Temperature Survey .............................................................................50

Properties, Major Constituents, and Stable Isotopes.................................................53
iv

Pore-Water Quality....................................................................................................................54

Well-Water Quality ....................................................................................................................55

Near-Shore Hydraulic-Head Differences, Seepage Rates, and Lake-Sediment 

Characteristics ......................................................................................................................56

Mini-Piezometer/Seepage-Meter Surveys ...........................................................................56

Lake-Sediment Coring/Penetration Probe.............................................................................58

Water Balance for March and August 2011...................................................................................60

Implications of Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions...........................................................61

Summary........................................................................................................................................................62

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................63

Appendix Tables...........................................................................................................................................69

Figures

1. Map showing location of study area, observation wells, and upper bedrock

geology, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ............................................3

2. Graphs showing water-level elevations for and annual precipitation and

pan-estimated lake-surface evaporation near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin

Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ........................................................................................4

3. Map showing locations of study sites and lines of equal water depth for White

Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ........................................6

4. Geologic cross section for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan

Area, Minnesota ...........................................................................................................................8

5. Map showing locations of wells and lakes where water levels were measured in

March/April and August 2011, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ....18

6. Schematic showing water-balance components for White Bear Lake, northeast

Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.............................................................................26

7. Graphs showing analysis of lake-level and precipitation data for White Bear

Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota................................................29

8. Graph showing water-level elevations for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

observation wells open to either the glacial aquifers or the Prairie du

Chien-Jordan aquifer, 1980–2011 .............................................................................................31

9. Graphs showing groundwater withdrawals by high-capacity wells near White

Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ......................................33

10. Map showing potentiometric surface of the glacial water-table aquifer and lake

levels in the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, March/April

2011 ...............................................................................................................................................37

11. Map showing potentiometric surface of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in

the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, March/April 2011...................39

12. Map showing groundwater-level changes in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer

in the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, between March/April

and August 2011..........................................................................................................................40

13. Graphs showing comparison of oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios and deuterium/protium 

ratios for snow, bulk precipitation, surface water, well water, and pore water sampled 

at or near White Bear Lake with meteoric waterline for snow and bulk precipitation, 

White Bear Lake evaporation trend line, and groundwater/lake-water isotope mixing 

model for White Bear Lake area ..............................................................................................47
v

14. Maps and vertical profiles showing water-quality anomalies and vertical 

profiles measured in White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota, July 11–14, 2011...........................................................................................51

15. Map showing lake-sediment temperatures, hydraulic-head differences, 

and seepage-meter median flux rates along the shore of White Bear Lake, 

Goose Lake, and Bald Eagle Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota, July through September 2011..............................................................................52

16. Map showing oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios and deuterium/protium ratios and 

percentage contribution from groundwater and surface water for well-water 

samples near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota ....................................................................................................................................57

Tables

1. Geologic units in the White Bear Lake area, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan

Area, Minnesota ...........................................................................................................................9

2. Number of wells and lakes where water levels were measured in synoptic

studies in the White Bear Lake area in March/April and August 2011, northeast

Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.............................................................................19

3. Summary of autonomous, underwater vehicle survey missions completed on

White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July

11–14, 2011 ...................................................................................................................................19

4. Summaries of linear regression models between annual changes in lake level or

volume and precipitation for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan

Area, Minnesota, 1978–2011 .....................................................................................................28

5. Cumulative precipitation, evaporation, lake-level change, and groundwater

withdrawals for three periods between 1980 and 2010, northeast Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota .................................................................................................28

6. Total annual and seasonal municipal groundwater withdrawals in 1980, 1990,

2000, and 2010 for the municipalities of Centerville, Columbus, Forest Lake, Hugo,

Lino Lakes, Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and

White Bear Township, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota..................34

7. Summary of quality-assurance data for sequential replicate samples and

equipment blank samples collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin

Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July through October 2011 .....................................42

8. Water-quality data for lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or

near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July

through September 2011............................................................................................................43

9. Water-quality data for precipitation, lake water, groundwater, and pore water

collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,

Minnesota, November 2010 through September 2011..........................................................48

10. Lithology of lake-sediment core collected from White Bear Lake, northeast Twin

Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ......................................................................................58

11. Penetration-probe measurements for lake sediments from White Bear Lake,

northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ..........................................................59

12. Monthly water balance for March and August 2011 for White Bear Lake,

northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ..........................................................60
vi

Appendix Tables

1–1. Summaries of analysis of covariance models used for estimating annual

lake-level changes for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota .........................................................................................................................70

1–2. Summaries of analysis of covariance models used for estimating annual or

seasonal lake-volume changes for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota .................................................................................................71

1–3. Summaries of multiple linear regression models used for estimating annual

changes in level or volume of White Bear Lake and estimating annual and

seasonal groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

in the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ...............................................72

1–4. Analysis of variance table comparing the sequential addition of explanatory

variables used to explain annual lake-volume change, White Bear Lake,

northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 1980–2010 ......................................73

1–5. Groundwater-level data collected during synoptic studies in March/April 2011,

northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ..........................................................73

1–6. Groundwater-level data collected during synoptic studies in August 2011,

northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota ..........................................................73

1–7. Surface-water-level data collected by Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources during synoptic studies in March/April 2011, northeast Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota .................................................................................................73

1–8. Surface-water-level data collected by Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources during synoptic studies in August 2011, northeast Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota .................................................................................................73

1–9. Temperature measurements made in surface water and lake sediment of White

Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July through

August 2011..................................................................................................................................73

1–10. Seepage flux measurements and hydraulic-head measurements on the shore of

White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 2011 ................73
vii

Conversion Factors and Datums

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25,400 micrometer (μm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

ounce, fluid (fl. oz) 29.57 milliliter (mL)

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

million gallons per year (Mgal/yr) 3,785 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F= (1.8×°C) +32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

 °C= (°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88) or the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L)or 

micrograms per liter (μg/L).
viii

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

ANCOVA analysis of covariance

AUV autonomous underwater vehicle

CORS Continuously Operating Reference Station (Minnesota Department of

 Transportation)

CWI Minnesota County Well Index

GIS geographic information system

GPS global positioning system

LacCore National Lacustrine Core Facility

LiDAR light detection and ranging

MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

NWIS National Water Information System (U.S. Geological Survey database)

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

RTK GPS real-time kinematic global positioning system

TCMA Twin Cities Metropolitan Area

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

> greater than

< less than

± plus or minus

® registered trademark

TM trade mark
ix

Acknowledgments

This report presents a compilation of information supplied by many agencies and individuals. 

The authors would like to thank the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Metropolitan 

Council for assistance with field aspects of the study. The authors would like to thank the 

Groundwater/Surface-water Interaction Partners, a group of State, county, municipal, and 

regional planning agencies, watershed organizations, and private organizations concerned 

about White Bear Lake, for their support for the study. The Groundwater/Surface-water Interaction Partners consisted of the following organizations: White Bear Lake Conservation District, 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota 

Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Council, Washington County Public Health and 

Environment, Ramsey County Public Works, the city of White Bear Lake, the city of Mahtomedi, 

the city of Birchwood Village, the city of Dellwood, White Bear Township, Rice Creek Watershed 

District, Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization, White Bear Lake Home Owners 

Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of White Bear Lake, Post 1782. 

The authors would like to thank property owners around White Bear Lake for providing access to 

the lake through their property.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Kerry Keen, University of Wisconsin–River Falls, for assistance with data analysis and field aspects of the study.

Abigail Tomasek, Erich Kessler, Josh Ayers, Aliesha Diekoff, Michael Menheer, Andrew Berg, 

and David Dupre of the U.S. Geological Survey are acknowledged for assistance with office and 

field aspects of the study. Melinda Erickson and Briant Kimball of the U.S. Geological Survey are 

acknowledged for their technical reviews of the report.
x
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near 

White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

By Perry M. Jones1, Jared J. Trost1, Donald O. Rosenberry1, P. Ryan Jackson1, Jenifer A. Bode1, and 

Ryan M. O’Grady2

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

University of Minnesota.

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

White Bear Lake Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, and other State, county, municipal, and regional 

planning agencies, watershed organizations, and private organizations, conducted a study to characterize groundwater and 

surface-water interactions near White Bear Lake through 2011. 

During 2010 and 2011, White Bear Lake and other lakes in the 

northeastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area were at 

historically low levels. Previous periods of lower water levels 

in White Bear Lake correlate with periods of lower precipitation; however, recent urban expansion and increased pumping from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer have raised the 

question of whether a decline in precipitation is the primary 

cause for the recent water-level decline in White Bear Lake. 

Understanding and quantifying the amount of groundwater 

inflow to a lake and water discharge from a lake to aquifers is 

commonly difficult but is important in the management of lake 

levels. Three methods were used in the study to assess groundwater and surface-water interactions on White Bear Lake: (1) a 

historical assessment (1978–2011) of levels in White Bear 

Lake, local groundwater levels, and their relation to historical 

precipitation and groundwater withdrawals in the White Bear 

Lake area; (2) recent (2010–11) hydrologic and water-quality 

data collected from White Bear Lake, other lakes, and wells; 

and (3) water-balance assessments for White Bear Lake in 

March and August 2011.

An analysis of covariance between average annual 

lake-level change and annual precipitation indicated the relation between the two variables was significantly different 

from 2003 through 2011 compared with 1978 through 2002, 

requiring an average of 4 more inches of precipitation per 

year to maintain the lake level. This shift in the linear relation between annual lake-level change and annual precipitation indicated the net effect of the non-precipitation terms on 

the water balance has changed relative to precipitation. The 

average amount of precipitation required each year to maintain 

the lake level has increased from 33 inches per year during 

1978–2002 to 37 inches per year during 2003–11. The combination of lower precipitation and an increase in groundwater 

withdrawals can explain the change in the lake-level response 

to precipitation. Annual and summer groundwater withdrawals 

from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer have more than doubled from 1980 through 2010. Results from a regression model 

constructed with annual lake-level change, annual precipitation minus evaporation, and annual volume of groundwater 

withdrawn from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer indicated 

groundwater withdrawals had a greater effect than precipitation minus evaporation on water levels in the White Bear Lake 

area for all years since 2003. The recent (2003–11) decline 

in White Bear Lake reflects the declining water levels in the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer; increases in groundwater 

withdrawals from this aquifer are a likely cause for declines in 

groundwater levels and lake levels.

Synoptic, static groundwater-level and lake-level measurements in March/April and August 2011 indicated groundwater was potentially flowing into White Bear Lake from 

glacial aquifers to the northeast and south, and lake water was 

potentially discharging from White Bear Lake to the underlying glacial and Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers and glacial 

aquifers to the northwest. Groundwater levels in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer below White Bear Lake are approximately 0 to 19 feet lower than surface-water levels in the lake, 

indicating groundwater from the aquifer likely does not flow 

into White Bear Lake, but lake water may discharge into the 

aquifer. Groundwater levels from March/April to August 2011 

declined more than 10 feet in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer south of White Bear Lake and to the north in Hugo, 

Minnesota.

Water-quality analyses of pore water from nearshore 

lake-sediment and well-water samples, seepage-meter measurements, and hydraulic-head differences measured in White 

Bear Lake also indicated groundwater was potentially flowing into White Bear Lake from shallow glacial aquifers to the 

east and south. Negative temperature anomalies determined 

in shallow waters in the water-quality survey conducted 

in White Bear Lake indicated several shallow-water areas 
2 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

where groundwater may be flowing into the lake from glacial 

aquifers below the lake. Cool lake-sediment temperatures (less 

than 18 degrees Celsius) were measured in eight areas along 

the northeast, east, south, and southwest shores of White Bear 

Lake, indicating potential areas where groundwater may flow 

into the lake.

Stable isotope analyses of well-water, precipitation, and 

lake-water samples indicated wells downgradient from White 

Bear Lake screened in the glacial buried aquifer or open to the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer receive a mixture of surface 

water and groundwater; the largest surface-water contributions 

are in wells closer to White Bear Lake. A wide range in oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios was measured 

in well-water samples, indicating different sources of water 

are supplying water to the wells. Well water with oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios that plot close to the 

meteoric water line consisted mostly of groundwater because 

deuterium/protium ratios for most groundwater usually are 

similar to ratios for rainwater and snow, plotting close to meteoric water lines. Well water with oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and 

deuterium/protium ratios that plot between the meteoric water 

line and ratios for the surface-water samples from White Bear 

Lake consists of a mixture of surface water and groundwater; 

the percentage of each source varies relative to its ratios. White 

Bear Lake is the likely source of the surface water to the wells 

that have a mixture of surface water and groundwater because 

(1) it is the only large, deep lake near these wells; (2) these 

wells are near and downgradient from White Bear Lake; and 

(3) these wells obtain their water from relatively deep depths, 

and White Bear Lake is the deepest lake in that area. The 

percentages of surface-water contribution to the three wells 

screened in the glacial buried aquifer receiving surface water 

were 16, 48, and 83 percent. The percentages of surface-water 

contribution ranged from 5 to 79 percent for the five wells open 

to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer receiving surface water; 

wells closest to White Bear Lake had the largest percentages 

of surface-water contribution. Water-balance analysis of White 

Bear Lake in March and August 2011 indicated a potential 

discharge of 2.8 and 4.5 inches per month, respectively, over 

the area of the lake from the lake to local aquifers. Most of the 

sediments from a 12.4-foot lake core collected at the deepest 

part of White Bear Lake consisted of silts, sands, and gravels 

likely slumped from shallower waters, with a very low amount 

of low-permeability, organic material.

Introduction

White Bear Lake and other lakes in Ramsey and Washington Counties in the northeastern part of the Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area (TCMA; fig. 1) are at historically low 

levels. As of June 21, 2012, the water level in White Bear 

Lake was 921.12 feet (ft) above the North American Vertical 

Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), 4.23 ft below the ordinary highwater level, and 1.33 ft above the lowest recorded water level 

on November 13, 2010 (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2012). Since 1924, water levels in the lake have 

ranged from 927.15 to 919.79 ft above NAVD 88; periods of 

low water levels were measured during 1924–1939, 1988–

1993, and 2008–11 (fig. 2; Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2012). Other lakes in Ramsey and Washington 

Counties at low levels include Birch, Mann, South School 

Section, and Sunset Lakes (fig. 1) (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 2012). The low water levels in White Bear 

Lake have resulted in the closure of a county beach for 4 years 

and limitation of boat access to the lake through local marinas 

and lakefront properties.

The recent (2003–11) water-level decline in White Bear 

Lake may be the result of lower precipitation, lower amounts 

of groundwater discharge to the lake, or increased amounts of 

lake-water discharge to aquifers than during previous years. 

Groundwater levels in glacial and bedrock aquifers declined 

between 2005 and 2011 near White Bear Lake (Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, 2011a) and correlated with 

the lake-level decline that began in 2003. These groundwaterlevel declines can result in a decrease in rates of groundwater 

flow to the lake and an increase in water discharge from the 

lake to the local aquifers.

Historically, periods of low water levels in White Bear 

Lake correspond with periods of low precipitation (fig. 2). 

However, recent urban expansion and associated activities 

in Ramsey and Washington Counties have put into question 

whether a decline in precipitation is the primary cause for the 

recent water-level decline in White Bear Lake. Groundwater 

withdrawals and routing of surface water out of the watershed, which are associated with recent urban expansion, have 

increased north of White Bear Lake (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 2011b). An increase in groundwater withdrawals within the groundwater watershed for White Bear Lake 

could reduce groundwater levels and seepage into the lake. 

Routing of surface water out of the watershed could reduce the 

amount of leakage or recharge to local groundwater systems, 

reducing groundwater levels and seepage into the lake.

An understanding of the lake water balance and the lakelevel response to changes in water-balance variables is needed 

to assess the effectiveness of any water-level augmentation 

plan. Local government agencies and residents are concerned 

that low water levels in White Bear Lake may be long-term 

and affect the local economy with the limitation of water 

access to beaches and marinas. To increase water levels, local 

government agencies and residents are considering augmenting the lake level of White Bear Lake by pumping water 

from local bedrock wells or by diverting surface water from 

the Mississippi River through a chain of lakes to White Bear 

Lake. Groundwater was pumped from bedrock aquifers into 

the lake to augment water levels during periods of low water 

levels from the early 1900’s to 1977 (Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, 1998). To address these concerns and 

questions, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with the White Bear Lake Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of 
Introduction 3

551565

551564

481807

208573 124395

244359 551575

227977

244345

EXPLANATION

Mount Simon Sandstone to

Jordan Sandstone,

undifferentiated

(Upper Cambrian)

Prairie du Chien Group 

(Lower Ordovician)

St. Peter Sandstone to

Platteville Formation, 

undifferentiated (Middle 

Ordovician)

Decorah Shale (Middle 

Ordovician)

Uppermost bedrock unit

551565 Observation well—Number is

site identifier

Weather station 218477

0 2 4MILES

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 and 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

Geology from Swanson and Meyer, 1990,

and Meyer and Swanson, 1992

White Bear Lake

Bald

Eagle

Lake

Otter

 Lake

Amelia

 Lake

Wilkinson

 Lake

Pleasant

 Lake

Turtle

Lake

Snail

 Lake

East

Vadnais

Lake

Lake

Gervais Lake

Jane

Olson

Lake

DeMontreville

Lake

Long

Lake

Goose

Lake

Birch

Lake

Pine Tree

Lake

Long

Lake

Mann

Lake

Bass Lake

South School

Section Lake

Sunset

Lake

Oneka

Lake

Egg

Lake

Rice

Lake

Big Marine Lake

 Rondeau

Lake

 Peltier

Lake George

Watch

Lake

Centerville

Lake

Reshanau

Lake

Marshan

Lake

Rice

Lake

Golden

Lake

Deep

Lake

Gilfillan

Lake

Mallard

Pond

Gem

Lake

Silver

Lake Kohlman

Lake

Lost

Lake

Keller

Lake

Echo

Lake

Fish

Lake

Bay Hill

Pond

Round

Lake

Long

Lake

Horseshoe

Lake

Barker

Lake

Mud

Lake

Long

Lake

 West Boot

 Lake

Bass

 Lake

White

Rock

Lake

Fish

Lake

Halfbreed Lake

German

Lake

Forest Lake

Clear

Lake

Howard

Lake

Mud

Lake

Echo

Lake

Hugo

Grant

Gem Lake

Dellwood

Willernie

Shoreview

Maplewood

Mahtomedi

North Oaks

Lino

Lakes

Forest 

Lake

Centerville

Pine Springs

Circle

Pines

Little Canada

White Bear

Lake

Vadnais 

Heights

North Saint Paul

Birchwood

Oakdale

Columbus

WASHINGTON COUNTY

RAMSEY COUNTY

ANOKA COUNTY

Study

area 

MINNESOTA

Twin Cities 

Metropolitan 

Area

LAKE SUPERIOR

Minnesota River

Mississippi

River

45°10'

45°05'

45°00'

45°15'

92°05' 93°00' 92°55' 92°50'

§ ̈¦35W

§ ̈¦35E

§ ̈¦694

§ ̈¦35E

§ ̈¦694

36

96

97

£¤61

Figure 1. Location of study area, observation wells, and upper bedrock geology, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota.
4 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Precipitation—High density nearest, best source, from Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a

Lake-outlet elevation—From Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998

30-year average precipitation 

Precipitation—High density, single, long-term observer source, from Peter Boulay, Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources, written commun., 2012

30-year average water-level elevation

EXPLANATION

Water-level elevation—From Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2012

Pan-estimated lake-surface evaporation—From Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011c

Annual cumulative departure from 1971–2011 normal precipitation 

D. Annual precipitation and pan-estimated lake-surface evaporation near White Bear Lake, 1978–2011

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

20

30

40

50

Year

Precipitation and

evaporation, in inches 

C. Water-level elevations for White Bear Lake, 1978–2011

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

918

920

922

924

926

928

Water-level elevations,

in feet above Ramsey 

County 1912 datum1

Year

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

Precipitation cumulative

departure from normal,

in inches

924.3 feet

33.33 inches per year 30.73 inches per year 

25.40 inches per year 30-year average

B. Annual precipitation near White Bear Lake, 1924–2011

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

10

20

30

40

50

Precipitation, in inches

Lake-level augm entation stopped in 1978 

924.3 feet 925.4 feet

 926.3 feet

922.76 feet 923.63 feet 923.20 feet

A. Water-level elevations for White Bear Lake, 1924–2011

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

918

920

922

924

926

928

Year

W ater-level elevations,

in feet above Ramsey 

County 1912 datum1

1 Ramsey County 1912 datum is 

 0.46 foot lower than NAVD 88.

Figure 2. Water-level elevations for and annual precipitation and pan-estimated lake-surface 

evaporation near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. A, Water-level 

elevations,1924–2011; B, Annual precipitation, 1924–2011; C, Water-level elevations, 1978–2011; and

D, Annual precipitation and pan-estimated lake-surface evaporation, 1978–2011. 
Introduction 5

Natural Resources (MDNR), and the Groundwater/Surfacewater Interaction Partners (described in the “Acknowledgments” section), completed a study to evaluate groundwater 

and surface-water interactions near White Bear Lake.

Lakes with small watershed-to-lake area ratios and no 

major surface-water inlets or outlets during low lake levels, 

such as White Bear Lake, depend on a hydrologic balance 

between precipitation, evaporation, and groundwater inflow 

and lake-water discharge to aquifers to maintain water levels 

(Horne and Goldman, 1994). Rainfall contributes water to 

the lake as direct rainfall on the lake surface, recharge to the 

local groundwater systems that eventually seeps into the lake, 

and runoff from the land surface and from local storm sewer 

systems. Snowmelt in the spring contributes water to the lake 

through runoff from the land surface and local storm sewers 

and recharges the local groundwater system. Field studies in 

Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska indicate lakes with small 

watersheds can receive groundwater from shallow flow systems that extend far beyond their surface watershed and can 

also receive groundwater from deeper aquifers (Winter and 

others, 2003). Residents and local divers swimming in White 

Bear Lake have reported cool waters indicative of groundwater inflow to the lake (Donahower, 1994).

The amount of groundwater inflow to a lake and lakewater discharge from a lake to aquifers is usually difficult to 

understand and quantify but is needed to manage lake levels 

and assess any water-level augmentation plan. The amount 

of groundwater inflow to a lake and lake-water discharge to 

aquifers depends on the permeability of sediments from which 

groundwater is entering or water is leaving a lake and the 

hydraulic gradient between the groundwater system and lake 

(Winter and others, 1998). Groundwater inflow to and water 

discharge from a lake can be estimated directly by measuring 

water seepage into and out of the lake or indirectly by measuring the permeability of and water levels in lake sediments 

and aquifer materials surrounding the lake (Rosenberry and 

LaBaugh, 2008). Measurements of groundwater levels and 

lake levels also can be used to delineate the groundwater 

watershed for a lake, determining sources of groundwater 

that enter a lake. Differences in water temperatures and other 

water-quality characteristics along the lake shoreline can be 

used with measurements of pore water and lake level to identify locations of springs and areas where groundwater is flowing into a lake (Jones, 2006; Rosenberry and LaBaugh, 2008).

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the assessment of groundwater and 

surface-water interactions near White Bear Lake using three 

different methods. The three methods summarized to assess 

groundwater and surface-water interactions on White Bear 

Lake are (1) a historical assessment (1978–2011) of White 

Bear Lake levels, local groundwater levels, and their relation 

to historical precipitation and groundwater withdrawals in the 

White Bear Lake area; (2) an assessment of recent (2010–11) 

hydrologic and water-quality data collected from White Bear 

Lake, other lakes, and wells used to assess groundwater 

and surface-water interactions near White Bear Lake; and 

(3) monthly water-balance assessments for White Bear Lake in 

March and August 2011.

Existing precipitation, groundwater-level, and lake-level 

data collected from 1978 through 2011 were analyzed to gain 

a basic understanding of precipitation/groundwater relations 

to the water level of the lake and assess potential causes for 

the recent (2003–11) water-level decline in White Bear Lake. 

Groundwater levels in existing wells and water levels in White 

Bear Lake and nearby lakes were measured in March/April 

and August 2011 to determine groundwater levels and watershed-scale groundwater flow directions in the glacial aquifers, 

the St. Peter Sandstone aquifer, and the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. A localized, detailed assessment of groundwater 

flow into White Bear Lake was completed in 2011 using three 

techniques: (1) a temperature survey of the lake shoreline to 

determine areas of groundwater inflow, (2) mini-piezometer 

surveys along the lakeshore and deeper parts of the lake to collect hydraulic-head data and water-quality samples to confirm 

groundwater inflow, and (3) seepage-meter surveys along the 

lakeshore to collect water-flow data into and out of the lake. 

A series of surface-water, rainwater, and snow samples were 

collected from White Bear Lake and nearby lakes to determine 

if surface-runoff/snowmelt contributions to the lake can be 

determined from major constituents and isotopic signatures 

of the lake water and snow. Water balances were computed 

for the months of March and August 2011 using precipitation 

and evaporation data collected by State and local agencies and 

using groundwater-level and groundwater-flow data collected 

as part of this study.

Description of Study Area, Hydrology, and 

Hydrogeology

White Bear Lake is in the gently rolling, glaciated landscape of western Ramsey and eastern Washington Counties 

in the northeastern part of the TCMA (fig. 1). The lake is the 

third largest lake in the TCMA. The cities of White Bear Lake, 

Birchwood, Mahtomedi, and Dellwood, and the township of 

White Bear are located along the lakeshore. White Bear Lake 

is part of a chain of lakes that formed from the melting of glacial ice blocks lodged in bedrock valleys (Meyer and Swanson, 

1992). The origin of the name “White Bear Lake” comes from 

a Native American legend where a Chippewa brave fought 

a great white bear for the protection of his Sioux maiden 

(Thayer 1883). The lake consists of three main bays divided by 

Manitou Island, which is in the west-central part of the lake, 

and a peninsula that stretches from the east shore of White 

Bear Lake toward Manitou Island (fig. 3). Land use along the 

lake shoreline consists of residential and commercial properties in the cities of White Bear Lake and Mahtomedi and small 

municipal and private beaches. The lake is used extensively 

for recreation, including fishing, boating, and swimming. 
6 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

93°01' 93°00' 92°59' 92°58' 92°57'

45°07'

45°06'

45°05'

45°04'

45°03'

-30

-40

-10

-20

-10 -20

-30

-50

-70

-10

-20

-80

-60

-50

-10

-10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-10

-20

-20

-30

-10 -20

-30

-30

-40

-30

-10

-10

-20

-30

-20

-10

-30

-40

-30

-20

-10

-10

-20

-20

PDCJ-1

Lake bathymetry from Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources, 2012

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

digital data, 1:24,000 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

RAMSEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

EXPLANATION

-40

Well—Water-quality sample collected. Site identifier indicates

site number and aquifer sampled: GLA, glacial; JOR, Jordan; 

PDCJ, Prairie du Chien-Jordan; PDC, Prairie du Chien; 

STP, St. Peter

Mini-piezometer pore-water-quality sample and site identifier

Line of equal water depth—Contour interval 10 feet

Lake-sediment penetration-probe measurement and site identifier

Lake-sediment core collected and site identifier

Seepage-meter measurement and site identifier, May 2011

Precipitation station—Water-quality sample collected

Seepage-meter measurement and site identifier (and minipiezometer hydraulic-head measurement for sites 6–20), 

August–September 1, 2011

WBLMP16

9

13

Well—High capacity

PDCJ-1

Wetlands—From U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1994

6

8

Snow sample collected

0 0.5 1MILES

0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

JOR-2

WBLMP13 WBLMP08

WBLMP09

WBLMP14

WBLMP12

WBLMP01

WBLMP07

WBLMP02

WBLMP11

GLA-2

WBLMP05

WBLMP04

WBLMP03

WBLMP10

WBLMP16

WBLMP15

8

6

7

2

1

3

9

5

19 20 21

4

22

23

24

25 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Ramsey County Beach

White Bear 

Beach Park

Manitou Island

Bellaire Beach

450334092574201

Mahtomedi Beach

Birch Beach

Echo Lake

Bald Eagle Lake

Pine Tree

Lake

Long Lake

Goose

Lake

Long

Lake

Lost

Lake

Echo

Lake

White Bear Lake

Bay

Hill

Pond

Fish

Lake

West Bay

Southeast 

Bay

PDCJ-2

JOR-1

551564 (PDC-2)

551575 (GLA-4)

GLA-1

GLA-3 GLA-5

STP-2

PDC-1

STP-1

1 PDCJ-3

3

5

6

7

9

2

4

8

10

Figure 3. Locations of study sites and lines of equal water depth for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.
Introduction 7

Ramsey County Beach is a large county beach along the 

northwest shore of White Bear Lake (fig. 3) that was closed to 

swimmers during 2008 through 2012. Land use in the watershed 

consists mainly of residential, agricultural, and open space.

The watershed for White Bear Lake is dominated by 

high- to low-developed urban lands with areas of evergreen 

and deciduous forest to the west and a mixture of urban lands, 

pasture, croplands, and evergreen and deciduous forest to the 

east. White Bear Lake is in the western part of the St. PaulBaldwin Plains and Moraines Ecological Subsection of the 

Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province of Minnesota (Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, 2011c), which is dominated 

by the St. Croix Moraine and areas of outwash. Shrub and 

wooded swamps commonly attached to lakes are present in 

the northern and eastern parts of the lake watershed. Eurasian 

water milfoil and the Eurasian and Northern milfoil hybrid are 

the most common aquatic plants in White Bear Lake (McComas and Stuckert, 2009).

The climate of White Bear Lake is continental, with cold 

winters and warm summers. The mean air temperature in July 

for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Minnesota, 

is about 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F); the mean air temperature in January is about 15.6°F (National Climatic Data Center, 2013). Mean annual precipitation (1981–2010) is about 

30.6 inches (in.) (National Climatic Data Center, 2013).

White Bear Lake is one of the largest and deepest lakes 

in the northeastern part of the TCMA, but its watershed is 

relatively small. The lake covers approximately 2,100 to 

3,100 acres, depending on the water level (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998). Recent (2011) estimates 

of the lake and watershed areas are 2,401 and 4,704 acres, 

respectively (Rice Creek Watershed District, 2011). The watershed-to-lake area ratio (approximately 2:1) is small compared 

to most lakes in Minnesota. White Bear Lake has a maximum 

depth of more than 80 ft; the deeper depths are in the southeast 

part of the lake (fig. 3). The lake is a mesotrophic lake, being 

moderately clear with an intermediate level of productivity 

(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2011).

White Bear Lake is a closed-basin lake with no major 

natural surface-water inlets or outlets (rivers or streams). One 

small ephemeral stream discharges water to the lake along the 

east shoreline during precipitation events. The only outlet from 

the lake consists of a channel and culverts at Ramsey County 

Beach (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998), 

where water is discharged to a wetland north of the beach 

(fig. 3). The outlet elevation is 924.76 ft above NAVD 88 

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998). Water 

levels in the lake typically are below the outlet elevation. 

Thirty-seven storm sewer drains discharge water from local 

streets and wetlands into the lake. At water levels below the 

outlet elevation, water leaves White Bear Lake as discharge to 

surrounding aquifers or evaporation from the lake surface.

Large water-level fluctuations take place in White Bear 

Lake because of the relatively small watershed for the lake 

and its status as a closed-basin lake (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 1998). Since 1924, water levels in the lake 

have ranged from 927.15 to 919.79 ft above NAVD 88, with 

periods of low water levels during 1924–1939, 1988–1993, 

and 2008–11 (fig. 2). Between 1906 and 2011, lake levels 

varied by more than 7 ft; the lowest level on record, 919.79 ft 

above NAVD 88, was on November 13, 2010. The water level 

of White Bear Lake was artificially maintained with groundwater augmentation for most years between the early 1900’s 

and 1977 (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

1998). During multi-year droughts, as in the 1930s and 

1987–89, the lake level substantially declined (fig. 2).

In Minnesota, lakes with lake-to-watershed area ratios of 

less than 5 typically have wide ranges of water-level fluctuations, as much as 5 to 10 ft (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 1998). Water levels in closed-basin lakes tend 

to fluctuate more than lakes with outlets under steady-state 

hydrologic conditions (Almendinger, 1990). Slight shifts 

in climatic or other hydrologic conditions can change the 

steady-state water levels in closed-basin lakes by several feet 

(Almendinger, 1990). Large fluctuations in lake levels have 

been recorded in other closed-basin lakes in Ramsey and 

Washington Counties (Brown, 1985, 1986).

A strong correlation exists between temporal variations 

in water levels of the lake and of local aquifers (Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, 1998), indicating the local 

groundwater system is an important factor controlling the 

lake levels. Groundwater inflow to and lake-water discharge 

from White Bear Lake is from glacial water-table and buried 

aquifers in Quaternary deposits (fig. 4). Local residents have 

indicated the presence of cooler waters in lake sediments at 

many locations along the shore and at deeper depths, indicating potential areas of groundwater inflow. Groundwater 

inflow to lakes commonly takes place at shallow depths 

where organic sediment thicknesses are smaller than at deeper 

depths. Water levels in wells near the lake indicate groundwater from the glacial material flows downward into the St. Peter 

Sandstone and Prairie du Chien Group, the uppermost bedrock 

units below the lake (figs. 1 and 4) (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 1998; Setterholm, 1991).

The geology of the White Bear Lake area and most of the 

TCMA consists of Precambrian and Paleozoic bedrock underlying glacial material of pre-Wisconsin and Wisconsin age 

(figs. 1 and 4; table 1). The Solor Church Formation of Middle 

Proterozoic age underlies Cambrian and Ordovician sedimentary bedrock of the Twin Cities basin (Meyer and Swanson, 

1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990). The Solor Church Formation consists of reddish-brown shale interbedded with reddishbrown feldspathic sandstone (Morey, 1972). The formation 

underlies the Mount Simon Sandstone of Upper Cambrian 

age, which contains the lowermost aquifer of the CambrianOrdovician aquifer system in the TCMA (table 1) (Meyer and 

Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990). The lower part of 

the Mount Simon Sandstone is principally a fine- to coarsegrained sandstone that is moderately to poorly cemented, and 

the upper part of the Mount Simon Sandstone consists of equal 

parts of thin beds of siltstone and shale and very fine-grained 

sandstone (Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003).
t1 950 1,000 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 FEET 

Jordan Sandstone Prairie du Chien Grou

St. Peter Sandstone White Bear Lake Undifferentiated Glacial sediment A VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X5 NORTHWEST 

White Bear Lake

0 0.5 1 MILES0 0.5 1 KILOMETERS

A'

A

0 0.25 0.5 MILES

0 0.25 0.5 KILOMETERS

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) Vertical information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Geology fro

a

Figure 4. Geologic cross section for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.
Introduction 9

Table 1. Geologic units in the White Bear Lake area, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

[Aquifer nomenclature follows the geologic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. ft/d, feet per day]

System Series Geologic unit/

aquifer Lithology

General 

thickness 

(feet)

Water-bearing characteristics

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial lacustrine 

sediments 

(Grantsburg 

sublobe deposits)

Fine to medium sand, silt, and 

clay1,2

Less than 1,250 to 250

Groundwater extraction mainly by 

commercial and domestic wells; horizontal hydraulic conductivities for 

unconsolidated sediments in Metro 

model range from 323 to 240 ft/d, 

mean of 79 ft/d; vertical hydraulic 

conductivities for unconsolidated 

sediments in Metro model range from 

3

21 to 88 ft/d, mean of 47 ft/d; horizontal hydraulic conductivities for till 

range from 33.3x10-5 to 26 ft/d.

