U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
WONDER LAKE
ItHENRY COUNTY
ILLINOIS
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 322
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & SUPPORT LABORATORY - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•&G.P.O. 699-440
-------
REPORT
ON
WONDER LAIC
FIcHENRY COUNTY
ILLINOIS
EPA REGION V
WORKING PAPER No, 322
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 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 3
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 4
IV. Nutrient Loadings 8
V. Literature Reviewed 13
VI. Appendices 14
-------
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)I,
and water quality monitoring [ lO6 and §305(b) ] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
1 11
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.
AC KNO WL EDGMENT
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
Springfield Sangamon
Storey Knox
Vandalia Fayette
Vermilion Vermilion
Wee Ma Tuk Fulton
Wonder McHenry
-------
V
/
IA
. c
WONDER LAKE
Hebron
Tributary Sampling Site
U
Lake Sampling Site
x
Sewage
o 1
0
Treatment
Facility
Km.
Mi.
Location
Wonder
-------
WONDER LAKE
STORET NO. 1750
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate Wonder Lake is highly eutrophic. Of
the 31 Illinois water bodies sampled In 1973, Wonder Lake
ranked 30th in overall trophic quality when the lakes were
compared using a combination of six parameters*. Twenty-six
of the lakes had less median total and dissolved phosphorus,
15 had less median inorganic nitrogen, 28 had less mean chloro-
phyll a, and 24 had greater mean Secchi disc transparency.
Survey limnologists did not observe any nuisance conditions
dulrng their visits to the lake.
B. Rate-Limiting Nutrient:
The algal assay results indicate Wonder Lake was phosphorus
limited at the time the assay sample was collected (05/09/73).
However, the lake data indicate nitrogen limitation In August
and October; i.e., the mean N/P ratios were 2/1 and 5/1,
respectively, and nitrogen limitation would be expected.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources--The two known point sources impacting
Wonder Lake contributed 71.1% of the total phosphorus load
* See Appendix A.
-------
2
reaching the lake during the sampling year. With 80% phosphorus
removal instituted at the two point sources, the present loading
rate of 12.39 g/n1 2 /yr would be reduced to 5.33 g/m 2 /yr. However,
even this loading rate is over six times the rate proposed by
Vollenweider (Vollenweider and Dillon, 1974) as a eutrophic rate
(see page 12). Nonetheless, considering the short hydraulic
retention time of 54 days, 80% or more phosphorus removal should
improve the trophic condition of Wonder Lake since the lake is
presently phosphorus limited part of the time.
2. Non-point sources--The estimated non-point phosphorus load
of Nippersink Creek accounted for 24.0% of the total phosphorus
load to the lake. Minor tributaries and immediate drainage were
estimated to have contributed 3.3% of the total load.
-------
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS1"
A. Lake Morphometry :
1. Surface area: 2.95 kilometers2.
2. Mean depth: 2.5 meters.
3. Maximum depth: unknown.
4. Volume: 7.401 x 106 m3.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 54 days.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix C for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Drainage Mean flow
Name area (km2)* (m3/sec)*
Nippersink Creek 218.9 1.4
Minor tributaries &
immediate drainage - 30.1 0.2
Totals 249.0 1.6
2. Outlet -
Nippersink Creek 252.0** 1.6
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 125.6 centimeters.
2. Mean annual: 92.2 centimeters.
t Table of metric conversions—Appendix B.
tt Forneris, 1973.
* For limits of accuracy, see Working Paper No. 175, "...Survey Methods,
1973-1976".
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
4
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Wonder 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 two
depths at two stations on the lake (see map, page v). During each
visit, a single depth-integrated (near bottom to surface) sample was
composited from the stations for phytoplankton identification and
enumeration; and during the first visit, a single 18.9-liter depth-
integrated sample was coniposited for algal assays. Also each time,
a depth-integrated sample was collected from each of the stations for
chlorophyll a analysis. The maximum depth sampled at each station
was 1.5 meters.
The lake sampling results are presented in full in Appendix D and
are summarized In the following table.
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR WONDER LA ) E
STORET CODE 1750
1ST SAMPLING ( 5/
9/73)
2ND SAMPLING ( 8/
7/73)
3RD SAMPLING (10/16/73)
2
SITES
2
SITES
2
SITES
PARAMLTER
RANUE
MEAN
MEDIAN
MANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
MANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
TEMP (C)
14.5 — 14.8
14.6
14.6
25.9 — 26.5
26.3
26.3
14.1 — 15.5
14.8
14.8
DISS OAY (MG/U
8.6 — 8.7
8.5
8.5
7.2 — 8.6
7.9
7.9
12.6 — 14.4
13.5
13.5
CNDCTVY (MCROMO)
540. — 560.
