-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Wisconsin Study Lakes iv, v
Lake and Drainage Area Map vi, vii
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. rntroduction 3
III. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 5
IV. Lake Water Quality Sumary 6
V. Nutrient Loadings 11
VI. Literature Reviewed 17
VII. Appendices 18
-------
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 [ 3O3(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 3l4(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ 5106 and 5305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
111
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources for professional involvement and to the Wis-
consin National Guard for conduct of the tributary sampling
phase of the Survey.
Francis H. Schraufnagel , Acting Assistant Director, and Joseph
R. Ball of the Bureau of Water Quality, and Donald R. Winter, Lake
Rehabilitation Program, provided invaluable lake documentation and
counsel during the Survey. Central Office and District Office per-
sonnel of the Department of Natural Resources reviewed the prelim-
inary reports and provided critiques most useful in the preparation
of this Working Paper series.
Major General James J. Lison, Jr., the Adjutant General of
Wisconsin, and Project Officer CW-4 Donald D. Erickson, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Wisconsin National Guardsmen, are also
gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Altoona Eau Claire
Beaver Dam Barron
Beaver Dam Dodge
Big Eau Pleine Marathon
Browns Racine
Butte des Morts Winnebago
Butternut Price, Ashland
Castle Rock Flowage Juneau
Como Walworth
Crystal Vilas
Delavan Walworth
Eau Claire Eau Claire
Geneva Walworth
Grand Green Lake
Green Green Lake
Kegonsa Dane
Koshkonong Jefferson, Rock, Dane
Lac La Belle Waukesha
Middle Walworth
Nagawicka Waukesha
Oconomowoc Waukesha
Okauchee Waukesha
Petenwell Flowage Juneau
Pewaukee Waukesha
Pigeon Waupaca
Pine Waukesha
Poygan Winnebago, Waushara
Rock Jefferson
Rome Pond Jefferson, Waukesha
Round Waupaca
Shawano Shawano
-------
V
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Sinnissippi Dodge
Swan Columbia
Tainter Dunn
Tichigan Racine
Townline Oneida
Trout Vilas
Wapogassett Polk
Wausau Marathon
Willow Oneida
Winnebago Winnebago, Fond Du Lac,
Cal umet
Wisconsin Columbia
Wissota Chippewa
Yellow Burnett
-------
vi
-
TICHIGAN LAKE
Map Location
Tributary Sampling
SampUng Site
Co.
ban
a
88° 15’
-------
vii
0
Scale
Map Location
Cf
()
fi
(1
)
P’nsntom
0
oz
(7
/‘
-—-—-—-
TICHIGAN LAKE
X Lake Sampling Site
Tributary Sampling Site
? Sewage Treatment Facl1l y.
“ JD1rect Drainage Area Boundary
‘i 1
I
4
Mi.
-------
WATERFORD IMPOUNDMENT-TICHIGAII LAKE
STORET NO. 5559
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others show that the Tichigan
Lake basin and the rest of the Waterford Impoundment are highly
eutrophic waters.
B. Rate—Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results show that the composited assay sample
was nitrogen limited. The lake data show nitrogen limitation
at all sampling times in Tichigan Lake and in the Widespread.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources--During the sampling year, the Waterford
Impoundment-Tichigan Lake system received a phosphorus load at a
rate far in excess of that proposed by Vollenweider (in press) as
“dangerous”; i.e., a eutrophic rate (see page 17). Of this load,
it is calculated that the communities of Waukesha arid Mukwonago
contributed nearly 84%.
In the following table, the total phosphorus loading rates that
can be achieved by specified levels of phosphorus removal at Waukesha
and Mukwonago are shown and compared to Vollenweider’s suggested
loading rates.
-------
2
Total P Loading
% P Removal lbs/acre/yr g/ri /yr
Existing 183.0 20.51
50 106.5 11.94
70 75.9 8.51
80 60.6 6.79
90 45.3 5.07
100 30.0 3.36
Vollenweider:
“Dangerous”
(eutrophic
rate)
1
.16
“Permissible”
(oligotrophic rate)
0.58
It will be noted that none of the removal options would
reduce the phosphorus loading rate to an acceptable level, if
it is assumed that all of the phosphorus from the indicated
point sources reaches the water body. Note that the non—point
source load attributed to the Fox River provided a loading rate
of 28 lbs P/lake acre/yr or 3.14 g/m 2 /yr, and thus non-point
source loading rates alone would exceed the “dangerous” rate.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is now re-
quiring phosphorus control at all of the municipal point sources
in the Fox (Illinois) River basin. It would be expected that
such control would at least result in a reduction in the inci-
dence of nuisance algal blooms in the Waterford Impoundment-
Tichigan Lake complex. However, since only 8% of the complex
area is more than 20 feet deep (Poff, et al., 1970), rooted
aquatic vegetation probably will continue to be a problem.