Quaternary Pleistocene Ice-contact stratified deposits 

(Grantsburg 

sublobe deposits)

Sand, loamy sand, and gravel, 

interbedded with silt and 

glacial till1,2

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial till 

(Grantsburg 

sublobe deposits)

Unsorted clay, loamy to sandy, 

sand and clay, gray, yellow 

brown, and reddish-brown, 

commonly mixed with Superior lobe till or sand1,2

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial outwash 

(Superior lobe 

deposits)

Sand, loamy sand and gravel, 

commonly overlain by loess2

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial lacustrine 

sediments 

(Superior lobe 

deposits)

Silt to medium-grained sand, 

interbedded with silty clay and 

gravelly sand2

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial till 

(Superior lobe 

deposits)

Unsorted sandy- loam-textured 

sediments with pebbles, 

cobbles, and boulders, sand 

and gravel lenses are common, 

oxidized reddish brown above 

unoxidized reddish gray sediments2

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial outwash 

and ice-contact 

deposits (pre- to 

late Wisconsin, 

Keewatin)

Sand, loamy sand, and gravel, 

some lacustrine silt and clay2

Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial till (pre- to 

late Wisconsin, 

Keewatin)

Unsorted sandy-loam textured 

sediments with pebbles, 

cobbles, and boulders, oxidized 

yellowish to olive brown above 

unoxidized gray to dark gray2

Paleozoic Ordovician

(Middle)

Decorah Shale Green calcareous shale interbedded with thin limestone4

1,20–95 Produces little water; horizontal hydraulic conductivities range from less 

than 10-6 ft/d (deep depths) to 60 ft/d 

(shallow depths).4

Paleozoic Ordovician

(Middle)

Platteville FormationFine-grained dolostone and 

limestone4

1,225–33 Produces little water; water flows 

mainly through bedding planes and 

vertical fractures. Horizontal hydraulic conductivities range from less 

than 10-2 ft/d (deep depths) to 98 ft/d 

(shallow depths).4
10 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Table 1. Geologic units in the White Bear Lake area, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.—Continued

[Aquifer nomenclature follows the geologic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. ft/d, feet per day]

System Series Geologic unit/

aquifer Lithology

General 

thickness 

(feet)

Water-bearing characteristics

Paleozoic Ordovician Glenwood Forma- Thin, green sandy shale4 1,23–6 Produces little water; horizontal hydrau-

(Middle) tion lic conductivity of 10-2 ft/d (shallow 

and deep depths).4

Paleozoic Ordovician St. Peter Sand- Fine- and medium-grained 1,2146–166 Major aquifer in southeastern Minneso-

(Middle) stone (St. Peter sandstone in the upper part, ta; horizontal hydraulic conductivities 

aquifer) mudstone, siltstone and shale range from 10-3 ft/d to greater than 

interbedded with very coarse 49 ft/d; vertical hydraulic conducsandstone in the lower part4 tivities range from 2x10-3 to 92 ft/d; 

effective porosity ranges from 0.28 to 

0.3; storativity ranges from 9x10-5 to 

9.8x10-3.

Paleozoic Ordovician Prairie du Chien Thin to medium beds of dolos- Major aquifer in southeastern Minneso-

(Lower) Group – Sha- tone, shale, and some silici- ta; horizontal hydraulic conductivities 

kopee Forma- clastic sandstone4 range from 3,41.0 to 160 ft/d; vertical 

tion (Prairie du hydraulic conductivities range from 

Paleozoic Ordovician

(Lower)

Chien aquifer) 

Prairie du Chien 

Group - Oneota 

Dolomite (PraiThick beds of very fine-grained 

dolostone, fine and coarse 

clastic interbeds in the lower 

1,2119–203 

(Prairie 

du Chien 

Group)

3,40.03 to 35 ft/d; effective porosity of 

3

0.06; storativity ranges from 31.1x10-

5

 to 3.4x10-4.

Part of major aquifer in southeastern 

Minnesota; horizontal hydraulic 

conductivities range from 4

1.5x10-4 to 

rie du Chien part of the formation4 740 ft/d; vertical hydraulic conaquifer) ductivities range from 4

1.5x10-4 to 

10-3 ft/d; effective porosity of 3

0.06; 

storativity ranges from 3

1.1x10-5 to 

3.4x10-4.

Paleozoic Cambrian Jordan Sandstone Coarse and fine clastic sandstone4 1,266–101 Major aquifer in southeastern Minneso-

(Upper) (Jordan aquifer) ta; horizontal hydraulic conductivities 

range from 10-2 to greater than 3,4490 

ft/d; vertical hydraulic conductivities 

range from 3,410-4 to 47 ft/d; effective 

porosity of 0.323; storativity ranges 

from 3

4.9x10-5 to 1.2x10-4.

Paleozoic Cambrian St. Lawrence Interbedded fine clastic (sand- 1,230–60 Not used as a source of water in the 

(Upper) Formation stone, siltstone, shale) and White Bear Lake area; horizontal 

carbonate (dolostone) rock4 hydraulic conductivities range from 

less than 3,410-2 to 46 ft/d; vertical 

hydraulic conductivities range from 

3,410-4 to 1.8 ft/d; effective porosity 

ranges from 0.15 to 0.203.

Paleozoic Cambrian Tunnel City Group Shale, siltstone, and fine-grained 1,2116–166 Aquifer in southeastern Minnesota; 

(Upper) (formerly Fran- sandstone with beds of lime- horizontal hydraulic conductivities 

conia Forma- stone and dolostone4 range from less than 3,410-3 to 98 ft/d; 

tion6

) vertical hydraulic conductivities 

range from 3,410-4 to 9.8 ft/d.
Introduction 11

Table 1. Geologic units in the White Bear Lake area, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.—Continued

[Aquifer nomenclature follows the geologic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. ft/d, feet per day]

System Series Geologic unit/

aquifer Lithology

General 

thickness 

(feet)

Water-bearing characteristics

Paleozoic Cambrian Wonewoc Sand- Silty, fine- to coarse-grained 1,242–67 Aquifer in southeastern Minnesota; 

(Upper) stone (formerly poorly sorted sandstones in the horizontal hydraulic conductivities 

the Ironton upper part, fine- to medium- range from 3,40.2 to 102 ft/d; vertical 

and Galesville grained sandstone in the lower hydraulic conductivities range from 

Sandstone6

) part4 3,410-3 to 8 ft/d; effective porosity 

of 0.253; storativity ranges from 

3

2.7x10-5 to 5.9x10-5.

Paleozoic Cambrian Eau Claire For- Siltstone, fine- to medium- 1,263–114 Not used as a source of water in the 

(Upper) mation grained glauconitic sandstones, and shales4

White Bear Lake area; horizontal 

hydraulic conductivities range from 

less than 3,410-3 to 0.3 ft/d; vertical 

hydraulic conductivities range from 

3,410-4 to 3x10-3 ft/d; effective porosity ranges from 0.28 to 0.353.

Paleozoic Cambrian Mount Simon Fine- to coarse-grained quartz- 1,2160–336 Major aquifer in southeastern Minne-

(Upper) Sandstone ose sandstone, thin beds of sota; horizontal hydraulic conducsiltstone, shale, and very fine- tivities range from 3,410-2 to 39 ft/d; 

grained sandstone4 vertical hydraulic conductivities 

range from 3,410-4 to 14 ft/d; effective 

porosity of 0.233.

Precambrian Proterozoic Solor Church For- Reddish-brown shale interbed- Unknown Not used as a source of water in the 

(Middle) mation of the ded with reddish-brown White Bear Lake area; hydraulic 

Keweenawan feldspathic sandstone5 conductivities and other hydrologic 

Supergroup parameters unknown.

1

From Meyer and Swanson, 1992.

2

From Swanson and Meyer, 1990.

3

From Metropolitan Council, 2012.

4

From Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003.

5

From Morey, 1972.

6

From Mossler, 2008.

Siltstones, fine- to medium-grained glauconitic sandstones, and shales of the Eau Claire Formation of Upper Cambrian age overlie the Mount Simon Sandstone (table 1) (Meyer 

and Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990). The formation is 63 to 114 ft thick in Ramsey and Washington Counties 

(Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990) and 

commonly is considered a confining unit. However, the formation has been used for water supplies where it is shallow and 

fractured (Runkel, Tipping, and Mossler, 2003).

The Wonewoc Sandstone [formerly the Ironton and 

Galesville Sandstones (Mossler, 2008)] of Upper Cambrian 

age overlies the Eau Claire Formation and is divided into two 

parts: an upper silty, fine- to coarse-grained, poorly sorted 

sandstone and lower more sorted, fine- to medium-grained 

sandstone (table 1) (Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson 

and Meyer, 1990). The sandstones contain an aquifer used in 

the TCMA and range from 42 to 67 ft thick in Ramsey and 

Washington Counties (Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson 

and Meyer, 1990).

The Tunnel City Group [formerly the Franconia Formation (Mossler, 2008)] of Upper Cambrian age overlies the 

Wonewoc Sandstone. The group consists of shales, siltstones, 

and fine-grained sandstones with beds of carbonate strata 

(table 1) (Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003). The 

upper member of the group, Mazomanie Member, is a fine- to 

medium-grained sandstone that is widely used as an aquifer in 

the TCMA (Runkel and others, 2006). The middle and lower 

parts of the group consist of low permeability, fine clastic units 

that are considered a confining unit between the upper member 

and the Wonewoc Sandstone aquifer.

The St. Lawrence Formation of Upper Cambrian age lies 

between two formations that contain aquifers used for water 

supplies: the Jordan Sandstone and the Tunnel City Group 

(table 1). The St. Lawrence Formation consists of interbeds 

of the fine clastic and carbonate rocks, mostly sandstones, 

siltstones, dolostones, and shales (Mossler, 2008). In most of 

southeastern Minnesota, dolostone is the dominant rock type 

in the upper part of the formation; clastic sediments dominate 
12 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

the lower part (Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003). 

In the TCMA, the formation is thickest in the southwest, as 

thick as 90 ft, and thins to the northeast (30 to 40 ft thick) 

(Runkel and others, 2006). Although historically considered a 

confining unit, recent hydrologic studies of the St. Lawrence 

Formation found that groundwater can travel at relatively high 

flow rates through bedding planes and fractures in the formation (Green and others, 2008, 2010; Runkel and others, 2006).

The Jordan Sandstone of Upper Cambrian age consists 

of coarse to fine clastic sediments, with fractures at various 

depths below the land surface (table 1) (Runkel, Tipping, 

Alexander, and others, 2003). Values of hydraulic conductivity 

for the Jordan aquifer generally are higher and more variable 

at shallow depths, indicating groundwater flow through fractures is more prevalent at shallow depths (Runkel, Tipping, 

Alexander, and others, 2003). The Jordan Sandstone is part of 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, which is a major aquifer 

used in the White Bear Lake area and the TCMA.

The Prairie du Chien Group, St. Peter Sandstone, Glenwood Formation, Platteville Formation, and Decorah Shale of 

Ordovician age are the uppermost bedrock units in the White 

Bear Lake area (figs. 1 and 4; table 1). The Prairie du Chien 

Group of Lower Ordovician age overlies the Jordan Sandstone 

and consists of two formations: the Oneota Dolomite and the 

Shakopee Formation. The Oneota Dolomite is primarily thick 

beds of very fine-grained dolostone, and fine and coarse clastic 

interbeds are common in the lower part of the formation 

(Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003). The overlying Shakopee Formation consists of thin to medium beds of 

dolostone, shale, and minor amounts of siliciclastic sandstone 

(Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003). Solutionenhanced cavities along bedding planes and fractures are 

pronounced in the Shakopee Formation and along its contact 

with the Oneota Dolomite (Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and 

others, 2003). Where karst features are present, the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer is sensitive to contamination (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1999). The farthest northern 

extent of the Prairie du Chien Group is in northern Washington 

County and southern Anoka County (fig. 1).

The Prairie du Chien Group is the uppermost bedrock 

unit under the deeper parts of White Bear Lake where a 

buried bedrock valley exists (figs. 1 and 4). This bedrock 

valley trends below the lake from the northwest near Ramsey 

County Beach to the southeast part of the lake. The depth of 

the bedrock below the lake ranges from less than 30 ft on the 

southwest shore to greater than 200 ft on the northeast shore 

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998).

The St. Peter Sandstone of Middle Ordovician age unconformably overlies the Prairie du Chien Group (fig. 1; table 1). 

The St. Peter Sandstone is discontinuous within the study 

area and under much of White Bear Lake (fig. 4). The upper 

one-half to two-thirds of the formation consists of fine- and 

medium-grained, quartz sandstone that is massive to thick bedded; the lower part of the formation consists of multicolored 

mudstones, siltstones, and shales interbedded with very coarse 

sandstone (Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 

1990). The St. Peter Sandstone, which contains the St. Peter 

aquifer, is an important source of water for southeastern Minnesota and can be hydraulically connected to the underlying 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, functioning as a single aquifer 

(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1999; Delin, 1991). 

However, water levels in the St. Peter aquifer and the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer in the TMCA indicate that the St. Peter 

aquifer is hydraulically separated from the underlying Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the TCMA (Runkel, Tipping, 

Alexander, and others, 2003). No known geologic logs or 

geophysical data have been collected to determine the presence 

or absence of the St. Peter aquifer below White Bear Lake.

The Glenwood Formation, Platteville Formation, and 

Decorah Shale of Middle Ordovician age overlie the St. Peter 

Sandstone as the uppermost bedrock units of bedrock highs 

in the White Bear Lake area (fig. 1; table 1). The three units 

generally are less than 50 ft thick in the White Bear Lake area 

and are not used for sources of water. The Glenwood Formation consists of thin, green, sandy shales ranging from 3 to 

6 ft thick, and the overlying Platteville Formation consists of 

fine-grained dolostone and limestone approximately 25 ft thick 

(Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990). The 

Decorah Shale overlies the Platteville Formation as thin caps 

in the southern parts of the study area and consists of green, 

calcareous shale interbedded with thin limestone (Meyer and 

Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990).

Quaternary-age glacial material overlies Ordovicianage bedrock throughout the White Bear Lake area (figs. 1 

and 4; table 1) (Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson and 

Meyer, 1990). The surficial geology in the area consists of 

glacial sandy lake sediments, outwash, and tills associated 

with the Grantsburg sublobe of the late-Wisconsin age Des 

Moines lobe and glacial tills and outwash associated with the 

St. Croix end moraine deposited by Wisconsin-age Superior 

lobe (Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson and Meyer, 1990). 

Grantsburg glacial material overlies the Superior lobe material on the eastern, southwestern, and northern parts of the 

lakeshore, and Superior lobe material overlies pre- to late-Wisconsin Keewatin glacial till on the southeastern and eastern 

part of the lakeshore (Meyer and Swanson, 1992; Swanson 

and Meyer, 1990). Grantsburg sublobe outwash underlying 

the western part of the lake is the edge of the southern extent 

of the Anoka Sand Plain. Organic materials associated with 

wetlands commonly are on the land surface.

Previous Investigations

Previous hydrologic and hydrogeologic investigations 

have assessed low lake levels in White Bear Lake. Coates 

(1924) evaluated the hydrology of lakes, including White 

Bear Lake, in Ramsey County, Minnesota; the effects of 

low water levels in the lakes in the 1920s on development 

and recreational use; and potential changes to the lakes to 

increase water levels. Coates’ (1924) estimated annual seepage from White Bear Lake in 1924 ranged from 5.7 to 7.2 in. 
Introduction 13

Setterholm (1991) completed a hydrologic assessment of 

factors, including groundwater withdrawals, controlling lake 

levels on White Bear Lake for the White Bear Lake Conservation District. In the study, Setterholm recognized that glacial 

deposits surrounding the lake have the highest static water 

levels and successive bedrock aquifers below the deposits and 

the lake have lower water levels, with water from the glacial 

deposits recharging the underlying Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer in the White Bear Lake area. The MDNR conducted 

a lake/groundwater interaction study of White Bear Lake 

following a period of low lake-water levels associated with 

a drought during 1988 and 1989 (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 1998). Results from this study indicated 

net annual groundwater exchange with White Bear Lake 

between 1981 and 1990 ranged from an 11.4-in. loss to local 

aquifers to a 4.4-in. gain to the lake; the average exchange 

was a 5-in. loss to local aquifers (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 1998). Groundwater-flow modeling for the 

1998 study of the White Bear Lake area indicated increased 

groundwater withdrawals from high-capacity municipal wells 

decreased groundwater levels. Barr Engineering (2010) completed a potential vulnerability analysis of the TCMA surfacewater features, including White Bear Lake, for the Metropolitan Council. Results from the analysis classified White 

Bear Lake as a flow-through lake connected to groundwater 

and potentially vulnerable to groundwater withdrawals. The 

lake was classified as having a wide and shallow littoral zone, 

increasing the potential effects of groundwater withdrawals on 

lake-level changes.

Lake levels, water balance, and groundwater/surfacewater interactions have been studied in lakes in the northeastern part of the TCMA. Winter and Pfannkuch (1976) 

characterized the hydrologic interconnections between lakes 

and lateral groundwater flow within shallow deposits of the 

Anoka Sand Plain and patterns of groundwater flow between 

surficial, valley fill, and bedrock aquifers in a buried valley near Lino Lakes, Minnesota. Brown (1985) investigated 

hydrologic factors affecting lake-level fluctuations in Big 

Marine Lake in Washington County, Minnesota, defining 

interactions between the lake and local groundwater systems. 

Hydrogeologic and geochemical data collected in this study 

indicated lake-level fluctuations in the closed-basin lake were 

controlled primarily by groundwater discharge to and seepage 

from the lake, and changes in the potentiometric surface of 

the bedrock aquifer had minor effects on lake-level changes. 

Brown (1986) estimated the groundwater contribution in 

hydrologic and phosphorus budgets for seven lakes in the 

TCMA, including Square Lake, Eagle Point Lake, and Lake 

Elmo in Washington County, east of the study area. Seasonal 

hydrologic budgets to Square Lake and Lake Elmo indicated 

a net groundwater inflow to the lakes during all seasons of 

the year; net annual groundwater inflows were approximately 

39 and 69 million cubic feet, respectively. Ruhl (1994) 

investigated groundwater/lake interactions for Vadnais Lake 

in northern Ramsey County and determined that groundwater inflow and lake-water discharge to aquifers represented 

a small percentage of the total water budget for the lake. 

Alexander and others (2001) assessed groundwater flows to 

Big Marine Lake (fig. 1), Big Carnelian Lake, Square Lake, 

and Little Carnelian Lake in the Carnelian-Marine Watershed 

District, Washington County. Big Carnelian Lake, Square 

Lake, and Little Carnelian Lake are east of the study area. 

They determined groundwater contribution to Big Marine 

Lake and Big Carnelian Lake was very small; most water 

entering the lakes came from precipitation. Groundwater 

inflow, however, was a major contributor to Square Lake and, 

to a lesser extent, Little Carnelian Lake. St. Croix Watershed 

Management Organization (2002) monitored groundwater 

inflow to Square Lake using seepage meters and determined 

that 70 percent of the water inflow to the lake was coming 

from local shallow groundwater, whereas only 9 percent of 

the water leaving the lake discharges to aquifers. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2008) assessed the movement 

of trichloroethylene and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in shallow 

groundwater flowing into Long Lake in New Brighton, Minnesota, west of the study area.

Several studies have documented changes in groundwater levels and flow in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan and 

other bedrock aquifers underlying the TCMA. Reeder 

(1966) compiled maps documenting changes in groundwater levels and flow for the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

for selected periods from 1885 to 1965. Norvitch and others (1973) delineated potentiometric surfaces for the winter of 

1970–71, groundwater-level changes from December 1970 to 

August 1971, and long-term groundwater-level changes from 

winter 1965 to winter 1970 for the Prairie du Chien-Jordan

aquifer to assess natural flow conditions and the effects of 

groundwater withdrawals on the aquifer. Larson-Higdem and 

others (1975) described vertical groundwater leakage rates 

from overlying aquifers to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

in the TCMA using potentiometric surfaces developed by 

Norvitch and others (1973). Their estimate of vertical leakage accounts for 10–20 percent of the increases in summer 

groundwater withdrawals in 1971 in the TCMA. Schoenberg 

(1984) and Guswa and others (1982) described groundwater flow for 1971–80 and changes in groundwater levels for 

the 1980s in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Delin and 

Woodward (1984) delineated a potentiometric surface for the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer for southeastern Minnesota, 

including the Twin Cities basin. Horn (1983) investigated 

annual and seasonal groundwater withdrawal rates from the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer between 1880 and 1980 in 

the TCMA. Schoenberg (1990) assessed the effect of groundwater withdrawal rates on groundwater levels in the TCMA 

in the 1970s. Andrews and others (1995) investigated groundwater-level declines and associated groundwater withdrawals 

from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the TCMA from 

1980 to 1990. Sanocki and others (2009) determined potentiometric surfaces and groundwater-level changes in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan, the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville, and the 

Mount Simon-Hinckley aquifers in the TCMA for March and 

August 2008.
14 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Methods of Study

Hydrologic and water-quality data were collected and 

analyzed to understand the interactions between White Bear 

Lake and groundwater in the glacial sediments, the St. Peter 

aquifer, and the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Existing 

lake-level, precipitation, evaporation, groundwater-level, 

and groundwater-withdrawal data from 1980 to 2010 were 

examined to assess temporal changes in relations between the 

lake, precipitation, and groundwater. Static water levels were 

measured in wells and surface-water bodies in March, April, 

and August 2011 to determine regional potentiometric surfaces 

and groundwater-flow gradients in the glacial water-table and 

buried aquifers, St. Peter, and Prairie du Chien-Jordan in the 

northeast TCMA. A variety of physical properties and chemical constituents were measured in precipitation, surface water, 

pore water in lake sediments, and groundwater to characterize 

groundwater/surface-water interactions in White Bear Lake. 

Three water-quality methods were used to identify potential 

locations of groundwater inflow to the lake and lake-water 

discharge to the aquifers: (1) differences in surface-water 

quality were measured using an autonomous, underwater 

vehicle (AUV) with a water-quality probe, (2) temperatures 

were measured in littoral-zone sediments, and (3) pore-water 

samples were collected for analysis of major constituents and 

stable isotopes. At these locations, hydraulic-head differences 

between White Bear Lake and lake sediments and seepage 

rates across the sediment–lake-water interface were measured 

to determine the amount of groundwater/lake-water exchange. 

A lake-sediment core was collected at the deepest part of 

White Bear Lake, and penetration-probe measurements were 

made to estimate the thickness of organic sediments that may 

restrict the amount of water flow between the lake and the 

underlying aquifers.

Historical Hydrologic Data

Historical hydrologic data from the White Bear Lake 

area, including lake levels, groundwater levels, precipitation, 

evaporation, and groundwater withdrawals, were compiled 

and examined to assess trends that might be associated with 

water-level changes in White Bear Lake. Annual data were 

evaluated by calendar year. Seasonal comparisons for each 

year were based on the following seasons: (1) winter (January, 

February, and December); (2) spring (March, April, and May); 

(3) summer (June, July, and August); and (4) fall (September, 

October, and November).

Water-level measurements for White Bear Lake between 

1924 and 2011 and groundwater-level data for observation 

wells within the study area between 1980 and 2011 were 

acquired from the MDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2011d, 2012). The observation wells were completed in glacial water-table or buried aquifers or in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2011d). Historical water-level measurements for 

White Bear Lake were in reference to the Ramsey County 

1912 datum, and historical groundwater levels were in reference to the NAVD 88. Measurements in reference to the 

Ramsey County 1912 datum were converted to NAVD 88 by 

adding 0.46 ft (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

2012).

Daily precipitation data (P) from 1924 through 2011 

were compiled from the Minnesota high-density volunteer 

observation network and the National Weather Service network (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a). Daily 

precipitation data for 1958 through 2011 were selected from 

the high-density observation site closest to the approximate 

geographic center of White Bear Lake (45.07703 decimal 

degrees latitude, 92.98331 decimal degrees longitude) with no 

more than three missing daily observations per month (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a). High-density 

network data were not available before 1958 and were missing 

for brief periods from 1958 through 2011 (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a). Data from the closest National 

Weather Service station were used for these data gaps (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a). The compiled 

precipitation data were compared to the precipitation record 

from a “single, long-term” observation site approximately 

4 miles (mi) southwest of White Bear Lake (Peter Boulay, 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, written commun., January 13, 2012) and a “wetland delineation precipitation data retrieval from a gridded database” determined by the 

Minnesota Climatology Working Group (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2012a) to identify any periods of systematic “observer bias.” Annual precipitation was calculated by 

summing all precipitation within a calendar year. Cumulative 

departure from normal precipitation was determined on an 

annual basis with the high-density network data from 1971 

through 2011. Seasonal precipitation was determined by summing all precipitation events within a given season, as previously defined, each year.

Monthly evaporation totals (E) for April through October 

during 1972 through 2011 were compiled from the nearest class A evaporation-pan monitoring site approximately 

12 mi southwest of White Bear Lake (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011b). Evaporation from the surface of 

White Bear Lake was estimated by multiplying the monthly 

evaporation-pan totals by a coefficient of 0.75. This coefficient 

is the mid-point in the typical range (0.65 to 0.85) of class A 

evaporation-pan coefficients (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996). Pan evaporation usually peaks several months 

before peak evaporation from deep lakes because of differing 

thermal characteristics between the pan and the lakes. Using 

values of pan evaporation may distort the seasonal distribution 

of estimates of lake-surface evaporation (American Society of 

Civil Engineers, 1996). To avoid this seasonal distortion, most 

of the analyses performed in this report used annual evaporation totals.

Groundwater-withdrawal data from 1980 through 

2010 were acquired from the MDNR Water Appropriations Permit Program (Minnesota Department of Natural 
Methods of Study 15

Resources, 2011b). All water users withdrawing more than 

10,000 gallons (gal) of water per day or 1 million gallons per 

year (Mgal/yr) are required by the State of Minnesota to obtain 

a water-use (appropriation) permit and report monthly wateruse amounts to the MDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2011b). Only annual groundwater withdrawals 

were available for each permit from 1980 through 1987; 

monthly groundwater withdrawals were available for each 

permit from 1988 through 2010. Groundwater withdrawal data 

were summarized by aquifer, use, and season. No distinction 

was made between wells extracting water from glacial watertable aquifers and buried aquifers; all withdrawals were classified as being from glacial aquifers. Wells open to the Prairie 

du Chien Group, the Jordan Sandstone, or both were classified 

as completed in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. In this 

study, wells withdrawing water from multiple aquifers or bedrock aquifers deeper than the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

were classified as multiple-aquifer wells. Water use for the 

permitted wells was categorized into two groups: municipal 

and other. Water withdrawn for the municipalities of Centerville, Columbus, Forest Lake, Hugo, Lino Lakes, Mahtomedi, 

North St. Paul, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and White 

Bear Township were included in the municipal category. All 

other permitted withdrawals in the study area were classified 

as “other” uses, including water used for industrial processing, 

construction dewatering, and irrigation of golf courses. Total 

seasonal groundwater withdrawals were calculated according 

to the seasons previously defined from 1988 through 2010.

Annual per capita groundwater withdrawals were determined for 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 by dividing the average 

groundwater withdrawal for the 3 years of available data 

closest to the decadal census by the population at each census. 

For the per capita withdrawal estimate of 1980, withdrawals during 1980–82 were averaged; for 1990, withdrawals 

during 1989–91 were averaged; for 2000, withdrawals during 

1999–2001 were averaged; and for 2010, withdrawals during 2008–10 were averaged. Seasonal per capita groundwater 

withdrawals were determined for the census years of 1990, 

2000, and 2011 by dividing the seasonal average groundwater withdrawal for the 3 years of available data closest to the 

decadal census by the population at each census.

Daily lake levels of White Bear Lake were estimated for 

1978 through 2011 by linear interpolation between successive lake-level observations. A relation between lake elevation 

and volume and a relation between lake elevation and area for 

White Bear Lake developed by the Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources (1998) were used to convert interpolated 

daily lake levels into daily lake volumes and daily lake areas, 

respectively. Annual changes in lake level and lake volume 

(ΔLW) were calculated for each year between 1978 and 2011 

by subtracting the lake level or volume on January 1 of a 

calendar year from the corresponding value on December 31 

of the same calendar year. Seasonal changes in lake level and 

lake volume were calculated by summing the daily changes of 

each value within each season of each year from 1978 through 

2011.

Daily surface-outflow volumes (SO) from the lake 

through the outflow structures near Ramsey County Beach 

were calculated. Lake levels were converted to outflow 

volume on a daily basis with a surface-outflow rating curve, 

developed by the MDNR, for the structures near Ramsey 

County Beach (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

1998). Zero outflow was assumed whenever the lake level was 

below 924.3 ft above Ramsey County 1912 datum. Surface 

outflows also were expressed in terms of feet of lake level lost 

by dividing the outflow volume by the lake area on a daily 

basis. Daily surface-outflow values were then summed on an 

annual or a seasonal basis for further analysis.

Precipitation (P) on the lake surface was converted to 

volume on a daily basis by multiplying the precipitation depth 

by the lake area. Evaporation from the lake surface (E) was 

converted to volume on a monthly basis by multiplying the 

evaporation depth by the monthly average lake area. These 

volumes were then summed on an annual or a seasonal basis 

for further analysis.

Regression Analyses

A series of regression analyses were done to determine 

the significance of different components of the water balance 

in explaining changes in the water level and volume of White 

Bear Lake. These analyses were done for years after 1977 to 

avoid years when the lake level was augmented with groundwater from underlying aquifers (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 1998). The water balance of White Bear 

Lake is described by the following equation:

 , (1)

where

ΔLW is the change in lake level or volume,

P is the total precipitation falling on lake surface,

SR is the surface runoff into the lake,

E is the evaporation from the lake surface,

SO is the surface-water outflow through structures 

near Ramsey County Beach, and

GWex is the net groundwater exchange, including all 

inputs to and losses from White Bear Lake.

Because White Bear Lake is a closed-basin lake, its level 

has likely responded to local precipitation. The relation of the 

annual change in the water level (or volume) of White Bear 

Lake to annual precipitation was examined with the following 

equation:

 , (2)

where

ΔLWi is the change in White Bear Lake level, in 

feet, or volume, in millions of gallons;

b0 is the intercept, in units of lake change (feet or 

millions of gallons);

∆ = LW P S + − R E − + SO GWex

∆ = LWi i b b 0 1 + × P + i ( ) 
16 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

b1 is the slope coefficient for the precipitation 

explanatory variable, in units of lake 

change (feet or millions of gallons) per 

inch of precipitation;

Pi is the observed cumulative precipitation depth 

on lake surface, in inches; and

εi is the random error (residual) for observation 

i, in units of lake change (feet or millions 

of gallons).

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (Helsel and Hirsch, 

2002) was used to test the hypothesis that the relation between 

the change in water level (and volume) of White Bear Lake 

and precipitation is significantly different between two periods: (0) 1978–2002, and (1) 2003–11. The two periods were 

identified through examination of the water-level data for 

White Bear Lake. The most recent major lake-level decline 

began in 2003 and continued through 2011. The goal of the 

ANCOVA was to compare the relation between lake-level 

change and precipitation during the recent decline (2003–11) 

with an earlier period. ANCOVA models were constructed 

with precipitation (P) and time period (Tp) as explanatory 

variables for annual and seasonal changes in lake level and 

lake volume:

 , (3)

where

ΔLWi is the change in lake level or lake volume, in 

feet or millions of gallons;

b0 is the intercept, in units of lake change (feet or 

millions of gallons);

b1 is the slope coefficient for the precipitation 

explanatory variable, in units of lake 

change (feet or millions of gallons) per 

inch of precipitation; 

Pi is the observed cumulative precipitation depth 

on lake surface, in inches;

b2 is the slope coefficient for the time-period 

explanatory variable, in units of lake 

change (feet or millions of gallons);

Tp is the time-period binary variable, either 0 

(for 1978–2002) or 1 (for 2003–11) for 

observation i, dimensionless; and

εi is the random error (residual) for observation 

i, in units of lake change (feet or millions 

of gallons).

ANCOVA models allow for the incorporation of qualitative factors, defined by binary, or dummy, variables, and blend 

regression and analysis of variance (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). 

The ANCOVA models in this report do not provide a mechanistic explanation for any differences between periods. The 

binary variables assigned to the two periods are 0 and 1 for 

1978–2002 and 2003–11, respectively. In all ANCOVA models 

in this report that utilize the time-period binary variable (Tp), 

the b2 coefficient (eqs. 3 and 4) represents the shift or difference between the two periods. For 1978–2002, the time-period 

binary variable is 0, and equation 3, for example, simplifies to 

ΔLWi = b0 + (b1 ×Pi) + εi. For 2003–11, the binary variable is 1, 

and equation 3 simplifies to ΔLWi = (b0 + b2) + (b1 ×Pi) + εi.

Additional ANCOVA models were constructed and 

included estimates of lake-surface evaporation and surfacewater outflow through the outflow structures near Ramsey 

County Beach:

 , (4)

where

ΔLWi is the change in White Bear Lake volume or 

level, in feet or millions of gallons;

SOi is the cumulative surface-water outflow, in 

feet of lake level or millions of gallons;

b0 is the intercept, in units of lake change plus 

surface outflow (feet or millions of gallons);

b1 is the slope coefficient for the precipitation 

minus evaporation explanatory variable, in 

units of lake change plus surface outflow 

(feet or millions of gallons) per inch of 

precipitation minus evaporation; 

Pi is the observed cumulative precipitation depth 

on lake surface, in inches;

Ei is the cumulative depth of pan-estimated 

evaporation from the lake surface, in inches;

b2 is the slope coefficient for the time-period 

explanatory variable, in units of lake 

change plus surface-water outflow (feet or 

millions of gallons);

Tp is the time-period binary variable, either 0 

(for 1978–2002) or 1 (for 2003–11) for 

observation i, dimensionless; and

εi is the random error (residual) for observation 

i, in units of lake change plus surface 

outflow (feet or millions of gallons).

The (ΔLWi + SOi) term accounts for the observed change in 

lake level or volume (ΔLWi) and the change in lake level or 

volume that would have been observed had the outflow structures not been in place. The (Pi

 - Ei) term adjusts total annual 

direct precipitation input to the lake surface by the amount of 

lake-surface evaporation.

Multiple linear regression was used to identify possible 

explanations for annual changes in lake level and volume for 

1980 through 2010. Multiple linear regression models were 

of the following form (the subscript, i, has been omitted to 

simplify the notation):

 , (5)

where

ΔLW is the change in White Bear Lake volume or level,

b0 is the intercept,

b1,b2,..., bk is the slope coefficients for explanatory 

variables x1, x2, ..., xk, and

ε is the random error in the data.

∆ = LWi i b b 0 1 + × ( ) P b + × ( ) 2 Tp i + 

( ) ∆ + LWi i SO = + b b 0 1 [ ( × − P E i i)]+ × ( ) b T 2 p i + 

∆ = LW b b + + x x +...+ + x 0 1 1 2 2 k k b b 
Methods of Study 17

Candidate explanatory variables of precipitation (P), 

evaporation (E), surface-water outflow (SO), and annual 

groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan

aquifer (WPDCJ) were used in multiple linear regression models 

to explain annual changes in lake level and volume. Candidate 

explanatory variables of precipitation and time (year) were 

used in multiple linear regression models to explain annual 

and seasonal trends in groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. The adjusted R-squared value, 

Mallow’s Cp statistic, and the prediction error sum of squares 

of each model and the significance of explanatory variable 

coefficients at an alpha of 0.05 were the criteria used to identify the most reasonable regression model for a given response 

variable (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). After a reasonable regression model that explained the annual lake-volume changes was 

identified, sequential sum of squares was used to determine if 

the continuous explanatory variables in the multiple regression model explained any significant difference between the 

two periods of the ANCOVA model that was used to explain 

annual lake-volume changes (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002).

Groundwater-Level Synoptic Studies

Regional hydraulic gradients of the glacial aquifers 

(water-table and buried), St. Peter aquifer, and Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer were determined through groundwaterlevel synoptic studies during two seasons, spring and summer, 

in 2011 across a network of wells and surface-water bodies. 

A groundwater-level synoptic study involves the measurement of groundwater levels in many wells over a short time 

period to provide a “snapshot” of hydraulic gradients in one 

or more aquifers. In this study, the spring synoptic waterlevel study was between March 21 and April 7, 2011, and the 

summer synoptic water-level study was between August 9 and 

August 23, 2011. In the TCMA, groundwater use typically is 

low in the spring months of March and April and high during 

the summer months of June, July, and August (Metropolitan 

Council, 2004). Water levels in these two synoptic studies 

were compared to see if groundwater levels and hydraulic gradients changed between the different groundwater-use periods. 

Groundwater levels for 224 municipal, domestic, and 

observation wells and surface-water levels from 66 lakes in 

the northeast TCMA were measured in the spring (March/

April 2011) synoptic study (fig. 5; table 2). The summer 

synoptic study (August 2011) consisted of measurements 

for 230 wells and 68 surface-water levels. The selection of 

wells for the synoptic studies was based on the availability 

of construction and geologic information for the well, the 

aquifer from which the well obtained water, the location of 

the well relative to other wells in the study, and the approval 

of the well owner to measure water levels. Construction and 

geologic data for the wells were obtained from the Minnesota 

County Well Index (CWI) (Minnesota Department of Health/

Minnesota Geological Survey, 2011). All wells listed in CWI 

that were (1) open to the glacial aquifers, St. Peter aquifer, or 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, and (2) within the approximate White Bear Lake groundwater watershed area were identified as potential wells for the synoptic studies. The selected 

wells measured in the study were accessible, only open to 

one aquifer, and distributed as evenly as possible throughout 

the study area. The study area was defined by an approximate 

groundwater watershed for White Bear Lake delineated by 

MDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998).

