U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
CARLYLE RESERVOIR
BOND, CLINTON, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES
ILLINOIS
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 297
CGRVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
T^G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
CARLYLE RESERVOIR
BOND, CLINTON, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES
ILLINOIS
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 297
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND THE
ILLINOIS NATIONAL GUARD
JUNE, 1975
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Illinois Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions i
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 [ 3O3(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 3l4(a,b)J,
and water quality monitoring [ glO6 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
111
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the 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 COUNTY
Baldwin Randolph
Bloomington McLean
Carlyle Bond, Clinton, Fayette
Cedar Lake
Charleston Coles
Coffeen Montgomery
Crab Orchard Jackson, Williamson
Decatur Macon
DePue Bureau
East Loon Lake
Fox Lake
Grass Lake
Highland Silver Madison
Holiday LaSalle
Horseshoe Madison
Long Lake
Lou Yaeger Montgomery
Marie Lake
Old Ben Mine Franklin
Pistakee Lake, McHenry
Raccoon Marion
Rend Franklin, Jefferson
Sangchris Christian
Shelbyville Moultrie, Shelby
Slocum Lake
Spri ng11 el d Sangamon
Storey Knox
Vandalia Fayette
Vermilion Vermilion
Wee Ma Tuk Fulton
Wonder McHenry
-------
-.4-
Allendale
Farm School
CEDAR
CEDAR LAKE
XLake Sampling Site
Sewage Treatment Facility
1/4 3/4 Kin.
-I
1/2 Mi.
Location
LAKE
E VILLA
-------
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.
-------
2
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 106 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.
ft Forneris, 1975.
* See Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods, 1973-1976".
-------
4
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.
-------
(SI SAMPLING C 5/ 9/73)
A. SUMMARY U I I HYSICAL ANt) CHLMICAL Cr )ARACTENL TlCS FOR CEDAR LAC E
STO t1 COOE 1159
I
51T s
I
SITES
I
SITES
PA )4MLTL ) )
- )ANG )
MIAN
MEL)IAN
MEAN
MEUIAN
MANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
TEMP (C)
12.1
— (4.!
13.6
14.0
22.7
— 25.3
24.5
25.2
14.4
— 15.8
15.2
15.3
0155 OAY (MG/L(
7.b
— 9.4
b.9
9.2
2.2
— 8.4
6.8
8.4
6.b
— 7.0
7.2
7.4
CNOCIV’ (MCROMO)
430.
— ‘.40.
437.
440.
379.
— 388.
384.
385.
301.
— 303.
302.
303.
PC-I (STAND UNITS)
8.0
— 8.3
8. ?
8.2
8.1
— 4.9
8.7
8.8
8.2
— 8.5
8.4
8.4
TOE AL) (MG/L)
166.
— (68.
1b1.
I 1.
134.
— 142.
137.
135.
136.
— 143.
140.
140.
101 P (MG/L)
0.022
— 0.035
0.029
0.028
0.024
— 0.032
0.026
0.024
0.029
— 0.093
0.053
0.045
OkTIiO P (MG/L)
0.011
— 0.014
0.012
0.012
0.011
— 0.018
0.013
0.012
0.0(7
— 0.035
0.026
0.025
N02 .N03 (MG/L)
0.09),)
— 0.100
0.094
0.090
0.070
— 0.130
0.092
0.085
0.020
— 0.020
0.020
0.020
AMMONIA (MG/L(
0.070
— 0.110
0.08?