-------
3
2, Non—point sources (see page 17)——It is estimated that
non-point sources contributed about 16% of the total phosphorus
load during the sampling year. Nutrient loads in the tributaries
of other study lakes in the Fox (Illinois) River drainage were
not determined, but the Fox River phosphorus export estimated
using the dolomitic mean (see page 13) compares quite well to
exports measured in other stream systems in Wisconsin.
The very high phosphorus export of the Fox River measured
at station A-4 in Waukesha is believed to be due to the contri-
butions of three point sources beyond the 25-mile limit of the
Survey.
-------
4
II. INTRODUCTION
The Waterford Impoundment-Tichigan Lake complex was formed by the mi-
poundment of the Fox (Illinois) River at the Village of Waterford. The
rise in water level due to the 8-foot-head dam submerged the outlet of natur-
ally occurring Tichigan Lake, and the lake basin is now broadly joined with
the rest of the system.
The complex now includes three more or less distinct parts: (1) The
Tichigan Lake basin—-268 acres, maximum depth 63 (68?*) feet; (2) the “Wide-
spread” (of the Fox River)—-623 acres, maximum depth Ca. 5 feet; and (3)
Buena Lake--24l acres, maximum depth 8 feet. The approximate limits of the
three parts are indicated by the dotted lines on the map (page vi).
Apparently, the Widespread and the lake basin are now considered to be
“Tichigan Lake” (several publications state that the area of the lake is 891
acres; i.e., the sum of the two areas; and Buena Lake is listed separately).
However, this report is concerned with the entire complex, although it is
noted that lake sampling was limited to the Tichigan basin and the Widespread
Although the Waterford dam was originally constructed to provide for
flood control and low-flow augmentation, reportedly the structure is no
longer capable of water level regulation. Present uses of the impoundment
are recreational and include swimming, boating, and fishing. Garie fish
present are northern pike, walleyes, largenouth bass, white bass, channel
* Survey limnologists reported sampling at depths of 64 and 65 feet and a
total depth of 68 feet.
-------
5
catfish, and panfish. Reportedly, the system provides one of the most
versatile warmwater fisheries in southeastern Wisconsin, although carp
are abundant and cause management problems (Poff, et al., 1970).
Except for the Tichigan basin, public access is good; public access
to Tichigan is afforded only by way of the navigable former lake outlet
(Poff and Threinen, 1961).
-------
6
III. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry*:
1. Surface area: 1,133 acres.
2. Mean depth: 6.3 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 63 feet.
4. Volume: 7,113 acre/feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 19 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A for flow data)
1. Tributaries —
Name Drainage areat Mean flow±
Fox River 334.0 mi 2 179.2 cfs
Mukwonago River** (80.0 mi 2 ) (48.0 cfs)
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage - 20.2 ml 11.2 cfs
Totals 354.2 mi 2 190.4 cfs
2. Outlet -
.2-I-t 190.4 cfs
Fox River 356.0 mi
C. Precipitationttt:
1. Year of sampling: 38.7 inches.
2. Mean annual: 31.5 inches.
* Poff, et al., 1970.
t Drainage areas are accurate within ±0.5%; mean daily flows are accurate
within ±40%; mean monthly flows are accurate within ±35%; and normalized
monthly flows are accurate within ±35%.
** Included in Fox River area and flow.
1-1- Includes area of lake.
tt-I- See Working Paper No. 1. “Survey Methods”.