The selected wells were located in the field, and their 

latitude/longitude coordinates were acquired using a realtime, kinematic global positioning system (RTK-GPS). 

Land-surface elevation at each well was determined using the 

RTK-GPS. A real-time correction of the latitude/longitude 

coordinates and elevations was made using the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) Network (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2012). All locations were determined 

in reference to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), 

and elevations were determined in reference to the NAVD 88. 

Elevations and latitude/longitude coordinates could not be 

determined for five wells because of poor satellite coverage at 

the well locations. Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data 

obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District (Rice Creek 

Watershed District, 2011) were used to estimate the landsurface elevations at these five wells. The MDNR supplied 

the land-surface elevations for the MDNR observation wells 

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011d).

Groundwater levels were measured using a steel or 

electrical tape to the nearest 0.01 ft. Measurements were made 

when the wells were not pumping. Groundwater levels were 

measured in the high-capacity wells after the well pumps had 

been shut off for at least 2 hours, assuming the water levels would have time to recover before measuring. For each 

well, the height of an established measuring point (top of 

well casing) above the land surface was subtracted from the 

water-level measurement to obtain the depth to water below 

land surface. The depth to water was then subtracted from the 

land-surface elevation to obtain the groundwater elevation 

(hydraulic head).

Lake levels were measured on 68 lakes within the study 

area; most of the lakes were part of the MDNR lake-level 

monitoring program (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2012). Lakes in this program have a staff gage that 

is periodically measured. Water levels were measured in the 

lakes in both synoptic studies using RTK-GPS to the nearest 

0.05 ft; corrections were provided through the MnDOT CORS 

Network (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2012).

Potentiometric surfaces and seasonal water-level change 

maps were constructed using the groundwater-level and 

lake-level elevations measured in March/April 2011 and 

August 2011 for four aquifers: two glacial aquifers (watertable and buried), St. Peter aquifer, and Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer. Potentiometric surfaces show the elevation at 

which water would have stood in a tightly cased well open 

to the respective aquifer and are used to better understand 

groundwater flow.
18 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

250

249

248

247

246

245

244

224

242

241

240

239

238 237

236

235

234

233

231

230

499

3

227

226 225

243

223

102

221

220

219

218

217

216

215

214

213

212

211

210

209

208

207

206

205

204

203

22

201

200

199

198

197

196

195

194

193

192

191

189 190

188

187 186 185

184

183

182

181

180

179

178 177

176

175

173

172

171

169

168

165

164

163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

154

153

152

251

151

150

149

148

147

146

145

144

143

142

141

140

139

138

137

132

134

133

54

129

128

127

126

125

124

123

122

121

120

119

118

117

116

115

113

112

111

109

105

103

222

101

100

99

98

97 94

93

92

90

89

88

87

86

85

84

83

81

79

78

76

75

74

73

71

70

69 68

67

64

63

60

58

57

56

55

136

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

34

33

32

31

30

29 28

27

26

25

24

23

202 21

20

19

17

16

15

14

13

12

9

8

7

6

5

4

228

2

1

107

232

174

170

135

110

46

35 11 10

62

65

106 108

104

114

166

167 59

131

96 66 130 82 61 80 95

77

72

91

18

Pine Tree Lake

White Bear Lake

Bald

Eagle

 Lake

Otter

 Lake

Amelia

 Lake

Wilkinson Lake

Pleasant

 Lake

Turtle

 Lake

Snail

 Lake

East

Vadnais

 Lake

Lake

Gervais Lake Jane Olson Lake

DeMontreville 

Lake

Long

Lake

Goose

Lake

Birch

Lake

Pine 

Tree

Lake

Long Lake

Mann

Lake

Bass 

Lake

South School

Section Lake

Sunset

Lake

Oneka

Lake

Egg

Lake

Rice

Lake

Big Marine Lake

 Rondeau Lake

 Peltier

Lake

George

Watch

Lake

Centerville Lake

Reshanau Lake

Marshan

Lake

 Rice Lake

Golden Lake

Deep Lake

Gilfillan

Lake

Mallard 

Pond

Gem

Lake

Silver

Lake Kohlman

Lake

Lost

Lake

Keller

Lake

Echo

Lake

Fish

Lake Bay

Hill

Pond

Round

Lake

Long

Lake

Horseshoe Lake

Barker

Lake Mud

Lake

Long

Lake

 West

 Boot

 Lake

Bass

 Lake

White

Rock

Lake

Fish Lake

Halfbreed Lake

German

Lake

Forest Lake

Clear

Lake Howard

Lake

Mud

Lake

Echo Lake

Mud 

Lake

0 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

0 0.5 MILE

45°10'

45°05'

45°00'

45°15'

92°05' 93°00' 92°55' 92°50'

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 

1:24,000 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

Well—Well for which water level

was available during March/

April and August 2011. Number 

is map name.

Well—Well for which water level

was available during March/

April 2011. Number is map name.

Well—Well for which water level

was available during August

2011. Number is well map name.

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Locations of wells and lakes where water levels were measured in March/April and August 2011, northeast Twin 

Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.
Methods of Study 19

Water-Quality Data

Various water-quality data were collected in 2011 to 

assess groundwater and surface-water interactions at White 

Bear Lake. An AUV equipped with water-quality probes was 

used to determine the spatial distributions of basic waterquality characteristics in White Bear Lake. Surface-water and 

lake-sediment temperatures were measured along the lakeshore; small and large differences between the two temperature measurements indicated potential locations for surfacewater outflow to local groundwater systems and groundwater 

inflow to lakes. Several physical and chemical water-quality 

constituents were measured in precipitation, surface-water, 

lake-sediment pore-water, and groundwater samples to characterize these different water sources and identify potential 

connections between the sources.

Autonomous, Underwater Vehicle Survey

Water quality of White Bear Lake was surveyed July 11 

through July 14, 2011, using an AUV equipped with waterquality probes. The EcomapperTM AUV generates a large 

quantity of water-quality data that can be used to generate 

high-resolution maps of water-quality characteristics and 

bathymetry throughout a surface-water body. Seven waterquality sensors, an echo sounder, and a side-scan sonar on 

the AUV were used to continuously measure water depth, 

water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, 

pH, turbidity, total chlorophyll concentration, and blue-green 

algae concentration. The water-quality sensors on the AUV 

were calibrated following procedures outlined in the USGS 

National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality 

Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated) and outlined 

by the manufacturer of the probes. All sensors were calibrated 

before deployment, and calibrations were checked for drift 

following the survey. When possible, all calibrations were 

completed in the controlled environment of a laboratory. 

A differentially corrected global positioning system (GPS) 

was used to guide the AUV through the lake along pre-programmed survey lines called missions.

A series of seven missions were completed with the AUV 

in the north, central, and southeast parts of the lake (table 3). 

The survey was completed in the summer when temperature 

differences between lake water and local groundwater were 

high and offered an opportunity to identify locations of possible groundwater inflow. During each mission, water temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, 

Table 2. Number of wells and lakes where water levels were 

measured in synoptic studies in the White Bear Lake area in 

March/April and August 2011, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota.

Aquifer/water body March/April

2011

August

2011

Glacial aquifer (water table) 13 13

Glacial aquifer (buried) 46 51

St. Peter aquifer 50 49

Prairie du Chien Group-Jordan aquifer 115 117

Lakes 66 68

Table 3. Summary of autonomous, underwater vehicle (AUV) survey missions completed on White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July 11–14, 2011.

[CDT, Central daylight-savings time]

Mission 

number Date Start time (CDT)

End time 

(CDT) Location Survey technique Comments

1 July 11, 2011 11:07 12:19 North bay of south lobe Constant depth, surface Reconnaissance survey along 

shoreline.

2 July 12, 2011 8:30 14:34 North bay of south lobe Constant height above 

bottom

Snagged in milfoil (aborted).

3 July 13, 2011 8:28 10:20 North bay of south lobe Constant height above 

bottom

Sweep pattern through bay.

4 July 13, 2011 12:11 18:06 Southern one-half of 

south lobe (deep)

Undulate surface to 

near bed

Sweep pattern through bay.

5 July 14, 2011 8:14 10:00 Middle of the lake 

between lobes

Undulate surface to 

near bed

Sensor data failed to log on the 

data logger.

6 July 14, 2011 10:15 11:17 Deep line from south 

lobe to north lobe

Constant height above 

bottom

Connects survey zones (lobes).

7 July 14, 2011 11:32 15:32 North lobe Constant height above 

bottom

Sweep pattern through bay.

8 July 14, 2011 16:32 17:11 West lobe Constant depth, surface Line across west lobe near south 

shore (demo).
20 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

chlorophyll, and blue-green algae were measured once every 

second as the AUV moved along the survey lines. The AUV 

was run at water depths varying from 0 to 60 ft below the 

water surface and completed a variety of survey methods, 

including constant depth, constant height above bottom, and 

undulation depth techniques.

One limitation to the use of the AUV to assess groundwater inflow to White Bear Lake was the ability of the vehicle 

to get close to the sediment–water interface in shallow waters 

where abundant milfoil was present. This aquatic vegetation 

covered large areas of the shallower parts of the lake, growing 

as much as 15 ft above the lake bottom and emerging from 

the water surface at some locations. During the first 2 days 

of the survey, the AUV was run at the water surface in water 

depths shallower than 6 ft and was allowed to dive to depths 

6 ft above the water–sediment interface when water depths 

were deep enough to prevent milfoil growth. During a mission on the second day of the survey, the AUV was snagged 

by milfoil while it was maintaining a height of 6 ft above the 

lake bottom. To avoid being snagged by milfoil in subsequent 

missions, the AUV was operated at the water surface in water 

depths shallower than 20 ft. At water depths greater than 

20 ft, the AUV was programmed to maintain a height of 15 ft 

above the lake bottom to ensure the AUV stayed above the 

milfoil. Milfoil growth was not observed during this survey 

in areas of the lake having water depths greater than 20 ft. At 

water depths greater than 20 ft, this mid-survey programming 

change allowed the vehicle to travel closer to the sediment–

water interface where groundwater interaction might take 

place.

Some of the AUV water-quality data required omission 

and careful interpretation because of inherently noisy sensors 

and sensor malfunction. Data collected by the chlorophyll 

and blue-green algae sensors are inherently noisy, particularly in turbid waters (Gons, 1999); therefore, the data were 

interpreted with caution. Both sensors were calibrated with a 

one-point calibration in deionized water (zero); therefore, values were not absolute concentrations but were relative to the 

calibration value. Turbidity data collected after July 12 were 

omitted because the sensor malfunctioned.

A series of post-processing steps were followed to correct the water-quality and depth data before data analysis. 

Post-processing corrections were made for AUV drift, depth 

adjustments for sensor offsets, and removal of outlying 

values from the data. AUV drift during dives generally was 

induced by compass errors and was identified by screening 

the vehicle track for jumps in position greater than 16.4 ft 

(5 m) in 1 second. Jumps generally were recorded when the 

vehicle surfaced and corrected its computed position on the 

basis of GPS data in its track log. Any identified drift was 

corrected by applying a linear correction between the dive 

point and the surface point assuming a constant heading and 

speed. After applying the drift correction, a depth correction 

was applied to the total water-column depth to account for 

the offset of the vertical beam from the water surface. After 

applying the corrections, the time-series data were plotted and 

screened manually to identify outliers and remove them from 

the data. Once all outliers were removed, time-series data 

for turbidity, chlorophyll, and blue-green algae were filtered 

using an iterative process to minimize noise in the data. The 

filter was a simple, moving average applied to the data with a 

user-defined window size that would minimize the noise yet 

maintain the true oscillations of the data. Temporal corrections to each of the water-quality properties or constituents 

were applied as needed to account for lags in the response 

time of the sensor. Such corrections commonly are applied in 

oceanography (for example, Johnson and others, 2007) and 

are used to ensure that measurements are coincident on the 

same parcel of water for every sample when response times 

vary between sensors.

Anomalies were computed for each of the water-quality 

characteristics, and corrected data were used to generate 

water-quality data files compatible with geographic information systems (GIS) for analysis. Median vertical profiles 

were calculated for each water-quality characteristic during 

each of the AUV surveys. Non-diving surveys computed the 

median surface-water characteristics. The median vertical 

profiles were computed by dividing the extent of the verticalprofile data into discrete depth intervals and computing 

the median value for each depth interval. Anomalies were 

computed by taking the difference between an observed 

value at a specific point and the median value for that sample 

depth. The anomalies were used to identify any observed 

data that were inconsistent with the median value for that 

depth in the water body being surveyed. Not only does this 

effectively eliminate the depth-dependence of the data, but it 

also collapses the data by allowing display of all the data on 

a two-dimensional plan-view figure with no need to extract 

and visualize data for different depth planes. Using this 

technique, any potential groundwater inflows that produce 

uncharacteristic water-quality signatures at a specific depth 

will be highlighted as an anomaly because the difference 

between the inflow water-quality value and the water-quality 

value for the remainder of the lake were plotted at that specific depth. For missions where all data were collected at the 

surface, the computed anomalies were simply the difference 

between the observed value at a point and the median value 

for the entire data.

Lake-Sediment Temperature Surveys

In situ temperature was measured in lake sediments 

along the shores of White Bear, Bald Eagle, and Goose Lakes 

(figs. 1 and 3). In situ temperature measurements of lake sediment are indicative of pore-water and sediment temperatures. 

Lake-sediment temperature measurements have been used in 

similar studies to identify potential groundwater-inflow areas 

where water-quality samples could be collected and seepage 

rates measured to further confirm and quantify the inflow of 

groundwater (Jones, 2006). Lake-sediment temperatures were 

measured along the shorelines because groundwater inflow 
Methods of Study 21

to lakes has been observed to decrease exponentially with 

distance from shore (Lee, 1977; Fellows and Brezonik, 1980; 

Erickson, 1981; Attanayake and Waller, 1988; Rosenberry, 

1990). Other studies report the decrease in groundwater inflow 

with distance from a lakeshore is not exponential because of 

heterogeneity of the sediment (Woessner and Sullivan, 1984; 

Krabbenhoft and Anderson, 1986), but it was beyond the 

scope of this study to collect sediment temperature data for 

entire lakes.

A handheld temperature probe was used to measure 

the temperatures. The probe consisted of a thermocouple at 

the end of a pointed 6-ft stainless-steel hollow tube connected to a handheld, digital display. The thermocouple 

probe was calibrated before the collection of temperature 

data using a thermally regulated water bath and a registered 

thermometer.

Temperature was measured from July 20 through 

August 29, 2011, when the difference between lake-water 

and groundwater temperatures was thought to be the greatest. At areas of groundwater inflow to the lake, the sediment 

temperatures are cooler than surface-water temperatures. 

At areas with either discharge from the lake to aquifers or 

little to no groundwater inflow, sediment temperatures are 

similar to surface-water temperatures. Surface-water temperatures were measured in the middle of the water column 

at approximately half-hour intervals. Sediment temperatures 

were measured every 100 to 300 ft along the shoreline. At 

each measurement location, the probe was pushed into the 

lake sediment by hand as deep as possible. The water-column 

depth to the sediment interface (lake-water depth), the depth 

of probe insertion into the sediment, and the GPS latitudelongitude coordinates were recorded at each location. Lakewater depths ranged from 0 to 2.0 ft at each measurement 

location, and insertion depths into the sediment ranged from 

0.5 to 4.5 ft, with most depths greater than 1.0 ft. At Shingobee Lake in northern Minnesota (Rosenberry and others, 

2000) and in three lakes of northeastern Minnesota (Jones, 

2006), areas of groundwater discharge could be mapped 

effectively by measuring temperature less than 1 in. beneath 

the lakebed along the shoreline. Temperature stabilization 

in the surface water and lake sediment took approximately 

30 seconds at each location.

Water-Quality Sample Collection, Handling, 

Analysis, and Quality Control

Physical and chemical water-quality characteristics were 

measured in 7 precipitation, 28 surface-water, 15 lake-sediment pore-water, and 16 groundwater samples to characterize 

and identify potential connections between different sources 

of water to White Bear Lake. All precipitation, surfacewater, pore-water, and groundwater samples were collected 

in 2010–11 following USGS protocols outlined in the USGS 

National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality 

Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated).

Sample Collection

Bulk precipitation and snowpack samples were collected for analysis of oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios and deuterium/protium ratios to determine a meteoric water line for 

the White Bear Lake area to be used in the analysis of ratios 

for groundwater and lake-water samples. Bulk precipitation 

samples were collected at a precipitation station on the east 

shore of White Bear Lake (USGS station 450334092574201) 

(fig. 3). The samples were collected in 4-L amber glass 

jars through plastic funnels during precipitation events on 

July 14, August 31, and October 12, 2011. Total precipitation 

amounts recorded at the nearest high-density observation site 

during these events were 0.20, 0.16, and 0.55 in., respectively (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a). The 

amber glass bottles used to collect the precipitation samples 

were deployed within 24 hours of the start of anticipated 

precipitation and were collected within 24 hours following the end of precipitation. Each precipitation sample was 

immediately transferred from the collection jar to a 60-mL 

clear glass bottle, which was then capped with a polyseal 

cap and wrapped in electrical tape. Snowpack samples 

were collected from four sites around White Bear Lake on 

March 14, 2011 (fig. 3). An open 2-in. diameter polycarbonate tube was pushed through the snowpack, and the collected 

snow was emptied into a 4-L plastic container. Several snow 

cores were composited at each site. Each plastic container 

was covered, and the snow sample in each container was 

melted for 24 hours at room temperature. After the sample 

had completely melted, the meltwater was transferred to a 

60-mL clear glass bottle that was then capped with a polyseal 

cap and wrapped in electrical tape.

Surface-water samples were collected from 11 lakes 

in the northeast TCMA to assess potential water-quality 

differences associated with water-level differences between 

the lakes. The lakes were Bald Eagle, Birch, Echo, Goose, 

Long, Lost, Mann, Pine Tree, Sunset, Turtle, and White Bear 

Lake (fig. 1). The surface-water samples were analyzed for 

physical properties, major constituents (anions and cations), 

oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios, and deuterium/protium ratios. 

The lakes were selected on the basis of their proximity to 

White Bear Lake, the availability of water-level data, or the 

occurrence of recently declining water levels. Samples were 

collected from the littoral zone of each lake, either by wading into the water or from an existing dock. Onsite waterquality measurements of surface water were made in situ by 

lowering a multiprobe meter into the middle two-thirds of 

the lake-water column. These measurements were specific 

conductance, pH, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen 

concentration; barometric pressure also was recorded. A 

peristaltic pump was used to draw water near the center of 

the water column through a 0.19-in. inside-diameter C-Flex®

tubing.

Samples of lake-sediment pore water were collected for 

analysis of physical properties, major constituents (cations 

and anions), oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, and deuterium/
22 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

protium ratio to characterize groundwater and lake-water 

interactions and identify potential areas where groundwater 

flows into White Bear Lake. Pore-water sampling sites were 

selected to confirm groundwater inflow and lake-water discharge to aquifers at areas identified during the lake-sediment 

temperature survey. Onsite water-quality of pore water was 

measured using a multiprobe meter and a flow-through cell 

receiving water pumped from lake sediments. A peristaltic 

pump was used to draw water from lake sediments through 

0.19-in. inside-diameter C-Flex® tubing connected to a minipiezometer screened in the lake sediments. Mini-piezometers 

or hydraulic potentiomanometers are portable drive probes 

that are used with manometers to measure head differences 

between pore waters in lake sediments and lake water and can 

be used to collect pore-water samples from lake sediments 

(Rosenberry and LaBaugh, 2008). The mini-piezometer consisted of two parts: (1) an inner 5-ft long stainless-steel tube 

connected to a 4-in. long screen with a drive point, and (2) an 

outer 4.5-ft long stainless-steel sheath. To collect a pore-water 

sample, the screened part of the inner tube was covered with 

the sheath, and the mini-piezometer was pushed by hand to 

between 0.5 and 4 ft into the lakebed. The outer sheath was 

then pulled up, exposing the screen to the lake sediments. 

Pore water was pumped slowly to minimize surface-water 

intrusion into the pore-water sample. The field water-quality 

properties of pH, temperature, specific conductance, and 

dissolved oxygen concentration were monitored for at least 

3 minutes before collecting a sample for laboratory chemical analyses and checked again following sample collection 

to document potential surface-water intrusion into the pore 

water.

Groundwater samples were collected from observation, municipal, and domestic wells for analysis of physical 

properties, major constituents, oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, 

and deuterium/protium ratio to identify potential surfacewater contribution to the wells. Samples from eight wells 

in proximity to White Bear Lake were analyzed for major 

constituents and stable isotopes: four screened in the glacial 

aquifer, two open to the St. Peter aquifer, and two open to 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Samples from an additional six wells open to the glacial, Prairie du Chien-Jordan, 

or Jordan aquifers were analyzed only for stable isotopes. 

Submersible pumps already in the wells were used to collect 

water samples from the domestic and municipal wells. A 

peristaltic pump was used to collect water samples from the 

observation wells when the depth to water below the measuring point was less than 25 ft. A submersible pump was used 

to collect water samples from the observation wells when the 

depth to water below the measuring point was greater than 

25 ft. Before collecting samples for laboratory analyses, at 

least three well volumes were pumped from the wells and 

field properties had stabilized according to the guidelines in 

the USGS National Field Manual (U.S. Geological Survey, 

variously dated).

Sample Handling and Analysis

Onsite water-quality characteristics (water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductance) were measured for all water samples (except precipitation samples) with a YSI 6820 water-quality multiprobe meter 

before the collection of samples for laboratory analyses. The 

specific conductance, pH, and dissolved oxygen probes on 

the multiprobe meter were calibrated on each of the sampling 

dates before sampling.

Water samples collected for analysis of anions, dissolved 

solids, and alkalinity were filtered during sampling through a 

0.45-μm pore-sized capsule filter and stored in 250-mL polyethylene bottles. Water samples collected for cation analyses 

were filtered during sampling through a 0.45-μm pore-sized 

capsule filter, preserved with sufficient nitric acid to maintain 

the pH at less than 2.0 standard units, and stored in 250-mL 

acid-rinsed, polyethylene bottles. Unfiltered, unpreserved water 

samples were collected in 250-mL polyethylene bottles for 

determining specific conductance and pH at the USGS National 

Water-Quality Laboratory (NWQL). All samples were chilled 

immediately following collection and shipped within 48 hours 

to the NWQL in Denver, Colorado. Cation and anion concentrations were determined at the NWQL according to methods 

described in Fishman (1993). Concentrations of alkalinity and 

bicarbonate were determined by USGS hydrologic technicians 

through inflection-point titrations performed within 24 hours 

after sampling (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated).

Unfiltered, unpreserved samples for determining oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium (hydrogen-2/hydrogen-1) ratios were collected into 60-mL clear glass bottles, 

which were capped with polyseal caps, wrapped in electrical 

tape, and shipped to the USGS Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory in Reston, Virginia. Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/

protium ratios were determined according to the methods 

described by Révész and Coplen (2008). These isotopes are not 

measured directly because their concentrations are very low. 

The oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and hydrogen-2/hydrogen-1 ratios 

are expressed as values relative to the Vienna Standard Mean 

Ocean Water-Standard Light Antarctic Precipitation (SLAP) 

isotope scales (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 2008). 

The zero of the hydrogen-2 and oxygen-18 scales are normalized to the SLAP values of -428 per mil and -55.5 per mil, 

respectively (Gonfiantini, 1978). Results are reported in units 

of per mil (parts per thousand). The ratios of the isotopes of 

oxygen and hydrogen present in water were used to distinguish 

sources of water when the degree of isotopic fractionation of 

the water is different for different sources of water. Hydrologic 

studies have used isotopic ratios in waters to identify groundwater discharge to lakes and sources of waters to wells (Dincer, 

1968; Sacks, 2002; Jones, 2006; Rosenberry and LaBaugh, 

2008). These isotopes are useful because they are part of the 

water and not solutes dissolved in the water. If the isotopic 

compositions of different sources of water are distinct, simple 

mixing models can be used to identify sources of water.
Methods of Study 23

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control are high priorities for USGS laboratories. The USGS NWQL has a rigorous 

set of procedures for assuring and controlling the quality of 

received water samples and analytical results determined by 

the laboratory (Pirkey and Glodt, 1998). The USGS Reston 

Stable Isotope Laboratory has an internal quality-assurance 

policy and works directly with the USGS NWQL to assure the 

quality of their analytical results (Révész and Coplen, 2008). 

All the water-quality data and sampling-site information, 

including quality-assurance and control-sample information, 

are stored in the USGS National Water Information System 

(NWIS) database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2012). Field logbooks and electronic field sample forms were used to record 

onsite water-quality measurements, lake-sediment temperature 

data, and water-quality instrument calibration data.

Sequential replicate samples were collected following 

the collection of one groundwater sample, two pore-water 

samples, and three surface-water samples. A split replicate 

sample was collected for one precipitation sample. A sequential replicate sample is collected consecutively following the 

collection of the environmental sample to assess variability 

among samples resulting from sample collection, processing, 

shipping, and laboratory procedures performed at different 

sampling times (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated). 

A split replicate sample serves the same purpose but is split 

from the same water as the original sample rather than being 

collected following the original sample (U.S. Geological 

Survey, variously dated). By splitting the replicate sample 

from the same water as the environmental sample, the split 

replicate sample can be used to assess sample variability 

not associated with sample collection. An equipment blank 

sample also was collected by running inorganic blank water 

through the mini-piezometer. An equipment blank sample is 

collected to measure the magnitude of contaminant concentrations that might have been introduced into the sample as a 

result of using the sample-collection and processing equipment (U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated), which would 

include the mini-piezometer and sample tubing. The replicate 

and blank samples were collected following protocols outlined in the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection 

of Water-Quality Data (U.S. Geological Survey, variously 

dated).

Near-Shore Hydraulic-Head Differences, 

Seepage Rates, and Lake-Sediment 

Characteristics

Hydraulic-head differences and areas of cool pore water 

were determined with mini-piezometers and temperature 

probes along the near-shore perimeter of White Bear Lake. 

Seepage rates between surface-water and groundwater also 

were measured in the near-shore margins of the lake. Measurement of head differences and seepage rates provided further 

information to confirm the location of shallow groundwater 

inflow to the lake and lake-water discharge to the aquifers. A 

lake-sediment core was collected from a deeper part of White 

Bear Lake, and penetration-probe measurements were taken 

to characterize the thickness and type of lake sediments that 

may control the amount of lake water flowing to underlying 

aquifers.

Mini-Piezometer and Seepage-Meter Surveys

Mini-piezometers were used with manometers to measure 

hydraulic-head differences between pore waters in lake sediments and lake water (Rosenberry and LaBaugh, 2008). The 

mini-piezometers provide a comparison between the stage of 

a surface-water body, such as a lake, and the hydraulic head 

(water-level elevation) beneath the surface-water body at the 

depth to which the screen at the end of the probe is driven 

(Winter and others, 1988). The difference in hydraulic head 

divided by the distance between the screen and the sediment–

water interface is a measurement of the vertical hydraulic-head 

gradient. By itself, the device does not give a direct indication 

of seepage flux. However, hydraulic-head measurements from 

mini-piezometers can be used in combination with water-flux 

measurements from a seepage meter to yield information 

about the hydraulic conductivity of the sediments (Kelly and 

Murdoch, 2003; Zamora, 2006).

Hydraulic-head differences were measured at 19 of 

the 25 sites along the lakeshore of White Bear Lake from 

August 2 through September 1, 2011, where seepage-meter 

measurements were made (fig. 3). At some sites, multiple measurements of hydraulic-head differences were made. For each 

measurement, the probe was inserted by hand into the lake 

sediments as deep as possible and connected to a manometer. 

The manometer measured small hydraulic-head differences 

between the pore and lake water. Probe insertion depths into 

the lake sediments ranged from 0.5 to 4.4 ft; the deeper insertion depths were at locations with thick deposits of organic 

materials. Once the probe was pushed beneath the sediment–

water interface, the outer pipe of the mini-piezometer was 

retracted to expose the screen. A plastic tube was inserted into 

the top of the mini-piezometer to connect the probe to one end 

of a manometer. Another plastic tube connected to the manometer was placed in the lake. A vacuum pump was connected to 

the manometer to fill the tubing with water from the probe and 

the surface water. The tubing to the lake was clamped prior to 

the measurements to develop sufficient suction to pull water 

through the mini-piezometer screen and tubing. Air bubbles 

trapped in water in the tubing were removed by physically 

moving the tubing to aid in bubble release through buoyancy. 

Once the tubing was full of water and free of bubbles, air was 

bled into the top of the manometer through the tubing until the 

menisci are visible in the tubing on both sides of the manometer. The difference in height of the menisci was recorded. This 

difference equals the difference between hydraulic head in the 

sediment pore water at the screen and the stage of the lake.
24 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

The flux of water across the sediment–water interface 

was measured directly using half-barrel, seepage meters 

between May and September 2011 at 25 sites along the shore 

of White Bear Lake (fig. 3). Seepage meters are devices that 

isolate a small area of the bed of a surface-water body and 

measure the flow of water across that area (Rosenberry and 

LaBaugh, 2008). A half-barrel, seepage meter consists of 

a cut-off end of a 55-gal steel (or plastic) storage drum to 

which a plastic bag is attached to register the change in water 

volume over the time of bag attachment (Lee, 1977; Lee and 

Cherry, 1978). At each site, one to six seepage meters were 

submerged in the lake and placed in the sediment to contain 

the seepage that crosses that part of the sediment–water interface. A bag containing a known volume of water was attached 

to the submerged drum for a measured amount of time, after 

which the bag was removed and the volume of water contained in the bag was remeasured. The change in volume during the time the bag was attached to the drum represented the 

volumetric rate of flow through the part of the bed covered by 

the drum (volume per time). The volumetric rate of flow was 

divided by the approximately 2.7 square foot (ft2) area covered 

by the chamber to yield seepage as a flux velocity (distance 

per time). Flux velocity normalizes the area covered by the 

seepage meter and allows comparisons of results with other 

studies (and other sizes of seepage meters).

One to six seepage meters were installed at each of 

the 25 sites at White Bear Lake. Each meter made multiple 

measurements to obtain an average seepage flux rate for each 

site. A total of 87 seepage-meter measurements were made 

at 9 sites (fig. 3) from May 1 through 5, 2011. A total of 

198 seepage-meter measurements were made at 21 sites from 

August 2 through September 11, 2011, along the lakeshore 

of White Bear Lake (site numbers 2, 6, 7–25; table 1–10; 

gray squares on fig. 3). A median flux was calculated for each 

site. At the 19 sites where seepage fluxes and hydraulic-head 

differences were measured, the values of vertical hydraulic 

conductivity were calculated by applying the following version of Darcy’s law:

 , (6)

where

Kv is the vertical hydraulic conductivity, in feet 

per day;

v is the seepage-meter median flux velocity, in 

feet per day;

H is the hydraulic-head difference, in feet; and

d is the mini-piezometer insertion depth, in feet.

Lake-Sediment Coring/Penetration Probe

A lake-sediment core was collected and a set of penetration-probe measurements was made by the University of 

Minnesota, National Lacustrine Core Facility (LacCore) on 

March 16, 2011, in the southeast part of White Bear Lake 

(fig. 3). The core was collected and measurements were made 

to characterize the type of sediments and estimate the maximum thickness of the organic sediments in a deep part of the 

lake. Commonly, seepage across the sediment-water boundary 

is limited at deeper depths because thicker accumulations of 

low-permeable, organic sediment are present (Rosenberry and 

others, 2000). The core was collected and penetration-probe 

measurements were made from the top of ice when the lake 

was frozen.

A bathymetric survey of White Bear Lake completed by 

the MDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

2012) indicated the lake-sediment core was collected near the 

deepest part of the lake where a steep slope rises toward the 

east shore (fig. 3). The water depth measured during coring 

from the bottom of the lake ice was 75.8 ft at the core location. 

The core was 12.4 ft long and was collected in sections using 

a Wright-modified Livingstone-type drive rod, piston corer 

(Wright, 1967); LacCore standard sampling procedures were 

followed (University of Minnesota, National Lacustrine Core 

Facility, 2012). Density, electrical resistivity, and magnetic 

susceptibility logs were performed on the core sections at LacCore. The core sections were then split lengthwise, imaged, 

and logged for high-resolution, magnetic susceptibility. A 

composite, depth scale was constructed for the core sections 

by referencing field notes on the core intervals and correlating 

similar lithologies from the images of the overlapping sections of the cores. The cores, images, and analytical data were 

archived in the core archives at LacCore.

A penetration probe was used at 10 sites along a 5,250-ft, 

northeast-southwest transect in the southeast part of White 

Bear Lake (fig. 3) to determine maximum penetration depths 

in the sediments. The penetration probe consisted of a set of 

connected metal rods that were pushed into the lake sediments at each site until the rods would no longer advance into 

the sediments. When the rods would no longer advance, the 

rods were removed, and the total length of penetration was 

determined from the water surface by subtracting the water 

depth from the total rod length inserted into the lake and lake 

sediments. The total length of rod penetration into the sediments was assumed to represent the maximum thickness of the 

organic sediments on the bottom of the lake. At sites where 

the water depth was greater than 42.7 ft, the rods were inserted 

into aluminum casing that was placed from the ice surface 

down to the lake-water–sediment interface to prevent the 

rods from flexing, thus allowing maximum penetration to be 

achieved.

Water Balance for March and August 2011

Monthly water balances for White Bear Lake for the 

months of March and August 2011 were used to estimate the 

amount of lake water discharging to glacial buried and bedrock aquifers from the lake for those months. These 2 months 

were selected for water-balance assessments because groundwater-level data were available from the two synoptic studies 

Kv = ÷v H 

( ) 

÷ d
Methods of Study 25

to estimate the amounts of groundwater inflow to the lake 

and lake water discharging to shallow aquifers from the lake. 

Monthly values were determined in acre-feet from hydrologic 

data collected for the following parameters for the water balance: (1) total precipitation falling directly on the lake (P), 

(2) total evaporation from the lake surface (E), (3) surfacewater runoff to the lake (SR), (4) groundwater inflow to the 

lake from glacial water-table aquifers (GWin), (5) lake-water 

discharge to the glacial water-table aquifer (LWout(shallow)), and 

(6) change in lake-water volume (∆LW) (fig. 6). The following 

water-balance equation (similar to the water-balance equation 

previously defined for White Bear Lake) was used to estimate 

the amount of lake water discharging to glacial buried and 

bedrock aquifers (LWout(deep)):

 (7)

 ,

where

ER is the water-balance uncertainties.

Water-balance uncertainties associated with data collection and estimation typically can vary widely (Winter, 1981; 

Winter and Rosenberry, 2009) depending on the parameter 

and the methods used to collect the data. For this study, the 

combined uncertainty for all terms affecting the water balance was assumed to be plus or minus (±) 10 percent. Monthly 

values in acre-feet were converted to values in inches over the 

lake area by dividing the values in acre-feet by a lake area of 

2,401 acres (Rice Creek Watershed District, 2011) and multiplying by 12.

Surface-runoff and evaporation values were only determined for the monthly water balance for August 2011 for 

White Bear Lake. The lake was frozen for the entire month of 

March 2011; therefore, these variables were assumed to not 

contribute or remove water from the lake. Monthly precipitation for March and August 2011 was determined by summing 

the best daily precipitation data from the high-density network 

of observation sites closest to White Bear Lake. Monthly 

surface runoff for August 2011 was estimated by multiplying 

the direct surface-runoff contributing area to White Bear Lake 

by a ratio of surface-water runoff to precipitation contributed 

to the lake determined by MDNR (Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, 1998) and the monthly total precipitation. The direct surface-runoff contributing area for the lake 

was determined by the Rice Creek Watershed District to be 

3,087 acres (Matt Kocian, Rice Creek Watershed District, oral 

commun., March 24, 2012). An average ratio for 1981–1990 

of surface-water runoff to precipitation was determined from 

results of the MDNR Water Balance Model for White Bear 

Lake (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998). 

This average ratio was multiplied by the monthly precipitation and the direct surface-runoff contributing area to produce 

an estimate for the monthly surface runoff for August 2011. 

Monthly evaporation for August 2011 was estimated from 

daily evaporation data collected from the nearest long-term, 

class A evaporation pan located approximately 12 mi southwest of White Bear Lake (Minnesota Climatology Working 

Group, 2011b). The daily evaporation data were totaled for 

the month and multiplied by an evaporation-pan coefficient of 

0.75 to produce a monthly estimate of evaporation from the 

lake. Class A evaporation-pan coefficients typically range from 

0.65 to 0.85 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996).

