U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
CEDAR LAKE
LAKEOMTY
ILLINOIS
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 298
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
CEDAR LAKE
LAKECOLMY
ILLINOIS
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 298
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE
ILLINOIS NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1975
773
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i
List of Illinois Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 10
VI. Appendices 11
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey's eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [§303(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [§303(c)L clean lakes [§314(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [§106 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
iii
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation's
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency for professional involvement and to the
Illinois National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling
phase of the Survey.
Dr. Richard H. Briceland, Director of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency; and Ronald M. Barganz, State Survey
Coordinator, and John J. Forneris, Manager of Region III, Field
Operations Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control,
provided invaluable lake documentation and counsel during the
Survey, reviewed the preliminary reports, and provided critiques
most useful in the preparation of this Working Paper series.
Major General Harold R. Patton, the Adjutant General of
Illinois, and Project Officer Colonel Daniel L. Fane, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Illinois National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
IV
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF ILLINOIS
LAKE NAME
Baldwin
Bloomington
Carlyle
Cedar
Charleston
Coffeen
Crab Orchard
Decatur
DePue
East Loon
Fox
Grass
Highland Silver
Holiday
Horseshoe
Long
Lou Yaeger
Marie
Old Ben Mine
Pistakee
Raccoon
Rend
Sangchris
Shelbyville
Slocum
Springfield
Storey
Vandalia
Vermilion
Wee Ma Tuk
Wonder
COUNTY
Randolph
McLean
Bond, Clinton, Fayette
Lake
Coles
Montgomery
Jackson, Williamson
Ma con
Bureau
Lake
Lake
Lake
Madison
LaSalle
Madi son
Lake
Montgomery
Lake
Franklin
Lake, McHenry
Ma ri on
Franklin, Jefferson
Christian
Moultrie, Shelby
Lake
Sangamon
Knox
Fayette
Vermilion
Fulton
McHenry
-------
CEDAR LAKE
XLake Sampling Site
^Sewage Treatment Facility
1/4 1/2 3/4 Km.
-------
CEDAR LAKE
STORET NO. 1759
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Cedar Lake is mesotrophic. It
ranked first in overall trophic quality when the 31 Illinois
lakes sampled in 1973 were compared using a combination of six
lake parameters*. None of the other lakes had less median total
phosphorus, four had less and one had the same median dissolved
phosphorus, two had less median inorganic nitrogen, none had
less mean chlorophyll a_, and none had greater mean Secchi disc
transparency. Depression of dissolved oxygen with depth occurred
in August, 1972.
Survey limnologists reported the occurrence of rooted
aquatic vegetation in the shallow shoreline areas and noted a
moderate algal bloom in October.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate phosphrous limitation.
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in May and
August (the mean N/P ratios were 15/1) and nitrogen limitation
in October (the mean N/P ratio was 9/1).
* See Appendix A.
-------
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—The Allendale School for Boys contributed
a total of 190 kg of total phosphorus to the lake during the
sampling year, and septic tanks serving shoreline dwellings were
estimated to have contributed 15 kg of total phosphorus. To
reduce the eutrophication rate of Cedar Lake, the phosphorus
input from the Allendale School for Boys should be reduced or
eliminated.
2. Non-point sources--Because the lake does not have discrete
tributaries or an outlet, no estimate was made of non-point source
phosphorus loads, except for direct precipitation (20 kg/yr).
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 1.15 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 1.2 meters.
3. Maximum depth: >10.7 meters.
4. Volume: 1.380 x 10s m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: not known.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
Cedar Lake has no discrete tributaries or outlet. The
immediate drainage area was not determined.
C. Precipitation*:
1. Year of sampling: 112.2 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 83.3 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Forneris, 1975.
* See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Cedar Lake was sampled three times during the open-water season
of 1973 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each time,
samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from one
station on the lake and from a number of depths (see map, page v).