-------
7
IV. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Tichigan Lake and the Widespread were sampled three times during
the open-water season of 1972. Each time, samples for physical and
chemical parameters were collected from one or more depths at one sta-
tion on the lake and one on the Widespread (see map, page vi). During
each visit, a single depth-integrated (15 feet or near bottom to surface)
sample was composited from the two stations for phytoplankton identifi-
cation and enumeration; and during the last visit, a single five—gallon
depth-integrated sample was composited for algal assays. Also each time,
a depth-integrated sample was collected from each of the stations for
chlorophyll a analysis. Maximum depths sampled were 65 feet at station 1
and 4 feet at station 2.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B, and the
data for the fall sampling are summarized below. Note, however, the
Secchi disc summary is based on all values. A comparison of the data
obtained at the two stations during the November sampling, when Tichigan
Lake was well mixed, demonstrates that there were significant differences
in all parameters except for the phosphorus species. Similar differences
are evident in surface samples taken in June and in August. Water quali-
ty in the Widespread obviously reflects the quality of the incoming Fox
River, but Tichigan Lake apparently is much less affected. Possibly
ground water recharge is a more important factor in the quality of the
lake.
-------
8
In any case, separate summaries of the fall data are presented below
for the two stations. For differences in the various parameters at the
other sampling times, refer to Appendix B.
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
1. Tichigan Lake —
FALL VALUES
(11/10/72)
Parameter Minirnuri Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 10.2 10.7 10.6 11.1
Conductivity (iimhos) 560 565 560 580
pH (units) 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5
Alkalinity (mg/l) 148 169 166 192
Total P (mg/i) 0.226 0.247 0.255 0.259
Dissolved P (rig/i) 0.187 0.193 0.190 0.208
NO 2 + NO (mg/i) 0.190 0.202 0.200 0.230
Amtnonia mg/i) 0.540 0.565 0.550 0.650
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 33 35 35 36
2. The Widespread -
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3
Disso ved oxygen (mg/i) 8.9 8.9 8.9
Cond c; vity ( imhos) 750 750 750 750
pH (units) 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6
Alkalinity (mg/i) 284 292 292 300
Total P (mg/i) 0.236 0.245 0.245 0.254
Dissolved P (mg/l) 0.202 0.204 0.204 0.206
NO + NO (mg/i) 1.090 1.140 1.140 1.190
Arn onia ?mg/1) 0.090 0.095 0.095 0.100
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 12 12 12 i2
-------
9
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton —
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
06/21/72 1. Stichococcus 5,217
2. Cyclotella 2,645
3. Navicula 906
4. Nitzschia 471
5. Synedra 435
Other genera 2,500
Total 12,174
08/17/72 1. Cyclotella 4,529
2. Synedra 870
3. Oocystis 761
4. Dinobryon 688
5. Scenedesmus 434
Other genera 2,464
Total 9,746
11/10/72 1. Cyclotella 213
2. Stephanodiscus 152
3. Fragilaria 90
4. Phacus 72
5. Navicula 65
Other genera 258
Total 850
-------
10
2. Chlorophyll a —
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following values may be in error by plus or minus 20
percent.)
Sampling
Date ________ _______________
06/21 /72
08/17/72 01
02
11/10/72 01
02
Spike (mg/i ) _________ _________ _____________
Control
0.006 P
0.012 P
0.024 P
0.060 P
0.060 P + 10.0 N
10.0 N
2. Discussion —
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
was at a very high level at the time the composite sample
was collected.
The assay also shows that the sample was nitrogen limited.
Note that the addition of increments of phosphorus did not
Station
Number
01 (Tichigan Lake)
02 (Widespread)
Chlorophyll a
(pg/i)
15.4
107.1
C. Li
1.
12.1
28.9
79.9
24.7
miting Nutrient Study:
Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N Maximum yield
____________ Conc. (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i) ( mg/i—dry wt. )
0.126 0.890 22.7
0.132 0.890 22.5
0.138 0.890 22.5
0.150 0.890 22.5
0.186 0.890 22.0
0.186 10.890 95.7
0.126 10.890 69.3
-------
11
result in an increase in yield, but the addition of only nitro-
gen or nitrogen with phosphorus resulted in significantly
greater yields than the control yield.
The data obtained at the two stations also indicate nitro-
gen limitation at the other sampling times as well.
D. Trophic Condition:
Survey data and the records of others show that the entire
Waterford complex is highly eutrophic.
Of the 46 Wisconsin water bodies studied, none had a higher
mean total phosphorus, none had a higher mean inorganic nitrogen,
only one had more c iean chlorophyll a, and only two lakes had a
higher algal assay control yield.
-------
12
V. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Wisconsin National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the tribu-
tary sites indicated on the map (page vii), except for the high runoff
months of April and May when two samples were collected. Sampling was
begun in September, 1972, and was completed in August, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the year
of sampling and a “normalized” or average year for the Fox River sites
nearest the lake and the mean Mukwonago River flow were provided by the
Wisconsin District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey.