555.
560.
743. — 763.
754.
754.
510. — 533.
523.
524.
PH (STAND UNITS)
8.1 — 8.1
8.1
8.1
8.5 — 8.5
8.5
8.5
8.7 — 8.8
8.7
8.7
TOT ALK (HG/LI
240. — 250.
248.
250.
330. — 336.
334.
334.
23’.. — 24’..
241.
242.
TOT P (MG/LI
0.217 — 0.323
0.260
0.250
0.518 — 0.678
0.606
0.614
0.363 — 0.477
0.423
0.426
OkTHO P (MG/LI
0.096 — 0.103
0.099
0.099
0.357 — 0.441
0.404
0.409
0.128 — 0.143
0.134
0.132
N02.N03 (HG/LI
2.050 — 2.150
2.097
2.095
0.390 — 0.430
0.412
0.415
0.530 — 0.580
0.567
0.580
AMMONIA (MG/L)
0.210 — 0.240
0.230
0.235
0.420 — 0.580
0.485
0.470
0.030 — 0.050
0.037
0.035
KJEL N (HG/L)
0.900 — 1.300
1.075
1.050
2.400 — 2.900
2.650
2.650
1.000 — 2.300
1.825
2.000
INONG N (MG/U
2.290 — 2.360
2.327
2.330
0.610 — 1.000
0.897
0.890
0.560 — 0.630
0.605
0.615
TOTAL N (MG/LI
2.950 — 3.360
3.172
3.190
2.790 — 3.330
3.062
3.065
1.530 — 2.880
2.392
2.580
CHLRPYL A (UG/L)
20.5 - 23.7
22.1
22.1
59.7 — 91.3
75.5
75.S
185.0 — 211.0
198.0
198.0
SECCPII (METERS) 0.1 — 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.3 — 0.6 0.5 0.5
0.3 — 0.6 0.5 0.5
-------
6
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytoplankton -
Sampling Dominant Algal units
Date Genera per ml
05/09/73 1. Stephanodiscus p. 979
2. Melosira p. 894
3. Cryptonionas a .• 516
4. S cenedesmus 285
5. Dinobryon p. 274
Other genera 1 ,376
Total 4,304
08/07/73 1. Melosira p.. 3,155
2. Stephanodiscus p. 947
3. Microcystis p. 276
4. Euglena p. 237
5. Glenodinium and
Gyninodinium p. 237
Other genera 1,459
Total 6,311
10/16/73 1. Stephanodiscus p. 4,791
2. Cryptomonas 1,060
3. Flagellates 424
4. Melosira 339
5. Schroederia .a• 229
Other genera 705
Total 7,548
2. Chlorophyll a -
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( ig/l )
05/09/73 01 20.5
02 23.7
08/07/73 01 59.7
02 91.3
10/16/73 01 185.0
02 211.0
-------
7
Maximum yield
( mcill -dry wt. )
15.4
43.4
42.3
14.2
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N
Spike (mg/i) Conc. (ni pl1’) Conc. (mall ) _____________
Control 0.040 1.835
0.050 P 0.090 1.835
0.050 P + 1.0 N 0.090 2.835
1.0 N 0.040 2.835
2. Discussion -
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Wonder Lake was high at the time the assay sample was
collected (05/09/73). Also, the results indicate the lake
was phosphorus limited at that time. Note that the addition
of orthophosphorus resulted in a yield much greater than the
control yield, but the addition of only nitrogen did not
result in an increased yield.
However, the lake data indicate nitrogen limitation in
August and October; i.e., the mean inorganic nitrogen/ortho-
phosphorus ratios were 2/1 and 5/1, respectively, and
nitrogen limitation would be expected.
-------
8
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix E for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Illinois National
Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each of the
tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the high
runoff months of February and March when two samples were collected.
Sampling was begun in June, 1973, and was completed in May, 1974.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by
the Illinois District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for station A-l were determined
by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer program
for calculating stream loadings*. However, the calculated nutrient
loads in Nippersink Creek at station A-2 were less than the nutrient
loads attributed to upstream point sources. Assuming that all the
phosphorus from all sources eventually reach the lake, the nutrient
export loads in Nippersink Creek at station 33A-l of the Fox Chain
of Lakes were used as background loads in the creek in this report.