During each visit, a single depth-integrated (4.6 m to surface) sample
was collected for phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and a
similar sample was collected for chlorophyll a_ analysis. During the
first visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-integrated sample was taken
for algal assays. The maximum depth sampled was 10.7 meters.
The lake sampling results are presented in full in Appendix C and
are summarized in the following table.
-------
PARAMETER
TEMP (C)
OISS OXY (MG/L)
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
PH (STAND UNITS)
TOT ALK (MG/L)
TOT P (MG/L)
OHTHO P (MG/L)
N02-N03 (MG/L)
AMMONIA (MG/L)
KJEL N (MG/L)
INOKG N (MG/L)
TOTAL N IMG/LI
CHL*PYL A (UG/L)
SECCHI (MLTERS)
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND
1ST SAMPLING ( 5/ 9/73)
1 SITtS
rtANGE MEAN MEDIAN
12.1
7.6
430.
8.0
166.
0.022
0.011
0.090
0.070
0.900
0.160
0.990
4.5
3.0
- 14.1
9.6
440.
8.3
- 168.
- 0.035
- 0.014
- 0.100
- 0.110
- 1.100
- 0.200
- 1.200
4.5
3.0
13.6
8.9
437.
8.2
167.
0.029
0.012
0.094
0.082
1.000
0.176
1.094
4.5
3.0
14.0
9.2
440.
8.2
1&7.
0.028
0.012
0.090
0.080
1.000
0.170
1.090
4.b
3.0
CHcMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOP. CEDAR LAKE
STOUtT CODE U59
2ND SAMPLING ( 8/ 7/73) 3RD SAMPLING (10/16/73)
1 SITES 1 SITES
KANGE MEAN MEDIAN KANGE MEAN MEDIAN
22.7
2.2
379.
8.1
134.
0.024
0.011
0.070
0.080
0.900
0.160
0.970
7.2
1.8
- 25.3
8.4
- 388.
- 8.9
- 142.
- 0.032
- 0.018
- 0.130
- 0.130
- 2.400
- 0.260
- 2. 530
7.8
1.8
24.5
6.8
384.
8.7
137.
0.026
0.013
0.092
0.097
1.375
0.190
1.467
7.2
1.8
25.2
8.4
385.
8.8
135.
0.024
0.012
O.OB5
0.090
1.100
0.170
1.185
7.2
1.8
14.4
6.0
301.
8.2
136.
0.029
0.017
0.020
0.120
1.100
0.140
1.120
5.6
2.8
- 15.8
7.6
- 303.
8.5
- 143.
- 0.093
- 0.035
- 0.020
- 0.390
- 1.700
- 0.410
- 1.720
S.6
2.8
15.2
7.2
302.
8.4
140.
0.053
0.026
0.020
0.220
1.325
0.240
1.345
5.6
2.8
15.3
7.4
303.
8.4
140.
0.045
0.025
0.020
0.185
1.250
0.205
1.270
5.6
2.8
-------
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling
Date
05/09/73
08/07/73
10/16/73
Dominant
Genera
1. Dinobryon sp.
2. Dictyosphaerium sp.
3. Flagellates
4. Kirchneriella sp.
5. Cryptomonas sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Gomphosphaeria sp.
2. Microcystis sp.
3. Dinobryon sp.
4. Scenedesmus sp.
5. Chroococcus sp.
Other genera
Total
1. Dinobryon sp.
2. Aphanizomenon sp.
3. Microcystis sp.
4. Merismopedia sp.
5. Chroococcus sp.
Other genera
Algal units
per ml
440
119
44
28
24
154
809
229
194
158
106
106
561
1,354
Total
2,215
-------
2. Chlorophyll a^ -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a_
Date Number (yg/1)
05/09/73 01 4.5
08/07/73 01 7.2
10/16/73 01 5.6
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
Spike (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) Cone, (mg/1) (mq/1-dry wt.)
Control
0.050 P
0.050 P + 1.0 N
1.0 N
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum, indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Cedar Lake was relatively low at the time the assay sam-
ple was collected. Also, the increase in yield with the
addition of orthophosphorus, and the lack of response when
only nitrogen was added, indicate the lake was phosphorus
limited when the sample was collected (05/09/73).