In this report, nutrient loads in the Fox and Mukwonago rivers were
calculated using mean concentrations and mean flows. Nutrient loadings
for unsampled “minor tributaries and immediate drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.)
were estimated by determining the nutrient loads, in lbs/mi 2 /year, in the
Mukwonago River at station B-2 and multiplying by the ZZ area in mi 2 .
The operator of the Waukesha wastewater treatment plant provided
monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data. The Village of
Mukwonago declined participation in the Survey, and loads from there
were estimated using nutrient and flow data obtained by the Department
of Natural Resources in August, 1970 (McKersie, et al., 1972).
Three other municipalities-—Brookfield, Pewaukee, and Sussex--are
located upstream from the Waterford—Tichigan system beyond the 25—mile
-------
13
limit of the Survey*. While nutrient loads from these sources are not
included in the following tables, they are evident in the nutrient export
loads of the Fox River at station A—4 in Waukesha (see page 17).
In the following loading tables, all of the nutrient loads measured
at Waukesha and estimated for Mukwonago are assumed to have reached the
Waterford complex during the sampling year. However, the amount of
effluent phosphorus measured at the Waukesha STP alone exceeded that
measured at the Fox River at the inlet station (A-2); and the areal or
non-point phosphorus load indicated for the Fox River was calculated
with mean flows and the regional dolomitic mean total phosphorus con-
centration as determined by the Department of Natural Resources (Poff,
et al., 1970; page 7).
The nitrogen load attributed to the Fox River is the amount measured
at station A—2 minus the loads attributed to the Waukesha and Mukwonago
treatment plants.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known municipal —
Pop. Mean Receiving
Name Served** Treatment Flow (mgd) Water
Waukesha 40,258 Trickling 10.080 Fox River
filter
Mukwonago 2,367 Trickling 0.156*** Mukwonago River
filter
* See Working Paper No. 1.
** 1970 Census.
McKersie, et al., 1972.
-------
14
2. Industrial* - Only two industries of nutrient significance
are located in the drainage. One of these, the Mammoth
Springs Canning Corporation, disposes of wastes by a lagoon—
spray irrigation system with no discharge; the other is a
small ice—cream factory, Keystone Farms, with a septic tank-
stabilization pond system discharging to Pebble Creek about
35 stream miles upstream from Tichigan Lake.
* McKersie, et al., 1972.
-------
15
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading — Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbs P1 % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) —
Fox River 31,750 15.3
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non—point load) — 1,680 0.8
c. Known municipal -
Waukesha 166,260 80.2
Mukwonago 7,130 3.4
d. Septic tanks* - 350 0.2
e. Industrial — Unknown ? —
f. Direct precipitation** - 180 0.1
Total 207,350 100.0
2. Outputs —
Lake outlet - Fox River 120,690
3. Net annual P accumulation — 86,660 pounds
* Estimated 550 dwellings and 2 parks on lakeshore; see Working Paper
No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
16
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbs NI % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) —
Fox River 514,080 55.7
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non—point load) - 42,370 4.6
c. Known municipal —
Waukesha 330,140 35.8
Mukwonago 11,740 1.3
d. Septic tanks* - 13,080 1.4
e. Industrial — Unknown ? —
f. Direct precipitation** - 10,920 1.2
Total 922,330 100.0
2. Outputs —
Lake outlet — Fox River 835,860
3. Net annual N accumulation - 86,470 pounds
* Estimated 550 dwellings and 2 parks on lakeshore; see Working Paper
No. 1.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
17
D. Mean Annual Non—point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/rrii 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Fox River at A_2* 95 1,539
Fox River at Waukesha**
(station A—4 above SIP) 304 2,709
Mukwonago River 76 1,926
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (in press).
Essentially, his “dangerous” rate is the rate at which the
receiving waters would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his “permissible” rate is that which would result in the
receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming c5ligotrophic
if morphornetry permitted. A mesotrophic rate would be considered
one between “dangerous” and “permissible”.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Units Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
lbs/acre/yr 183.0 76.5 814.1 76.3
grams/m 2 ,’yr 20.51 8.57 91.2 8.6
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m 2 /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Waterford—
Tichigan Lake:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 1.16
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.58
* Dolomitic mean x A-2 flow.
** Nine—year mean flow at U.S.G.S. gage (Anonymous, 1974; page 151) x A—4
concentrations.