Nutrient loads for unsampled “minor tributaries and immediate
drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the nutrient loads,
in kg/km 2 /year, in Nippersink Creek, tributary to the Fox Chain of
Lakes, at station 33A-l and multiplying by the ZZ area in km 2 .
See Working Paper No. 175.
** Working Paper No. 305.
-------
9
2. Known industrial* -
Name ________
Woodstock
Die Casting
Compa fly
Mean Flow
(m 3 /d)
2
* Anonymous, 1972; Barganz, 1975.
** Estimated at 0.3785 m 3 /capita/day.
The operator of the Woodstock wastewater treatment plant provided
monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data. The town of
Alden did not participate in the Survey, and nutrient loads were esti-
mated at 1.134 kg P and 3.401 kg N/capita/year.
The Woodstock Die Casting Company discharges to Nippersink Creek,
but this discharge is not believed to be significant in terms of
primary nutrients.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known munjcipal*
Name
Alden
Woods tock
Pop.
Served
400
10,010
Mean Flow
(m 3 /d)
151 4**
8,955.6
Treatment
act. sludge
act. sludge
+ ponds
Treatment
chemicals
+ sand fltr.
Product
plating
Receiving
Water
Nippersink Creek
Nippersink Creek
Receiving
Water
Nippersink Creek
-------
10
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kgP/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Nippersink Creek 8,755 24.0
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 1,205 3.3
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Woodstock 25,530 69.9
Alden 455 1.2
d. Septic tanks* - 545 1.5
e. Known industrial -
Woodstock Die Casting Co. ? -
f. Direct precipitation** - 50 0.1
Total 36,540 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Nippersink Creek 15,980
3. Net annual P accumulation - 20,560 kg.
* Estimate based on population of the Village of Wonder Lake (4,806); see
Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
11
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
kgN/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non—point load) -
Nippersink Creek 149,945 61.3
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 20,620 8.4
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Woodstock 49,075 20.1
Alden 1 ,360 0.6
d. Septic tanks* - 20,490 8.4
e. Known industrial —
Woodstock Die Casting Co. ? -
f. Direct precipitatiOfl** - 3,185 1.2
Total 244,675 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Nippersink Creek 144,795
3. Net annual N accumulation - 99,880 kg.
* Estimate based on population of the Village of Wonder Lake (4,806); see
Working Paper No. 175.
** See Working Paper No. 175.
-------
12
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary kg P/km 2 /yr kg N/km 2 /yr
Nippersink Creek (at station 33A-1,
Fox Chain of Lakes) 40 685
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (Vollen-
welder and Dillon, 1974). Essentially, his “dangerous” rate
is the rate at which the receiving water would become eutrophic
or remain eutrophic; his “permissible” rate is that which would
result in the receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming
oligotrophic if morphometry permitted. A mesotrophic rate would
be considered one between “dangerous” and “permissible”.
Note that Vollenweider’s model may not be applicable to
water bodies with short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
grams/m 2 /yr 12.39 6.97 82.9 33.9
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m 2 /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Wonder Lake:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 0.80
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 0.40
-------
13
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Anonymous, 1972. Wastewater treatment works data book. IL Env.
Prot. Agency, Springfield.
Barganz, Ronald M., 1975. Personal communication (Alden SIP). IL
Env. Prot. Agency, Springfield.
Forneris, John J., 1973. Personal communication (lake morphometry).
IL Env. Prot. Agency, Springfield.
Vollenwelder, R. A., and P. J. Dillon, 1974. The application of
the phosphorus loading concept to eutrophication research.