The lake data indicate phosphorus limitation in August
as well (the mean N/P ratio was 15/1) but nitrogen limitation
in October (the mean N/P = 9/1).
0.010
0.060
0.060
0.010
0.222
0.222
1.222
1.222
0.2
7.8
22.2
0.1
-------
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix D for effluent data)
Total nutrient loads were not calculated for Cedar Lake because
the drainage area is unknown. Estimates of phosphorus and nitrogen
inputs from point sources are given below.
The operator of the Allendale School for Boys wastewater treatment
plant provided monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data
from which nutrient loadings were determined.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known muncipal* -
Name
Allendale
School for
Boys
Pop.
Served
150
Treatment
trickling
filter
Mean Flow
(m'/d)
76.9
Receiving
Water
Cedar Lake
2. Known industrial - None
* Henning, 1973.
-------
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source
a. Immediate drainage (non-point load) -
b. Known municipal STP's -
Allendale School for Boys
c. Septic tanks* -
d. Known industrial - None
e. Direct precipitation** -
Sub-total
2. Outputs -
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
Source
a. Immediate drainage (non-point load) -
b. Known municipal STP's -
Allendale School for Boys
c. Septic tanks* -
d. Known industrial - None
e. Direct precipitation** -
Sub-total
2. Outputs -
kg P/
yr
not known
190
15
20
225
unknown
kg N/
not known
270
555
1.240
2,065
unknown
* Estimate based on 52 shoreline dwellings; see Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
10
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
Cannot be established with available information.
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Forneris, John J., 1973. Personal communication (lake morphometry)
> IL Env. Prot. Agency, Springfield.
Henning, Lester, 1973. Treatment plant questionnaire (Allendale
School waste treatment facilities). Lake Villa.
-------
11
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE
1703
1706
1708
1711
1712
171*
1735
1736
1737
1733
1735
1739
1740
1742
17*8
1750
1751
1753
1753
175*
1755
1756
1757
175«
1759
1761
1763
1763
LAKE NAME
LAKE BLOOMINGTON
LAKE CARLYLE
LAKE CHARLESTON
COFFEEN LAKE
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
LAKE DECATUR
LONG LAKE
LAKE LOU YAEGEH
LAKE MARIE
PISTAKEE LAKE
REND LAKE
LAKE SHELBYV1LLE
SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND)
LAKE SPRINGFIELD
VERMILION LAKE
WONDER LAKE
LAKE STORY
DEPUE LAKE
LAKE SANGCMHIS
LAKE HOLIDAY
FOX LAKE
GRASS LAKE
EAST LOON LAKE
SLOCUM LAKE
CEDAR LAKE
LAKE WEMATUK
RACCOON LAKE
BALDWIN LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
050
08*
160
033
083
139
70*
186
09B
303
071
063
226
103
109
*36
073
*38
050
167
219
301
076
865
029
0.069
0.106
0.0**
MEDIAN
INORG N
b
1
*
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
3
*
0
2
*
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
.730
.370
.680
.260
.300
.750
.190
.600
.370
.370
.310
.290
.970
.265
.695
.890
.510
.050
.970
.135
.375
.620
.130
.300
.170
.770
.310
.1*0
500-
MEAN SEC
*6*.
477.
*90.
*56.
*83.
*79.
*83.
*89.
467.
*85.
*71.
*61.
*89.
*83.
*81.
*86.
*59.
*90.
475.
*85.
*86.
481.
450.
*87.
400.
466.
464.
461.
667
889
667
222
222
571
667
583
667
667
500
333
500
385
500
000
333
000
*17
167
167
000
000
333
333
333
333
167
MEAN
CHLORA
36.
17.
12.
7.
59.
43.
49.
10.
39.
75.
33.
17.
5.
13.
31.
98.
17.
58.
19.
51.
63.
83.
33.
221.
5.
7.
19.
11.