-------
18
VI. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1972. Wisconsin lakes. Pubi. 218—72, Dept. of Natural
Resources, Madison.
Anonymous, 1974. Water resources data for Wisconsin. U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Madison.
Ball, Joseph, 1972. Personal communication (volume of Waterford-
Tichigan complex). Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison.
Ketelle, Martha J., and 0. Uttormark, 1971. Problem lakes of
the United States. EPA Water Poll. Contr. Ser., Proj. 16010 EHR.
Lueschow, Lloyd A., 1972. Biology and control of selected aquatic
nuisances in recreational waters. Techn. Bull. p57, Dept. of
Natural Resources, Madison.
McElwee, William D.,, 1972. Personal communication (excerpts from “A
comprehensive plan for the Fox River watershed”). SE Wisc. Reg.
Plann. Comm., Waukesha.
McKersie, Jerome R., Robert M. Krill, Bernard G. Schultz, and Terry A.
Moe; 1970. Fox (Illinois) River pollution investigation survey.
Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison.
Poff, Ronald J., and C. W. Threinen, 1961. Surface water resources of
Racine County. Conservation Dept., Madison.
__________________________ 1963. Surface water resources of Waukesha
County. Conservation Dept., Madison.
Poff, Ronald, Donald Mraz, C. W. Threinen, Ronald Peining, Brian
Belonger, Warren Churchill, and John O’Donnell; 1970. Waterford
Impoundment and Tichigan Lake, Racine County. Lake Use Rept.
FX—6, Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison.
Schraufnagel, Francis H., 1974. Personal communication (treatment
requirements in Fox River basin). Dept. of Natural Resources,
Madison.
Vollenweider, Richard A., (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
A. Hydrol.
Winter, Donald R., 1974. Personal communication (use of dolomitic
mean phosphorus concentrations). Dept. of Natural Resources,
Madison.
-------
19
VII. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR WISCONSIN 9/30/74
LAKE CODE 5559 TICNIGAN LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE 356.00
SUB—DRAINAGE NORMALIZED FLOWS
TRIBUTARY AREA JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN
555941 356.00 140.10 160.90 552.90 372.00 241.30 181.00 110.60 84.40 86.50 110.50 130.70 110.60 190.39
555942 334.00 130.00 150.00 520.00 350.00 230.00 170.00 100.00 78.00 80.00 110.00 120.00 110.00 179.23
SSS9ZZ 22.00 6.40 8.80 32.00 26.00 19.00 11.00 6.10 3.80 4.40 5.80 4.70 5.80 11.17
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 356.00 TOTAL FLOW IN 2281.80
SUM OF SUR—DRAINAGE AREAS = 356.00 TOTAL FLOW OUT 2282.10
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
5559A1 9 72 860.00 23 1900.00
10 72 650.00 23 160.00
II 72 430.00
12 72 210.00 4 240.00 18 180.00
I 73 510.00
2 73 350.00 II 390.00
3 73 670.00 6 760.00
4 73 1300.00 16 1500.00 20 990.00
S 73 810.00 10 950.00 24 540.00
6 73 440.00 2S 320.00
7 73 170.00 12 170.00
8 73 100.00 26 91.00
5559A2 9 72 810.00 23 1800.00
10 72 610.00 23 710.00
11 72 400.00
12 72 200.00 1 260.00 18 170.00
1 73 480.00
2 73 330.00 11 360.00
3 73 630.00 6 720.00
4 73 1200.00 8 490.00 20 920.00
5 13 770.00 10 900.00 24 510.00