0.080
0.080
— 0.130
0.091
0.090
0.120
— 0.390
0.220
0.185
KJEL N (M,/L
0.900
— 1.100
1.000
1.01 ,0
0.900
— 2.400
1.375
1.100
1.100
— 1.700
1.325
1.250
1N0I (G N )PIGIL)
0.160
— 0.200
0.116
0.170
0.160
— 0.260
0.190
0.170
0.140
0.410
0.240
0.205
TOTAL N (MG/U
0.990
— 1.200
1.094
1.090
0.970
— 2.530
1.467
1.185
1.120
— 1.720
1.345
1.270
CHL PYL A (UG/L)
4.5
— 4.5
4.5
4.5
7.2
— 7.2
7.2
7.2
5.6
— 5.6
5.6
5.6
ECCPII (M11E 5)
3.0
— 3.0
3.3
3.0
—
7
-------
6
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Algal units
Date Genera per ml
05/09/73 1. Dthobryon .p. 440
2. Dictyosphaerium p. 119
3. Flagellates 44
4. Kirchneriella . 28
5. Cryptomonas . 24
Other genera 154
Total 809
08/07/73 1. Gomphosphaeria 229
2. Microcystis . 194
3. Dlnobryon .p. 158
4. Scenedesnius .p. 106
5. Chroococcus .p_. 106
Other genera 561
Total 1 ,354
10/16/73 1. Dinobryon p. 396
2. Aphanizomenon p. 316
3. Microcystis p. 264
4. Merlsmopedia .p. 237
5. Chroococcus . 237
Other genera 765
Total 2,215
-------
7
Station
Number
Maximum yield
( mg/i-dry wt. )
0.2
7.8
22.2
0.1
Chlorophyll a
( g/l)
4.5
7.2
5.6
2. Chlorophyll a —
Sampling
Date ________ _______________
05/09/73 01
08/07/73 01
10/16/73 01
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked —
Ortho P Inorganic N
Spike (ing/l) Conc. (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i ) ______________
Control 0.010 0.222
0.050 P 0.060 0.222
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.060 1.222
1.0 N 0.010 1.222
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).
-------
8
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* —
Pop. Mean Flow Receiving
Name Served Treatment 1 3 /d) Water
Allendale 150 trickling 76.9 Cedar Lake
School for filter
Boys
2. Known industrial - None
* Henning, 1973.
-------
9
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading — Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kg P1
Source yr
a. Immediate drainage (non-point load) - not known
b. Known municipal STP’s -
Allendale School for Boys 190
c. Septic tanks* - 15
d. Known industrial - None -
e. Direct precipitation** - 20
Sub-total 225
2. Outputs - unknown
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
kg NI
Source yr
a. Immediate drainage (non-point load) - not known
b. Known municipal SIP’s -
Allendale School for Boys 270
c. Septic tanks* - 555
d. Known industrial - None -
e. Direct precipitation** - 1 ,240
Sub—total 2,065
2. Outputs - 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 MANK1NGS
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 15— MEDIAN
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORG N MEAN SEC CHIORA NIH 00 DISS O THO P
1703 LAKE 8LOOHINGTON 0.050 5.730 464.667 26.200 14.800 0.020
1706 LAKE CARLYLE 0.084 1.270 477.889 17.367 11.000 0.032
1708 LAKE CHARLESTON 0.160 4.680 490.667 12.000 8.400 0.065
1711 COFFEEN LAKE 0.032 0.260 ‘.56.222 1.700 14.900 0.012