Monthly changes in lake-water volume were estimated 

for March and August 2011 from water-level data for White 

Bear Lake obtained from the MDNR (Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, 2012). Monthly changes in water level 

were determined by estimating water levels on the first and 

last day of the months. These estimated water levels were 

compared to the curve of the relation between lake-water volume and lake-water elevation determined by MDNR for White 

Bear Lake (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

1998) to estimate the lake-water volume on the first and last 

day of March and August 2011. Changes in lake-water volume 

were estimated by subtracting the volume on the last day from 

the volume on the first day for the 2 months.

Groundwater inflow to the lake from glacial watertable aquifers was determined for the east and south shores, 

and lake-water discharge to the glacial water-table aquifer 

was determined for the west and north shores of White Bear 

Lake for March and August 2011. Darcy’s law was applied 

to determine groundwater inflow to the lake from glacial 

water-table aquifers (equation 8) and lake-water discharge to 

glacial water-table aquifers (equation 9) using the following 

equations:

 , (8)

 , (9)

where

K is the hydraulic conductivity of the 

Quaternary sediments,

Ain is the cross-sectional area to groundwater 

inflow from the glacial water-table aquifer 

to the lake, 

Aout is the cross-sectional area to lake-water 

discharge to the glacial water-table aquifer, 

and

dh/dl is the hydraulic gradient for the glacial watertable aquifer at the lake.

An average hydraulic conductivity value for Quaternary 

sediment for the White Bear Lake area was determined from 

hydraulic conductivity values in the Metro Model 2, a groundwater flow model for the TCMA (Metropolitan Council, 2012) 

and was used to determine groundwater inflow to the lake and 

lake-water discharge to the glacial water-table aquifer. The 

cross-sectional area of groundwater inflow was estimated by 

multiplying the length of lakeshore where groundwater flows 

from the glacial water-table aquifer to the lake by the average thickness of the glacial water-table aquifer. Similarly, the 

LW P LW SR GW E

LW ER

out deep in

out shallow

( )

( )

= −∆ + + −

− ±

GW KA dh

dl in

in = −

LW KA dh

dl out shallow

out

( ) = −
26 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Undifferentiated Glacial Sediments

St. Peter Sandstone

Prairie du Chien Group

Jordan Sandstone

SR

E 

P

LWout(deep)

GWin

LWout(shallow)

∆LW

EXPLANATION

∆LW

P

SR

GWin

E

LWout(shallow)

LWout(deep)

Change in lake-water volume

Direct precipitation to lake

Surface runoff to lake

Groundwater inflow to lake

from water-table aquifers 

Evaporation from lake

Lake-water discharge to

water-table aquifers 

Lake-water discharge to buried

glacial and bedrock aquifers 

Water inflow to the lake

Water discharge from the lake

General schematic of geology based Swanson and Meyer, 1990, 

Meyer and Swanson, 1992

900

850

800

750

700

650

600

Elevation, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Figure 6. Schematic showing water-balance components for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota.
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 27

cross-sectional area of lake-water discharge to aquifers was 

estimated by multiplying the length of lakeshore where lake 

water discharges to the glacial water-table aquifer by the average thickness of the glacial water-table aquifer. Potentiometric 

contours for the glacial water-table aquifer from the March/

April and August 2011 groundwater synoptic studies were 

compared to the lake level during the synoptic and the existing 

lakeshore to determine the length of lakeshore where groundwater flow from the glacial water-table aquifer entered the lake 

and where lake water flowed to the glacial water-table aquifer. 

The average thickness of the glacial water-table aquifer (24 ft) 

was determined from geologic logs for wells near White 

Bear Lake. The hydraulic gradient for the glacial aquifer was 

determined at 15 locations along the east shore of the lake and 

13 locations along the south shore of the lake where groundwater flows into the lake and 8 locations along the west and 

north shore of the lake where lake water flows to the glacial 

water-table aquifer. These values were used to determine 

average hydraulic gradients for east, south, and west/north 

shores. The average hydraulic gradients were used to estimate 

groundwater inflows to the lake on the east and south shores 

and lake-water discharges to the glacial water-table aquifer on 

the west/north shore.

Groundwater and Surface-Water 

Interactions

Analysis of existing long-term lake-level, precipitation, 

evaporation, groundwater-level, and groundwater-withdrawal 

data from 1978 to 2011 indicated below normal precipitation 

could not fully explain the lake-level decline in White Bear 

Lake from 2003 through 2011. Synoptic, static groundwaterlevel, and lake-level measurements collected in March/April 

and August 2011 indicated groundwater was potentially 

flowing into White Bear Lake from glacial aquifers from the 

northeast and south, and lake water was potentially discharging from White Bear Lake to glacial aquifers to the northwest. 

Water-quality analyses of pore-water samples in nearshore 

lake sediments and well-water samples, seepage-meter 

measurements, and mini-piezometer hydraulic-head measurements also indicated groundwater was potentially flowing into 

White Bear Lake from glacial aquifers. Static groundwaterlevel measurements in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

indicated groundwater in the aquifer does not flow into 

White Bear Lake, but rather lake water likely discharges into 

the aquifer from the lake. Stable isotope analyses of water 

samples collected from wells, precipitation, and water from 

White Bear Lake indicate some wells, completed in either 

glacial or the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers, downgradient from White Bear Lake were receiving surface water. The 

lake-core and penetration-probe measurements indicated the 

amount of organic material generally was low compared to 

other Minnesota lakes; most of the 12.4-ft core consisted of 

silts, sands, and gravels that likely slumped from shallower 

waters. The low amount of organic material and the presence 

of more permeable, slumped sands and gravels suggested the 

lakebed may be more permeable in the deep waters than found 

in many lakes in Minnesota. Water-balance analysis of White 

Bear Lake in March/April and August 2011 indicates potential 

discharges of 2.8 and 4.5 in. per month, respectively, over the 

area of the lake from the lake to the local aquifers.

Historical Changes in Lake Level and Volume 

of White Bear Lake and Their Relation to 

Precipitation

A series of regression analyses were done using historical data to determine the significance of different components 

of the water balance in explaining historical changes in the 

water level (and volume) of White Bear Lake. The annual 

changes in the water level and volume of White Bear Lake 

during the years 1978 through 2011 were highly correlated 

[p-values less than (<) 0.0001] with annual precipitation totals 

measured near the lake (table 4, models 1 and 2), indicating 

annual fluctuations in lake level (and volume) were highly 

dependent on local, recent precipitation. Larger amounts of 

precipitation resulted in larger increases in lake level (and 

volume) on an annual basis (table 4). Local precipitation input 

can be an important mechanism in changing the lake level of 

closed-basin lakes like White Bear Lake (Almendinger, 1990). 

In the water balance (eq. 1), annual changes in lake level were 

explained more by the total annual precipitation than by other 

variables. Surface-water outflow (SO) and lake-surface evaporation (E) were not significant explanatory variables [p-values 

greater than (>) 0.05] when included as separate explanatory 

variables along with precipitation in a multiple linear regression model to explain annual volume change (model in the 

form of equation 5).

Cumulative lake-level change, precipitation, and evaporation from the lake surface over two example 8-year periods, 

1980–1987 and 2003–10, indicate factor(s) other than abnormally dry weather contributed to the most recent lake-level 

decline. The total precipitation that fell in the White Bear Lake 

area from 2003 through 2010 was 257.2 in., nearly identical to the total precipitation of 260.8 in. that fell during same 

length of time between 1980 and 1987 (table 5). Despite this 

similarity in total precipitation, lake levels decreased by 5.30 

ft from 2003 through 2010 and decreased by only 0.29 ft from 

1980 through 1987. Cumulative evaporation totals during 

1980–1987 were greater than in 2003–11 (table 5) and do not 

explain the difference in lake-level change. The region did not 

undergo a severe drought between 2003 and 2011 (Minnesota 

Climatology Working Group, 2012b), but the magnitude of the 

lake-level decline over this period was similar to the decline 

during the 1987–90 drought (fig. 2; table 5).

ANCOVA (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002) was used to test the 

hypothesis that the relation between the change in water level 

(and volume) of White Bear Lake and precipitation is significantly different between two periods: (1) 1978–2002, and 
28 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

(2) 2003–11. The fitted b2 coefficient of the time-period binary 

variable (Tp), (eqs. 3 and 4) represents the shift or difference 

between the two periods. For years between 1978 and 2002, 

the time-period binary variable is 0, and equation 3, for example, simplifies to ΔLWi = b0 + (b1 ×Pi

) + εi. For years between 

2003 and 2011, the binary variable is 1, and equation 3 simplifies to ΔLWi = (b0 + b2

) + (b1 ×Pi) + εi. The b1 coefficient within 

each ANCOVA model was the same for both periods (tables 

1–1 and 1–2 in the appendix).

ANCOVA models constructed with annual data support 

the likelihood that factor(s) other than abnormally dry weather 

contributed to the 2003–11 decline in the lake level. The linear 

relation between the annual change in the lake level at White 

Bear Lake and annual precipitation is shifted significantly 

lower (0.5 ft) for the period 2003–11 compared to 1978–2002 

(fig. 7A; table 1–1, model 1, b2

 coefficient). The -0.5-ft shift 

corresponds to an average greater loss of 490 Mgal/yr over 

the period 2003–11 compared to 1978– 2002 at a given annual 

precipitation amount (table 1–2, model 1, b2 coefficient).

The change in the linear relation between lake level and 

precipitation indicates the average annual amount of precipitation required to maintain the lake level has increased from 

33 in. per year during 1978–2002 to 37 in. per year during 

2003–11 (fig. 7A). This change is demonstrated by the intersection of the ANCOVA model line for each period with the zero 

line in figure 7A. The zero line represents no net change in lake 

level between January 1 and December 31 of a calendar year.

The average increased loss of 490 Mgal/yr from White 

Bear Lake during 2003–11 (table 1–2, model 1, b2 coefficient) 

indicates other variables in the lake water balance (eq. 1) 

including surface runoff into the lake (SR), evaporation from 

the lake surface (E), surface outflow from the lake (SO), 

and groundwater exchange (GWex) have changed relative to 

precipitation. Since 2003, precipitation amounts that historically maintained the lake level have not been sufficient to 

maintain the lake at a stable level. Many explanations are 

possible for this shift, including (1) alterations to the surface 

watershed that may have reduced the surface runoff (SR) input 

to the lake, (2) increases in lake-surface evaporation relative 

to precipitation, and (3) increases in groundwater withdrawals 

that may have reduced the amount of groundwater inflow to 

the lake or increased the amount of lake-water discharge to the 

aquifers, causing a net reduction in the groundwater exchange 

(GWex).

Table 4. Summaries of linear regression models (significant at alpha = 0.05) between annual changes in lake level or volume and 

precipitation for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 1978–2011.

[R2, coefficient of determination; <, less than]

Model1

number Lake-change source Continuous explanatory variable

Model 

adjusted 

R2

Model 

residual 

standard 

error

Coefficient Value Standard 

error p-value

1

ΔLW; annual level 

change 1978–2011, 

feet

P; High-density precipitation, nearest, best 

available2

0.69 0.478

b0 -4.29 0.49 <0.0001

b1 0.13 0.01 <0.0001

2

ΔLW; annual volume 

change 1978–2011, 

millions of gallons

P; High-density precipitation, nearest, best 

available2

0.48 617

b0 -3090. 551. <0.0001

b1 1.35 0.24 <0.0001

1

Model form: ΔLW = b0 +(b1 × P) + εi; where ΔLW = annual change in lake level or lake volume between January 1 and December 31 of a calendar year; 

P = precipitation, in inches; bi = estimated coefficients where b0 = intercept and b1 = slope; and εi = random error (residual), in units of lake change (feet or 

millions of gallons).

2

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a.

Table 5. Cumulative precipitation, evaporation, lake-level change, and groundwater withdrawals for three periods between 1980 and 

2010, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

Date range Years

Change in 

lake level 

(feet)

Precipitation 

(inches)

Evaporation 

(inches)

Precipitation 

minus evaporation (inches)

Withdrawals from Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

(billions of gallons)

January 1, 1980, to December 31, 1987 8 -0.29 260.8 230.0 30.8 18.8

January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1990 4 -4.81 99.5 130.0 -30.5 12.4

January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2010 8 -5.30 257.2 211.5 45.7 33.9
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 29

Year

C. Observed and model-predicted lake levels, 2003–11

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

918

920

922

924

926

Water level, in feet above Ramsey

County Datum of 19121

Observed lake level

Predicted lake level on January 1 of each year,

2003–11, using reported annual high-capacity well

withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer

Predicted lake level on January 1 of each year,

2003–11, using the average annual 1978–2002

high-capacity well withdrawals from the

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer

Lake outflow (924.3 feet above Ramsey County

Datum of 1912)

Observed annual lake-level changes, 1978–2002 

Observed annual lake-level changes, 2003–11

B. Relation between observed annual (January through December) lake-level changes and 

precipitation minus lake-surface evaporation and ANCOVA model fit, 1978–2011

- 2 5 - 2 0 - 1 5 - 1 0 - 5 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5

Precipitation minus evaporation, in inches

-2

-1

0

1

2

Lake-level change plus 

surface-water outflow, in feet 

b2 b2 0.7 foot (coefficient indicating the intercept difference

between periods)

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Annual precipitation, in inches

-2

-1

0

1

2

Annual lake-level change, in feet

b2 = 0.5 foot (coefficient indicating the intercept difference

between periods)

ANCOVA model fit, 1978–2002

ANCOVA model fit, 2003–11

ANCOVA model fit, 1978–2002

ANCOVA model fit, 2003–11

A. Relation between observed annual (January through December) lake-level changes and 

precipitation and model fit of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), 1978–2011 

Observed annual lake-level changes, 1978–2002 

Observed annual lake-level changes, 2003–2010

b2

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

=

1 Ramsey County 1912 datum is 0.46 foot

lower than NAVD 88.

Figure 7. Analysis of lake-level and precipitation data for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota. A, Relation between observed annual (January through December) lake-level changes and precipitation 

and model fit of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), 1978–2011; B, Relation between observed annual (January through 

December) lake-level changes and precipitation minus lake-surface evaporation and ANCOVA model fit, 1978–2011; and 

C, Observed and model-predicted lake levels, 2003–11.
30 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Surface outflow (SO) and evaporation (E) did not explain 

the increase in volume loss from the lake during 2003–11. 

This is supported by the significance of the b2 coefficient 

(p-value = 0.0008) in an ANCOVA model containing SO

and E (eq. 4, fig. 7B, table 1–2, model 2). An average of 

690 Mgal/yr more was lost from White Bear Lake during 

the 2003–11 period compared to 1978–2002 with the same 

amount of precipitation in excess of lake-surface evaporation 

(P – E) (fig. 7B; table 1–2, model 2, b2 coefficient). Evaporative losses from the lake surface, estimated by applying a 

coefficient to measurements of evaporation from the nearest class A pan for the period 2003–11 were not consistently 

greater than the period 1978–2002 (fig. 2). If evaporative 

losses had increased relative to precipitation for the period 

2003–11, the annual P – E values would be more negative 

and shifted to the left in figure 7B, and the difference between 

the periods (b2 coefficient) would be small. The volume 

difference between the periods, 690 Mgal/yr, corresponds 

to an average lake-level decline of 0.7 ft (fig. 7B; table 1–1, 

model 2, b2 coefficient) that is not explained by precipitation 

or evaporation.

The increased annual lake-level decline and volume 

loss from White Bear Lake is concentrated in the spring and 

summer. During the period 2003–11, an average of 250 Mgal 

more water was lost each spring than during the period 

1978–2002, even though annual precipitation in excess of 

lake-surface evaporation (P – E) was similar during both periods (table 1–2, model 3, b2

 coefficient). Similarly, during the 

period 2003–11, an average of 340 Mgal more water was lost 

each summer than during the period 1978–2002 (table 1–2, 

model 4, b2 coefficient). On average, from 1978 through 2011, 

the White Bear Lake region received the most precipitation 

during the summer (13.8 in.), followed by spring (8.7 in.), fall 

(7.9 in.), and winter (3.0 in.), which is typical for the region as 

a whole (Baker and Kuehnast, 1978).

Factors Affecting Water-Level Changes

Factors affecting water-level changes were evaluated 

using changes in hydraulic heads and relations between 

water levels and various water-balance components. Relations between groundwater levels and lake levels, between 

groundwater withdrawals and water levels, and between 

other water-balance components and water levels are 

described.

Relations Between Groundwater Levels and 

Lake Levels

Groundwater and lake levels in the White Bear Lake 

area indicate the lake level in White Bear Lake is strongly 

associated with the groundwater level in the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 1998). Any factor affecting groundwater levels 

in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer near White Bear Lake 

will likely affect the lake level in White Bear Lake. The average annual hydraulic-head difference between White Bear 

Lake and well 551564 (fig. 1; completed in Prairie du Chien 

Group) is 15.3 ft for the period of water-level record for 

that well (1995 through 2011) (figs. 1 and 8). The positive 

hydraulic-head difference of 15.3 ft indicates the potential 

for water to discharge from White Bear Lake to the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer.

Groundwater levels in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer have been responsive to precipitation extremes and groundwater withdrawals and have declined since 2003. Groundwater levels in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer declined 

substantially during the 1987–89 drought, as did the water 

level in White Bear Lake (fig. 8). From 1990 through 1995, 

water levels in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer recovered 

more quickly than the water levels in White Bear Lake and 

the glacial aquifers (fig. 8, well 244359). In 2002, the region 

received 45.9 in. of precipitation, causing water levels in 

White Bear Lake and most observation wells completed in 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer to recover to 1995 levels 

(fig. 8). In most of the groundwater hydrographs for wells in 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan and glacial aquifers, the highest 

water level before the present downward trend was recorded 

in 2003 (fig. 8). Short periods of rising water levels have been 

observed since 2003, but in general, the water levels in White 

Bear Lake, the glacial aquifers, and the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer have declined.

The hydraulic heads in Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

are highest northeast of White Bear Lake and declined the 

most in that area between 1995 and 2010 despite very wet 

conditions (fig. 2B). Groundwater levels in observation 

well 551565 declined by 15.3 ft between October 1995 and 

October 2010 (fig. 8). This observation well is approximately 5 mi to the northeast of White Bear Lake (fig. 1) 

and had the highest hydraulic head in the observation wells 

open to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the northeast 

TCMA.

Observation wells completed in the Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer near White Bear Lake with periods of record 

of more than 15 years show evidence of recently being 

affected by high-capacity groundwater withdrawals in the 

summer (fig. 8). Water levels observed in the summer have 

been lower relative to water levels in other seasons within 

each year from 2003 through 2010. This trend is apparent in 

several observation wells open to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer, including observation wells 124395, 208573, 551564, 

and 481807 (figs. 1 and 8). For each year since 1990, the lowest groundwater levels in these wells typically were observed 

during June, July, or August. A repeating pattern of summer 

drawdown was rarely observed before 1990 in the wells 

with long-term records (fig. 8, wells 124395 and 208573). 

The nearest high-capacity wells extracting water from the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in relation to the observation 

wells are 1.8 mi for observation well 124395, 0.8 mi for well 

208573, 0.3 mi for well 551564, and 0.5 mi for well 481807 

(fig. 3).
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 31

Water level, in feet above NAVD 881

880

900

940

920

960

1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

124395

481807

551564 (PDC-2)

551575 (GLA-4)

551565

White Bear Lake 244359

208573

EXPLANATION

Lake Glacial aquifers Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer

1

Data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

2011d, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

2012; well locations shown on figures 1 and 3.

Figure 8. Water-level elevations for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 

and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources observation wells open to either the glacial aquifers or the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, 1980–2011.

Hydraulic-head differences between White Bear Lake and 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer also have increased during 

the summer months. From 1995 through 2011, the average 

annual maximum hydraulic-head difference between White 

Bear Lake and well 551564 (Prairie du Chien Group, portion 

of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer) in the summer was 

17.6 ft; the average difference during non-summer months was 

14.9 ft. The increased hydraulic-head difference during the 

summer months potentially increases the amount of leakage of 

water from overlying aquifers and lakes, including White Bear 

Lake, to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Increased leakage 

from White Bear Lake potentially decreases the net groundwater exchange (GWex) for the lake during the summer compared 

to the other seasons.

Trends in Groundwater Withdrawals

Total annual groundwater withdrawals through highcapacity wells in the study area increased from a minimum 

of 2,607 Mgal in 1980 to a maximum of 6,053 Mgal in 

2007 (figs. 9A and 9B). For comparison, the average volume 

of White Bear Lake from 1980 to 2010 was 14,670 Mgal. 

Groundwater withdrawals by municipalities have accounted 

for an increasing percentage of high-capacity withdrawals. The percentage of total groundwater withdrawals by the 

northeast TCMA municipalities (Centerville, Columbus, 

Forest Lake, Hugo, Lino Lakes, Mahtomedi, North St. Paul, 

Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and White Bear Township) 

from the total high-capacity well withdrawals in the study 
32 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

area increased from 67 percent in 1980 to 86 percent in 2010. 

Annual groundwater withdrawals for non-municipal uses 

have not substantially increased since 1980 (fig. 9A). Annual 

groundwater withdrawals from high-capacity wells open to 

the glacial aquifers, St. Peter aquifer, and multiple aquifers 

showed no substantial increase since 1980 (fig. 9B).

The increase in municipal groundwater withdrawals was 

associated with a higher demand from a growing population in the northeast TCMA that used more water per person 

(table 6). From 1980 to 2010, the combined population total 

of the northeast TCMA municipalities nearly doubled (table 6; 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). During this same time, the annual 

per capita municipal groundwater withdrawals from all aquifers increased from 77 gal per person per day in 1980 to 92 gal 

per person per day in 2010. Since 1990, per capita municipal 

groundwater withdrawals increased much more in the summer 

than in the other seasons (table 6).

Most of the groundwater withdrawals in the study area 

were from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Annual groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

have more than doubled from 1980 through 2010, increasing from a minimum of 1,873 Mgal in 1980 to a maximum 

of 4,557 Mgal in 2007 (fig. 9B). From 1980 through 2010, 

83 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn within the study 

area was from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Municipal 

groundwater withdrawals account for 84 percent of the total 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan withdrawals from 1980 through 2010; 

the other 16 percent was withdrawn for other uses, such as 

industrial processing and irrigation of golf courses (fig. 9B).

Increases in groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer are correlated with time and dry weather 

(table 1–3 in the appendix, models 3–7). From 1980 through 

2010, annual groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer increased by an average of 82 Mgal/yr (table 1–3, 

model 3, b1 coefficient). Annual groundwater withdrawals from 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer also increased under dry conditions, averaging an increase of 25 Mgal (table 1–3, model 3, b2

coefficient) for every inch of precipitation less than the 1980–

2010 record high of 47.09 in., which occurred in 1991.

Groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer during the summer accounted for more of the 

annual increase in withdrawals than any other season (fig. 9C). 

From 1988 through 2010, groundwater withdrawals during 

the summer accounted for 39 percent of the total groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer; 

spring, fall, and winter withdrawals accounted for 22, 23, and 

17 percent of the total, respectively. From 1988 through 2010, 

groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer increased each year by an average of 37 Mgal in the 

summer, 17 Mgal in the fall, 13 Mgal in the spring, and 6 Mgal 

in the winter (table 1–3, models 4–7, b1 coefficients). In the 

TCMA, summer water demand averages 2.6 times the winter 

demand; most of the summer peak demand was for landscape 

irrigation (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2005).

Seasonal groundwater withdrawals increased as seasonal precipitation decreased, especially in the summer. 

Groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer during the summer increased by an average of 32 Mgal 

(table 1–3, model 5, b2 coefficient) for every inch of precipitation below the maximum 1988–2010 summer precipitation 

total of 24.39 in., which was in 1993. Groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer during the spring 

increased by an average of 12 Mgal (table 1–3, model 4, b2

coefficient) for every inch of precipitation below the maximum 1988–2010 spring precipitation total of 16.41 in., which 

was in 1991. Groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer during the fall tended to increase by an 

average of 12 Mgal (table 1–3, model 6, b2 coefficient) for 

every inch of precipitation below the maximum 1988–2010 

fall precipitation total of 14.27 in., which was in 1991.

Relations Between Water-Balance Components, 

Groundwater Withdrawals, and Water Levels

Annual groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer (WPDCJ,i) near White Bear Lake were 

used in place of time period (Tp) in equation 4 to explain the 

annual lake-volume changes according to the following multiple linear regression model:

 (10)

 ,

i = 1980,1981,...,2010

where

ΔLWi is the change in White Bear Lake volume 

during year i, in millions of gallons;

SOi is the cumulative surface-water outflow 

volume during year i, in millions of 

gallons;

b0 is the intercept, in millions of gallons;

b1 is the slope coefficient for the precipitation 

minus evaporation explanatory variable, 

in millions of gallons of lake change per 

million gallons of precipitation minus 

evaporation;

Pi is the cumulative precipitation volume on lake 

surface during year i, in millions of gallons;

Ei is the cumulative volume of pan-estimated 

evaporation from the lake surface during 

year i, in millions of gallons;

b2 is the slope coefficient for Prairie du ChienJordan groundwater withdrawals, in 

millions of gallons of lake change per 

million gallons of groundwater withdrawal;

WPDCJ,i is the volume of groundwater withdrawn from 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer within 

the study area during year i, in millions of 

gallons; and

εi is the random error (residual) for observation 

in year i, in millions of gallons.

( ) ∆ + = + × − +

× +

LW SO b b P E

b W

i i i i

PDCJ i i

0 1

2

[ ( )]

[ ], 
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 33

1980 1990 2000 2010

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

S pring (March, April, May)

S um m er (June, July, August)

Fall (September, October, November)

W inter (December, January, February)

C. Seasonal groundwater withdrawals by high-capacity wells from the Praire du Chien-Jordan aquifer 1988–2010 

Year

EXPLANATION

Withdrawals, in millions of gallons

1980 1990 2000 2010

0

2,000

4,000

6,000 Total

Glacial aquifers

M ultiple aquifers

P rairie du C hienJordan aquifer

S t. Peter aquifer

B. Annual groundwater withdrawals by high-capacity wells from Quaternary, St. Peter, Prairie du Chien-Jordan, 

 and multiple aquifers, 1980–2010

EXPLANATION

Withdrawals, in millions of gallons

Year

1980 1990 2000 2010

0

2,000

4,000

6,000 Total 

Municipal

O ther 

A. Annual groundwater withdrawals by high-capacity wells for municipal and other uses, 1980–2010 

EXPLANATION

Withdrawals, in millions of gallons

Year

Figure 9. Groundwater withdrawals by high-capacity wells near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota (data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011b). A, Annual withdrawals for municipal 

and other uses, 1980–2010; B, Annual withdrawals from glacial, St. Peter, Prairie du Chien-Jordan, and multiple aquifers, 

1980–2010; and C, Seasonal withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, 1988–2010.
34 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Equation 10 demonstrates that two variables, annual 

precipitation minus evaporation (Pi - Ei) and annual withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer (WPDCJ,i), were 

important for explaining annual changes in the lake volume 

(including surface outflow) for 1980–2010 (eq. 10; table 1–3, 

model 1). The coefficients of these explanatory variables were 

highly significant in equation 10 with p-values of <0.0001 and 

0.0035, (table 1–3, model 1, b1 and b2 coefficients). Equation 10 explained more variability in the annual changes in 

lake level than a model only containing the precipitation 

minus evaporation variable (Pi - Ei); the addition of groundwater withdrawn from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

(WPDCJ,i) improved the model R2 from 0.64 to 0.72.

Groundwater withdrawals at near-average precipitation 

can explain the increased volume loss from White Bear Lake 

during 2003–10. The previously discussed ANCOVA models 

identified a significantly greater volume loss from White Bear 

Lake during 2003–11 compared to 1978–2002 (tables 1–1 

and 1–2). These models did not identify a reasonable cause 

for that difference, just that a difference existed. Equation 10 

identified a significant correlation between annual changes in 

lake volume (including surface outflow) and two variables: 

(1) precipitation minus evaporation (Pi - Ei) and (2) withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer (WPDCJ,i). The time 

period variable (Tp) was not significant (p-value = 0.10) when 

added to equation 10 as an explanatory variable. Furthermore, 

an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the sequential addition 

of explanatory variables indicates that time period (TP) does 

not significantly improve the model that already includes the 

(P – E) and WPDCJ variables (table 1–4 in the appendix). These 

statistical tests indicate withdrawals from the Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer can explain the increased volume loss from 

White Bear Lake during 2003–10.

The significance of annual groundwater withdrawals 

from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer (near White Bear 

Lake) in explaining annual changes in lake level agrees 

with the following previously discussed observations: (1) a 

strong association exists between the water levels in White 

Bear Lake and the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer (fig. 8), 

(2) lower groundwater elevations were measured in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer during the summers since 2003 

(fig. 8), and (3) groundwater withdrawals have increased 

from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer from 1980 through 

2010 (fig. 9). Groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer during 2003–10 were the highest ever 

recorded (fig 9). The withdrawals, coupled with near-average 

precipitation, during 2003–10 could have caused the lowering 

of the potentiometric surface of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer over that period and the lowering of White Bear Lake. 

In equation 10, the effect of the groundwater withdrawals on 

the lake level is realized through a more negative groundwater 

exchange (GWex) in the lake water balance (eq. 1).

The coefficients from a lake-level regression model 

similar to equation 10 were used to predict annual lake-level 

changes plus surface outflow (in feet of lake level) for the 

period beginning January 1, 2002, through January 1, 2011 

(table 1–3, model 2, fig. 7C). The following equation utilized 

the coefficients estimated in model 2 (table 1–3) to predict the 

water level in White Bear Lake on January 1 of each year from 

2003 through 2011:

 (11)

where

 is the predicted lake level, including surface 

outflow, on January 1st of calendar year 

i+1, in feet;

L2002 is the interpolated lake level of 923.59 ft 

above Ramsey County 1912 datum, lakelevel observations were made December 

20, 2001, and on January 11, 2002;

i is the calendar years since 2002 (i = 0 in 

2002, i = 1 in 2003 ..., i = 9 in 2011), 

dimensionless;

Pi is the cumulative precipitation depth on lake 

surface during year i, in inches;

Ei is the cumulative depth of pan-estimated 

evaporation from the lake surface during 

year i, in inches;

WPDCJ,i is the volume of groundwater withdrawn from 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer within 

the study area during year i, in millions of 

gallons; and

SOi is the cumulative depth of surface-water 

outflow from the lake during year i, in feet 

of lake level.

Equation 11 predicted the amount of precipitation 

in excess of evaporation was not sufficient to increase 

the lake level for 6 of the 9 years between January 1, 

2002, and January 1, 2011, at reported groundwater withdrawal volumes from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. 

Table 6. Total annual and seasonal municipal groundwater 

withdrawals in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 for the municipalities of 

Centerville, Columbus, Forest Lake, Hugo, Lino Lakes, Mahtomedi, 

North St. Paul, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, and White Bear 

Township, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

[--, no data]

Year Population1 Annual Spring Summer Fall Winter

Per capita withdrawals, in gallons per day2

1980 64,317 77 -- -- -- --

1990 85,640 85 78 113 81 68

2000 105,348 98 86 141 96 71

2010 125,813 92 81 141 85 61

1

From U.S. Census Bureau, 2012.

2

From Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011b.

ˆ . ( ) . ( )

.

L i P E

W

i

i

n

i i

i

n

PDC

+

=

−

=

= + + + − −

×

∑

∑

1 2002

0

4

0

0 85 1 0 099

4 3 10

L 

J i

i

n

i , − SO

=

∑0

Lˆ

i+1
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 35

Equation 11 predicted a cumulative change in lake level 

of -2.94 ft between January 1, 2002, and January 1, 2011. 

When the average annual groundwater withdrawal volume 

of 2,982 Mgal for the period 1980–2002 was used in equation 11 in place of the reported groundwater withdrawals, the 

predicted cumulative change in lake level was 1.65 ft over the 

same period. The difference between these two predictions 

in cumulative lake-level change (-2.94 and 1.65 ft) is 4.59 ft, 

which corresponds to about 0.5 ft of lake-level loss per year 

explained by groundwater withdrawals above the 1980–2002 

annual average (fig. 7C).

The surface runoff (SO) term was not explicitly tested 

separate from the GWex term in this regression model because 

(1) no known historical surface-runoff measurements were 

collected between 1980 and 2010 to quantify the amount of 

surface runoff entering the lake, and (2) previous studies indicated surface runoff to White Bear Lake is a minor component 

to the overall water budget of the lake. Using a lake water-balance model, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

(1998) determined surface runoff contributed 16 percent of 

the total average inflow of water to the lake between 1981 and 

1990. This total average inflow was equal to the sum of the 

average annual direct precipitation and surface runoff to the 

lake and did not include the amount of groundwater entering 

the lake. The watershed area for White Bear Lake includes 

many closed basins that do not contribute surface runoff 

directly to White Bear Lake. The contributing area for surface 

runoff for White Bear Lake was estimated to be 3,087 acres 

(Matt Kocian, Rice Creek Watershed District, oral commun., 

March 24, 2012), which represents approximately 66 percent 

of the entire watershed area for White Bear Lake.

The regression model constructed with annual lake-level 

change, precipitation minus evaporation, and groundwater 

extracted from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer provides a 

reasonable explanation of level changes in White Bear Lake, 

but it is not intended to be a predictive tool. Precipitation and 

groundwater withdrawals affect groundwater levels, which, in 

turn, affect the White Bear Lake levels. The model is a simple 

correlation between variables that have a reasonable basis 

for affecting lake levels, but it does not account for spatial 

and temporal differences in these parameters. Other models, 

such as a groundwater flow model derived from physical flow 

equations, would be needed to account for the spatial and 

temporal effects of groundwater extracted from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer on the lake level. The regression model 

assumes that the lake-level change each year is independent 

and considers all pumping wells equally within the study area, 

no matter the distance from the lake. High-capacity wells 

closer to the lake likely would affect the lake levels more than 

wells farther from the lake. The regression model also does 

not take into account the possible effects of broader regional 

withdrawals from beyond the study area that may affect the 

potentiometric surface in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

and subsequently the lake levels.

Groundwater inflow, surface-water runoff, evaporation, 

and other hydrologic variables in the water balance of the 

lake likely play a smaller role in the recent lake-level decline 

compared to groundwater withdrawals. Since 2003, groundwater levels in the glacial water-table and buried aquifers in 

the White Bear Lake area decreased more than 4 ft in MDNR 

observation wells south of the lake (Minnesota Department of 

Natural Resources, 2011d), potentially decreasing groundwater 

inflow to White Bear Lake. Because no synoptic groundwaterlevel and surface-water outflow data were available for 2003 

in the White Bear Lake area, it is difficult to estimate changes 

in total groundwater inflow rates to the lake from 2003 through 

2011. However, an estimate of the changes in total groundwater 

inflow rates to the lake from 2003 to 2011 was made on the 

basis of the following assumptions: (1) groundwater levels in 

the glacial water-table aquifer were 4 ft higher in 2003 than in 

2011, (2) a thickness of 4 ft of additional glacial material could 

contribute more groundwater to the lake in 2003 than in 2011, 

and (3) the lake maintained a water level equal to the lake outlet elevation of 924.3 ft (fig. 2). Making these assumptions and 

following the procedures for determining groundwater inflow 

rates to the lake described in the Water Balance for March 

and August 2011 section of this report, estimates of monthly 

groundwater inflow from the glacial water-table aquifer to 

the lake for March and August 2003 would be 2.4 and 2.3 in., 

respectively, over the area of White Bear Lake (2,401 acres, 

Rice Creek Watershed District, 2011). These 2003 monthly 

groundwater inflows would only account for 5 and 6 percent of 

additional water to the estimates of total monthly inflow to the 

lake for March and August 2011, respectively. These estimates 

are relatively small changes to the overall water balance of the 

lake.

Installation of rain gardens and other infiltration basins, 

and changes in stormwater/sewer discharge to White Bear 

Lake may have reduced the amount of surface-water runoff 

reaching the lake, but only to a minor extent. Only approximately 3 percent (85 acres) of the total surface-water runoff 

contributing area of White Bear Lake (3,087 acres) is affected 

by infiltration practices associated with rain gardens, infiltration basins, pervious pavement, and other infiltration methods 

(Matt Kocian, Rice Creek Watershed District, written commun., February 13, 2012). Water that enters rain gardens or 

infiltration basins leaves the gardens or basins either through 

evaporation, transpiration of plants, or seepage into local 

groundwater. Water seeping from rain gardens or infiltration 

basins into local groundwater within the groundwater watershed of White Bear Lake will flow toward and eventually enter 

the lake as groundwater inflow. Municipal storm-sewer maps 

for communities discharging stormwater to White Bear Lake 

indicate very few changes in the routing of discharge since 

1980.