6 73 410.00 25 300.00
7 73 160.00 12 160.00
8 73 97.00 26 85.00
SS S9ZZ 9 72 84.00 23 280.00
10 72 43.00 23 60.00
11 72 25.00
12 72 10.00 1 15.00 4 12.00 18 10.00
I 73 34.00
73 20.00 ii 21.00
3 73 68.00 6 54.00
6 73 86.00 B 35.00 16 100.00 20 68.00
5 73 68.00 10 76.00 24 44.00
6 73 28.00 25 20.00
7 73 9.10 12 9.40
8 73 2. O 26 4.10
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/09/30
55590 1
42 49 00.0 088 12 30.0
TICHIGAN LAKE
55 WISCONSIN
1 IEPALES 2111202
5 0068 FE€T DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00630 00610 00665 00666
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TPANSP CNOUCTVY PH 1 ALK N02&N03 N113—N PHOS—TOT PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 N—TOTAL TOTAL
TO DAY FEET CENT MG/I INCHES MICROMMO SU MG/I MG/L MG/L MG/I P MG/L P
72/06/21 16 00 0000 18.0 12.0 36 500 9.10 194 0.020 0.030 0.279 0.203
16 00 0020 15.6 1.2 525 8.50 198 0.040 0.540 0.299 0.263
16 00 0040 7.3 0.4 545 7.60 195 0.100 2.300 0.610 0.540
16 00 0060 5.3 0.0 650 7.10 250 0.030 8.400 1.480 1.410
72/OR/li 07 50 0000 33 535 8.98 163 0.100 0.110 0.150 0.077
07 50 0004 23.6 10.0 520 8.95 163 0.100 0.090 0.146 0.081
07 50 0015 20.0 3.2 570 8.60 183 0.110 0.250 0.165 0.155
07 50 0025 17.0 0.0 600 8.13 190 0.140 1.100 0.342 0.305
07 50 0030 11.4 0.0 625 7.60 222 0.090 2.940 0.756 0.658
07 50 0045 8.3 0.0 650 7.35 232 0.100 4.440 0.886 0.816
07 SO 0055 7.2 0.0 690 7.22 242 0.130 5.580 1.070 1.030
07 50 0065 6.5 0.0 705 7.10 252 0.090 7.390 1.420 1.320
72/11/10 13 00 0000 7.7 570 8.50 150 0.190 0.560 0.228 0.187
13 00 0004 7.7 11.1 560 8.50 150 0.200 0.550 0.259 0.190
13 00 0015 7.7 10.6 560 8.50 148 0.190 0.550 0.258 0.194
13 00 0025 7.7 11.0 560 8.50 192 0.200 0.540 0.255 0.190
13 00 0035 7.7
13 00 0045 7.7 10.2 560 8.50 182 0.200 0.540 0.226 0.191
13 00 0055 7.6
13 00 0064 7.6 10.4 580 8.40 192 0.230 0.650 0.255 0.208
32217
DATE TIME DEPTH CHLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET UG/L
72/06/21 16 00 0000 15.4J
72/08/17 07 50 0000 12.1J
72/11/10 13 00 0000 79.9J
J VALUE KNOWN TO BE IN ERROR
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/09/30
555902
42 48 00.0 088 13 00.0
TICHIGAN LAKE
55 WISCONSIN
1 1EPALES
S
2111202
0003 FEET DEPTH
DATE
FR OH
TO
72/06/21
72/08/17
72/11/10
DATE
F ROM
TO
72/06/21
7?/08/ 17
7?/1 1/10
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
16 35 0000
07 30 0000
12 50 0000
12 50 0004
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
16 35 0000
07 30 0000
12 50 0000
00010
00300
00077
00094
00400
00410
00630
00610
00665
00666
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNDIJCTVY
PH
T ALI(
N02&N03
NH3—N
PHOS—TOT
PHOS—DIS
TEMP
SECCHI
FIELD
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
HG/L
MG/L P
MG/I P
10.4
12
580
8.30
238
0.390
0.030
0.455
0.415
5.6
12
600
750
7.85
7.60
232
284
0.650
1.090
0.270
0.090
0.505
0.236
0.368
0.206
8.9
750
7.60
300
1.190
0.100
0.254
0.202
18.3
24.0
6.3
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
107. )J
?8.9J
24. 7J
J VALUE KNOWN TO BE IN ERROR
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
ST1PET T T’ VA( D. T’ 14/13/U?