200
367
000
700
867
000
333
663
533
867
533
161
822
013
ISO
533
250
833
392
317
850
500
300
100
767
967
217
333
15-
HIN DO
14.800
11.000
8.400
14.900
13.UOO
14.500
8.800
11.400
14.700
7.000
12.700
14.800
14.800
10.800
14.200
7.800
14.800
7.600
14.500
7.300
8.800
5.900
14.900
5.800
13.800
14.500
13.800
13.300
MED I,
DISS own
0.030
0.033
0.065
0.013
0.013
0.062
0.398
0.076
0.057
0.063
0.013
0.019
0.057
0.059
0.050
0.133
0.031
0.376
0.009
0.0*6
0.083
0.093
0.01H
0.363
0.013
0.031
0.030
0.007
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
1764 LAKE VANDALIA
1763 OLD BEN MINE KESEHV01*
1766 HOKSESHOE LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
0.116
0.930
0.137
MEDIAN
INORG N
0.430
0.205
0.705
500-
MEAN SEC
478.111
478. .333
482.833
MEAN
CHLOKA
11.27B
31.433
182. 250
15-
MIN 00
i4.aoo
11.200
6.000
MEOf AN
OISS OKTnO
0.02J
0.57b
O.Ule
H
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES KITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
1703
1706
1708
1711
1712
1714
1725
1726
1727
1733
1735
1739
1740
1742
1748
1750
1751
1752
175J
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1761
1762
1763
LAKE NAME
LAKE BLOOMINGTON
LAKE CARLYLE
LAKE CHARLESTON
COFFEEN LAKE
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
LAKE DECATUR
LONG LAKE
LAKE LOU YAEGER
LAKE MARIE
PISTAKEE LAKE
RENO LAKE
LAKE SHEL8YVILLE
SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND)
LAKE SPRINGFIELD
VERMILION LAKE
MONDER LAKE
LAKE STORY
DEPUE LAKE
LAKE SANGCHRIS
LAKE HOLIDAY
FOX LAKE
GRASS LAKE
EAST LOON LAKE
SLOCUM LAKE
CEDAR LAKE
LAKE WEMATUK
RACCOON LAKE
BALDWIN LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
88
63
37
97
67
40
7
30
60
27
77
83
20
53
50
13
73
10
88
33
23
17
70
3
100
80
57
93
( 26)
( 19)
( 11)
I 29)
( 20)
( 12)
( 2)
( 9)
( 18)
( 8)
( 23)
( 25)
( 6)
I 16)
( 15)
( 4)
I 22)
( 3)
( 26)
( 10)
( 7)
( 5)
( 21)
I 1)
( 30)
( 24)
( 17)
( 28)
MEDIAN
INORG N
0
40
7
77
90
13
43
37
68
68
80
17
47
20
3
50
27
10
30
23
63
53
100
87
93
33
73
97
( 0)
( 12)
I 2)
( 23)
( 27)
( 4)
( 13)
( 11)
( 20)
I 20)
I 24)
( 5)
( 14)
( 6)
( 1)
( 15)
( 8)
( 3)
( 9)
( 7)
( 19)
( 16)
( 30)
( 26)
( 28)
( 10)
( 22)
( 29)
500-
MEAN SEC
80
63
0
93
43
53
40
7
73
23
70
83
10
33
47
20
90
3
67
27
17
50
97
13
100
77
30
87
( 24)
( 19)
( 0)
( 28)
( 13)
( 16)
( 12)
( 2)
( 22)
( 7)
( 21)
( 25)
( 3)
( 10)
( 14)
( 6)
( 27)
I 1)
I 20)
( 8)
( 5)
( 15)
I 29)
( 4)
( 30)
( 23)
( 9)
( 26)
MEAN
CHLORA
47
63
77
93
20
33
30
87
37
13
50
70
97
73
43
7
67
23
57
27
17
10
53
0
100
90
60
80
I 14)
( 19)
( 23)
( 28)
( 6)
( 10)
( 9)
( 26)
( 11)
( 4)
( 15)
I 21)
( 29)
( 22)
( 13)
( 2)
( 20)
( 7)
< 17)
( 8)
( 5)
( 3)
( 16)
( 0)
( 30)
( 27)
( 18)
( 24)
15-
MIN DO
13
63
77
2
42
30
72
57
23
90
53
13
13
67
37
80
13
83
30
87
72
97
2
100