Nati. Res. Council of Canada Pubi. No. 13690, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
-------
VI. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
LAKE RANKINGS
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 1 5 ML1) IAN
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORO N MEAN SEC CHLOWA MIN 00 0)55 ORI,iU P
1703 LAKE 8LOOMINGTON 0.050 5.730 464.661 26.200 1 ..80O 0.020
1706 LAKE CARLYLE 0.084 1.270 477.889 11.387 11.03 0 0.832
1708 LAKE CHARLESTON 0.160 4.680 490.667 12.000 8.400 0.065
1711 COFFEEN LAKE 0.032 0.260 456.222 7.700 14.900 0.012
1712 CRAb ORCHARD LAKE 0.082 0.200 482.222 59.867 13.800 0.013
1714 LAKE DECATUR 0.12 ? 3.750 479.571 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 0.018
1727 LAKE MARIE 0.098 0.370 467.667 39.533 14.700 0.057
1733 PISTAKEE LAKE 0.203 0.370 485.867 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 SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND) 0.226 0.970 489.500 5.822 14.800 0.057
1742 LAKE SPRIr GF1ELD 0.109 3.265 483.385 13.013 10.800 0.059
1748 VERMILION LAKE 0.109 4.695 481.500 31.150 14.200 0.050
1750 WONDER LAKE 0.428 0.890 486.000 98.533 7.800 0.132
1751 LAKE STORY 0.072 2.510 459.333 11.250 14.800 O.u21
1752 DEPUE LAKE 0.438 4.050 490.000 58.833 7.600 0.276
1753 LAKE SANGCr,RIS 0.050 1.970 415.417 19.292 14.500 0.009
175’ LAKE HOLIDAY 0.167 3.135 485.167 51.217 7.200 0.048
1755 F0 LAKE 0.219 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 0.018
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.U1J
1761 LAKE WEMATUK 0.069 1.770 466.333 7.967 14.500 0.031
1762 RACCOON LAKE 0.106 0.310 484.333 19.2)7 13.800 0.020
1763 8ALUWIN LAKE 0.044 0.140 4b1.167 11.333 13.200 0.00,
-------
LAKE DATA TO BE USED IN RANKINGS
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN iS- MEDIAN
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORG N MEAN SEC C -$L0RA MIN DO 0155 O Th0 P
1764 LAKE VANDALIA 0.116 0.480 478.111 - 11.276 14.800 0.023
1765 OLD BEN MINE RESERVOIR 0.930 0.205 e78.333 31.433 11.200 0.575
1766 HORSESHOE LAKE 0.127 0.705 482.833 182.2 O 6.d O O 0.0 1
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE
CODE
LAKE NAME
MEDIAN
TOTAL P
MEDIAN
INOPG N
500-
MEAN SEC
MEAN
CHLORA
15-
NIH 00
MEDIAN
DISS ONTHO P
INUEX
NO
1703
LAKE OLOOMINGTON
88 (
26)
0 0)
80 1 24)
47 I 14)
13 I 2)
68
1 20)
236
1706
LAKE CARLYLE
63 I
19)
‘.0 I 12)
63 C 19)
63 I 19)
63 I 19)
53
16)
345
1708
LAKE CHARLESTON
37 C
11)
7 I 2)
0 C 0)
77 I 23)
77 I 23)
27
8)
225
171)
COFFEEN LAKE
97
29)
77 I 23)
93 C
28)
93 I 28)
2 I 0)
92
1 27)
454
1712
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
67 C
20)
90 I 27)
43 C
13)
20 1 6)
42 I 12)
85
1 25)
347
1714
LAKE DECATUR
40 1
12)
13 I 4)
53 C
16)
33 I 10)
30 I 8)
32
1 9)
201
1725
LONG LAKE
7 I
2)
43 1 13)
40 C
12)
30 I 9)
72 I 21)
3
1)
195
1726
LAKE LOU YAEGEP
30 I
9)
37 I 11)
7 C
2)
87 C 26)
57 I 17
23
I 7)
241
1727
lAKE MARIE
60 C
18)
68 ( 20)
73 C
22)
37 C 11)
23 I 7)
42
I 12)
303
1733
PISTAKEE LAKE
27 I
8)
68 I 20)
23 C
7)
13 I 4)
90 I 21)
32
C 9)
253
1735
REND LAKE
77
23)
80 1 24)
70 C
21)
50 I 15)
53 1 16)
92
I 27)
422
1739
LAKE SHELBYVILLE
83 C
25)
17 1 5)
83 C
25)
70 C 21)
13 C
2)
73
1 22)
339
1740
SILVER LAKE (HIGHLAND)
20 I
6)
47 C 14)
10 1
3)
97 1 29)
13 I
2)
42
1 12)
229
1762
LAKE SPRINGFIELD
53 C
16)
20 4 6)
33 C
10)
73 C 22)
67 (
20)
37
C 11)
283
1748
VERMILION LAKE
50
15)
3 ( 1)
47 I
14)
43 13)
37 I
11)
47
C 14)
227
1750
WONDER LAKE
13 I
4)
50 1 15)
20 1
6)
7 C 2)
80 C
24)
13
I 4)
183
1751
LAKE STORY
73 C
22)
27 C 8)
90 1
27)
67 C 20)
13 1
2)
63
1 19)
333
1752
DEPUE LAKE
10 4
3)
10 3)
3 1
1)
23 C 1)
83 1
25)
10
I 3)
139
1753
LAKE SANGCHRIS
88 I
26)
30 C 9)
67 C
20)
57 1 17)
30 1
8)
97
1 29)
369
1754
LAKE HOLIDAY
33 C
10)
23 7)
27 1
8)
27 1 8)
87 C
26)
50
I 15)
241
1755
FOX LAKE
23 C
7)
63 4 19)
17 1
5)
11 I 5)
72 1
21)
20
( 6)
212
1756
GRASS LAKE
17 C
5)
53 C 16)
50 C
IS)
10 1 3)
97 (
29)
I?