L’ iS 9a1
4? 00.0 t 13 00.0
FOx 1vFR
1’ HALES CO NE
(‘r!c-11(;A’ LASt
‘T -iWY ?() ‘ PDC’ IN ATEPFO O
11F1dAL S 2111?04
‘4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00 3U oC ?’- NP ’1) 00 71
)ATE T1M OE Er1 NO? .ND3 TOT KJ L \jH t r r1VSr)Ic PH(I —T’)T
N—TOTAL N TOTAL UQT HI
I’) ‘)AY EFT 4 G/L ‘IC,/t
7?/O- /23 11 4S 3.777 J .7 0 J•270 0. 7 ’ S
7?/Io/ ? 14 c’- u. 0 i.3’C 0.C ’ 0.2 ” ’
7?/12/04 Ie 10 1.700 1.100 J.1.?0 0.?&0
72/ 12/IM 15 1(1 ?.e’ O’) 1.321 0.Th0 0.430 i .493
7 /0I/0 1 I’D 2.000 1. 500 u.?50
71/C’?/1I 144’ 1.- ’ 1. 200 o. Obq 0.140 0.175
73/03/0’- l 00 1.2 ) 1.& 00 0.310 0.1S 0.2 20
7 /34/1h 0 ’ ) 00 (‘.7 ’ )0 1.? -0 0.072 . IOS ‘1.22r
7i/0 /?0 14 00 1. 100 u.040 “.0 1 .IPfl
7 /0S/i0 1400 (‘.?7j i.1ot .oie v. 1 4 7
73/05/? ” 1l’ S ‘1.?E) 1.500 ‘1.0 1 u.?1( 0.ilJ
71/ . & /?. ” 0.0 ’ s ’ . 1. 00 0.0 Y ’ 0.173
7 /07/i? iS 00 0.071 1 • 70’) i,. 54 0.4 0
71/05/2” 15 11 1. flC U. O IP 0.3’’ .)
-------
ST )QET PEIPIEVAL DATE Th/10/02
55 9. 2
‘+2 44 0.0
FO 1vE
bS
I/I ICi-IIGAN
PU F RDG
1 1E ALFS
4
L 55554A?
0 14 00.0
-IALES C(D NE
LAKE
J OF TTCHIIjAN
211 1204
0000 FEET DEPTrI
(“0 S30
00f’?S
00f 10
( flf 71
006t S
i)ATF
TIMF
flE -’1H
NO? NO3
TOT J’ L
NH3-N
PHOS—DIS
PHO ,—T0T
FPOM
OF
N—TOTAL
N
1OTAL
OPTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
Mcj/L
1G/L
MG/L
M(/L P
MG/L
7?/09/?3
14
.5
0.?M9
1.500
fl ?4f
0.190
0.27’+
72/10/21
15
35
1.020
1.f75
0.09?
0.290
0.T39C
72/12/01
14
40
?.0 30
2.500
0.154
0.260
0.340
72/12/18
16
45
1. 00
1.540
0.500
0.410
0.4 )
71/01/0
14
30
?.300
1.6°0
).?52
0.1 9
0.230
73/3?/1L
14
00
1.160
0.390
0.0?’
71/03/06
IS
00
1.160
1.050
0.120
0.110
0.165
73/04/0
13
00
3.9?0
1.020
0.052
0.154
0.230
71/04/20
14
70
0.320
0.960
0.018
0.105
c .16S
71/05/10
13
4
0.270
1.000
O.02e-.
0.138
o.190
71/05/?’.
11
10
0.850
1.3?fl
3.100
0.?P0
(j .3 6(i
71/06/?S
15
00
0.170
?. ?0
0.110
0.360
0.4A1)
71/07/12
14
00
0.210
1.990
O.1 0
0.380
0.490
71/09/25
14
15
1. ORO
0.750
0.0f, ’
0.160
0.410
-------
ST’) FT - FT’ 1EVAt DATE 7’eJ10fD?