50
30
42
47
( 2)
( 19)
( 23)
< 0)
( 12)
( 8)
( 21)
( 17)
( 7)
( 27)
< 16)
( 2)
( 2)
( 20)
( ID
( 24)
( 2)
( 25)
( 81
( 26)
( 21)
( 29)
( 0)
( 30)
< 15)
I 8)
( 12)
( 14)
MEDIAN
DISS ORTHO P
68
53
27
92
85
32
3
23
42
32
92
73
42
37
47
13
63
10
97
50
20
17
77
.7
85
57
68
100
( 20)
( 16)
( Bt
( 27)
( 25)
( 9)
( 1)
( 7)
( 12)
( 9)
< 27)
( 22)
( 12)
< 11)
( 14)
( 4)
( 19)
( 3)
( 291
( 15)
( 6)
( 5)
( 23)
< 2)
( 25)
< 17)
( 20)
( 30)
INDEX
NO
296
345
225
454
347
201
195
241
303
253
422
339
229
283
227
183
333
139
369
247
212
244
399
210
528
367
330
504
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE LAKE NAME
1764 LAKE VANDALIA
1765 OLD BEN MINE RESERVOIR
1766 HORSESHOE LAKE
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
47 ( 14)
0 ( 0)
43 < 13)
MEDIAN
INORG N
60
83
57
( 18)
( 25)
( 17)
500-
MEAN SEC
60 (
57 (
37 (
18)
17)
11)
MEAN
CHLORA
83
40
3
( 25)
( 12)
( 1)
15-
MIN DO
13
60
93
( 2)
( 18)
( 28)
MEDIAN
DISS OHTHO P
60
0
80
( 18)
( 0)
( 24)
INOtX
NO
323
240
313
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 1759 CEDAR LAKE 538
2 1763 BALDWIN LAKE 504
3 1711 COFFEEN LAKE 454
4 1735 REND LAKE 423
5 1757 EAST LOON LAKE 399
6 1753 LAKE SANGCriRIS 369
7 1761 LAKE WEMATUK 367
8 1712 CRAB ORCHARD LAKE 347
9 1706 LAKE CARLYLE 345
10 1739 LAKE SHELBYVILLE 339
11 1751 LAKE STORY 333
12 1762 RACCOON LAKE 330
13 1764 LAKE VANDALIA 323
14 1766 HORSESHOE LAKE 313
15 1727 LAKE MARIE 303
16 1703 LAKE BLOOMINGTON 296
17 1742 LAKE SPRINGFIELD 233
18 1733 PISTAKEE LAKE 253
19 1754 LAKE HOLIDAY 247
20 1756 GRASS LAKE 244
21 1726 LAKE LOU YAEGER 241
22 1765 OLD BEN MINE RESERVOIR 240
23 1740 SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND) 229
24 1748 VERMILION LAKE 227
25 170B LAKE CHARLESTON 225
26 1755 FOX LAKE 212
27 175B SLOCUM LAKE 210
28 1714 LAKE DECATUR 201
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
39 1735 LONG LAKE 195
30 1750 WONDER LAKE 183
31 1752 DEPUE LAKE 139
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSIONS FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
Hectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x 10" = acre/feet
Square kilometers x 0.3861 = square miles
Cubic meters/sec x 35.315 - cubic feet/sec
Centimeters x 0.3937 = inches
Kilograms x 2.205 = pounds
Kilograms/square kilometer x 5.711 = Ibs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/23
175901
42 25 17.0 088 05 22.0
CEDAR LAKE
17097 ILLINOIS
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/09
73/08/07
73/10/16
DATE
FROM
TO
73/05/09
73/U8/07
73/10/16
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 40 0000
14 40 0006
14 40 0015
14 40 0022
14 40 0031
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
11 15 0010
11 15 0012
11 15 0015
11 15 0018
15 43 0000