Results from the ANCOVA model using data for annual 

and seasonal lake levels and precipitation minus evaporation indicated changes in evaporation from the lake surface 

could not alone account for the decline in the water level for 

White Bear Lake. Evaporation rates from the lake surface 

did vary seasonally and annually. Annual pan-evaporation 

rates at the St. Paul Campus Climatological Observatory from 
36 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

1980 to 2010 ranged from 23.7 to 38.6 in. (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011b). When these annual evaporation variations were included in the ANCOVA model using 

data for annual lake levels and annual precipitation minus 

evaporation, a significant difference existed in the relation 

from 2003 through 2011 compared with 1978 through 2002. 

This indicates changes in the annual precipitation and evaporation could not fully explain the annual lake-level changes.

Groundwater Flow and Regional Surface-Water 

and Groundwater-Level Changes in 2011

Groundwater levels of the glacial aquifers (water-table 

and buried), St. Peter aquifer, and Prairie du Chien-Jordan

aquifer and surface-water levels were determined through 

groundwater-level synoptic studies during two seasons, spring 

(March/April) and summer (August), in 2011 across a network 

of wells and lakes (table 2; fig. 5, tables 1–5, 1–6, 1–7, and 

1–8 in the appendix). Potentiometric contour maps for each 

of the four aquifers were constructed from these data. The 

potentiometric contours were used to indicate the direction 

of groundwater flow near White Bear Lake. The differences 

in water levels between March/April and August 2011 were 

calculated to determine differences in hydraulic gradients.

Glacial Aquifers

Potentiometric contours for the glacial water-table aquifer 

indicate groundwater tends to flow toward White Bear Lake 

from the south, east, and northeast, and groundwater flows to 

the northwest away from the lake on the north and northwest 

end of the lake toward Bald Eagle Lake (fig. 10). The potentiometric map for the glacial water-table aquifer for March/

April 2011 was constructed from water levels measured in 

13 wells and 66 lakes in March and April 2011 (tables 2, 1–5, 

and 1–7). The potentiometric map constructed using water levels in 13 wells and 68 lakes in August 2011 was similar to the 

March/April 2011 potentiometric map and is not shown. The 

highest water levels measured for both March/April (995.92 ft 

above NAVD 88) and August (996.26 ft above NAVD 88) 

were in Echo Lake approximately 2 mi south-southeast of 

White Bear Lake (fig. 10). The lowest water levels were in 

Kohlman Lake in March/April (859.12 ft above NAVD 88; 

fig. 10) and in Kohlman Lake and Keller Lake in August 

(858.48 ft above NAVD 88; fig. 10). Kohlman Lake and Keller 

Lake are connected by surface-water channels to Lake Gervais 

(fig. 1). The groundwater contributing area for White Bear 

Lake for the glacial water-table aquifer incorporates approximately 12.7 and 12.8 square miles (mi2

) for March/April 

and August 2011, respectively, around the lake. The highest 

hydraulic gradients in the glacial aquifer were between Echo 

Lake and White Bear Lake (fig. 10).

Small rises or declines (less than 2 ft) were observed in 

the groundwater levels for the water-table aquifer throughout most of the study area between March/April and August 

2011. The large amount of precipitation in July and early 

August 2011 may have reduced the amount of change in the 

groundwater levels. The largest increase in groundwater level 

(3.9 ft) between March/April and August 2011 was recorded in 

a well in the southern part of the study area; the largest decline 

in water level (1.2 ft) was recorded near East Vadnais Lake. 

The city of St. Paul draws a part of their municipal water supply from East Vadnais Lake, which, with high summer water 

demand, may explain the large water-level decline in the lake 

and surrounding water-table aquifer.

A potentiometric map for the glacial buried aquifer (not 

shown) was constructed from groundwater levels measured in 

46 and 51 wells in March/April and August 2011, respectively 

(table 2). All the potentiometric contours determined for this 

aquifer were only estimated contours because the hydrologic 

connection between the glacial water-table aquifer and glacial 

buried aquifer was not known through much of the study 

area. A comparison of potentiometric contours between the 

glacial water-table aquifer and glacial buried aquifer indicated 

groundwater levels generally were 10 to 25 ft higher in the 

water-table aquifer than in the buried aquifer. At the nested 

MDNR observation wells west of Goose Lake (fig. 1), the 

groundwater levels in the well screened in the water-table 

aquifer (observation well 227977, fig. 1) were 16.06 and 

17.42 ft higher than groundwater levels in the well screened in 

the buried aquifer (observation well 244359, fig. 1) in March/

April and August 2011, respectively. The highest groundwater 

levels in the glacial buried aquifer were measured in a well in 

the southern part of the study area near Silver Lake, approximately 3.5 mi south of White Bear Lake (fig. 1). In March/

April and August, water levels in this well were 971.75 and 

978.34 ft above NAVD 88, respectively. The lowest groundwater levels in the aquifer in March/April (839.36 ft above 

NAVD 88) and August (841.02 ft above NAVD 88) were in 

observation well 244345 in Maplewood, Minnesota in the 

southwestern part of the study area approximately 2 mi southeast of Keller Lake (fig. 1).

Groundwater in the glacial buried aquifer flows from east, 

southeast, and south toward White Bear Lake, and groundwater to the northwest flows away from the lake. The groundwater contributing area for White Bear Lake for the buried 

aquifer was smaller than the contributing area for the watertable aquifer, incorporating approximately 4.3 and 5.6 mi2

 for 

March/April and August 2011, respectively (contributing area 

for March/April 2011 shown in fig. 10). Accounting for the 

overlapped parts of the contributing areas between both glacial 

aquifers, the total groundwater contributing area to White Bear 

Lake from the glacial aquifers was approximately 13.0 and 

13.1 mi2 for March/April and August 2011, respectively.

Similar to the glacial water-table aquifer, only small 

rises or declines (less than 2 ft) were observed in the groundwater levels for the glacial buried aquifer throughout most 

of the study area between March/April and August 2011. 

Groundwater levels rose more than 2 ft in the buried aquifer south of White Bear Lake; groundwater levels declined 

west of White Bear Lake and in Circle Pines and Lino Lakes 
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 37

937

967

922

923

886

904

949

893

879

944

922

902

890

890

889

937

953

940

950

931

942

917

961

929

922

922

887 883

886

883

882

882

888

911

909

907

896

893

893

889

920

908 918

908

882

884

921

928

928 995

964

943

943

990

925

859

905

910

915

900

925

930

895

890

940

935

945

950

955

885

960

880

875

870

965

975

985

865

860

990

910

975

990

905

960

940

955

885

950

945

925

945

970

920

930

915

940

950

960

940

960

925

920

915

910

905

945

950

970

980

975

965

925

955

940

950

950

980

905

925

930

935

ANOKA COUNTY

RAMSEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Lake

Gervais

Kohlman

Lake

Keller

Lake

East

Vadnais

Lake

Echo

Lake

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 and 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

910

920

887

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

0 2 4MILES

92°50' 93°05' 93°00' 92°55'

45°15'

45°10'

45°05'

45°00'

White Bear 

Lake

Bald

Eagle

 Lake

Potentiometric contour—Shows altitude at which

water would have stood in tightly cased, 

nonpumping wells. Contour interval 5 feet. 

Datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Groundwater contributing area to 

White Bear Lake—Glacial 

water-table aquifer

Well—Well for which water level was 

available during March/April 2011. 

Number is water-level altitude, in 

feet above North American Vertical 

Datum of 1988

Lake—Number is water-level altitude 

for March/April 2011, in feet above 

North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Groundwater flow—Arrow indicates 

direction of ground-water flow 

Groundwater contributing area to White

Bear Lake—Buried glacial aquifer

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Potentiometric surface of the glacial water-table aquifer and lake levels in the northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, March/April 2011.
38 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

(fig. 1). The largest rise in groundwater level (6.59 ft) was in 

the well near Silver Lake that had the highest groundwater 

level. The largest decline in groundwater level (2.96 ft) was 

in a well 3.5 mi west of White Bear Lake.

St. Peter Aquifer

The potentiometric maps for the St. Peter aquifer were 

determined from groundwater levels measured in 50 and 

49 wells in March/April and August 2011, respectively 

(tables 2, 1–5, and 1–6). Groundwater levels in the St. Peter 

aquifer around White Bear Lake are lower than the surfacewater elevation for White Bear Lake, except for a small part 

of the eastern lakeshore near Mahtomedi, Minnesota (fig. 1). 

Potentiometric contours for the St. Peter aquifer (not shown) 

indicated groundwater in the aquifer near White Bear Lake 

flows from the northeast near Sunset, Round, and Long Lakes 

to the southwest toward Goose Lake (fig. 1). Groundwater 

levels indicate groundwater from the St. Peter aquifer may 

potentially enter White Bear Lake from a small area of the 

eastern side of the lake, and lake water may flow into the 

St. Peter aquifer under the rest of the lake where the aquifer is 

present. The highest groundwater levels in the St. Peter aquifer 

for March/April (946.52 ft above NAVD 88) and August 

(949.06 ft above NAVD 88) were in the northeast part of the 

study area near Long Lake about 4 mi northeast of White Bear 

Lake (fig. 1). The lowest groundwater levels in this aquifer 

for March/April (859.07 ft above NAVD 88) and August 

(860.32 ft above NAVD 88) were in a well in the southeast 

part of the study area adjacent to Kohlman Lake (fig. 1).

Small rises or declines (less than 2 ft) were observed 

in the groundwater levels for the St. Peter aquifer throughout most of the study area between March/April and August 

2011. Groundwater levels rose more than 2 ft southeast of 

White Bear Lake; none of the water levels measured in wells 

completed in the St. Peter aquifer for the synoptic studies had 

a water-level decline of 2 ft or more. A well near Centerville 

Lake (fig. 1), approximately 7 mi northwest of White Bear 

Lake, had the largest decline (1.3 ft) between March/April and 

August 2011. The largest rise in groundwater level (4.7 ft) was 

in a well near Long Lake about 1.5 mi southeast of the White 

Bear Lake (fig. 1).

Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer

The potentiometric maps for the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer were determined from groundwater levels measured in 

115 and 117 wells in March/April and August 2011, respectively (fig. 11; tables 2, 1–5, and 1–6). Water-level differences between the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer and White 

Bear Lake (elevation of 920 ft above NAVD 88 in March/

April 2011 as shown in figure 10) indicate groundwater from 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer likely does not flow into 

White Bear Lake, but flows in the aquifer beneath the lake. 

Lake water may potentially flow downward into the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer under the lake. The potentiometric 

map for the aquifer indicates groundwater levels in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer below White Bear Lake are approximately 0 to 19 ft lower than surface-water levels in the lake 

(fig. 11). Near White Bear Lake, groundwater in this aquifer 

flows toward the lake from the east and northeast and flows 

away from the lake south and southwest (fig. 11) but does not 

flow into the lake. The highest groundwater levels in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in March/April (952.38 ft above 

NAVD 88) and August (953.52 ft above NAVD 88) were in 

well 93 (fig. 5), about 7.5 mi northeast of White Bear Lake 

(fig. 11). From the areas with the highest groundwater levels, 

groundwater in the aquifer flows to the west, southwest, and 

southeast, with some flow going to the north and northeast 

where the aquifer ends (fig. 11). The lowest groundwater 

levels in this aquifer in March (832.68 ft above NAVD 88) 

and August (833.71 ft above NAVD 88) were in a municipal 

well in the southwestern part of the study area, approximately 

0.5 mi west of Lake Gervais (fig. 11).

Groundwater levels between March/April and August 

2011 declined more than 10 ft in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer south of White Bear Lake and to the north in Hugo, 

Minnesota (fig. 12). Summer declines in groundwater levels 

in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer are common because 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer is the most heavily used 

aquifer in the White Bear Lake area and the TCMA, especially 

in summer. The largest decline in groundwater level (11.8 ft) 

was in a municipal well about 2 mi south of White Bear Lake 

(fig. 12). Groundwater levels rose as much as 3.1 ft between 

March/April and August 2011 to the north, northeast, east, 

and southeast of White Bear Lake (fig. 12). The largest rise 

in groundwater level (3.9 ft) was in a well about 1 mi south 

of White Bear Lake in the city of Pine Springs, Minnesota 

(fig. 12).

Precipitation Effects on 2011 Groundwater Levels

Higher than normal precipitation in July in the TCMA 

likely resulted in less of a decline in groundwater levels 

recorded between the synoptic studies in March/April and 

August 2011 than generally would be expected. Monthly total 

precipitation for a high-density precipitation station in Vadnais 

Heights, Minnesota (station no. 218477, fig. 1), approximately 

4.3 miles west of White Bear Lake, for July 2011 was 8.17 in. 

The 30-year normal (1981–2010) monthly precipitation for 

the same precipitation station for July was 4.4 in. (National 

Climatic Data Center, 2013).

Groundwater levels in observation wells 124395 and 

481807 (figs. 1 and 8), both open to the Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer, indicate the observed groundwater-level 

changes between March/April and August 2011 in the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer (fig. 12) generally were less 

than the typical water-level change over this 5- to 6-month 

period. The water level in well 124395, approximately 5 mi 

north-northeast of White Bear Lake, rose by 0.99 ft from 

April through August of 2011 (fig. 8), although the water 
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 39

910

EXPLANATION

93°5' 93°0' 92°55' 92°50'

45°15'

45°10'

45°5'

45°0'

865

870

860

875

880

885

850

915

905

910

845

900

855

920

925

930

935

940

945

840

835

950

885

855

900

910

915

895

910

850

880

890

920

905

900

905

895

895

895

890

922

926

928

874

927

930

917

927

928

928

884

840

915

886

945

922

933

946

944

875

935

930

932

932

917

921

893

918

931

933

926

917

915

886

869

918

899

859

911

908

881 904

865

879

896

871 901

917

944 932

885

901

855

861

912

916

945

946

886

940

925

940

926

934

920

937

906

895

907

923

916

906

927

912

860

895

884

873

909 878

897

873

868

857

854

861

897

878

895

878

850 841

858

861

914

897

833

856

853

861

883

864

882

931

916

927

919

928 929

931

931

929

915

952

920

946

0 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

ANOKA COUNTY

RAMSEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 and 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

White Bear Lake

Bald

Eagle

 Lake

Otter

 Lake

Amelia

 Lake

Wilkinson

 Lake

Pleasant

 Lake

Turtle

 Lake

Snail

 Lake

East

Vadnais

 Lake

Lake

Gervais Lake Jane

Long

Lake

Goose

Lake

Birch

Lake

Mann

Lake

Bass 

Lake

South School

Section Lake

Sunset

Lake

Oneka

Lake

Egg

Lake

Rice

Lake

Big Marine Lake

Silver

Kohlman Lake

Lake

Keller

Lake

Fish

Lake

Round

Lake

Long

Lake

Horseshoe

Lake

Barker

Lake Mud

Lake

Bass

 Lake

Forest Lake

Birchwood

Hugo

Grant

Gem Lake

Dellwood

Willernie

Shoreview

Maplewood

Mahtomedi

North Oaks

Lino Lakes

Forest Lake

Centerville

Pine Springs

Circle Pines

Little Canada

White Bear Lake

Vadnais Heights

North Saint Paul

Oakdale

Extent of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer—

From Mossler and Tipping, 2000

Potentiometric contour—Shows altitude at which 

water would have stood in tightly cased, 

nonpumping wells. Dashed where inferred. 

Contour interval 5 feet. Datum is North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988

Well—Well for which water level was available 

during March/April 2011. Number is waterlevel altitude, in feet above North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988

Groundwater flow—Arrow indicates direction 

of groundwater flow

Figure 11. Potentiometric surface of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota, March/April 2011.
40 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Greater than 2

0 to 2

0 to -1.99

-2 to -3.99

-4 to -5.99

-6 to -7.99

-8 to -9.99

Greater than -10

1.0

-1.0

1.8

0.5

0.5

0.2

2.7

2.6

0.2

0.3

0.8

0.7

0.5

0.7

3.1

2.2

2.1

0.8

0.3

1.7

2.2

-0.9

2.7

1.5

0.4

2.4

0.2

0.4

3.4

-0.2

3.9

2.7

1.7

0.6

0.8

1.5

2.5

1.4

1.1

0.4

0.5

1.3

1.3

0.1

1.0 0.8

1.6

0.9

0.6

1.1

1.1

1.4

0.9

0.1

0.6

2.1 2.0

2.0

1.4

1.7

2.0

0.3

0.5

0.4

1.5

0.2

-4.9

1.4

1.0

-1.0 -0.3

-1.2

-0.5

-1.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-7.6

-7.6

-0.1 -2.2

-0.3

-4.2

-5.5

-0.6

-5.2

-0.4

-1.4

-3.1

-7.6

-2.8

-5.9

-2.06

-4.9

-2.5

-1.7 -1.6

-11.8

-10.0

-10.9

-2.2

-10.4

-0.1

0.5

0.1 0.4

ANOKA COUNTY

RAMSEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

2.0

1.9

2.9

-1.0

0 2 4 MILES

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

93°05' 93°00' 92°55' 92°50'

45°15'

45°10'

45°05'

45°00'

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 and 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

White Bear Lake

Bald

Eagle

Lake

Otter

 Lake

Amelia

 Lake

Wilkinson

 Lake

Pleasant

 Lake

Turtle

 Lake

Snail

 Lake

East

Vadnais

 Lake

Lake

Gervais Lake Jane

Long

Lake

Goose

Lake

Birch

Lake

Pine Tree

Lake

Mann

Lake

Bass 

Lake

South School

Section Lake

Sunset

Lake

Oneka

Lake

Egg

Lake

Rice

Lake

Big Marine Lake

Gilfillan

Lake

Silver

Kohlman Lake

Lake

Keller

Lake

Fish

Lake Round

Lake

Long

Lake

Horseshoe

Lake

Barker

Lake Mud

Lake

Bass

 Lake

Forest Lake

Hugo

Grant

Gem Lake

Dellwood

Willernie

Shoreview

Maplewood

Mahtomedi

North Oaks

Lino Lakes

Forest Lake

Centerville

Pine Springs

Circle Pines

Little Canada

White Bear Lake

Vadnais

Heights

North Saint Paul

Birchwood

Oakdale

Well with water-level measurement—Number

is water-level change in feet (negative 

numbers represent a decline)

Groundwater-level change, in feet

Rises

Declines

EXPLANATION

Figure 12. Groundwater-level changes in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, between March/April and August 2011.
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 41

level typically declined during normal precipitation years. 

Similarly, the water-level decrease of 1.21 ft from March/

April to August 2011 in well 481807, less than 1 mi southwest of White Bear Lake (figs. 1 and 8), was less than 

two-thirds of observed decreases between March and August 

in previous years since 1992. Thus, the water-level changes 

between March/April and August 2011 shown in figure 12 

probably were less than what would have taken place under 

normal precipitation conditions.

Water Quality of White Bear Lake

A total of 34 field samples were collected and analyzed 

for physical properties, major constituents, oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios, and deuterium/protium (hydrogen-2/hydrogen-1) ratios. These samples comprised 12 surface-water 

samples, 14 pore-water samples, and 8 well-water samples. 

With the exception of Bald Eagle Lake, all the lakes sampled for major constituents were either closed-basin lakes or 

have no major surface-water inlet. An additional 28 water 

samples were collected and analyzed for oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios: 4 snow samples, 

3 precipitation samples, 13 surface-water samples, 1 porewater sample, and 7 well-water samples. The water-quality 

survey using the AUV was completed in the southeast, east, 

and northeast parts of White Bear Lake, covering approximately 43 percent of the total area of White Bear Lake. A 

total of 397 measurements were made in the lake-sediment 

temperature survey: 298 measurements in White Bear Lake, 

59 measurements in Bald Eagle Lake, and 40 measurements 

in Goose Lake.

Quality Assurance

The percentage differences between environmental and 

replicate samples for concentrations of major constituents and 

stable isotope ratios indicated little variability resulting from 

sample collection, processing, shipping, and laboratory procedures performed at different sampling times. The percentage 

differences between environmental and replicate samples for 

concentrations of major constituents and stable isotope ratios 

were less than ±5 percent for all the constituents except for 

concentrations of dissolved manganese and iron in one surfacewater environmental/replicate sample set collected from White 

Bear Lake on July 29, 2011 (table 7). For this sample, the percentage differences for concentrations of dissolved manganese 

and iron were 24 and 20, respectively (table 7). The concentrations of dissolved manganese and iron in this environmental/

replicate sample set were less than 10 micrograms per liter 

(μg/L), and the dissolved iron concentration for the environmental sample was an estimated concentration, less than 

the laboratory reporting level and greater than the long-term 

method detection level (Childress and others, 1999). At these 

low concentrations, small changes in concentrations can result 

in large percentage differences. Hem (1985) stated that for 

constituent concentrations greater than 100 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L), percentage differences should be less than ±5 percent; 

for concentrations less than 1 mg/L, percentage differences 

generally are not less than ±10 percent and can be higher.

Concentrations in the equipment blank sample for the 

mini-piezometer were greater than the laboratory reporting levels only for dissolved calcium, dissolved manganese, 

and dissolved barium (table 7), indicating the magnitude of 

contaminant concentration introduced into the sample as a 

result of using the sample-collection and processing equipment was low. Dissolved calcium concentration in the blank 

sample (0.05 mg/L) was less than two orders of magnitude 

lower than concentrations measured in all the pore-water 

samples (table 8). The concentrations of dissolved manganese 

and dissolved barium in the blank sample (0.4 and 0.6 μg/L, 

respectively) were at or slightly greater than the laboratory 

reporting levels of 0.32 and 0.6, respectively. Concentrations of dissolved manganese and dissolved barium in all the 

pore-water samples (table 8) were more than one order of 

magnitude higher than the concentrations in the blank sample 

(table 7).

Precipitation

All the oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium 

ratios for the snow and bulk precipitation samples plot relatively close to a meteoric waterline determined by Landon 

and others (2000) for precipitation in Princeton, Minnesota 

(fig. 13A). Because most of the ratios are relatively close to 

this meteoric waterline, the meteoric waterline was used to 

assess the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes for the surfacewater, pore-water, and groundwater samples. Oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 ratios for snow samples collected at the four 

shoreline sites around White Bear Lake ranged from -21.9 

to -18.5 per mil (fig. 13A; table 9); deuterium/protium 

ratios ranged from -162 to -137 per mil. Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios for bulk precipitation samples collected at 

the precipitation station along the east shore of White Bear 

Lake ranged from -8.6 to -6.1 per mil (fig.13A; table 9), and 

the deuterium/protium ratios ranged from -52.0 to -36.5 per 

mil.

Surface-Water Quality

Surface-water quality was evaluated by using an AUV 

survey, lake-sediment temperature surveys, and major constituents and stable isotopes. The surface-water-quality data 

collected as part of this study were used to evaluate groundwater/surface-water interactions.
Table 7. Summary of quality-assurance data for sequential replicate samples and equipment blank samples collected at or near White Bear Lake, nMetropolitan Area, Minnesota, July through October 2011. [Values in parentheses are percentage differences between concentrations in environmental samples and replicate samples; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per literthan; --, no data] Constituent

WBLMP03, 

450505092581201, 

7/27/2011, 

14:47 hours

WBLMP09, 

450416093003801, 

7/29/2011, 

10:19 hours

WBL-West Bay, 

450432093005101, 

7/29/2011, 

11:46 hours

STP-2, 

450414093003701, 

8/12/2011, 

10:31 hours

WBL-West Bay, 

450432093005101, 

11/22/2010, 

09:02 hours

WBL-West Bay, 

Sample type Pore-water replicate Equipment blank Surface-water replicate Groundwater replicate Surface-water replicate Surf

r

Hardness, water (mg/L) 447 (0.2) <0.17 82 (0.3) 409 (1.1) -- Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, percent of saturation 9 (0) -- 120 (0) -- -- Dissolved calcium (mg/L) 120 (0) 0.05 18 (0.3) 100 (1.5) -- Dissolved magnesium (mg/L) 36 (0.1) <0.008 9.0 (0.9) 38 (0.7) -- Dissolved manganese (μg/L) 1,060 (0.5) 0.4 2.3 (24) 62 (0.4) -- Dissolved sodium (mg/L) 258 (0.2) <0.06 19 (0.8) 24 (0.4) -- Dissolved potassium (mg/L) 3.4 (0.4) <0.02 1.2 (1.2) 1.85 (0.3) -- Bicarbonate, water, filtered, inflection-point titration (mg/L) 322 (0) -- 73 (4.7) 361 (1.9) -- Carbon dioxide, water, unfiltered (mg/L) 217 (3.6) -- 0.1 (0) 53 (4.5) -- Carbonate, water, filtered, inflection-point titration (mg/L) 0.1 (0) -- 3.1 (1.6) 0.2 (0) -- Alkalinity, water, filtered, fixed endpoint (pH 4.5) titration (mg/L) -- -- 73 (0.7) 282 (4.4) -- Alkalinity, water, filtered, inflection-point titration (mg/L) 264 (0) -- 65 (4.5) 296 (2.0) -- Dissolved sulfate (mg/L) 44 (0.5) <0.09 3.9 (0.1) 43 (0.5) -- Dissolved chloride (mg/L) 551 (0.1) <0.06 36 (0.1) 71 (0.1) -- Dissolved silica (mg/L) 31 (0) <0.03 3.0 (1.7) 23 (0.9) -- Dissolved iron (μg/L) 21,800 (0.2) <3 9 (20) 78 (1.3) -- Dissolved barium (μg/L) 228 (0.4) 0.6 34 (0.3) 32 (1.1) -- Dissolved strontium (μg/L) 209 (0.2) <0.2 48 (0.2) 127 (0.8) -- Dissolved solids dried at 180°C, water (mg/L) 1,320 (0.4) <12 162 (3.9) 533 (0.1) -- Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, unfiltered water, per mil -10.62 (-0.1) -- -2.34 (-2.1) -8.49 (-0.3) -2.16 (-1.4) -2Deuterium/protium ratio, unfiltered water, per mil -76.4 (-0.2) -- -28.3 (-0.9) -59.3 (-1.3) -27.7 (-0.2) -2
Table 8. Water-quality data for lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Athrough September 2011.[mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; μS/cm at 25 °C, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; M, presence verified but not quantified; --, no data] 

Water-quality 

sampling site Site number

Date 

(month/day/ 

year)

Time 

(24-hour)

Sample

type

Barometric 

pressure, on 

site (mm Hg) 

Specific 

conductance, 

on site 

(μS/cm at 

25oC)

Specific 

conductance, 

laboratory 

(μS/cm at 

25oC)

pH, 

on site 

(standard 

units)

pH, 

laborator

(standard 

units)

Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 8/3/2011 1030 Lake 739 404 386 8.0 8.3 Birch Lake 450456093020801 8/3/2011 0945 Lake 739 362 352 7.5 7.3 Echo Lake 450512092574901 8/3/2011 1600 Lake 739 76 E76 6.3 E6.6 Goose Lake 450424093005701 7/29/2011 1330 Lake 740 368 361 9.5 9.8 Long Lake 450437092564101 8/3/2011 1645 Lake 739 246 240 7.1 7.3 Lost Lake 450306092575901 8/3/2011 1730 Lake 739 311 303 7.0 7.4 Mann Lake 450641092554601 8/3/2011 1345 Lake 739 125 125 7.8 7.3 Pine Tree Lake 450618092572001 8/3/2011 1215 Lake 739 134 132 9.3 9.0 Sunset Lake 450743092563101 8/3/2011 1445 Lake 739 181 172 9.2 9.2 Turtle Lake 450534093075101 8/3/2011 0845 Lake 739 321 313 8.4 8.3 WBL-Mahtomedi Beach 450410092574101 7/26/2011 1430 Lake 732 291 291 8.9 8.8 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 7/29/2011 1145 Lake 740 265 262 9.2 9.0 WBLMP01 450409092574101 7/26/2011 1400 Pore water 732 910 892 6.3 6.7 WBLMP02 450453092575501 7/27/2011 1300 Pore water 732 480 407 6.7 6.9 WBLMP03 450505092581201 7/27/2011 1445 Pore water 739 2,220 2,120 6.3 6.8 WBLMP04 450526092583701 7/28/2011 0945 Pore water 737 1,120 1,100 6.9 7.3 WBLMP05 450544092590201 7/28/2011 1145 Pore water 737 1,120 959 6.9 7.1 WBLMP07 450401092574401 7/28/2011 1440 Pore water 737 915 916 6.2 6.7 WBLMP08 450426093005001 7/28/2011 1645 Pore water 737 424 416 6.7 7.3 WBLMP09 450416093003801 7/29/2011 1020 Pore water 740 760 730 6.6 7.0 WBLMP11 450517092595701 8/24/2011 1545 Pore water 732 890 877 7.0 7.3 WBLMP12 450322092575701 8/25/2011 1340 Pore water 739 662 636 6.7 7.0 GLMP13 450422093005101 8/30/2011 1430 Pore water 737 650 613 7.8 7.4 GLMP14 450410093004201 8/31/2011 1330 Pore water 736 397 360 7.7 7.3 BELMP15 450649093000501 8/31/2011 1540 Pore water 736 1,920 1,630 6.6 6.9 BELMP16 450603093004201 9/1/2011 1020 Pore water 733 916 807 6.9 7.2 GLA-1 450546093002401 8/9/2011 1220 Well water 732 928 953 7.4 8.1 GLA-2 450459092593001 8/9/2011 1400 Well water 732 444 428 7.2 7.9 GLA-3 450542093001501 8/9/2011 1605 Well water 732 594 605 7.6 8.1 GLA-4 450412092594002 8/23/2011 1345 Well water 732 473 453 6.6 6.9 STP-2 450414093003701 8/12/2011 1030 Well water 735 898 915 7.0 7.4 STP-1 450451092574201 8/12/2011 1300 Well water 735 453 456 7.5 7.7 PDC-1 450508092580901 8/22/2011 1645 Well water 740 460 465 7.8 7.7 PDC-2 450412092594001 8/30/2011 1300 Well water 737 353 345 7.4 7.8 
Table 8. Water-quality data for lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Athrough September 2011.—Continued [mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; μS/cm at 25 °C, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; M, presence verified but not quantified; --, no data] Water-quality sampling site Site number Date (month/day/ year) Time (24-hour) Sample type Hardness, water (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen, on site (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen, water, unfiltered, percent of saturation Dissolved calcium (mg/L) Dissolved magnesiu

(mg/L) 

Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 8/3/2011 1030 Lake 146 5.0 63 36 13.7 Birch Lake 450456093020801 8/3/2011 0945 Lake 42 6.3 79 10 3.9 Echo Lake 450512092574901 8/3/2011 1600 Lake 14 3.9 51 3 1.7 Goose Lake 450424093005701 7/29/2011 1330 Lake 54 8.0 105 14 4.7 Long Lake 450437092564101 8/3/2011 1645 Lake 90 3.5 50 22 8.6 Lost Lake 450306092575901 8/3/2011 1730 Lake 82 3.0 38 21 6.9 Mann Lake 450641092554601 8/3/2011 1345 Lake 43 6.2 82 10 4.4 Pine Tree Lake 450618092572001 8/3/2011 1215 Lake 51 9.4 123 11 5.8 Sunset Lake 450743092563101 8/3/2011 1445 Lake 59 8.8 119 12 7 Turtle Lake 450534093075101 8/3/2011 0845 Lake 112 6.7 83 26 12 WBL-Mahtomedi Beach 450410092574101 7/26/2011 1430 Lake 96 9.8 131 23 9.4 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 7/29/2011 1145 Lake 83 9.3 120 18 9.1 WBLMP01 450409092574101 7/26/2011 1400 Pore water 192 0.9 11 47 18 WBLMP02 450453092575501 7/27/2011 1300 Pore water 177 0.9 10 50 12 WBLMP03 450505092581201 7/27/2011 1445 Pore water 445 0.8 9 120 36 WBLMP04 450526092583701 7/28/2011 0945 Pore water 516 1.3 14 133 44 WBLMP05 450544092590201 7/28/2011 1145 Pore water 415 1.0 12 106 36 WBLMP07 450401092574401 7/28/2011 1440 Pore water 258 8.3 92 62 25 WBLMP08 450426093005001 7/28/2011 1645 Pore water 62 1.2 12 18 4.1 WBLMP09 450416093003801 7/29/2011 1020 Pore water 347 1.0 11 91 29 WBLMP11 450517092595701 8/24/2011 1545 Pore water 425 -- -- 121 30 WBLMP12 450322092575701 8/25/2011 1340 Pore water 247 0.9 -- 59 24 GLMP13 450422093005101 8/30/2011 1430 Pore water 156 0.9 -- 50 7.4 GLMP14 450410093004201 8/31/2011 1330 Pore water 69 1.6 -- 20 4.2 BELMP15 450649093000501 8/31/2011 1540 Pore water 483 3.5 -- 146 29 BELMP16 450603093004201 9/1/2011 1020 Pore water 289 E2.5 -- 82 21 GLA-1 450546093002401 8/9/2011 1220 Well water 418 0.1 -- 108 36 GLA-2 450459092593001 8/9/2011 1400 Well water 186 0.1 -- 49 15 GLA-3 450542093001501 8/9/2011 1605 Well water 303 0.1 -- 74 28 GLA-4 450412092594002 8/23/2011 1345 Well water 80 0.1 -- 18 8.4 STP-2 450414093003701 8/12/2011 1030 Well water 418 2.2 -- 103 39 STP-1 450451092574201 8/12/2011 1300 Well water 227 0.01 -- 55 22 PDC-1 450508092580901 8/22/2011 1645 Well water 225 0.1 -- 58 20 PDC-2 450412092594001 8/30/2011 1300 Well water 175 E0.1 -- 43 16 
Table 8. Water-quality data for lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Athrough September 2011.—Continued[mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; μS/cm at 25 °C, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; M, presence verified but not quantified; --, no data] 

Water-quality 

sampling site Site number

Date 

(month/day/ 

year)

Time 

(24-hour)

Sample

type

Dissolved 

potassium 

(mg/L)

Bicarbonate, 

water, filtered, 

inflection-point 

titration 

(mg/L)

Carbon 

dioxide, 

water, 

unfiltered 

(mg/L)

Carbonate, 

water, 

filtered, 

inflectionpoint titration 

(mg/L)

Alkalinity, 

water, 

filtered, 

inflectionpoint titratio

(mg/L)

Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 8/3/2011 1030 Lake 2.8 142 2.3 3.2 122 Birch Lake 450456093020801 8/3/2011 0945 Lake 1.7 35 2 -- 29 Echo Lake 450512092574901 8/3/2011 1600 Lake 0.8 5.8 4.6 -- 5 Goose Lake 450424093005701 7/29/2011 1330 Lake 1.8 38.8 M 8.3 48 Long Lake 450437092564101 8/3/2011 1645 Lake 1.5 87.9 11 0.1 72 Lost Lake 450306092575901 8/3/2011 1730 Lake 1.3 78 12 0.1 64 Mann Lake 450641092554601 8/3/2011 1345 Lake 3.1 30.1 0.8 -- 25 Pine Tree Lake 450618092572001 8/3/2011 1215 Lake 1.6 40 M 3.7 40 Sunset Lake 450743092563101 8/3/2011 1445 Lake 1.3 -- 0.1 -- -- Turtle Lake 450534093075101 8/3/2011 0845 Lake 1.2 111 0.7 0.7 93 WBL-Mahtomedi Beach 450410092574101 7/26/2011 1430 Lake 1.6 91.6 0.2 5.8 86 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 7/29/2011 1145 Lake 1.2 79.9 0.1 3.2 71 WBLMP01 450409092574101 7/26/2011 1400 Pore water 3.5 176 139 -- 144 WBLMP02 450453092575501 7/27/2011 1300 Pore water 2.1 230 83 0.1 189 WBLMP03 450505092581201 7/27/2011 1445 Pore water 3.4 322 233 0.1 264 WBLMP04 450526092583701 7/28/2011 0945 Pore water 3.3 415 87 0.2 341 WBLMP05 450544092590201 7/28/2011 1145 Pore water 1.9 479 89 0.2 393 WBLMP07 450401092574401 7/28/2011 1440 Pore water 2.4 123 114 -- 101 WBLMP08 450426093005001 7/28/2011 1645 Pore water 2.1 222 65 0.1 182 WBLMP09 450416093003801 7/29/2011 1020 Pore water 3.4 429 167 0.1 352 WBLMP11 450517092595701 8/24/2011 1545 Pore water 2.2 339 50 0.4 279 WBLMP12 450322092575701 8/25/2011 1340 Pore water 3.8 274 84 0.1 224 GLMP13 450422093005101 8/30/2011 1430 Pore water 6.2 219 5.1 0.6 181 GLMP14 450410093004201 8/31/2011 1330 Pore water 2.3 88.7 3 0.1 73 BELMP15 450649093000501 8/31/2011 1540 Pore water 4.2 416 173 0.2 342 BELMP16 450603093004201 9/1/2011 1020 Pore water 9.3 424 86 0.2 348 GLA-1 450546093002401 8/9/2011 1220 Well water 2.5 366 22 0.6 301 GLA-2 450459092593001 8/9/2011 1400 Well water 2.4 219 25 0.1 180 GLA-3 450542093001501 8/9/2011 1605 Well water 2.3 316 12 0.9 261 GLA-4 450412092594002 8/23/2011 1345 Well water 5.4 140 58 0.1 115 STP-2 450414093003701 8/12/2011 1030 Well water 1.8 375 58 0.2 308 STP-1 450451092574201 8/12/2011 1300 Well water 1.4 277 13 0.4 227 PDC-1 450508092580901 8/22/2011 1645 Well water 1.9 263 7.6 0.3 216 PDC-2 450412092594001 8/30/2011 1300 Well water 2.5 220 13 0.2 181 
Table 8. Water-quality data for lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Athrough September 2011.—Continued [mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; μS/cm at 25 °C, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; M, presence verified but not quantified; --, no data] Water-quality sampling site Site number Date (month/day/ year) Time (24-hour) Sample type Dissolved chloride (mg/L) Dissolved silica (mg/L) Dissolved iron (μg/L) Dissolved barium (μg/L) Dissolved strontium (μg/L) 

so

18

Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 8/3/2011 1030 Lake 42 11 5 50 78 

Birch Lake 450456093020801 8/3/2011 0945 Lake 84 0.74 56 21 29 Echo Lake 450512092574901 8/3/2011 1600 Lake 15 0.38 230 11 11 Goose Lake 450424093005701 7/29/2011 1330 Lake 75 3 94 25 32 Long Lake 450437092564101 8/3/2011 1645 Lake 26 4.1 257 31 51 Lost Lake 450306092575901 8/3/2011 1730 Lake 49 2.2 208 23 51 Mann Lake 450641092554601 8/3/2011 1345 Lake 14 1.4 28 20 24 Pine Tree Lake 450618092572001 8/3/2011 1215 Lake 13 0.8 48 16 28 Sunset Lake 450743092563101 8/3/2011 1445 Lake 23 0.58 42 11 27 Turtle Lake 450534093075101 8/3/2011 0845 Lake 38 2.8 <3 50 77 WBL-Mahtomedi Beach 450410092574101 7/26/2011 1430 Lake 37 2 7 38 54 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 7/29/2011 1145 Lake 36 2.9 E6.1 34 48 WBLMP01 450409092574101 7/26/2011 1400 Pore water 188 37 43 60 156 WBLMP02 450453092575501 7/27/2011 1300 Pore water 34 30 23,300 124 129 WBLMP03 450505092581201 7/27/2011 1445 Pore water 550 31 21,900 226 208 WBLMP04 450526092583701 7/28/2011 0945 Pore water 143 29 904 200 184 WBLMP05 450544092590201 7/28/2011 1145 Pore water 61 27 12,000 230 142 WBLMP07 450401092574401 7/28/2011 1440 Pore water 208 27 18 59 184 WBLMP08 450426093005001 7/28/2011 1645 Pore water 11 17 4,870 58 38 WBLMP09 450416093003801 7/29/2011 1020 Pore water 23 31 6,830 202 197 WBLMP11 450517092595701 8/24/2011 1545 Pore water 43 41 3,530 168 187 WBLMP12 450322092575701 8/25/2011 1340 Pore water 70 28 11,500 166 144 GLMP13 450422093005101 8/30/2011 1430 Pore water 75 15 507 105 122 GLMP14 450410093004201 8/31/2011 1330 Pore water 67 5.8 296 37 33 BELMP15 450649093000501 8/31/2011 1540 Pore water 286 46 21,000 508 370 BELMP16 450603093004201 9/1/2011 1020 Pore water 59 43 11,400 243 176 GLA-1 450546093002401 8/9/2011 1220 Well water 98 33 4,350 318 207 GLA-2 450459092593001 8/9/2011 1400 Well water 23 29 8,840 77 77 GLA-3 450542093001501 8/9/2011 1605 Well water 28 27 143 138 171 GLA-4 450412092594002 8/23/2011 1345 Well water 53 22 10,200 107 50 STP-2 450414093003701 8/12/2011 1030 Well water 71 22 76 31 129 STP-1 450451092574201 8/12/2011 1300 Well water 6.9 17 2,720 54 99 PDC-1 450508092580901 8/22/2011 1645 Well water 15 20 2,910 163 108 PDC-2 450412092594001 8/30/2011 1300 Well water 6.6 20 335 19 75 
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 47

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

1 - WBLMP01

2 - WBLMP02

3 - WBLMP03

4 - WBLMP04

5 - WBLMP05

7 - WBLMP07

Deuterium/protium ratio, per mil

Meteoric waterline for Princeton,

Minnesota (Landon and others, 1999)

Surface-water samples

Pore-water samples—Numbers 

are site identifiers

8 - WBLMP08

9 - WBLMP09

10 - WBLMP10

11 - WBLMP11

12 - WBLMP12

1

2

10

3

7

4

5 11

8 12

9

D. Pore water and surface water sampled from White Bear Lake

Deuterium/protium ratio, per mil

-3.50 -3.25 -3.00 -2.75 -2.50 -2.25 -2.00 -1.75

-35

-33

-31

-29

-27

-25

White Bear Lake evaporation trend line

March 2011

B. Surface water sampled from White Bear Lake and White Bear Lake 

 evaporation trend line

May 2011

July 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2010

Deuterium/protium ratio = 4.6 (oxygen-18/oxygen16) - 17.5

R2

 = 0.93

June 2011

Deuterium/protium ratio, per mil

Meteoric waterline for Princeton,

Minnesota (Landon and others, 1999)

Surface-water samples

Well-water samples 

Glacial buried aquifer

St. Peter aquifer

Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer

C. Well water sampled from 14 wells and surface waters sampled from White 

 Bear Lake and groundwater/lake-water isotope mixing model for White 

 Bear Lake area

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Deuterium/protium ratio, per mil

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, per mil Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, per mil

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, per mil Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, per mil

A. Snow, bulk precipitation, and surface water sampled from White Bear 

 Lake and White Bear Lake evaporation trend line 

-20 -15 -10 -5 0

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

Snow samples

Approximate weighted mean 

isotope compostion of 

local precipitation Bulk precipitation (rain) samples

Meteoric waterline for Princeton,

Minnesota (Landon and others, 1999)

White Bear Lake surfacewater samples

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION

Groundwater/lake-water isotope 

mixing model for White Bear Lake

area

Deuterium/protium ratio = 5.3 (oxygen-18/oxygen16) - 15.7

R2

 = 1.00

White Bear Lake evaporation trend line

Shown in 

figure 13B

Figure 13. Comparison of oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios and deuterium/protium ratios with meteoric waterline for 

A, snow, bulk precipitation, and surface water sampled at or near White Bear Lake and White Bear Lake evaporation trend line; 

B, surface water sampled from White Bear Lake and White Bear Lake evaporation trend line; C, well water sampled from 14 wells and 

surface waters sampled from White Bear Lake, and groundwater/lake-water isotope mixing model for White Bear Lake area; and 

D, pore water and surface water sampled from White Bear Lake.
Table 9. Water-quality data for precipitation, lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities MMinnesota, November 2010 through September 2011. [mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; μS/cm at 25°C; microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; per mil, parts per thousand

Water-quality sampling site Site number Date (month/ day/year) Time (24-hour) Sample Type Baro- metric pressure, on site (mmHg) Specific conductance, on site (μS/cm at 25oC) Specific conduc- tance, laboratory (μS/cm at 25oC) pH, on site (standard units) pH, labora- tory Air temperature (oC) Water temperature (oC) Dis

ox

on 

(m

Precipitation 450334092574201 7/14/2011 1410 Precipitation -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Precipitation 450334092574201 8/31/2011 1050 Precipitation -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Precipitation 450334092574201 10/12/2011 1800 Precipitation -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WBL-Birch Beach 450350092583901 3/14/2011 1100 Snow -- 11 -- -- -- -- -- WBL-Ramsey County Beach 450536092594801 3/14/2011 1015 Snow -- 12 -- -- -- -- -- WBL-Bellaire Beach 450416092594401 3/14/2011 1120 Snow -- 9 -- -- -- -- -- Wetland at Peninsula Road 450458092580601 3/14/2011 1030 Snow -- 7 -- -- -- -- -- Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 11/23/2010 1530 Lake 746 428 428 7.2 7.2 -- 1.5 Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 6/16/2011 1520 Lake 732 423 -- 8.6 -- -- 21 Bald Eagle Lake 450650093000801 8/3/2011 1030 Lake 739 404 386 8 8.3 23 25.2 Birch Lake 450456093020801 8/3/2011 0945 Lake 739 362 352 7.5 7.3 18 25.2 Echo Lake 450512092574901 8/3/2011 1600 Lake 739 76 E76 6.3 E6.6 29 28 Goose Lake 450424093005701 7/29/2011 1330 Lake 740 368 361 9.5 9.8 -- 27.6 Long Lake 450437092564101 8/3/2011 1645 Lake 739 246 240 7.1 7.3 28.5 33 Lost Lake 450306092575901 11/22/2010 1030 Lake 730 309 -- 8.2 -- -- 1.9 Lost Lake 450306092575901 8/3/2011 1730 Lake 739 311 303 7 7.4 -- 25.7 Mann Lake 450641092554601 8/3/2011 1345 Lake 739 125 125 7.8 7.3 28.5 28.7 Pine Tree Lake 450618092572001 8/3/2011 1215 Lake 739 134 132 9.3 9 26 27.4 Sunset Lake 450743092563101 8/3/2011 1445 Lake 739 181 172 9.2 9.2 28.5 29.4 Turtle Lake 450534093075101 8/3/2011 0845 Lake 739 321 313 8.4 8.3 18 25 WBL-Bellaire Beach 450416092594401 5/9/2011 1600 Lake -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WBL-Birch Beach 450350092583901 11/22/2010 1010 Lake 730 305 -- 8.3 -- -- 2.1 WBL-Mahtomedi Beach 450410092574101 7/26/2011 1430 Lake 732 291 291 8.9 8.8 -- 28.1 WBL-Manitou Island 450441092592501 11/22/2010 1320 Lake 730 308 -- 8.3 -- -- 1.4 WBL-Ramsey County Beach 450536092594801 11/22/2010 1200 Lake 730 307 -- 8.2 -- -- 2.1 WBL-Ramsey County Beach 450536092594801 6/16/2011 1550 Lake 733 297 -- 8.8 -- -- 20.2 WBL-Southeast Bay (40 

ft below lake surface)

450358092580601 3/14/2011 1520 Lake -- 342 -- -- -- -- 4.6 

WBL-Southeast Bay (5 ft 

below lake surface)

450358092580601 3/14/2011 1540 Lake -- 318 -- -- -- -- 3.4 

WBL-Southeast Bay (72 

ft below lake suface)

450358092580601 3/14/2011 1500 Lake -- 366 -- -- -- -- 5.2 

WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 11/22/2010 0900 Lake 730 320 -- 8.2 -- -- 0.2 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 5/9/2011 1540 Lake -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 6/16/2011 1630 Lake 733 296 -- 8.8 -- -- 21.4 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 7/29/2011 1145 Lake 740 265 262 9.2 9 -- 27.3 WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 9/8/2011 1415 Lake -- 274 -- 8.9 -- -- 22.9 
Table 9. Water-quality data for precipitation, lake water, groundwater, and pore water collected at or near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities MMinnesota, November 2010 through September 2011.—Continued[mm, millimeters; Hg, mercury; μS/cm at 25°C; microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; per mil, parts per thousand

Specific 

Baro- Specific conduc- Dis

Date metric conductance, pH, on site pH, Air Water Water-quality Time tance, ox

Site number (month/ Sample Type pressure, on site (standard labora- temperature temperature sampling site (24-hour) laboratory on 

day/year) on site (μS/cm at units) tory (oC) (oC) (μS/cm at (m

(mmHg) 25oC) 25oC) 

WBL-West Bay 450432093005101 10/6/2011 1245 Lake -- 296 -- 8.8 -- -- 17.3 

WBLMP10 450441092592502 11/22/2010 1350 Pore water 730 438 -- 7.3 -- -- 4.4 WBLMP01 450409092574101 7/26/2011 1400 Pore water 732 910 892 6.3 6.7 -- 19.2 WBLMP02 450453092575501 7/27/2011 1300 Pore water 732 480 407 6.7 6.9 -- 17.1 WBLMP03 450505092581201 7/27/2011 1445 Pore water 739 2,220 2120 6.3 6.8 -- 20.3 WBLMP04 450526092583701 7/28/2011 0945 Pore water 737 1,120 1100 6.9 7.3 -- 18.2 WBLMP05 450544092590201 7/28/2011 1145 Pore water 737 1,120 959 6.9 7.1 -- 22.2 WBLMP07 450401092574401 7/28/2011 1440 Pore water 737 915 916 6.2 6.7 -- 18.6 WBLMP08 450426093005001 7/28/2011 1645 Pore water 737 424 416 6.7 7.3 -- 14.9 WBLMP09 450416093003801 7/29/2011 1020 Pore water 740 760 730 6.6 7 -- 17.4 WBLMP11 450517092595701 8/24/2011 1545 Pore water 732 890 877 7 7.3 -- 25.2 

WBLMP12 450322092575701 8/25/2011 1340 Pore water 739 662 636 6.7 7 -- 18.6 GLMP13 450422093005101 8/30/2011 1430 Pore water 737 650 613 7.8 7.4 -- 23.4 GLMP14 450410093004201 8/31/2011 1330 Pore water 736 397 360 7.7 7.3 -- 23.4 BELMP15 450649093000501 8/31/2011 1540 Pore water 736 1,920 1630 6.6 6.9 -- 22.9 BELMP16 450603093004201 9/1/2011 1020 Pore water 733 916 807 6.9 7.2 -- 23.4 EGLA-1 450546093002401 8/9/2011 1220 Groundwater 732 928 953 7.4 8.1 -- 11.5 GLA-2 450459092593001 8/9/2011 1400 Groundwater 732 444 428 7.2 7.9 -- 11.2 GLA-3 450542093001501 8/9/2011 1605 Groundwater 732 594 605 7.6 8.1 -- 10.5 GLA-4 450412092594002 8/23/2011 1345 Groundwater 732 473 453 6.6 6.9 -- 10.9 GLA-5 450540093001201 8/11/2011 1345 Groundwater 737 617 -- 7.7 -- -- 10.9 ESTP-1 450451092574201 5/10/2011 1500 Groundwater -- 448 -- 7.5 -- -- 10.8 

STP-1 450451092574201 8/12/2011 1300 Groundwater 735 453 456 7.5 7.7 -- 9.7 STP-2 450414093003701 8/12/2011 1030 Groundwater 735 898 915 7 7.4 -- 11.5 JOR-1 450342092592601 11/4/2011 0930 Groundwater -- -- -- -- -- -- -- JOR-2 450214092581201 11/15/2011 0810 Groundwater -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PDCJ-1 450302092583701 11/15/2011 0825 Groundwater -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PDCJ-2 450357092594401 11/4/2011 0910 Groundwater -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PDCJ-3 450415092570101 11/15/2011 0840 Groundwater -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PDC-1 450508092580901 5/11/2011 1608 Groundwater 735 452 -- 7.5 -- -- 10.9 

PDC-1 450508092580901 8/22/2010 1645 Groundwater 740 460 465 7.8 7.7 -- 9.9 PDC-2 450412092594001 8/30/2011 1300 Groundwater 737 353 345 7.4 7.8 -- 11.8 E
50 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Autonomous, Underwater Vehicle Survey

Temperatures measured near the shoreline by the AUV 

correlated with pore-water temperature measurements, indicating potential areas of groundwater inflow to the lake. Negative 

temperature anomalies measured at shallow water depths in 

the water-quality survey indicated several shallow-water areas 

where groundwater may be flowing into the lake. Negative 

temperature anomalies indicated the observed temperature 

at a specific location was less than the median value for that 

sample depth. Temperature anomalies ranging from -0.1 to 

-0.5 were measured in shallow water areas along the eastern and southern shores of the lake (fig. 14A). Cooler lakesediment temperatures (as indicated by negative anomalies) 

measured during the lake-sediment temperature survey were 

recorded at three of the east-shore areas. These negative temperature anomalies were in near-shore waters at water depths 

generally less than 15 ft. At these depths, the AUV generally 

was operated at the water surface to avoid being snagged 

by milfoil. If the AUV had been able to survey closer to the 

sediment–water interface, the AUV may have measured larger 

negative temperature anomalies. Temperatures less than 15°C 

and dissolved oxygen concentrations near 0 mg/L were measured at several areas where water depths were greater than 

40 ft (figs. 14A and C). In the deepest part of the lake where 

the lake core was collected, negative temperature, pH, and 

dissolved-oxygen anomalies were determined. Cool temperatures, low pH, and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen are 

common in deeper waters of most temperate-zone lakes that 

experience strong seasonal climatic changes (Wetzel, 1983). 

Relatively warm lake-sediment temperatures were recorded 

in July 2011 at several areas along the eastern shore (fig. 15) 

where negative temperature anomalies were determined by 

the AUV at shallow depths. Offshore groundwater inflow or 

upwelling of cooler lake waters below the thermocline may 

have taken place at these locations, allowing the cool water 

temperatures to be measured in the water-quality survey but 

not in the shoreline sediments.

Specific conductance measured by the AUV provided 

little indication of groundwater inflows to the lake (fig. 14B). 

The positive anomalies in specific conductance are offset by 

similar magnitude negative anomalies indicating noise in the 

AUV data may be responsible for these anomalies. However, 

the positive anomalies are primarily in the deepest part of the 

lake where the maximum specific conductance was measured 

at the base of the thermocline (about 40 ft), as shown in the 

median vertical profile (fig. 14B).

Most of the water-quality data and anomalies determined from the AUV surveys depended mainly on depth, 

complicating the interpretation of the data and detection 

of groundwater flows to the lake. Median vertical waterquality profiles measured by the AUV indicated a summer 

stratification typically seen in most temperate-zone lakes 

that experience strong seasonal climatic changes (fig. 14; 

Wetzel, 1983). Generally, water-quality values were uniform from the water surface down to water depths between 

16 and 22 ft, indicating well-mixed water at shallow depths 

(surface mixed layer). The thermocline generally extended 

between 16 and 42 ft below the water surface, with some 

slight variation across the lake (fig. 14). In the northern 

part of the lake, the top of the thermocline was at a depth of 

about 22 ft. Within the thermocline, temperatures gradually 

decreased from approximately 25 to 10°C, dissolved oxygen 

concentrations gradually decreased from approximately 9 to 

0 mg/L, and pH values decreased from approximately 8.6 

to 7.8. Specific conductance generally increased with depth 

in the thermocline until reaching a maximum of 315 microsiemens per centimeter at 25°C (μS/cm) near the base of the 

thermocline (fig. 14B). All measured water-quality properties 

varied little with depth in the surface mixed layer and in the 

hypolimnion (water depth below 42 ft) (fig. 14).

Despite applying temporal lag corrections to each of the 

sensors’ data, some residual response time-induced errors 

remain in the data. “Leopard spot” patterns of alternating positive and negative anomalies were observed in the spatial distributions of anomalies for specific conductance, temperature, 

and dissolved oxygen (fig. 14). These anomalies are primarily 

because of the time lags in the sensor response, which cannot 

be adequately accounted for by applying a constant-value 

temporal shift. These anomalous, repeated patterns are highly 

correlated with AUV dive speed, can be easily identified in the 

data, and are removed from consideration during data interpretation. These issues are most prominent in the deepest part 

of the lake because of a combination of an increase in the dive 

speed and dive angle of the AUV in this region to accommodate the desired spatial resolution and extent of the survey 

within the run-time constraints of the AUV. Interpretation 

of the data focused on identification of anomalies that were 

repeatable and larger in magnitude and spatial extent compared to the spotted patterns originating from issues of sensor 

response time and dive speed.

Lake-Sediment Temperature Survey

Of the 298 lake-sediment temperatures measured at 

White Bear Lake, 19 measurements in 8 areas along the 

northeast, east, south, and southwest shores of White Bear 

Lake were below 18°C (fig. 15), indicating potential areas 

for groundwater inflow to the lake. Lake-sediment temperatures in White Bear Lake measured between July 20 and 

August 2, 2011, ranged from 12.2 to 29.9°C (table 1–9 in the 

appendix), averaging 24.4°C. Surface-water temperatures 

measured in the lake during the lake-sediment temperature 

surveys ranged from 19.8 to 33.3°C (table 1–9), averaging 

28.8°C. Iron-stained sediments commonly were present at 

the eight areas where lake-sediment temperatures were below 

18°C. These iron stains were visible at areas of cool temperatures in aerial photos taken during ice-out in April 2006 (Minnesota Geospatial Information Office, 2013). Seepage-meter 

measurements were made in August following the lake-sediment temperature survey at the eight and other areas where 

cool lake-sediment temperatures were measured to determine 

if groundwater might be flowing into the lake at those areas, 

and if so, the amount of groundwater flow into the lake.
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 51

Depth, in feet

Temperature, 

5

in degrees Celsius 

10 15 20 25 30

0

10203040506070

1.3 to 1.5

1.1 to 1.3

0.9 to 1.1

0.7 to 0.9

0.5 to 0.7

0.3 to 0.5

0.1 to 0.3

-0.1 to 0.1

-0.3 to -0.1

-0.5 to -0.3

-0.7 to -0.5

-0.9 to -0.7

-1.1 to -0.9

-1.3 to -1.1

-1.5 to -1.3

Temperature 

anomaly, in degrees Celsius

AUV Survey 1AUV Survey 3AUV Survey 4AUV Survey 6AUV Survey 7AUV Survey 8

AUV Survey 1AUV Survey 3AUV Survey 4AUV Survey 6AUV Survey 7AUV Survey 8

A. Temperature anomalies and median vertical profiles

Specific conductance, in 

microsiemens per centimeter

290 300 310 320

0

10203040506070

Depth, in feet

8 to 10

6 to 8

5 to 6

3 to 5

1 to 3

-1 to 1

-3 to -1

-5 to -3

-6 to -5

-8 to -6

-10 to -8

Specific conductance 

anomaly, in microsiemens percentimeter

B. Specific conductance anomalies and median vertical profiles

3.5 to 4.5

2.5 to 3.5

1.5 to 2.5

0.5 to 1.5

-0.5 to 0.5

-1.5 to -0.5

-2.5 to -1.5

-3.5 to -2.5

-4.5 to -3.5

-5.5 to -4.5

-6.5 to -5.5

-7.5 to -6.5

Dissolved oxygen,

 in milligram per liter

0 5 10

0

10203040506070

Depth, in feet

Dissolved oxygen 

anomaly, in milligram per liter

C. Dissolved oxygen anomalies and median vertical profiles

pH

7 7.5 8 8.5 9

0

10203040506070

Depth, in feet

0.78 to 0.9

0.66 to 0.78

0.54 to 0.66

0.42 to 0.54

0.3 to 0.42

0.18 to 0.3

0.06 to 0.18

-0.06 to 0.06

-0.18 to -0.06

-0.3 to -0.18

-0.42 to -0.3

-0.54 to -0.42

-0.66 to -0.54

-0.78 to -0.66

-0.9 to -0.78

pH anomaly

D. pH anomalies and median vertical profiles

0

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

1 0.5 MILE

, A win Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July 11–14, 2011. ater-quality anomalies and vertical profiles measured in White Bear Lake, northeast T

 pH.

W Figure 14.

Temperature; 

B, Specific conductance; 

C, Dissolved oxygen;, and D,
52 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

93°01' 93°00' 92°59' 92°58' 92°57'

45°07'

45°06'

45°05'

45°04'

45°03'

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 and 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

EXPLANATION

12.2 to 14.0

14.1 to 16.0

16.1 to 18.0

18.1 to 20.0

20.1 to 22.0

22.1 to 24.0

24.1 to 26.0

26.1 to 28.0

28.1 to 30.0

Lake-sediment 

temperatures,

in degrees Celsius

Seepage-meter median 

flux for each site, in

feet per day

0.01 to 0.03

0.04 to 0.16

0.17 to 0.33

0.34 to 1.6

Seepage-meter

measurement

time period—

Number 

indicates 

site number

May

August

0.0

0.09

May

August

Wetlands

4

19

9

RAMSEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

Long Lake

Goose

Lake

White Bear Lake

Echo Lake

Bald Eagle Lake

Pine Tree

Lake

Fish

Lake

Bay

Hill

Pond

Long

Lake

Lost

Lake

Echo

Lake

16

15

3

1

2

14

13

12

7

11

10 25

6

24

23

8

22

4

21

19 20

5

18 9

17

17

0.00, 

-0.002

0.01

0.02, 0.02

0.02

0.002, 0.003 0.01

0.06

-0.02

-0.01

-0.003

-0.01, -0.01

0.00

0.00, 0.00

0.09

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.01, 0.01

0.01

0.01, 0.01

Bellaire Beach

Ramsey County Beach

White Bear 

Beach Park

Manitou Island

Hydraulic-head difference between the lake-sediment

pore water and the lake, in feet—Positive values indicate 

hydraulic heads in lake sediments are higher than the 

hydraulic head in the lake, thus flow is into the lake

Figure 15. Lake-sediment temperatures, hydraulic-head differences, and seepage-meter median flux rates 

along the shore of White Bear Lake, Goose Lake, and Bald Eagle Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota, July through September 2011.
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 53

All lake-sediment temperatures measured in Bald Eagle 

and Goose Lake were higher than 18°C. Lake-sediment 

temperatures in Bald Eagle Lake were measured on August 26 

and 29 and ranged from 19.9 to 25.1°C (fig. 15; table 1–9), 

averaging 23.8°C. Lake-sediment temperatures in Goose Lake 

were measured on July 27 and ranged from 21.7 to 27.7°C 

(fig. 15; table 1–9), averaging 25.7°C. Surface-water temperature in Goose Lake was 24.5°C on July 27. Although no cool 

temperatures were measured, groundwater may be flowing 

into the lakes at areas that were not measured, or inflowing 

groundwater may be relatively warm if flowing from other 

surrounding lakes or wetlands prior to reaching these lakes.

Properties, Major Constituents, and Stable Isotopes

The percentage differences in the ionic balances were less 

than ±5 percent for all but three of the surface-water samples 

collected at lakes in the northeast TCMA (table 8), indicating the major constituents were in good balance for most of 

the samples. Surface-water samples collected at Mann Lake, 

Echo Lake, and Pine Tree Lake had differences of 11, 6.2, and 

5.5 percent, respectively. The specific conductances in waters 

from these three lakes were the lowest values measured in all 

the sampled lakes (table 8), reflecting very low concentrations 

of total dissolved ions. Hem (1985) stated that for constituent 

concentrations greater than 100 mg/L, differences should be 

less than ± 5 percent, and for concentrations less than 1 mg/L, 

differences generally are not less than ±10 percent and can be 

higher. Concentrations for all 17 major constituents (anions 

and cations) analyzed in the water samples from Mann, Echo, 

and Pine Tree Lakes were all less than 50 mg/L. The low 

concentrations of dissolved ions in the surface-water samples 

from Mann Lake and Pine Tree Lake made it difficult to 

produce percentage differences in the ionic balances less than 

±5 percent.

Water sampled from White Bear, Bald Eagle, and Turtle 

Lakes contained similar concentrations of major constituents 

and specific conductance (table 8). Water samples from the 

lakes also had high alkalinity values and similar concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and silica (table 8). 

Water sampled from White Bear Lake at Mahtomedi Beach on 

the east shore of the lake had slightly higher cation concentrations and a higher alkalinity value than water sampled from 

the West Bay of White Bear Lake (table 8). These concentration variations may be due in part to 0.42 in. of rainfall added 

to the lake on July 27, which may have slightly diluted lake 

water from the West Bay more than water at Mahtomedi 

Beach.

Water from lakes that have relatively higher lake-level 

elevations had low specific conductances and concentrations 

of major ions. Specific conductance and concentrations of 

major ions were very low in water from Sunset, Mann, Pine 

Tree, and Echo Lakes (table 8). Specific conductance in water 

from these four lakes ranged from 76 to 181 μS/cm; specific 

conductance in water from the other seven lakes sampled 

ranged from 246 to 404 μS/cm. Sunset, Mann, Pine Tree, and 

Echo Lakes are relatively high in elevation compared to the 

other seven sampled lakes, being at or near the top of their 

watersheds. Lakes in the upper parts of their watershed typically receive a larger part of their water from direct precipitation, which contains low concentrations of dissolved ion 

(Hem, 1985). Groundwater flowing to these lakes typically is 

from recently recharged waters from shallow aquifers. This 

groundwater likely has lower ionic concentrations compared 

to groundwater contributing to lakes lower in the watersheds 

because the groundwater has had less contact time with aquifer sediments. The concentrations of dissolved ions originating 

from the aquifer material are governed by kinetics of mineral 

dissolution. Concentrations of dissolved ions will tend to 

increase with longer contact time until equilibrium is reached 

(Kenoyer and Bowser, 1992). 

Water from small lakes bordering a major road had relatively high concentrations of sodium and chloride. Concentrations of sodium and chloride were higher in surface water 

from Goose, Birch, and Lost Lakes than in surface waters 

from the other sampled lakes (table 8). These lakes are small 

and border roads that can be heavily salted during the winter 

months (fig. 1). Sodium concentrations in these lakes were 

greater than 25 mg/L, and sodium was the dominant cation in 

the lakes. Chloride concentrations in these lakes were greater 

than 45 mg/L. The application of road salt is a likely explanation for the high concentrations of sodium and chloride 

observed in Goose, Birch, and Lost Lakes.

The oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios 

for surface-water samples collected from White Bear Lake 

plotted along a linear regression trend line, referred to as the 

evaporation trend line for White Bear Lake for 2011 (figs. 13A

and 13B). Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios for surface-water 

samples collected from White Bear Lake ranged from -3.14 

to -2.09 per mil (figs. 13A and 13B), and deuterium/protium ratios ranged from -32.3 to -27.2 per mil (table 9). The 

intersection point between the White Bear Lake evaporation 

trend line and the meteoric water line (fig. 13A) from Landon 

and others (2009) (-8.2, -55.4) is the approximate weighted 

mean isotopic composition of local precipitation (Gibson and 

Edwards, 2002). The slope of this trend line (4.6) was similar 

to slopes for evaporation trend lines determined for lakes in 

Wisconsin (Krabbenhoft and others, 1990) and Canada (Gibson and Edwards, 2002).

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for 

surface-water samples collected from White Bear Lake varied 

seasonally with variations in evaporation rates. The lowest 

ratios were in the May samples following snowmelt; the highest ratios were in late summer and fall (fig. 13B). Snow around 

White Bear Lake had much lower oxygen-18/oxygen-16 

and deuterium/protium ratios than the surface-water samples 

(fig. 13A; table 9). As the snow melted in early spring, melt 

waters with low ratios flowed into White Bear Lake, decreasing the ratios for the surface water in May. As temperatures 

increase in the late spring and summer, evaporation rates on 

the lake surface gradually increased, preferentially evaporating 

oxygen-16 over oxygen-18. As a result, oxygen-18/oxygen-16 
54 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

and deuterium/protium ratios in the surface water of the lake 

gradually increased in late spring and summer to the highest 

ratios in late summer and fall (fig. 13B).

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for 

surface-water samples collected from lakes in the northeast 

TCMA generally were lower than ratios measured in surface 

waters from White Bear Lake (table 9). Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 

ratios ranged from -5.89 to -2.71 per mil, and deuterium/

protium ratios ranged from -47.9 to -30.2 per mil for surfacewater samples collected from lakes in the northeast TCMA 

(table 9). The ratios from these lakes generally plotted below 

the evaporation trend line for White Bear Lake.

Pore-Water Quality

The percentage differences in the ionic balances were 

less than ±5 percent for all the pore-water samples collected at 

White Bear Lake, Goose Lake, and Bald Eagle Lake (table 8), 

indicating the major constituents were in good balance for all 

the pore-water samples. High concentrations of dissolved iron 

and manganese and low dissolved oxygen concentrations were 

common in pore-water samples collected in the lake sediments 

around White Bear Lake. Dissolved iron concentrations were 

greater than 3.0 mg/L, dissolved manganese concentrations 

were greater than 0.15 mg/L, and dissolved oxygen concentrations were less than 1.5 mg/L for 7 of the 10 pore-water 

samples collected for analyses of major constituents along the 

shoreline of White Bear Lake (table 8). The locations of these 

seven samples were not concentrated in any particular part of 

the shoreline (fig. 3; table 8). High concentrations of iron and 

manganese are typical in the Superior lobe tills present in the 

Quaternary sediment in the White Bear Lake area (Swanson 

and Meyer, 1990; Lively and Thorleifson, 2009). Iron staining 

is common along the eastern shore of White Bear Lake; evidence of iron precipitation is visible from inflowing groundwater with high concentrations of dissolved iron. When anoxic 

groundwater containing high concentrations of dissolved 

iron is exposed to the air, the dissolved iron will oxidize and 

precipitate out of solution as a reddish-brown, iron-oxide 

precipitate (Hem, 1985). Iron precipitates were visible at two 

pore-water sample sites (WBLMP01 and WBLMP07). The 

pore-water samples at these two sites had concentrations of 

dissolved iron less than 0.05 mg/L and concentrations of dissolved manganese less than 0.05 mg/L (table 8). Pore-water 

samples at sites WBLMP01 and WBLMP07 had dissolved 

oxygen concentrations of 0.9 and 8.3 mg/L, respectively. The 

high concentration of dissolved oxygen at site WBLMP07 

was recognized during sample collection and confirmed with 

a second mini-piezometer insertion. Seepage-meter flux measurements at site WBLMP07 were among the highest groundwater inflow fluxes recorded at White Bear Lake (table 1–10 

in the appendix, seepage-meter site 22). Lake sediments at 

site WBLMP07 consisted of gravels and cobbles, which likely 

allow lake water to enter the mini-piezometer during porewater sampling, thus the water sample likely is not only pore 

water, but a mixture of lake water and pore water.

The difference in specific conductance between surface 

waters in White Bear Lake and pore waters collected in this 

study ranged from 100 to 1,900 μS/cm (table 8). Concentrations of sodium and chloride were greater than 70 and 

150 mg/L, respectively, in three pore-water samples (sites 

WBLMP01, WBLMP03, and WBLMP07) sampled in lake 

sediments on the eastern shore of White Bear Lake (fig. 3; 

table 8). Concentrations of sodium and chloride were the 

largest, 257 and 550 mg/L, respectively, in pore water at site 

WBLMP03 on the northeast shore of White Bear Lake (fig. 3). 

Pore waters from this site likely are affected by subsurface 

flow from a wetland immediately to the east and upgradient 

from this site. A State highway crosses this wetland, which 

likely receives substantial sodium and chloride inputs from 

road-salt application to the highway in the winter months. No 

direct channel to the lake from the wetland exists, so travel 

time for sodium and chloride is governed by subsurface flow 

conditions through the glacial water-table aquifer. The concentrations of sodium, chloride, and other major constituents were 

not high in the pore-water sample collected at site WBLMP02, 

which is near site WBLMP03 (fig. 3; table 8). The wetland to 

the east and upgradient from site WBLMP02 is bordered by 

fewer roads and, therefore, likely received less sodium chloride from road-salt application. This wetland has a surfacewater outlet to White Bear Lake, and therefore, most of the 

sodium and chloride that did enter the wetland from winter 

road salting likely flushed through the wetland and into White 

Bear Lake during spring snowmelt. Chloride concentrations in 

White Bear Lake have been steadily increasing over the past 

five decades (McComas and Stuckert, 2006). In the 1960s, 

the chloride concentration in White Bear Lake was 5 mg/L 

(McComas and Stuckert, 2006); the average concentration 

determined in this study was 36 mg/L. Seepage fluxes at sites 

WBLMP01 and WBLMP03 (seepage-meter sites 8 and 24) 

(fig. 3; table 1–10) were not as high relative to fluxes recorded 

at many sites around White Bear Lake.