5- lA1
‘ . 5’ 00.0 OMP l 10.0
fO’ 1vr-
15 M LE
I/I!CN1GAr LA F
CO riw( hi ‘-i ”i)G Sw OF AUI ES,IA RELOw STP
1]E’- ALES 2111204
0000 FEET DE Tr1
00 30 ‘) Ob?c 0C6 10 0 1 71
)ATE TIME 1) )TH JO’F NO3 TOT KJFL N -I l—N P’- )S—nIc -‘OS—T )T
EPOM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL OPIrtO
T’) 1 y FEET ‘lOlL 1GfL MO/L
72/09/24 13 50 0.707 1.V-’ O .112 0.190 O. 5 )
7?/1?/0’ 09 35 I.7 40 1. ’ 0 C.540
7’/I2/0’ 13 ‘ .0 1.520 1.’.70 .(“if 0. 157
7 /0i/0’ 15 15 2.100 1. O0 O.’ fl0 O .39 0.500
71/02/04 ) 10 1.7 0 0.?40 0.2 0
7l/0 /0’+ 15 20 1.5 ) 7.103 0.370
7i/0 / ) ’ 14 5 1. ?0 .100 fl.1 1 0. i7()
71’O’./lfl q 0.P o 0.093 0.150 (.230
flfO5/0 15 55 L.0? 0’ 77 ‘).17
71’0 /70 17 Of) 1...’) 2. ’ 00 ).1’.7 o. l?’ 0.43)
71f(p /Q1 0 15 .40O ‘ .0’- 7 e.isi
71/07/07 17 55 ?.040 7•f- fl .1fl5 C.9fl0 1.000
71/fO /1 15 30 ‘ .50 ) ?.9O( ‘ .149 1.47fl l.b O
-------
ST R T RETPIFVAL DATE 74/10/02
‘.3 (‘0 10.0 0’3 1’. 10.0
F 4 r.h/E ’
L5555 A4
P, WAUKESHA
J/TIC-lIGA LAKE
ST - Y 59 P fjc, IN WAUKFS-$A ABOV STP
11t ’ LES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
( ‘0 30
0O ?S
00f10
00f 71
0o f c
1)ATE
TIME
r) ”TH
NO? NO3
TOT KJEL
NH3—M
Pp,OS— JS
PHOs—T 3T
FPO9
OF
N—TOTAL
N
T JTAL
OPT’-ID
TO
n Y
FFET
Hfl/t
ir,/L
1G/L P
1G/L )
7 ’/oc/?1
14
05
0.350
1.450
0.110
0.147
O.1R9
7?f l?/O1
11
35
1.7 0
1.°qu
0.5)0
0.19
0.294
7?/1?/O4
1’
?0
0.77’)
1.300
0.100
0.130
0. I1Q
71/01/07
15
00
1.3?’)
0.420
0.154
1.24J
71/02/0
If,
0
1.200
1.510
0.?20
0.110
73/01/04
15
0’.
1.100
1. fl0
0.3 50
0.115
0.190
73/04/OR
15
10
0.f,9 ’ )
1.200
0.?flO
0.120
0.2 IC
73’0’./1O
09
40
0.4 1 ” )
i. 0o
0.077
C.07 5
(i.13 5
71/OS/OF,
17
15
0.?7 5
1. O
0.o s
O. OP4
73/05/20
17
35
0.’.50
2.300
0.140
o.11
71/0F,/03
09
25
fl 33F,
O.?1’)
0.231
0.3?’)
71/07/07
I
15
O.4 40
1.7M)
O.05
0.3 fl
0.470
71/0F /1
15
10
1.2’0
1.1S0
0.0 44
0. 10
0.73)
-------
cT1QFI r ’vT 1FvAL DATE 74/10/02
L’555QR1
‘i 51 30.0 3R 19 00.0
M JKWQN. .1 O .IVF
55 1’ AC’LE
T/TIC-1TGA LA’(E
tIANK ErjE OF MUicW)NA(,O FLOSTP
IIFPALES 2fl 1204
4 0000 FEET DFPT’l
fl0f 3’i co ufl lU P0 I7)
DAT TIME DEPT, r 2 .NO3 TOT JFL r 3N r,OS—’)IS -US—T’)f
OF —TflTAL N TOTAL OPT ’)
TO DAY FFET M(/L -16/1 G/L
7 /CY/7’. If 15 0.1 )- ’ fl Qfl 0.105 0 . OIQ
7?/10/? 1’ 1 0.570 1.7 °c r.1 .7 C.1?f o.19
7/12/04 I “ fl 1.130 ?.400 ;.? 0 0.150 0.2)?
7 ’.’I7/N 15 30 1.’- OQ 1.0S . , u.39 ’ 0.14’ 0.21 )
71/0)/OS 15 0 1.I?0 o.qon 0.1 t) 0.O
7l/0 /fl 1610 1.720 0.10C u.130 0.110
71’01/fl’ IS 10 1.i )fl ].S Ofl J.110 o.o7-;
71f1’e/)- 1) ‘ 0.dl1 1.7” () c,o
71f)’./ 1 11 0 0.3S0 1.0’0 J.)0( 0.0 5) C.! ‘)
71l)5/1r 110fl 0 .6 0 0. 4’) o.i}n 1..’)S?
71/05/26 10 45 f..4 ) i.coo 0.1-n
71/0’ /25 0.0 53 0 . uJ C.05 0.050
73/O7/l 1415 0.015 O. 10 C .i ’ 0. 1 5 0.011
71/u /;?h 1 50 0.1 -9 0 . ’ - 0 0 . ’7 ’ 0.12 5
-------