1712 CRA8 ORCHMD LAKE 0.082 0.200 ‘.82.222 59.867 13.800 0.013
1714 LAKE OECATUi 0.129 3.750 41c..5i1 43.000 14.500 0.062
1725 LONG LAKE 0.704 1.190 482.667 49.333 8.800 0.398
1726 LAKE LOU YAEGER 0.186 1.600 489.583 10.662 11.400 0.076
1727 LAKE MARIE 0.098 0.370 467.661 39.533 14.700 0.057
1733 PISTAKEE LAKE 0.203 0.370 485.667 75.867 7.000 0.062
1735 REND LAKE 0.071 0.210 471.500 23.533 12.700 0.012
1739 LAKE SHEL8YVILLE 0.062 3.290 461.333 17.161 14.800 0.019
1740 SIL EM LAKE (HIGHLAND) 0.226 0.970 489.500 5.822 14.800 0.057
1742 LAKE SPRINGFIELD 0.108 3.265 483.385 13.013 10.800 0.059
1748 VERMILION LAKE 0.109 4.695 ‘.81.500 31.150 14.200 0.050
fl5Q WONDER LAKE 0.424 0.890 486.000 98.533 7.800 0.132
1751 LAKE STORY 0.012 2.510 459.333 17.250 14.800 0.021
1752 DEPUE LAKE 0.436 4.050 ‘.90.000 58.833 7.600 0.276
1753 LAKE SANGCIIHIS 0.050 1.970 415.417 19.292 14.500 0.009
1754 LAKE HOLIDAY 0.167 3.135 485.167 51.217 7.200 0.046
1755 FOX LAKE O.21V 0.375 486.167 63.850 8.800 0.083
1756 GRASS LAKE 0.301 0.820 481.000 83.500 5.900 0.093
1757 EAST LOON LAKE 0.076 0.120 450.000 22.300 14.900 0.O IH
1758 SLOCUM LAKE 0.865 0.200 487.333 221.100 5.800 0.362
1759 CEDAR LAKE 0.029 0.170 400.333 5.767 12.800 0.013
1761 LAKE WEMATUK 0.069 1.770 466.333 7.967 16.S00 0.031
1762 RACCOON LAKE 0.106 0.310 484.333 19.217 13.800 0.020
1763 OALDWIN LAKE 0.064 0.140 461.167 11.333 13.200 0.007
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USEO iN ANK1NGS
LAKE
MEDIAN
MEDIAN
500—
MEAN
1 5 -
MEDIAN
CODE
LAKE
NAME
TOTAL P
INO G N
MEAN SEC
CriLO A
MIN DO
0155 O TrnO I-’
1764
LAKE
VANDALIA
0.116
0.480
478.111
i1.27b
1’..ôO
0.023
176
OLD
BEN MINE
ESE VO1
0.930
0.205
478.333
31.433
11.2O )
0.575
1766
HOWSESHOE LAKE
0.127
0.705
482.833
182.2 0
6. 00
O.O1
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 15— MEDIAN INDEX
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORD N MEAN SEC CHLORA MIN DO 0155 ORTHO P NO
1703 LAKE bLOOMINGTON 88 C 26) 0 ( 0) bO C 24) 47 C 14) 13 C 2) 68 1 201 296
1706 LAKE CARLYLE 63 ( 19) 40 C 12) 63 1 19) 63 C 19) 63 4 19) 53 4 16) 345
1708 LAKE CHARLESTON 37 C 11) 7 C 2) 0 4 0) 77 C 23) 71 4 23) 27 8) 225
1711 COFFEEN LAKE 97 C 29) 77 ( 23) 93 C 28) 93 C 28) 2 4 0) 92 C 27) 454
1712 CRAB ORCHARD LAKE 67 C 20) 90 4 27) 43 C 13) 20 4 6) 42 C 12) 85 ( 25) 347
1714 LAKE DECATUR 40 C 12) 13 C 4) 53 C 16) 33 C 10) 30 8) 32 1 9) 201
1725 LONG LAKE 7 C 2) 43 C 13) 40 4 12) 30 C 9) 72 4 21) 3 C 1) 195
172€ LAKE LOU YAEGER 30 C 9) 37 C 11) 7 C 2) 87 4 26) 57 C 17) 23 C 7) 241
1727 LAKE MARIE 60 C 18) 68 C 20) 73 C 22) 37 C 11) 23 C 7) 42 1 12) 303
1733 PISTAKEE LAKE 27 C 8) 68 ( 20) 23 C 7) 13 C 4) 90 C 27) 32 C 9) 253
1735 REND LAKE 77 C 23) 80 C 24) 70 C 21) 50 C 15) 53 ( 16) 92 C 27) 422
1739 LAKE SHELUYVILLE 83 C 25) 17 ( 5) 83 C 25) 70 ( 21) 13 C 2) 73 C 22) 339
1740 SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND) 20 C 6) 47 C 14) 10 C 3) 97 C 29) 13 C 2) 42 4 12) 229