With the exception of samples collected at sites 

WBLMP08 and WBLMP09, all pore-water samples collected 

in lake sediments of White Bear Lake had chloride concentrations higher than concentrations in surface-water samples from 

White Bear Lake (table 8). Background chloride concentrations in groundwater in glacial aquifers in Ramsey County 

range between 14 and 43 mg/L (Kanivetsky and Cleland, 

1992). Concentrations in 7 of 10 pore-water samples from 

White Bear Lake sediments were higher than background 

chloride concentrations.

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for 

all the pore-water samples collected from White Bear Lake 

except for samples from site WBLMP10 were lower than 

ratios for the surface-water samples for the lake (table 9) and 

plotted relatively close to the meteoric water line (fig. 13D). 

With the exception of the sample from site WBLMP10, 

oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios for pore-water samples ranged 

from -11.0 to -8.4 per mil (fig. 13D); deuterium/protium ratios 

ranged from -78.4 to -59.1 per mil (table 9). Oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for site WBLMP10 
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 55

were -2.0 and -25.7, respectively, which were more similar 

to the surface-water ratios than the other pore-water ratios 

(fig. 13D). These ratios indicated little groundwater was 

entering the lake at site WBLMP10, and either lake water is 

discharging to aquifers at the site or some lake water may have 

leaked into the lake sediments during sampling. Groundwater 

was likely flowing into the lake at all the pore-water sample 

sites except site WBLMP10 because (1) the ratios for all the 

pore-water samples except the sample from site WBLMP10 

plotted relatively close to the meteoric water line, and (2) the 

ratios for all the pore-water samples except the sample from 

site WBLMP10 were not similar to ratios for water samples 

collected from White Bear Lake (fig. 13D). Oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for three pore-water 

samples (sites WBLMP03, WBLMP05, and WBLMP11) were 

much lower than the ratios for the other pore-water samples 

(fig. 13D). The low ratios for the three pore-water samples are 

closer to the ratios for the snow samples (fig. 13A) than ratios 

for the other pore-water samples. These ratios may indicate 

groundwater flowing into the lake at the three pore-water sites 

may have been recharged in early spring, and groundwater 

flowing into the lake at the other pore-water sites may have 

been recharged in late spring and early summer.

Well-Water Quality

Major constituent concentrations in groundwater from 

wells open to glacial, St. Peter, and Prairie du Chien-Jordan

aquifers generally were higher than in the water samples 

collected from White Bear Lake (table 8). Concentrations 

of bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, iron, and manganese were 

higher in all the well-water samples than in the surface-water 

samples collected from White Bear Lake (table 8). Concentrations of calcium and magnesium in all but one of the wellwater samples were higher than in the surface-water samples. 

Specific conductance and alkalinity values also were higher in 

all the well-water samples than in the surface-water samples 

(table 8). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were less than 

3.0 mg/L in all the well-water samples; concentrations were 

less than 0.5 mg/L in seven of the eight well-water samples 

(table 8). The three highest concentrations of dissolved iron 

in well-water samples were from wells screened in the glacial 

aquifers. As previously mentioned, high iron concentrations are typical in the Superior lobe tills present in Quaternary sediments in the White Bear Lake area (Swanson and 

Meyer, 1990; Lively and Thorleifson, 2009).

Percentage differences in the ionic balances were less 

than ±5 percent for all but one of the well-water samples 

collected near White Bear Lake (table 8), indicating the 

major constituents were in good balance for all but one of 

the samples. The well-water sample collected from a MDNR 

observation well extracting water from a glacial buried aquifer 

(GLA-4) had a difference of 6.1 percent. Concentrations of 

calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate were lower and concentrations of carbon dioxide, potassium, and sodium were higher 

in this well-water sample than concentrations in all the other 

well-water samples (table 8). The concentrations of calcium 

and magnesium in the sample from well GLA-4 were more 

similar to concentrations in surface-water samples collected 

from White Bear Lake than in the other well-water samples 

(table 8). These concentrations indicate water from well 

GLA-4 might be a mixture of surface water and groundwater 

or water in the well was not hydraulically connected with or 

isolated from surrounding groundwater.

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios 

for the water samples collected from wells open to glacial 

buried, St. Peter, or Prairie du Chien-Jordan (including wells 

only open to either the Prairie du Chien or Jordan) aquifers 

around White Bear Lake varied widely, from near the meteoric water line to near ratios for the surface-water samples for 

White Bear Lake (fig. 13C). The largest ranges in oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios were for wells completed in the glacial buried or Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

(table 9). These ratios plotted linearly between the meteoric 

water line and the surface-water samples for White Bear Lake 

(fig. 13C). Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios for the water samples 

collected from wells screened in the glacial buried aquifer 

ranged from -9.1 to -3.6 per mil (fig. 13C), and deuterium/

protium ratios ranged from -63.5 to -34.0 per mil (table 9). 

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios for the water samples collected 

from wells screened in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

ranged from -8.5 to -3.8 per mil (fig. 13C), and deuterium/protium ratios ranged from -62.2 to -35.0 per mil (table 9). Small 

differences were measured in the oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios 

for the water samples collected from the two wells open to the 

St. Peter aquifer, plotting relatively close to the meteoric water 

line (fig. 13C). Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios for water from 

these two wells ranged from -8.5 to -8.4 per mil (fig. 13C), 

and deuterium/protium ratios ranged from -62.2 to -59.3 per 

mil (table 9).

The wide range in oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/

protium ratios for water sampled from wells completed in the 

glacial buried aquifer or the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

indicates different sources are supplying these wells with 

water. Well water with oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/

protium ratios that are near the meteoric water line (wells 

GLA1, GLA-4, PDC-1, and PDCJ-3) consist mostly of 

groundwater that was recharged relatively quickly following 

rainfall events, having little time to be affected by evaporation. 

Well water with oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios between the meteoric water line and ratios for the 

surface-water samples for White Bear Lake consists of a mixture of surface water and groundwater; the percentage of each 

source varies relative to its ratios. Water from three of the five 

wells that obtain water from glacial buried aquifers and five of 

the seven wells that obtain water from Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer had oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium 

ratios that indicated the well water was a mixture of surface 

water and groundwater (fig. 13C; table 9).

White Bear Lake is the likely source of the surface water 

to the wells with a mixture of surface water and groundwater 

because (1) it is the only large, deep lake near these wells, 
56 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

(2) these wells are located near and downgradient from 

White Bear Lake, and (3) these wells obtain their water from 

relatively deep depths. Wells with a mixture of surface water 

and groundwater and open to glacial buried aquifers were 

less than 0.5 mi from White Bear Lake. These wells were 

screened in the glacial buried aquifer at depths ranging from 

101 to 132 ft below the land surface. The five wells with a 

mixture of surface water and groundwater and open to Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer were at depths ranging from 178 to 

470 ft below the land surface and less than 1.5 mi south of 

White Bear Lake. Of these five wells, four of the wells were 

open to the aquifer at depths greater than 275 ft below the land 

surface. Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios 

for water from wells that were upgradient from White Bear 

Lake indicated the water was only from groundwater and not a 

mixture of groundwater and surface water.

The linear relation between the oxygen-18/oxygen-16 

and deuterium/protium ratios for the well-water samples was 

used to develop a groundwater/lake-water isotope mixing 

model to estimate the percentage of surface-water contribution 

to the well water (fig. 16). Two end points were established 

for this relation: one point to represent 100 percent groundwater contribution and another point to represent 100 percent 

surface-water contribution (fig. 16). The average oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for the well-water 

samples near the meteoric water line were used for the 

100 percent groundwater contribution end point. The average 

oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for the 

surface-water samples for White Bear Lake were used for the 

100 percent surface-water contribution end point. Using these 

end points, the percentage of surface-water contribution to the 

well water was estimated by comparing the linear distance of 

the oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios for the 

well-water sample from the two end points. Well-water samples with oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios 

closer to the average ratios for the surface-water samples had 

a larger estimated percentage of surface-water contribution; 

well-water samples with oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/

protium ratios closer to the average ratios for the well-water 

samples near the meteoric water line had a smaller percentage 

of surface-water contribution.

The percentages of surface-water contribution to the three 

wells screened in the glacial buried aquifer (fig. 16, wells 2, 

3, and 5) receiving surface water were 83, 48, and 16 percent. 

The largest percentage of surface-water contribution (83 percent) was for a well on Manitou Island (fig. 16) that extracts 

water from depths between 122 and 132 ft below the land surface. The other two wells with surface-water contributions are 

between Bald Eagle Lake and White Bear Lake, downgradient 

from White Bear Lake, and extract water from depths greater 

than 100 ft below the land surface.

The percentages of surface-water contribution ranged 

from 5 to 79 percent for the five wells open to the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer receiving a mixture of groundwater 

and surface water (fig. 16, wells 9, 10, 11, 13, 14); the largest percentages of surface-water contribution were for wells 

closer to White Bear Lake. The largest percentage of surfacewater contribution (79 percent) was for a MDNR observation 

well at Bellaire Beach on the south shore of White Bear Lake 

(figs. 3 and 16). This well extracts water from depths between 

178 and 194 ft below the land surface. The smallest percentage of surface-water contribution (5 percent) was for the well 

farthest from White Bear Lake (approximately 1.5 mi south of 

the lake) (fig. 16). This well may have had the lowest surfacewater contribution because the well was on the outer part of 

the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer receiving surface water 

from White Bear Lake or far enough from the lake to receive 

more groundwater than the other wells receiving surface 

water.

Near-Shore Hydraulic-Head Differences, 

Seepage Rates, and Lake-Sediment 

Characteristics

Hydrologic data indicated groundwater inflow to White 

Bear Lake was from the northeast, east, southeast, and south 

shores from glacial aquifers. Hydraulic-head differences were 

measured at 19 of the 25 locations where seepage fluxes were 

measured (fig. 3; table 1–10) along the shore of White Bear 

Lake. These measurements indicated groundwater was flowing 

into most of the lake along the shoreline from shallow aquifers; the highest flow rates were on the east and southeast parts 

of the lake. Slumped sediment and 3.7 ft of organic material 

were present in the lake core collected at one of the deepest 

locations in White Bear Lake.

Mini-Piezometer/Seepage-Meter Surveys

Hydraulic-head differences measured in August and 

September 2011 indicated groundwater was flowing into the 

lake along the shoreline from shallow aquifers at 12 of the 

19 locations where seepage fluxes and hydraulic-head differences were measured. Hydraulic-head differences (hydraulic 

head of lake-sediment pore water minus hydraulic head of 

the lake) measured along the shoreline of White Bear Lake 

ranged from -0.02 to 0.09 ft (fig. 15; table 1–10). Positive 

differences indicated the hydraulic head is higher in the lake 

sediments, with potential groundwater inflow to the lake, and 

negative differences indicated the lake level is higher, with 

potential lake water discharging into surrounding aquifers. Of 

the 19 sites where hydraulic-head differences were measured, 

hydraulic-head differences were positive at 12 sites, equal to 

zero at 3 sites, and negative at 4 sites (fig. 15; table 1–10). 

Positive hydraulic-head differences were measured at all locations along the east and southeast shore of the lake (fig. 15). 

Positive hydraulic-head differences also were measured along 

the southwest shore and at Ramsey County Beach (fig. 15). 

The highest positive hydraulic-head difference (0.09) was 

measured between Goose Lake and White Bear Lake. Negative hydraulic-head differences were measured along the north 

and northwest shore of the lake and at Bellaire Beach (fig. 15; 
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 57

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources digital data, 1:24,000 and 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

RAMSEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

EXPLANATION

Sampled well—Percentage of contribution 

from groundwater and surface water. Black 

number is site identifier. Blue number is the 

percentage of lake water contribution to well. 

Orange number is the percentage of 

groundwater contribution to well

Lake water

Groundwater

93°01' 93°00' 92°59' 92°58' 92°57'

45°06'

45°05'

45°04'

45°03'

45°02'

14

7

2

9

8

6

1

5

4

11

13

10

3

12

11

28/72

5/95

43/57

49/51

28/72

79/21

83/17

16/84

48/52

Bald Eagle Lake

Pine Tree

Lake

Long Lake

Goose

Lake

Long

Lake

Lost

Lake

Echo

Lake

White Bear Lake

Echo Lake

2/98

Manitou Island

Deuterium/protium ratio, per mil

Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratio, per mil

1

2

3

4 5

6 8

10 13

14

12

11

7

9

EXPLANATION

Glacial buried aquifer

St. Peter aquifer

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer

White Bear Lake surface-water sample

Meteoric waterline for Princeton,

Minnesota (Landon and others, 1999)

Groundwater sample sites—Numbers are site

identifiers (values in parentheses are number

of samples collected from the well)

1 - GLA-1 (1)

2 - GLA-2 (1)

3 - GLA-3 (1)

4 - GLA-4 (1)

5 - GLA-5 (1)

6 - STP-1 (2)

7 - STP-2 (2)

 8 - PDC-1 (2)

 9 - PDC-2 (1)

10 - PDCJ-1 (1)

11 - PDCJ -2 (1)

12 - PDCJ-3 (1)

13 - JOR-1 (1)

14 - JOR-2 (1)

100-percent 

groundwater

100-percent 

lake water

-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

Groundwater/lake-water isotope

mixing model for White Bear Lake area

-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

Figure 16. Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 ratios and deuterium/protium ratios and percentage contribution from 

groundwater and surface water for well-water samples near White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.
58 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

table 1–10), potentially indicating lake-water discharge 

along the shoreline to shallow aquifers at these locations. 

Hydraulic-head differences equal to zero were measured along 

the west and northwest shore and at Bellaire Beach (fig. 15; 

table 1–10), indicating minimal to no water movement in the 

lake sediments.

Positive median fluxes were measured at 10 locations 

along the northeast, east, northwest, southeast, and southwest 

shore of the lake (fig. 15). Hydraulic-head differences were 

positive at 9 of these 10 locations (table 1–10), indicating 

groundwater inflow to the lake at these locations. Median 

seepage-meter fluxes at the 25 locations along the shores of 

White Bear Lake ranged from -0.01 to 1.60 foot per day (ft/d) 

(table 1–10). Low positive median fluxes and slightly negative hydraulic-head differences were measured south of White 

Bear Beach Park (fig. 15), likely indicating minor groundwater inflow to the lake and minor lake-water discharge to 

aquifers at the location at different periods of time. Median 

fluxes greater than 0.18 ft/d were measured at five locations, 

two along the southeast shore and three along the east shore 

of the lake (fig. 15). Positive hydraulic-head differences were 

measured at these five locations (table 1–10). Low, negative 

median fluxes (less than 0.02 ft/d) were measured in three of 

the six seepage meters installed at Bellaire Beach, one seepage meter installed in the southwest part of Manitou Island, 

and one seepage meter installed southeast of White Bear 

Beach Park (fig. 15, table 1–10). These low negative median 

fluxes indicate a small amount of water was discharging from 

the lake to local aquifers at these locations. Low, negative 

hydraulic-head differences were measured at Bellaire Beach 

and southeast of White Bear Beach Park, indicating potential 

lake-water discharge to shallow aquifers at these locations.

Values of vertical hydraulic conductivity determined 

from the non-zero hydraulic-head differences and median 

seepage-flux measurements ranged from 1.5 to 232 ft/d 

(table 1–10), with a median and an average of 2.9 and 15 ft/d, 

respectively. These values are similar to typical values for 

sands (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990) but are much lower 

than the average horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the 

White Bear Lake used for Quaternary sediment in the Metro 

model (74.1 ft/d) (Metropolitan Council, 2012).

Lake-Sediment Coring/Penetration Probe

A relatively thin deposit of organic material with more 

permeable, slumped sands and gravels was found in the lakesediment core collected in the southeastern part of White Bear 

Lake (fig. 3). The lake core was 12.4 ft long and was collected in five sections on March 16, 2011. It is likely the core 

did not completely collect the entire Holocene sequence of 

lake sediments because the length of the core was relatively 

short compared to cores collected from lakes of similar depth 

to White Bear Lake (Webb and Webb, 1988; Dean and Gorham, 1998). The lithology of the core was divided into 10 distinct units (table 10) on the basis of nomenclature outlined by 

Schnurrenberger and others (2003). The upper 2 ft of the core 

consisted of very dark, massive organic material varying in 

color from dark gray to black (table 10). The sediment was 

dominated by centric diatoms, primarily Aulacoseira sp. A 

layer of fine sand to gravel-size clastics was present between 

2.0 and 2.4 ft in the core and likely was sediments slumped to 

the location. A mixture of organic-rich clay and clastics were 

present below the upper organic material between 2.4 and 

3.7 ft. The organic-rich clays and clastics between 2.4 and 

3.7 ft were lighter in color than the organic material at the top 

of the core. Stephanodiscus sp. diatoms dominated the sediments in this interval.

Table 10. Lithology of lake-sediment core collected from White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

Unit 

mumber

Depth below lake bottom (feet) Color Unit lithology Top of unit Bottom of unit

1 0 2.0 Dark gray to black Massive, very dark, organic material, dominated by centric diatoms, 

primarily Aulacoseira sp.

2 2.0 2.4 Dark and light gray Sub-rounded, unsorted, fine sand to gravel; abrupt contacts with 

above and below units.

3 2.4 3.7 Dark gray to black Organic-rich clays and clastics, dominated by Stephanodiscus sp. 

diatoms.

4 3.7 7.6 Gray to pink Thin layers of clay and coarse silt, small black bands common.

5 7.6 9.1 Light tan Massive coarse silt with thin layer of very fine sand, diffuse contact 

with above unit by increase in grain size.

6 9.1 9.5 Tan Massive fine sand.

7 9.5 9.9 Tan Fine sand to gravel; similar to unit 2.

8 9.9 10.7 Tan Massive coarse silt with a layer of coarse sand and gravel from 10.1 

to 10.2; layer similar to units 2 and 7.

9 10.7 11.1 Dark gray to tan Coarse sand to gravel; abrupt contacts with above and below units.

10 11.1 12.4 Tan Massive coarse silt to fine sand.
Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 59

Below the upper 3.7 ft of the core were a series of fine to 

coarse sand and gravel layers separated by massive layers of 

silt and fine sand (table 10). Numerous thin layers of coarse 

silt and coarser clastics varying in color from gray to pink 

were present between 3.7 and 7.6 ft, with small black bands 

common. Sand and gravel layers present between 9.5 and 

11.1 ft (table 10) likely represent material that slumped to the 

location from shallower waters because (1) abrupt contacts 

were present above and below the units, (2) the core was collected in proximity to the base of a steep slope, and (3) larger, 

sub-rounded grains and unsorted material were present in 

these layers. Light tan to tan, massive layers of fine sand or 

coarse silt with very fine sand were present between 7.6 and 

9.5 ft and between 11.1 and 12.4 ft in the core (table 10) and 

likely were slumped to the location or represent periods of 

lower water levels in the lake and not glacial in origin.

Penetration-probe measurements ranged from 0 ft near 

the east shore of the lake to 15 ft approximately 500 ft from 

the south shore of the lake (fig. 3; table 11). The greatest 

penetration-probe depths were from approximately 530 to 

2,610 ft from the south shore of the lake (table 11). A notable, 

shallow penetration-probe depth (only 1.5 ft) occurred at a 

distance of 3,500 ft from the south shore of the lake (table 11). 

At the core location (site 6), the penetration probe depth was 

7 ft, which indicated the probe went through organic material, 

clay, and slumped sands and gravels (tables 10 and 11). The 

penetration-probe measurements at the core site may indicate 

the penetration probe measurements are overestimating the 

thicknesses of the organic material in the lake.

A lack of thick deposits of organic material and the presence of more permeable, slumped sands and gravels in the 

lake-sediment core collected in White Bear Lake indicate the 

lakebed may be more permeable in the deep waters. Minnesota 

lakes that have persisted for the entire Holocene typically will 

have approximately 23 to 46 ft (7 to 14 m) of lake sediments 

(Webb and Webb, 1988; Dean and Gorham, 1998). The entire 

length of the White Bear Lake core was only 12.4 ft. However, 

the lake core may not have collected a full record of the Holocene lake sediments, not reaching the Pleistocene glacial sediments. If this is true, additional organic material may be present 

below the slumped material and massive silt and fine sand, 

potentially reducing vertical flow between the lake and underlying aquifers. The presence of permeable sands and gravels 

allows for a hydraulic connection to shallow and deep aquifers. 

Slumping of sediments tends to create conditions that are more 

permeable vertically when compared to areas of non-slumping 

sediments that are flat lying. Slumped sediments in the lake 

core from White Bear Lake likely indicate sediment movement 

from shallower water locations to the deeper, coring location. 

Penetration-probe measurements indicate the maximum potential thicknesses of organic material at the probe locations would 

be 15 ft (4.5 m), which is low compared to most Minnesota 

lakes. However, similar to the lake core, the penetration probes 

may not have reached the bottom of the lake sediments.

Physical characteristics of White Bear Lake might explain 

the lack of thick organic lake sediments at deeper depths. Large 

lakes that receive allocthonous materials, such as slumped sands 

and gravels, tend to have less organic material per lakebed area 

compared to smaller lakes (Edward G. Stets, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., May 17, 2012). Lakes with small 

watersheds, such as White Bear Lake, tend to have lower rates 

of sediment accumulation than lakes with larger watersheds. 

Deeper parts of lakes do not accumulate organic material from 

macrophytes because they do not tend to exist at depths more 

than 20 ft below the water surface. Although deeper parts of the 

lake may not be accumulating organic matter from macrophytes, 

preservation of autochthonous organic material may be better at 

the deeper parts of the lake if the bottom waters are anoxic.

Table 11. Penetration-probe measurements for lake sediments from White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota.

[ft, feet; BWS, below water surface; ft BLB, below lake bottom]

Site number 

(fig. 3)

Latitude (degrees 

minutes seconds)

Longitude (degrees 

minutes seconds)

Distance from 

south shore of lake 

(ft)

Water depth 

(ft BWS)

Penetration 

probe refusal 

depth (ft BWS)

Depth of penetrable material 

(ft BLB)

1 N 45° 04ʹ 21′′ W 92° 57ʹ 44′′ 4,990 11 11 0

2 N 45° 04ʹ 20′′ W 92° 57ʹ 47′′ 4,740 10 15 4

3 N 45° 04ʹ 15′′ W 92° 57ʹ 53′′ 4,100 18 22 4

4 N 45° 04ʹ 12′′ W 92° 58ʹ 00′′ 3,500 12 13 2

5 N 45° 04ʹ 06′′ W 92° 58ʹ 09′′ 2,610 40 46 7

6 (Lakesediment core 

site)

N 45° 04ʹ 00′′ W 92° 58ʹ 18′′ 1,730 76 83 7

7 N 45° 03ʹ 58′′ W 92° 58ʹ 22′′ 1,370 44 56 11

8 N 45° 03ʹ 55′′ W 92° 58ʹ 27′′ 930 32 43 11

9 N 45° 03ʹ 52′′ W 92° 58ʹ 31′′ 530 30 45 15

10 N 45° 03ʹ 50′′ W 92° 58ʹ 35′′ 160 7 10 3
60 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Water Balance for March and August 2011

Estimates from monthly water balances for White Bear 

Lake for March and August 2011 indicate groundwater inflow 

is a main component in the lake water balance, particularly in 

March, and seasonal differences exist in the amounts of lake 

water discharging from the lake and entering deeper aquifers. Groundwater inflows to the lake were fairly consistent; 

monthly volumes only varied by 0.3 in. between March and 

August 2011.

Monthly estimates for water-balance components (fig. 6) 

varied widely for White Bear Lake for March and August 2011 

(table 12). Total water inflows to the lake for March and 

August 2011 were 950 and 1,850 acre-feet, respectively, 

or 4.7 and 9.2 in., respectively, over the area of the lake 

(table 12). Total water outflows from the lake for March and 

August 2011 were 11 and 1,011 acre-feet, respectively, or 0.1 

and 5.0 in., respectively, over the area of the lake (table 12). In 

March 2011, water inflow to the lake was from precipitation 

and groundwater inflow, and water discharge from the lake 

was to aquifers surrounding the lake. Precipitation falling on 

the lake surface was the major contributor to the lake in March 

and August (table 12). In August 2011, the amount of groundwater inflow to the lake from water-table aquifers was similar 

to the amount of surface-water runoff entering the lake (table 

12). For both months, the difference between groundwater 

inflow from and lake-water discharge to water-table aquifers 

was approximately 2.0 in. over the area of the lake. Evaporation from the lake surface was the major outflow from the lake 

in August (table 12).

Comparing the water balances for August and 

March 2011 for White Bear Lake showed a summer increase 

in lake-water discharge. The difference between total inflow, 

total outflow, and change in lake-water volume for March and 

August 2011 were 579 and 904 acre-feet, respectively, or 2.8 

and 4.5 in., respectively, over the area of the lake (table 12). 

Monthly differences represent the sum of the amount of 

lake-water discharge to deep glacial and bedrock aquifers and 

data measurement and estimation errors. The total differences 

between total inflow, total outflow, and change in lake-water 

volume in March and August 2011 (2.8 and 4.5 in.) were more 

than three times the potential errors (0.5 and 1.4, respectively) 

(table 12). Subtracting and adding the potential error from the 

total difference between total inflow, total outflow, and change 

in lake-water volume, the estimated amount of lake-water 

discharge to deeper glacial and bedrock aquifers in March and 

August would range from 2.3 to 3.3 in. and from 3.1 to 5.9 in., 

respectively, from White Bear Lake. Applying the leakage 

equation and hydraulic parameters from Larson-Higdem and 

others (1975) for the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer below 

White Bear Lake, average monthly leakage from White Bear 

Lake to glacial and Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers was 

approximately 2.3 in., which is similar to the March 2011 

value (2.8 in.).

The summer increase in lake-water discharge could be 

related to lower groundwater levels and larger groundwater 

withdrawals in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Large 

summer groundwater withdrawals have caused groundwater levels to decline in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, 

increasing vertical hydraulic gradients and lake-water discharge from White Bear Lake. This increase in lake-water 

discharge from White Bear Lake has resulted in a lower mean 

lake stage (elevation). Lower groundwater levels in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer near White Bear Lake (figs. 1 and 8), 

particularly in the summer, create a condition for increased 

discharge of lake water to deep aquifers. The lower lake-water 

Table 12. Monthly water balance for March and August 2011 for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

Water-balance components (variable in equation 7)

 March 2011 August 2011

(acre-feet) (inches over the 

lake1) (acre-feet) (inches over the lake1)

Change in lake-water volume (∆LW) 360 1.8 -65 -0.3

Total inflows to the lake 950 4.7 1,850 9.2

Direct precipitation (P) 530 2.6 1,200 6

Surface runoff (SR) 0 0 290 1.4

Groundwater inflow from water-table aquifers (GWin) 420 2.1 360 1.8

Total outflows from the lake 11 0.1 1,011 5.0

Evaporation from lake (E) 0 0 990 4.9

 Lake-water discharge to water-table aquifers 

(LWout(shallow))

11 0.1 21 0.1

Potential lake-water discharge to glacial buried and 

bedrock aquifers = total inflow - total outflow - 

change in lake-water volume

579 2.8 904 4.5

Potential errors (assumed to be 10 percent of total 

inflow and outflow)

96 0.5 286 1.4

1

Based on a lake area of 2,401 acres (Rice Creek Watershed District, 2011).
Implications of Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions 61

discharges in March 2011 correlated with high groundwater 

levels in observation wells open to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer during March. Groundwater withdrawals from the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer are not a direct measure of 

any lake-water discharge from White Bear Lake to the aquifer 

but certainly affects the amount of lake-water discharge to 

aquifers.

Implications of Groundwater and 

Surface-Water Interactions

Water-level and water-quality data indicate water from 

the lake flows vertically into the underlying aquifers. In both 

groundwater synoptic surveys, water levels for White Bear 

Lake were approximately 10 ft higher than groundwater levels 

in wells open to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer near the 

lake, indicating the potential for lake-water discharge to the 

aquifer. Setterholm (1991) recorded a similar vertical waterlevel difference. Oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium 

ratios for water from wells open to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer south and downgradient from White Bear Lake and 

some wells screened in glacial aquifers between White Bear 

Lake and Bald Eagle Lake indicate the presence of a mixture 

of surface water and groundwater. White Bear Lake likely 

is the source of the surface water to the wells with a mixture 

of surface water and groundwater because (1) it is the only 

large, deep lake near these wells, (2) these wells are near and 

downgradient from White Bear Lake, and (3) these wells get 

their water from relatively deep depths. Some of these wells 

are used for public supply by municipalities near White Bear 

Lake.

The presence of surface water in wells near White Bear 

Lake can affect the protection and treatment of water for 

these public water supplies. Communities in Minnesota and 

throughout the United States are required to develop and 

implement wellhead protection plans that safeguard their water 

sources from contamination (Minnesota Department of Health, 

2012). As part of these plans, source-water protection areas 

must be delineated for each water source. The delineation of a 

source-water protection area around a public-supply well that 

withdraws water from aquifers with a mixture of groundwater and surface water should include the source area for the 

groundwater and the watershed for the surface-water source 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). The source 

areas would be the zone of transport for the well, which may 

include parts of the aquifer where groundwater is being withdrawn, other aquifers between the lake bottom and the aquifer 

where groundwater is being withdrawn, and the watershed 

for the surface-water source. Source-water protection areas 

for wells withdrawing a mixture of surface water and groundwater typically are larger than for wells that withdraw only 

groundwater from the same aquifer at similar groundwater 

volumes. Public-supply wells with a mixture of groundwater 

and lake water from White Bear Lake may need to include the 

lake watershed in their source-water protection areas. Commonly, the watershed of a lake may be part of source-water 

protection areas for multiple public-supply wells, potentially 

serving multiple communities. For example, municipal wells 

from the cities of Bovey and Coleraine, Minnesota, likely 

receive water from the upgradient Canisteo Mine Pit Lake 

(Jones, 2002; Walsh, 2007). Groundwater flow modeling and 

isotopic analysis of water from several municipal wells for the 

cities of Mora, Long Prairie, and Baxter, Minnesota, indicate a 

direct influence of a lake on water to these wells (Short Elliott 

Hendrickson Inc., 2012; James F. Walsh, Minnesota Department of Health, written commun., December 5, 2012). In 

addition, water obtained from public-supply wells that extract 

a mixture of surface water and groundwater may be at risk of 

contamination from pathogens and viruses not typically found 

in groundwater (Oregon Health Authority, 2012). This water 

can be classified as groundwater under the direct influence 

of surface water. If classified as such in Minnesota, the well 

water would need to follow water-treatment practices used 

for surface waters (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 2012). Because of the potential risk for pathogens and 

viruses, water-treatment costs are higher for surface water and 

groundwater under the direct influence of surface water than 

for groundwater used for drinking water (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2005).

Dissolution features commonly present in the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer underlying White Bear Lake could affect 

the amount of water discharging from the lake to aquifers, 

even with glacial sediments lying between the lake bottom and 

the aquifer. Dissolution features, such as cavities, channels, 

caves, and sinkholes sometimes associated with fractures, 

have been identified in the Prairie du Chien Group throughout east-central and southeastern Minnesota (Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and others, 2003). The presence of slumped 

material in the lake core collected in White Bear Lake and 

the deeper, circular bathymetric contours in White Bear Lake 

thought to be above the bedrock valley where the Prairie du 

Chien Group is the uppermost bedrock (Swanson and Meyer, 

1990) suggest the potential for slumping of lakebed material 

and glacial sediments into developing or expanding solution 

features below the lake. Continued dissolution enlarges these 

karst features with time (Runkel, Tipping, Alexander, and 

others, 2003), potentially increasing the hydrologic connection 

of the lake to the aquifer and increasing lake-water discharge 

from the lake. The production of anoxic, low pH waters during 

hydrogen metabolism in lake sediments could increase dissolution, potentially increasing lake-water discharge over time 

(Conrad and others, 1987; Edward G. Stets, U.S. Geological 

Survey, written commun., May 17, 2012). Low dissolved 

oxygen concentrations and pH values were measured in the 

water-quality survey in the deepest part of White Bear Lake 

where the Prairie du Chien Group is thought to be the uppermost bedrock (figs. 3 and 4; Swanson and Meyer, 1990).

Historical precipitation and lake-level data indicate the 

lake levels in White Bear Lake and other northeast TCMA 

lakes will not recover unless the area receives abundant 
62 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

precipitation or changes water-use and management practices. 

Potential changes in water-use and management practices 

involve either increasing the amount of water inputs to the lake 

or reducing the amount of water discharging from the lake to 

underlying aquifers. Increasing the amount of water inputs to 

the lake could include bringing surface water or groundwater 

from outside the watershed or groundwater watershed. Water 

imported to the watershed could be pumped directly into the 

lake or could be used as a source of municipal drinking water, 

reducing municipal groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer and, therefore, reducing lake-water 

discharge to the aquifer. Importing or diverting surface water 

from outside the lake watershed may require water treatment. 

The amount of groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer could be reduced by (1) reducing water 

withdrawals from wells that have the greatest effect on lakewater discharge to aquifers, (2) implementing or increasing 

water-conservation practices, (3) using surface-water sources 

for municipal use instead of groundwater, and (4) treating 

and discharging wastewater within the watershed. Identifying 

and limiting groundwater withdrawals from wells that have 

the greatest effects on lake-water discharge from White Bear 

Lake may be done through the application of groundwater 

flow models and by working directly with municipal water 

managers to understand their water-use needs and issues. By 

limiting groundwater withdrawals from wells that have the 

greatest effect on lake-water discharge to aquifers, groundwater levels in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer may rise 

locally, reducing the amount of lake-water discharging to the 

aquifer. Wastewater from many communities in the northeast 

TCMA, including the cities of White Bear Lake, Forest Lake, 

and Hugo (fig. 1), is piped south to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul, Minnesota. Treated water from 

this plant is discharged to the Mississippi River. Treated water 

from a local wastewater treatment plant within the White Bear 

Lake watershed could be discharged into infiltration basins 

upgradient from the lake or directly into the lake, keeping the 

water within the watershed.

Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation 

with the White Bear Lake Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources, and other State, county, municipal, 

and regional planning agencies, watershed organizations, 

and private organizations, applied a series of hydrologic and 

water-quality techniques to characterize groundwater and 

surface-water interactions near White Bear Lake through 

2011. During 2010 and 2011, White Bear Lake and other 

lakes in the northeastern part of the TCMA were at historically low levels. Previous periods of lower water levels in 

White Bear Lake correlate with periods of lower precipitation; however, recent urban expansion and increased pumping 

from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer have put into 

question whether a decline in precipitation is the primary 

cause for the recent water-level decline in White Bear Lake. 

Understanding and quantifying the amount of groundwater 

inflow to a lake and water discharge from a lake to aquifers 

is commonly difficult but is important in the management of 

lake levels. Three methods were used to assess groundwater 

and surface-water interactions on White Bear Lake: (1) a 

historical assessment (1978–2011) of levels in White Bear 

Lake, local groundwater levels, and their relation to historical 

precipitation and groundwater withdrawals in the White Bear 

Lake area; (2) recent (2010–11) hydrologic and water-quality 

data collected from White Bear Lake, other lakes, and wells; 

and (3) water-balance assessments for White Bear Lake in 

March and August 2011.

An analysis of covariance between average annual 

lake-level change and annual precipitation indicated the 

relation between the two variables was significantly different 

from 2003 through 2011 compared with 1978 through 2002, 

requiring an average of 4 more inches of precipitation per 

year to maintain the lake level. This shift in the linear relation between annual lake-level change and annual precipitation indicated the net effect of the non-precipitation terms 

on the water balance has changed relative to precipitation. 

The average amount of precipitation required each year to 

maintain the lake level has increased from 33 inches per year 

during 1978–2002 to 37 inches per year during 2003–11. 

The analysis of covariance of both periods (1978–2002 and 

2003–11) using the annual lake-level change, annual precipitation, annual surface outflow, and annual evaporation 

data indicated the decrease in volume in White Bear Lake 

between 2003 and 2010 was not explained by surface outflow or evaporation.

The combination of lower precipitation and an increase 

in groundwater withdrawals can explain the change in the 

lake-level response to precipitation. Annual and summer 

groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer have more than doubled from 1980 through 2010. 