15 43 0016
15 43 0025
15 43 0035
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
14 40 0000
14 40 0006
14 40 0015
14 40 0022
14 40 0031
11 15 0000
11 15 0005
11 15 0012
11 15 0018
15 43 0000
15 43 0016
15 43 0025
15 43 0035
00010
WATER
TEMP
CENT
14.1
14.1
14.0
13.9
12.1
25.3
25.2
25.2
25.2
23.3
22.7
15.8
15.7
14.9
14.4
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
0.022
0.035
0.032
0.028
0.027
0.024
0.024
0.024
0.032
0.049
0.029
0.042
0.093
00300
DO
MG/L
9.4
9.6
9.0
7.6
8.4
8.4
8.4
2.2
7.6
7.4
6.6
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
4.5
7.2
5.6
00077 00094
TtfANSP CNDUCTVY
SECCHI FIELD
INCHES M1CROMHO
120 440
430
440
435
440
70 388
386
384
385
380
379
109 303
302
301
303
11EPALES
3
00400 00410
PH T ALK
SU
8.20
8.20
8.30
8.20
8.00
8.90
8.90
8.80
8.10
8.50
8.50
8.40
8.20
CAC03
MG/L
166
167
167
167
168
135
135
134
142
140
136
140
143
2111202
0035 FEET DEPTH
00610 00625 00630
NH3-N TOT KJEL N02&N03
TOTAL
MG/L
0.080
0.080
0.070
0.070
0.110
0.130
0.080
0.090
0.090
0.120
0.130
0.240
0.390
f
N
MG/L
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
2.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
<
100
100
900
900
000
400
100
100
900
400
100
100
700
N-TOTAL
MG/L
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.100
0.090
0.130
0.080
0.090
0.070
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
00671
PHOS-OIS
OHTHO
MG/L P
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.012
0.018
0.017
0.025
0.026
0.035
-------
APPENDIX D
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
bTOKtl KETklEVAL OATt! 75/10/23
175921 TF175921 P000106
<+2 25 12.0 088 Ob 45.0
ALLENOALE SCHOOL.. FOK dOYS
17097 7.5 A.NTIOCH
U/CEDAP. LAKE
CEOAK LAKE
11EPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
UATE
F*OM
TU
73/0//09
73/08/13
73/09/07
73/10/19
73/11/OM
73/11/26
74/02/02
74/03/06
74/04/04
7<+/05/OH
74/06/07
74/07/10
74/08/09
TIME DEPTH
OF
UAY FEET
09 UO
00 00
10 00
14 30
15 00
00630
N02NN03
N-TOTAL
MG/L
3.600
b.8l>0
6.900
7.800
^.200
3.<+UO
3.120
1.8^40
2.500
8.300
4.300
4.7t>o
7.100
0062^
TUT KJEL
N
MG/L
^.700
14.700
8.900
11.500
11.000
7.900
8.300
l.OOOK
1.500
6.700
3.500
3.300
6.200
Ou610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.180
0.200
0.160
0.120
0.094
U.012
0.0tt7
O.ObOK
0.050K
0.110
0.075
0.050
0.100
00671
PHOS-DIS
OKTHO
MG/L P
5.700
9.500
9.600
7.500
5. 700
3.000
1.680
0.630
1.600
5.600
3.700
3.500
5.800
00665
PHOS-TOT
MG/L P
6.700
19.500
11.500
9.000
9.100
6.000
tt.OOO
0.630
2.100
8.500
4.100
6.100
8.400
50051
FLOW
«ATt
INST MGD
0.129
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
50053
CONDUIT
FLO*-MGQ
MONTHLY
0.120
0.009
0.008
0.036
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.009
VALUF:
TO tic.
I'-Ji>IC»TEJ
------- |