1742 LAKE SPRINGFIELD 53 C 16) 20 C 6) 33 C 10) 73 C 22) 67 C 20) 37 C 11) 283
1748 VERMiLION LAKE 50 C 15) 3 C I) 47 C 14) 43 ( 13) 37 C 11) 47 C 14) 227
1750 WONDER LAKE 13 1 4) 50 C 15) 20 C 6) 7 C 2) 80 C 24) 13 C 4) 183
1751 LAKE STORY 73 C 22) 27 C 8) 90 C 27) 67 C 20) 13 C 2) 63 C 19) 333
1752 DEPUE LAKE 10 C 3) 10 C 3) 3 C 1) 23 C 7) 83 ( 25) 10 C 3) 139
1753 LAKE SANGCHRIS 88 C 26) 30 C 9) 67 C 20) 57 C 17) 30 C 8) 97 C 29) 369
1754 LAKE HOLIDAY 33 C 10) 23 C 7) 27 C 8) 271 8) 87 C 26) 50 C 15) 247
1755 FOX LAKE 23 1 7) 63 C 19) 17 C 5) 17 C 5) 72 C 211 20 C 6) 212
1756 GRASS LAKE 17 ( 5) 53 C 16) 50 C 15) 10 C 3) 97 C 29) 17 4 5) 244
1757 EAST LOON LAKE 70 C 21) 100 C 30) 97 C 29) 53 C 16) 2 C 0) 77 4 23) 399
1758 SLOCUM LAKE 3 C 1) 87 C 26) 13 C 4) 0 C 0) 100 C 30) 7 2) 210
1759 CEDAR LAKE 100 C 30) 93 ( 28) 100 C 30) 100 C 30) 50 C 15) 85 4 25) 528
176) LAKE WEMATUK 80 C 24) 33 C 10) 77 4 23) 90 C 27) 30 1 8) 57 C 17) 367
1762 RACCOON LAKE 57 C 17) 73 C 22) 30 C 9) 60 1 18) 42 C 12) 68 ( 20) 330
1763 BALOWIN LAKE 93 C 28) 97 ( 29) 87 C 26) 80 C 24) 47 C 14) 100 C 30) 504
-------
PERCENT OF
LAKES lIfl-4 IUGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF
LAKES WITM H1GHE VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
LAKE
NAME
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
MIDIAN
INORG
N
500—
MEAN
SEC
MEAN
CHLORA
15
MIN
00
MEDIAN
DISS O T iO
P
INL)tX
NO
1764
LAP’E
VANDALIA
47 ( 14)
60 (
18)
60
( 18)
83 ( 25)
13 (
2)
60 ( 18)
323
1765
OLD
t3EN MINE RESERVOIR
0 ( 0)
83 (
25)
57
C 17)
‘.0 ( 12)
60 (
18)
0 ( 0)
240
1766
HORSESHOE LAKE
43 ( 13)
57 (
17)
37
( 11)
3 ( 1)
93 (
28)
80 ( 24)
313
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
1 1759 CEDAR LAKE 528
2 1763 BALDWIN LAKE 504
3 1711 COFFEEN LAKE 454
4 1735 REND LAKE 422
5 1751 EAST LOON LAKE 399
6 1753 LAKE SANGCrIRIS 369
7 1161 LAKE WEMATUK 361
8 1712 CRAB ORCHARD LAKE 347
9 1706 LAKE CARLYLE 345
10 1139 LAKE SHEL8YVILLE 339
ii 1751 LAKE STORY 333
12 1762 RACCOON LAKE 330
13 1764 LAKE VANDALIA 323
14 1766 P4ORSESHOE LAKE 313
15 1727 LAKE MARIE 303
16 1703 LAKE BLOOMINGTON 296
I? 1742 LAKE SPRINGFIELD 283
18 1733 PISTAKEE LAKE 253
19 1754 LAKE HOLIDAY 247
20 1756 GRASS LAKE 244
21 1726 LAKE LOU YAEGER 241
22 176S OLD WEN MINE RESERVOIR 240
23 1740 SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND) 229
24 1748 VEI1NILION LAKE 227
2S 170W LAKE CHARLESTON 225
26 1755 FOX LAKE 212
27 1758 SLOCUM LAKE 210
28 17)4 LAKE OECATU-) 201
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
29 1725 LONG LAKE 195
30 1750 WONDER LAKE 183
31 1752 DE UE LAKE 139
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSIONS FACTORS
-------
CONVERSION FPJ,TORS
Ilectares x 2.471 = acres
Kilometers x 0.6214 = miles
Meters x 3.281 = feet
Cubic meters x 8.107 x l0 = acr e/feèt