Results from a regression model constructed with annual 

lake-level change, annual precipitation minus evaporation, and 

annual volume of groundwater withdrawn from the Prairie du 

Chien-Jordan aquifer indicated groundwater withdrawals had 

a greater effect than precipitation minus evaporation on water 

levels in the White Bear Lake area for all years since 2003. 

The recent (2003–11) decline in White Bear Lake reflects the 

declining water levels in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer; 

increases in groundwater withdrawals from this aquifer are a 

likely cause for declines in groundwater levels and lake levels. 

Annual pumping from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer has 

more than doubled from 1980 through 2010, increasing from 

a minimum of 1,873 million gallons in 1980 to a maximum 

of 4,557 million gallons in 2007. The increase in the annual 

groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer was due mainly to increases in summer withdrawals 

and, to a minor extent, increases in spring, fall, and winter 

withdrawals.
References Cited 63

Synoptic, static groundwater-level and lake-level measurements in March/April and August 2011 indicated groundwater was potentially flowing into White Bear Lake from 

glacial aquifers to the northeast and south, and lake water was 

potentially discharging from White Bear Lake to the underlying glacial and Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers and glacial 

aquifers to the northwest. Groundwater levels in the Prairie 

du Chien-Jordan aquifer below White Bear Lake are approximately 0 to 19 feet lower than surface-water levels in the lake, 

indicating groundwater from the aquifer likely does not flow 

into White Bear Lake, but lake water may discharge into the 

aquifer. Groundwater levels from March/April to August 2011 

declined more than 10 feet in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer south of White Bear Lake and to the north in Hugo, 

Minnesota.

Water-quality analyses of pore water from nearshore 

lake-sediment and well-water samples, seepage-meter measurements, and hydraulic-head differences measured in White Bear 

Lake also indicated groundwater was potentially flowing into 

White Bear Lake from shallow glacial aquifers to the east and 

south. Negative temperature anomalies determined in shallow 

waters in the water-quality survey conducted in White Bear 

Lake indicated several shallow-water areas where groundwater 

may be flowing into the lake from glacial aquifers below the 

lake. Cool lake-sediment temperatures (less than 18 degrees 

Celsius) were measured in eight areas along the northeast, east, 

south, and southwest shores of White Bear Lake, indicating 

potential areas where groundwater may flow into the lake.

Stable isotope analyses of well-water, precipitation, and 

lake-water samples indicated wells downgradient from White 

Bear Lake screened in the glacial buried aquifer or open to the 

Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer receive a mixture of surface 

water and groundwater; the largest surface-water contributions 

are in wells closer to White Bear Lake. A wide range in oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios was measured 

in well-water samples, indicating different sources of water 

are supplying water to the wells. Well water with oxygen-18/

oxygen-16 and deuterium/protium ratios that plot close to the 

meteoric water line consisted mostly of groundwater because 

deuterium/protium ratios for most groundwater usually are 

similar to ratios for rainwater and snow, plotting close to meteoric water lines. Well water with oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and 

deuterium/protium ratios that plot between the meteoric water 

line and ratios for the surface-water samples from White Bear 

Lake consists of a mixture of surface water and groundwater; 

the percentage of each source varies relative to its ratios. White 

Bear Lake is the likely source of the surface water to the wells 

that have a mixture of surface water and groundwater because 

(1) it is the only large, deep lake near these wells; (2) these 

wells are near and downgradient from White Bear Lake; and 

(3) these wells obtain their water from relatively deep depths, 

and White Bear Lake is the deepest lake in that area.

The linear relation between the oxygen-18/oxygen-16 and 

deuterium/protium ratios for the well-water samples was used 

to estimate the percentage of surface-water contribution to the 

well water. The percentages of surface-water contribution to 

the three wells screened in the glacial buried aquifer receiving 

surface water were 16, 48, and 83 percent. The percentages of 

surface-water contribution ranged from 5 to 79 percent for the 

five wells open to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer receiving surface water; wells closest to White Bear Lake had the 

largest percentages of surface-water contribution.

A 12.4-foot lake core collected at the deepest part of 

White Bear Lake and penetration-probe measurements made 

across a transect in the southeast part of the lake indicated the 

amount of organic material was low compared to other Minnesota lakes. Most of the core consisted of silts, sands, and 

gravels likely slumped from shallower waters, with a very low 

amount of low-permeability, organic material. Penetrationprobe measurements ranged from 0.2 foot near the east shore 

of the lake to 15 feet approximately 500 feet from the south 

shore of the lake.

Water-balance analysis of White Bear Lake in March 

and August 2011 indicated a potential discharge of 2.8 and 

4.5 inches per month, respectively, over the area of the lake 

from the lake to local aquifers. Total water inflows to the lake 

for March and August 2011 were 4.7 and 9.2 in., respectively, 

and total water discharges from the lake were 0.1 and 5.0 in., 

respectively, over the area of the lake.

References Cited

Alexander, S., Setterholm, D., Tipping, R., and Meyer, G., 

2001, The influence of ground water on the quality of lakes 

in the Carnelian-Marine watershed district: Minnesota Geological Survey, CD ROM, 33 p.

Almendinger, J.E., 1990, Groundwater control of closed-basin 

lake levels under steady-state conditions: Journal of Hydrology, v. 112, no. 3–4, p. 293–318. (Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(90)90020-X.)

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996, Hydrology handbook (2d ed.): American Society of Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 28, 784 p.

Andrews, W.J., Trotta, L.C., and Schoenberg, M.E., 1995, 

Water-level declines from 1980–90 in major aquifers in the 

Twin Cities area: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference and Symposia of the American Water Resources Association, Houston, Texas, November 5–9, 1995, p. 63–72.

Attanayake, M.P., and Waller, D.H., 1988, Use of seepage 

meters in a groundwater-lake interaction study in a fractured 

rock basin—A case study: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, v. 15, no. 6, p. 984–989. (Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1139/l88-130.)

Baker, D.G., and Kuehnast, E.L., 1978, Precipitation normals 

for Minnesota–1941–1970: Climate of Minnesota, Part X, 

University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Technical Bulletin 314, 16 p.
64 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Barr Engineering, 2010, Evaluation of groundwater and 

surface-water interaction—Guidance for resource assessment: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, prepared 

for Metropolitan Council, 22 p.

Brown, R.G., 1985, Hydrologic factors affecting lake-level 

fluctuations in Big Marine Lake, Washington County, Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85–4176, 23 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/wri/1985/4176/report.pdf.)

Brown, R.G., 1986, Errors in estimating ground-water components of hydrologic and phosphorus budgets of lakes, in

Subitzky, Seymour, ed., Selected papers in the hydrologic 

sciences, 1986: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2310, p. 53–64.

Childress, C.J.O., Forman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based on longterm method detection levels and some considerations 

for interpretations of water quality data provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–193, 19 p.

Coates, P.N., 1924, Special report on lake improvement: 

Ramsey County, Minnesota, Board of County Commissioners, 110 p.

Conrad, Ralf, Lupton, F.S., and Zeikus, J.G., 1987, Hydrogen 

metabolism and sulfate-dependent inhibition of methanogenesis in a eutrophic lake sediment (Lake Mendota): 

FEMS Microbiology Letters, v. 45, no. 2, p. 107–115. (Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.1987.

tb02346.x.)

Dean, W.E., and Gorham, E., 1998, Magnitude and significance of carbon burial in lakes, reservoirs, and peatlands: 

Geology, v. 26, p. 535–538. (Also available at http://

digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/299/)

Delin, G.N., 1991, Hydrogeology and simulation of groundwater flow in the Rochester area, southeast Minnesota, 

1978–88: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4081, 102 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri864321.)

Delin, G.N., and Woodward, D.G., 1984, Hydrogeologic 

setting and the potentiometric surfaces of the regional 

aquifers of the Hollandale Embayment, southeastern Minnesota, 1970–80: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2219, 56 p.

Dincer, T., 1968, The use of oxygen 18 and deuterium concentrations in the water balance of lakes: Water Resources 

Research, v. 4, no. 6, p. 1,289–1,306. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR004i006p01289.)

Domenico, P.A., and Schwartz, F.W., 1990, Physical and 

chemical hydrogeology: New York, John Wiley and Sons, 

824 p.

Donahower, Channing, 1994, White Bear Lake water level 

issues are nothing new: White Bear Press, article reprinted 

on November 11, 2010. (Also available at http://www.

presspubs.com/opinion/columnists/article_9711f1d2-5321-

5125-a823-6e5858492376.html.)

Erickson, D.R., 1981, A study of littoral groundwater seepage at Williams Lake, Minnesota, using seepage meters and 

wells: Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota, 

M.S. thesis, 153 p.

Fellows, C.R., and Brezonik, P.L., 1980, Seepage flow into 

Florida lakes: Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, v. 16, no. 4, p. 635–641. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1980.tb02442.x.)

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of inorganic and organic constituents 

in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 93–125, 217 p.

Gibson, J.J., and Edwards, T.W.D., 2002, Regional water 

balance trends and evaporation-transpiration partitioning from a stable isotope survey of lakes in northern 

Canada: Global Biogeochemical Cycles, v. 16, no. 2, 

p. 10–1 to 10–14. (Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/2001GB001839.)

Gonfiantini, R., 1978, Standards for stable isotope measurements in natural compounds: Nature, v. 271, p. 534–536. 

(Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/271534a0.)

Gons, H.J., 1999, Optical teledetection of chlorophyll a in 

turbid inland waters: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 33, p. 1,127–1,132. (Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1021/es9809657.)

Green, J.A., Luhmann, A.J., Peters, A.J., Runkel, A.C., 

Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Alexander, S.C., 2008, Dye 

tracing within the St. Lawrence confining unit in southeastern Minnesota, in Yuhr, L.B., Alexander, E.C., Jr., 

and Beck, B.F., eds., Sinkholes and the engineering and 

environmental impacts of karst: Reston, Va., American 

Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 183, p. 477–484. (Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1061/41003(327)45.)

Green, J.A., Peters, A.J., Luhmann, A.J., Alexander, S.C., and 

Alexander, E.C., Jr., 2010, Karstic flow in the St. Lawrence 

confining unit: Proceedings from the 44th Annual NorthCentral Section and South-Central Joint Meeting, Branson, 

Missouri, Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 42, no. 2, p. 108.
References Cited 65

Guswa, J.H., Seigel, D.I., and Gillies, D.C., 1982, Preliminary 

evaluation of the ground-water-flow system in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area, Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 82–44, 71 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water Resources Investigations, book 4, chapter A3, 522 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p., 3 pl.

Horn, M.A., 1983, Ground-water-use trends in the Twin Cities 

metropolitan area, Minnesota, 1880–1980: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83–4033, 

37 p.

Horne, A.J., and Goldman, C.R., 1994, Limnology (2d ed.): 

New York, McGraw-Hill Co., 576 p.

Johnson, G.C., Toole, J.M., and Larson, N.G., 2007, Sensor 

corrections for Sea-Bird SBE-41CP and SBE-41 CTDs: 

Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, v. 24, 

p. 1,117–1,129. (Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/

JTECH2016.1.)

Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 2008, International 

vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and 

associated terms: International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Guide 99–12:2007, p. 1–127, accessed 

January 15, 2013, at http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/

documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2008.pdf.

Jones, P.M., 2002, Characterization of ground-water flow 

between the Canisteo Mine Pit and surrounding aquifers, 

Mesabi Iron Range, Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4198, 30 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024198/.)

Jones, P.M., 2006, Ground-water/surface-water interaction in 

nearshore areas of three lakes on the Grand Portage Reservation, northeastern Minnesota, 2003–04: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5034, 49 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5034/.)

Kanivetsky, R., and Cleland, J.M., 1992, Geologic atlas of 

Ramsey County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey 

County Atlas C–7, plate 6, surficial hydrogeology.

Kelly, S.E., and Murdoch, L.C., 2003, Measuring the hydraulic conductivity of shallow submerged sediments: Ground 

Water, v. 41, no. 4, p. 431–439.

Kenoyer, G.J., and Bowser, C.J., 1992, Groundwater chemical evolution in a sandy silicate aquifer in northern Wisconsin—1. Patterns and rates of change: Water Resources 

Research, v. 28, no. 2, p. 579–589. (Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1029/91WR02302.)

Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Anderson, M.P., 1986, Use of a 

numerical ground-water flow model for hypothesis testing: 

Ground Water, v. 24, no. 1, p. 49–55. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1986.tb01458.x.)

Krabbenhoft, D.P., Bowser, C.J., Anderson, M.P., and Valley, J.W., 1990, Estimating groundwater exchange with 

lakes—1. The stable isotope mass balance method: Water 

Resources Research, v. 26, no. 10, p. 2,445–2,453. (Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR026i010p02445.)

Landon, M.K., Delin, G.N., Komor, S.C., and Regan, C.P., 

2000, Relation of pathways and transit times of recharge 

water to nitrate concentrations using stable isotopes: 

Ground Water, v. 38, no. 3, p. 381–395. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00224.x.)

Larson-Higdem, D.C., Larson, S.P., and Norvitch, R.F., 

1975, Configuration of the water table and distribution of 

downward leakage to the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer 

in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, Minnesota: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75–342, 33 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1975/0342/report.

pdf.)

Lee, D.R., 1977, A device for measuring seepage flux in lakes 

and estuaries: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 22, no. 1, 

p. 140–147.

Lee, D.R., and Cherry, J.A., 1978, A field exercise on ground–

water flow using seepage meters and mini-piezometers: 

Journal of Geological Education, v. 27, p. 6–10.

Lively, R.S., and Thorleifson, L.H., 2009, Minnesota soil, till, 

and ground-water geochemical data: Minnesota Geological Survey Open File Report OFR–09–02, 19 p., 1 poster, 

69 atlas pages, 8 digital tables, 1 geodatabase.

Marine on St. Croix Watershed Management Organization, 

2002, Diagnostic feasibility study and implementation plan 

for Square Lake, Washington County, Minnesota: Clean 

Water Partnership Project Report, 191 p.

McComas, Steve, and Stuckert, Jo, 2006, White Bear Lake 

data summary and trend analysis through 2005: St. Paul, 

Minnesota, Blue Water Science, 38 p., accessed December 28, 2012, at http://www.wblcd.org/docs/wbl_trend_

analysis_R05_full.pdf.

McComas, Steve, and Stuckert, Jo, 2009, White Bear Lake 

aquatic plant surveys, 2009: St. Paul, Minn., Blue Water 

Science, 12 p., accessed December 28, 2012, at http://www.

wblcd.org/docs/WBL_aquatic_plant_surveys_2009.pdf.

Metropolitan Council, 2004, Water demand and planning in 

the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area—An update to the longterm water supply plan: Publication no. 32–04–021, 26 p., 

accessed December 28, 2012, at http://metrocouncil.org/

Publications-Resources.aspx?Category=&Category=60. 
66 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Metropolitan Council, 2012, Metro Model 2: St. Paul, Minnesota, accessed May 10, 2012, at http://metrocouncil.org/

Wastewater-Water/Planning/Water-Supply-Planning/MetroModel-2.aspx.

Meyer, G.N., and Swanson, L., 1992, Geologic atlas of 

Ramsey County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey 

County Atlas Series C–7, accessed January 19, 2012, at 

http://purl.umn.edu/58233.

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a, Closest 

station climate data retrieval: State Climatology Office, 

accessed December 31, 2011, at http://climate.umn.edu/

hidradius/radius.asp.

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011b, St. Paul Campus Climatological Observatory (Cooperative station ID 

21–8450–6) monthly pan evaporation: Department of Soil, 

Water, & Climate, accessed December 19, 2011, at http://

climate.umn.edu/img/wxsta/pan-evaporation.htm.

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2012a, Wetland 

delineation precipitation data retrieval from a gridded database: State Climatology Office, accessed February 29, 2012, 

at http://climate.umn.edu/wetland/.

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2012b, Drought 

2009: State Climatology Office, accessed February 8, 2012, at http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/

drought_2009_091103.htm.

Minnesota Department of Health, 2012, Wellhead protection: 

accessed June 19, 2012, at http://www.health.state.mn.us/

divs/eh/water/swp/whp/index.htm.

Minnesota Department of Health/Minnesota Geological 

Survey, 2011, County Well Index online: accessed March 

through December 2011, at http://www.health.state.mn.us/

divs/eh/cwi/.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998, Lakeground water interaction study at White Bear Lake, Minnesota: Report to the Legislative Committee on Minnesota 

Resources, accessed March 8, 2011, at http://files.dnr.state.

mn.us/publications/waters/wbl_98.pdf.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2005, Water 

conservation—Wise use and efficiency is everyone’s 

responsibility: accessed November 30, 2012, at http://files.

dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/sustainability/

conservation.pdf.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011a, Lake 

levels—White Bear Lake: Presentations given at the 

Lake Level Forum hosted by the City of White Bear 

Lake, September 2, 2010, accessed March 9, 2011, at 

http://whitebearlake.govoffice2.com/index.asp?Type=B_

BASIC&SEC={273B90AA-5480-41AA-BBC7-

A61F9E6BA5A0}.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011b, Water 

use—Water Appropriations Permit Program: accessed 

December 15, 2011, at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/

watermgmt_section/appropriations/wateruse.html.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011c, St. PaulBaldwin Plains and Moraines Subsection: accessed December 15, 2011, at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Md/

index.html.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011d, Ground 

water level data retrieval: State Climatology Office, 

accessed December 16, 2011, at http://climate.umn.edu/

ground_water_level/.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2012, LakeFinder: St. Paul, Minnesota, accessed June 20, 2012, at 

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/index.html.

Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2012, MnDOT 

CORS GPS Network: St. Paul, Minn., accessed 

July 6, 2012, at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/surveying/

CORS/CORS.html.

Minnesota Geospatial Information Office, 2013, USGS High 

Resolution Orthoimagery, Ramsey County, Minnesota, 

Spring 2006, accessed March 12, 2013, at http://www.

mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/metadata/doq_ramsey06.html.

Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 2012, Minnesota 

administrative rules—Rule 4720.3920 general requirements 

for construction of surface water and groundwater under 

the direct influence of surface water treatment facilities: 

St. Paul, Minn, accessed December 4, 2012, at https://www.

revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=4720.3920.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1999, Baseline WaterQuality of Minnesota’s Principal Aquifers—Region 6, 

Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, accessed March 12, 2013, 

at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.

html?gid=6296.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008, Trichloroethylene 

monitoring results and swimming use health consultation: 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Quality/Surface 

Water Report #1.25, 3 p., accessed December 28, 2012, 

at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/sites/

ramsey/longlakeinfo1208.pdf.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2011, White Bear 

Lake, Lake and stream water quality data: accessed 

December 15, 2011, at http://cf.pca.state.mn.us/water/

watershedweb/datasearch/waterUnit.cfm?wid=82-0167-

00&tab=Assesments.

Morey, G.B., 1972, Petrology of Keweenawan sandstones in 

the subsurface of southeastern Minnesota, in Sims, P.K., and 

Morey, G.B., eds., Geology of Minnesota—A centennial 

volume: Minnesota Geological Survey, p. 436–449.
References Cited 67

Mossler, J.H., 2008, Paleozoic stratigraphic nomenclature for 

Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 65, 83 p., 1 pl.

Mossler, J.H., and Tipping, R.G., 2000, Bedrock geology and 

structure of the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map Series M–104, 1 pl.

National Climatic Data Center, 2013, NOAA’s 1981–2010 climate normals data: accessed March 8, 2013, at http://www.

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html.

Norvitch, R.F., Ross, T.G., and Brietkrietz, Alex, 1973, Water 

resources outlook for the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Area, Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 73–203, 219 p.

Oregon Health Authority, 2012, Groundwater under the 

direct influence of surface water: accessed December 4, 2012, at http://public.health.oregon.gov/

HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/DRINKINGWATER/

SOURCEWATER/Pages/gwudi.aspx.

Pirkey, K.D., and Glodt, S.R, 1998, Quality control at the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–026–98, accessed 

July 6, 2012, at http://nwql.usgs.gov/FS-026-98.shtml.

Reeder, H.O., 1966, Fourteen maps of the hydrologic system, Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, Minnesota: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 66–109, 14 pls.

Révész, Kinga, and Coplen, T.B., 2008, Determination of the 

δ(2H/1H) of water—RSIL lab code 1574: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods 10–C1, 27 p.

Rice Creek Watershed District, 2011, White Bear Lake 

(82–0167) with watershed: accessed March 7, 2011, 

at http://www.ricecreekwatershed.govoffice2.com/

vertical/Sites/%7BF68A5205-A996-4208-96B5-

2C7263C03AA9%7D/uploads/%7BDEB1F0DB-2FB0-

4E10-AAD2-261AA0D979FE%7D.PDF.

Rosenberry, D.O., 1990, Effect of sensor error on interpretation of long-term water-level data: Ground Water, v. 28 

no. 6, p. 927–936.

Rosenberry, D.O., and LaBaugh, J.W., eds., 2008, Field techniques for estimating water fluxes between surface water 

and ground water: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods 4–D2, 128 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/tm/04d02/.)

Rosenberry, D.O., Striegl, R.G., and Hudson, D.C., 2000, 

Plants as indicators of focused ground water discharge 

to a northern Minnesota lake: Ground Water, v. 38, 

no. 2, p. 296–303. (Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00340.x.)

Ruhl, J.F., 1994, Quality of ground water around Vadnais Lake 

and in Lambert Creek watershed, and interaction of ground 

water with Vadnais Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 94–4062, 59 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/wri/1994/4062/report.pdf.)

Runkel, A.C., Tipping, R.G., Alexander, E.C., Jr., Green, J.A., 

Mossler, J.H., and Alexander, S.C., 2003, Hydrogeology of 

the Paleozoic bedrock in southeastern Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 61, 105 p., 

2 pls.

Runkel, A.C., Tipping, R.G., and Mossler, J.H., 2003, Geology 

in support of groundwater management for the northwestern Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: Minnesota Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 08–4, accessed January 19, 2012, 

at http://purl.umn.edu/108353.

Runkel, A.C., Mossler, J.H., Tipping, R.G., and Bauer, 

E.J., 2006, A hydrogeologic and mapping investigation 

of the St. Lawrence Formation in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: Minnesota Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 06–04, 53 p., accessed January 19, 2012, at http://

purl.umn.edu/108892.

Sacks, L.A., 2002, Estimating ground-water inflow to lakes 

in central Florida using the isotope mass-balance approach: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 2002–4192, 47 p.

Sanocki, C.A., Langer, S.K., and Menard, J.C. 2009, Potentiometric surfaces and changes in groundwater levels in 

selected bedrock aquifers in the Twin Cities Metropolitan 

Area, March–August 2008 and 1988–2008: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5226, 67 p. 

with appendixes. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

sir/2009/5226/.)

Schnurrenberger, D., Russell, J., and Kelts, K., 2003, Classification of lacustrine sediments based on sedimentary components: Journal of Paleolimnology, v. 29, no. 2, p. 141–154.

Schoenberg, M.E., 1984, Water levels and water-level changes 

in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan and Mount Simon-Hinckley 

aquifers, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 1971–

80: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 83–4237, 23 p.

Schoenberg, M.E., 1990, Effects of present and projected 

ground-water withdrawals on the Twin Cities aquifer system, Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 90–4001, 165 p.

Setterholm, D., 1991, Lake level controls and pumping—

White Bear Lake: Report to White Bear Lake Conservation 

District.
68 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 2012, Part I, Wellhead protection plan for the city of Mora, Minnesota: St. Paul, 

Minnesota, SHE No. MORA 109696, 71 p., accessed 

December 28, 2012, at http://www.ci.mora.mn.us/

vertical/sites/%7B10E9A731-228C-4FE8-9EA3-

018C1162BBAE%7D/uploads/MoraPartI_complete.pdf. 

Swanson, L., and Meyer, G.N., 1990, Geologic atlas of Washington County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geologic Survey 

County Atlas Series C–5, accessed January 19, 2012, at 

http://purl.umn.edu/58492. 

Thayer, C.A, 1883, Indian legends of Minnesota: Boston, 

Massachusetts, J.R. Osgood and Company, p. 583–593.

University of Minnesota, National Lacustrine Core Facility, 

2012, LacCore standard lake-sediment coring sampling 

procedures: accessed May 15, 2012, at http://lrc.geo.umn.

edu/laccore/assets/pdf/sops/livingstone-bolivia.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2012, 2010 population finder: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, accessed July 6, 2012, at 

http://www.census.gov/popfinder/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, State source 

water assessment and protection programs final guidance: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA 816–R–97–009, appendix D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Long Term 2 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet EPA 815–F–05–002, 4 p.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1994, National wetlands inventory digital data, October 1991 to 1994: accessed January 17, 2013, at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands.

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, accessed December 28, 2012, 

at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2012, U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Information System, Water Data for Minnesota—Web Interface: accessed July 6, 2012, at http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/mn/nwis/nwis.

Walsh, J.F., 2007, Wellhead protection plan for the city of 

Coleraine, Minnesota, part 1: Minnesota Department of 

Health, 40 p.

Webb, R. S., and Webb, T., III, 1988, Rates of accumulation in pollen cores from small lakes and mires of eastern 

North America: Quaternary Research, v. 30, p. 284–297. 

(Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0033-

5894(88)90004-X)

Wetzel, R.G., 1983, Limnology (2d ed.): Philadelphia, Pa., 

Saunders College Publishing, p. 73–213.

Winter, T.C., 1981, Uncertainties in estimating the water balance of lakes: Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, v. 17, p. 82–115.

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 

1998, Ground water and surface water—A single resource: 

U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, p. 46–49. (Also 

available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1139/.)

Winter, T.C., and Pfannkuch, H.O., 1976, Hydrogeology of a 

drift-filled bedrock valley near Lino Lakes, Anoka County, 

Minnesota: Journal of Research of U.S. Geological Survey, 

1976, v. 4, no. 3, p. 267–276. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/journal/1976/vol4issue3/report.pdf.)

Winter, T.C., and Rosenberry, D.O., 2009, Evaluation of methods and uncertainties in the water budget, in Winter, T.C., 

and Likens, G.E., eds., Mirror Lake—Interactions among 

air, land, and water: Berkeley, California, University of 

California Press, Freshwater Ecology Series, p. 205–224.

Winter, T.C., LaBaugh, J.W., and Rosenberry, D.O., 1988, The 

design and use of a hydraulic potentiomanometer for direct 

measurement of differences in hydraulic head between 

groundwater and surface water: Limnology and Oceanography, v. 33, no. 5, p. 1,209–1,214.

Winter, T.C., Rosenberry, D.O., and LaBaugh, J.W., 2003, 

Where does the ground water in small watersheds come 

from?: Ground Water, v. 41, no. 7, p. 989–1,000. (Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.

tb02440.x.)

Woessner, W.W., and Sullivan, K.E., 1984, Results of seepage meter and mini-piezometer study, Lake Mead, Nevada: 

Ground Water, v. 22, no. 5, p. 561–568. (Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1984.tb01425.x.)

Wright, H.E., Jr. 1967, A square-rod piston sampler for lake 

sediments: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 37, no. 3, 

p. 975–976.

Zamora, Celia, 2006, Estimates of vertical flux across the 

sediment—Water interface by direct measurement and using 

temperature as a tracer in the Merced River, California: Sacramento, California, California State University, Master’s 

thesis, 90 p.
Appendix Tables 69

Appendix Tables
70 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Table 1–1. Summaries of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models (significant at an alpha of 0.05) used for estimating annual lakelevel changes for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

[R2, coefficient of determination; <, less than]

Model1

number

Lakelevel change 

source

Continuous 

explanatory 

variable

Model adjusted R2Model residual 

standard error Coefficient Value Standard error p-value

1

ΔLW; annual 

change 

1978–2011

P; High-density, 

nearest, best 

available2

0.76 0.42

b0 -4.0 0.44 <0.0001

b1 0.12 0.01 <0.0001

b2 -0.5 0.17 0.004

2

ΔLW + SO; 

annual 

change 

1978–2011

P – E; Highdensity, 

nearest, best 

available2

0.83 0.38

b0 -0.3 0.09 0.001

b1 0.10 0.009 <0.0001

b2 -0.7 0.15 <0.0001

3

ΔLW; annual 

change 

1978–2011

P; High-density, 

single longterm observer3

0.64 0.52

b0 -4.4 0.65 <0.0001

b1 0.13 0.019 <0.0001

b2 -0.7 0.20 0.003

4

ΔLW; annual 

change 

1978–2011

P; Wetland 

delineation 

source4

0.73 0.45

b0 -4.6 0.55 <0.0001

b1 0.14 0.02 <0.0001

b2 -0.4 0.18 0.054

1

Form for model numbers 1, 3, and 4: ΔLW = b0 + (b1 × P) + (b2 × Tp) + ε; model number 2: (ΔLW + SO) = b0 + [b1 × (P – E)] + (b2 × Tp) + ε, where 

ΔLW = annual lake-level change between January 1 and December 31 of a calendar year, in feet; P = precipitation on lake surface, in inches; E = pan-estimated evaporation from lake surface, in inches; Tp

 = time-period binary variable, equal to 0 for 1978–2002 and equal to 1 for 2003–11; SO = surface-water 

outflow, in feet of lake level; ε = random error (residual) in feet; bi = estimated coefficients where b0 = intercept, in feet; b1 = slope coefficient for continuous 

explanatory variable, in feet per inch; and b2 = coefficient indicating the intercept difference between 1978–2002 and 2003–11, in feet.

2

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2011a.

3

Peter Boulay, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, written commun., January 13, 2012.

4

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2012a.
Appendix Tables 71

Table 1–2. Summaries of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models (significant at an alpha of 0.05) used for estimating annual or 

seasonal lake-volume changes for White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.

[R2, coefficient of determination; <, less than]

Model1

number Response variable source

Continuous 

explanatory 

variable

Model 

adjusted 

R2

Model residual standard 

error

Coefficient Value Standard 

error p-value

1

ΔLW; annual change 

1978–2011, millions of 

gallons

P 0.64 510

b0 -3,700 534 <0.0001

b1 110 16 <0.0001

b2 -490 200 0.0208

2

ΔLW + SO; annual change 

1978–2011, millions of 

gallons

P – E 0.72 481

b0 -300 117 0.0148

b1 91 11 <0.0001

b2 -690 187 0.0008

3

ΔLW + SO; Spring 

(March to May) change, 

1978–2011, millions of 

gallons

P – E 0.57 305

b0 290 68 0.0002

b1 100 15 <0.0001

b2 -250 120 0.0452

4

ΔLW + SO; Summer (June 

to August) change, 

1978–2011, millions of 

gallons

P – E 0.75 304

b0 180 64 0.0082

b1 87 9.5 <0.0001

b2 -340 120 0.0074

5

ΔLW + SO; Fall (September to November) 

change, 1978–20112, 

millions of gallons

P – E 0.74 169

b0 -590 45 <0.0001

b1 84 8.8 <0.0001

b2 23 66 0.7330

6

ΔLW + SO; Winter 

(January, February, 

December) change, 

1978–20112, millions of 

gallons

P – E 0.18 159

b0 -184 98 0.0684

b1 91 33 0.0101

b2 -140 67 0.0399

1

Form for model number 1: ΔLW = b0 + (b1 × P) + (b2 × Tp)+ ε; models 2–6: (ΔLW + SO) = b0 + [b1 × (P – E)] + (b2 × Tp) + ε, where ΔLW = lake-volume 

change, in millions of gallons; P = precipitation on lake surface, in inches; E = pan-estimated evaporation from lake surface, in inches; Tp = time period binary 

variable, equal to 0 for 1978–2002 and equal to 1 for 2003–11; SO = surface-water outflow, in millions of gallons; ε = random error (residual) in millions of 

gallons; bi = estimated coefficients where b0 = intercept, in millions of gallons; b1 = slope coefficient for continuous explanatory variable, in millions of gallons per inch; and b2

 = coefficient indicating the intercept difference between 1978–2002 and 2003–11, in millions of gallons.

2

1984 data were excluded because the outflow was blocked (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998). 
Table 1–3. Summaries of multiple linear regression models (significant at an alpha of 0.05) used for estimating annual changes in level or volume of Westimating annual and seasonal groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, M[R2, coefficient of determination; Mgal, millions of gallons; <, less than] Model form1 Model number Model description1 Adjusted R2 Model resid- ual standard error Coeffi- cient Coefficient units Value 

(ΔLW + SO) = b0 + [b1 × (P – E)] + (b2 × WPDCJ) + ε 1 Annual, 1980–2010, all variables in millions of gallons 0.72 496 b0 Mgal 710 

b1 Mgal/Mgal 1.4 b2 Mgal -0.37 

2 Annual, 1980–2010, ΔLW in feet, SO in feet, P – E in inches, WPDCJ in millions of gallons 0.82 0.40 b0 feet 0.85 

b1 feet/inch 0.099 b2 Mgal -4.3E-4 

WPDCJ = b0 + (b1 × Y) + (b2 × P) + ε 3 Annual, 1980–2010, Y in years, P in inches, WPDCJ in millions of gallons 0.91 230.90 b0 Mgal -159,000 

b1 Mgal/year 82 b2 Mgal/inch -25 

4 Spring (March, April, May), 1988–2010, Y in years, P in inches, WPDCJ in mil- lions of gallons 0.70 63.25 b0 Mgal -24,700 

b1 Mgal/year 13 b2 Mgal/inch -12 

5 Summer (June, July, Au- gust), 1988–2010, Y in years, P in inches, WPDCJ in millions of gallons 0.77 159.20 b0 Mgal -72,000 

b1 Mgal/year 37 b2 Mgal/inch -32 

6 Fall (September, October, November), 1988–2010, Y in years, P in inches, WPDCJ in millions of gallons 0.69 77.55 b0 Mgal -33,700 

b1 Mgal/year 17 b2 Mgal/inch -12 

7

Winter (January, February, 

December), 1988–2010, Y

in years, P in inches, WPDCJ in millions of gallons 0.59 32.84

b0 Mgal 12,300 b1 Mgal/year 6 b2 Mgal/inch -8 

1Variables are defined as ΔLW = annual change in White Bear Lake volume or level; SO = surface-water outflow; P = precipitation on lake surface; E = pan-estimated evapo

WPDCJ = groundwater withdrawals from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer in the vicinity of White Bear Lake; Y = year; bi = coefficient estimated in regression, ε = random er
Appendix Tables 73

Table 1–4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table comparing the sequential 

addition of explanatory variables used to explain annual lake-volume 

change, White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota, 1980–2010.

[ <, less than; --, no data]

Model 

variable1

Degrees 

of 

freedom

Sum of 

squared 

errors

Mean 

squared 

error

F-value p-value

P – E 1 17,100,000 17,100,000 72.9 <0.0001

WPDCJ 1 2,500,000 2,500,000 10.7 0.003

Tp 1 665,000 665,000 2.84 0.105

(P – E) × Tp 1 355,000 355,000 1.51 0.230

WPDCJ × Tp 1 18 18 0 0.993

Residuals 25 5,860,000 234,000 -- --

1

Statistical model: (ΔLW + SO) = [(P – E) + WPDCJ] × Tp where ΔLW = annual lake 

volume change, in millions of gallons; SO = annual surface-water outflow volume, in 

millions of gallons; P = annual precipitation volume on lake surface, in millions of 

gallons; E = annual evaporation volume from lake-surface, in millions of gallons; 

WPDCJ = annual groundwater withdrawal volume from the Prairie du Chien-Jordan 

aquifer, in millions of gallons; Tp = time period binary variable, equal to 0 for 

1978–2002 and equal to 1 for 2003–11.

Table 1–5. Groundwater-level data collected during synoptic studies in March/April 2011, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5044/downloads/table_1-5.xlsx.

Table 1–6. Groundwater-level data collected during synoptic studies in August 2011, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 

Minnesota. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5044/downloads/table_1-6.xlsx.

Table 1–7. Surface-water-level data collected by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources during synoptic studies in March/April 

2011, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5044/

downloads/table_1-7.xlsx.

Table 1–8. Surface-water-level data collected by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources during synoptic studies in August 

2011, northeast Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5044/

downloads/table_1-8.xlsx.

Table 1–9. Temperature measurements made in surface water and lake sediment of White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, July through August 2011. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5044/

downloads/table_1-9.xlsx.

Table 1–10. Seepage flux measurements and hydraulic-head measurements on the shore of White Bear Lake, northeast Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 2011. The Excel file may be downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5044/downloads/table_1-10.

xlsx.
74 Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011

Publishing support provided by: 

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact: 

Director, USGS Minnesota Water Science Center 

2280 Woodale Drive 

Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 

(763) 783–3100

Or visit the Minnesota Water Science Center Web site at: 

http://mn.water.usgs.gov/

Jones and others— Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota, through 2011—Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5044