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 = lbs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DAlE 75/10/23
175901
42 25 17.0 088 05 22.0
CEDAR LAKE
17097 ILLINOIS
1 IEPALES 2111202
3 0035 FEET DEPTH
000 lu 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
DATE TIME DEPT 1 WATER DO TI ANSP CNDuCTvY PH T ALK Nh3—N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 TOTAL N N—TOTAL ORTP4O
TO DAY FEET CENT MG/L INCHES MICROMHO SO MG/L M(,/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
73/05/09 14 40 0000 14.1 120 440 8.20 166 0.080 1.100 0.090 0.012
14 40 0006 14.1 9.4 430 8.20 167 0.080 1.100 0.100 0.012
14 40 0015 14.0 9.6 440 8.30 167 0.070 0.900 0.090 0.012
14 40 0022 13.9 9.0 435 8.20 167 0.070 0.900 0.100 0.011
14 40 0031 12.1 7.6 440 8.00 168 0.110 1.000 0.090 0.014
73/08/07 11 15 0000 25.3 8.4 70 388 8.90 135 0.130 2.400 0.130 0.013
11 15 0005 25.2 8.4 386 8.90 135 0.080 1.100 0.080 0.011
11 IS 0010 25.2 384
11 15 0012 25.2 8.4 385 8.80 134 0.090 1.100 0.090 0.012
11 15 0015 23.3 380
11 15 0018 22.7 2.2 379 8.10 142 0.090 0.900 0.070 0.018
73/Iu/16 15 43 0000 15.8 109 303 8.50 140 0.120 1.400 0.020 0.017
15 43 0016 15.7 7.6 302 8.S0 136 0.130 1.100 0.020 - 0.025
15 43 0025 14.9 7.4 301 8.40 140 0.240 1.100 0.020 0.026
15 43 0035 14.4 6.6 303 8.20 143 0.390 1.700 0.020 0.035
00665 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL
FROI ’ OF A
TO DAY FEET MG/L P UG/L
73/05/09 14 40 0000 0.022 4.5
14 40 0006 0.035
14 40 0015 0.032
14 40 0022 0.028
1’. 40 0031 0.027
73/oB/07 11 15 0000 0.024 7.2
11 15 0005 0.024
11 15 0012 0.024
11 15 0018 0.032
73/10/16 15 43 0000 0.049 5.6
15 43 0016 0.029
15 43 0025 0.042
15 43 0035 0.093
-------
APPENDIX D
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STOrLI LT 1EVAL. UAEL 7 /10/c 3
17 921 TF175921
‘ +2 2S 12.0 088 05 45.0
ALL M)ALE SCHOOL FOk 8OY
11097 7.5 ANT lOCH
1)/CEDAP LAKE
CEOA LAKE
1 1L ALES
P000106
2 1 ’. 1 20’.
0000 FEET DEPTH
0u 630
00825
0u610
00871
00665
50051
50053
(JATE
TIME
DE 1H
U2 NO3
TUE PcJEL
Nr13—N
PHOS—DIS
PHOs—TOT
FLOW
CONL)U IT
F OM
OF
N-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
OPTHO
ATL
FLO*—MGI)
Tu
hAY
FEET
M(,/L
MUlL
MUlL
MG/L P
M&/L P
INST MuD
MONTHLY
73/u/109
09
00
3.600
.700
0.1t 0
5.700
6.700
0.129
0.120
7j/08/13
5.Ru O
14.700
u.2 00
9.500
19.500
73/09/07
8.900
f .9)U
0.160
9.600
11.500
0.009
0.009
73/10/19
00
00
7.bQ0
11.500
u.120
7.soU
‘ .001 ,
0.009
0.008
73/11/0
L..200
11.000
0.094
,.100
9.100
0.009
73/11/26
10
00
3. ’ +o O
7.900
u.012
3.000
6.000
0.009
7 ’ ./02/02
3.120
8.300
3.087
1.680
8.000
0.009
0.036
74/03/06
1.8 ’.u
1.000K
0.050K
0.630
0.630
0.009
74/04/04
2.50
1.SJu
0.050K
1.600
2.100
0.009
0.009
7 ’ +/0 5/ OH
‘ .J00
6.700
0.110
5.600
8.500
0.009
0.008
74/ Ob/ 07
4.300
3.500
0.075
3.700
4.100
0.009
0.008
74/07/10
1’.
30
4.750
3.300
0.050
3.500
D.100
0.009
0.009
74/08/09
15
00
1. lu O
.200
0.100
5.800
8.400
0.009
V :ALUh. \ O ‘J LU r .
LL) ) Fi’ N I ii’IC.-. [ Li
------- |