C 5)
244
1757
EAST LOON LAKE
70 (
21)
100 C 30)
97 I
29)
53 C 16)
2 I
0)
77
1 23)
399
1758
SLOCUM LAKE
3 C
1
87 C 26)
13 1
4)
0 C 0)
100 1
30)
7
C 2)
210
1759
CEDAR LAKE
100 C
30)
93 C 28)
100 C
30)
100 I 30)
50 C
15)
85
C 2)
526
176)
LAKE EMATUK
80 C
24)
33 C 10)
77 C
23)
90 I 27)
30 C
8)
57
C 17)
367
1762
RACCOON LAKE
57 C
Ii)
73 1 22)
30 C
9)
60 C 18)
.2 C
12)
68
1 20)
330
1763 BALOIIN LAKE
93 I 28) 97 1 29) 87 I 26) 60 C 24) 47 I 1.) 100 C 30)
50’ .
-------
PERCENT OF LAKES WITM HIGHER VALUES (NUMBER OF LAKES WITH HIGHER VALUES)
LAKE MEDIAN MEDIAN 500— MEAN 15- MEDiAN
CODE LAKE NAME TOTAL P INORG N MEAN SEC CHLORA MIN DO DISS ORTiIO P NO
1764 LAKE VANDALIA 47 C 14) 60 C 18) 60 ( 18) 83 ( 25) 13 ( 2) 60 ( 18) 323
1765 OLD BEN MINE RESERVOIR 0 ( 0) 83 ( 25) 57 ( 17) 40 ( 12) 60 ( 18) 0 ( 0) 2’.O
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 1159 CEDAR LAKE 528
2 1763 BALDWIN LAKE SO’.
3 1711 COFF EN LAKE 454
4 1735 REND LAKE 422
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
ii 1751 LAKE STORY 333
12 1762 RACCOON LAKE 330
13 1764 LAKE VANDALIA 323
14 1766 HORSESrIOE 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 MOLIDAY 247
20 1756 GRASS LAKE 244
21 172b LAKE LOU YAEGER 241
22 176S OLD EN MINE RESERVOIR 240
23 1740 SILVER LAKE (NIOMLAND) 229
24 1748 VE MlL ION LAKE 227
25 1708 LAKE CHARLESTON 225
26 1755 FOX LAKE 212
27 1758 SLOCUM LAKE 210
28 1714 LAI%E DECATIJ 20 )
-------
LAKES RANKED BY INDEX NOS.
RANK LAKE CODE LAKE NAME INDEX NO
29 1725 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 1O = 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 = lbs/square mile
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR ILLINOIS 10/23/75
LAKE CODE 1750 WONDER LAKE
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE (SO KN) 252.0
SUB—DRAINAGE NORMALIZED FLOWS (CMS)
TRIBUTARY AREA(SO KM) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN
1750A 1 252.0 1.69 2.47 3.09 3.20 2.52 2.09 1.28 0.67 0.48 0.54 0.78 0.91 1.64
1750A2 218.9 1.48 2.17 2.71 2.80 2.20 1.83 1.12 0.58 0.42 0.47 0.67 0.80 1.43
175022 31.1 0.21 0.30 0.37 0.40 0.31 0.26 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.20
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE — 252.0 TOTAL FLOW IN • 19.71
SUM OF SUB-DRAINAGE AREAS 249.9 TOTAL FLOW OUT • 19.71
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS(CMS)
TRIBUTARY MONTH YEAR MEAN FLOW DAY FLOW OA’ FLOW DAY FLOW
1750A 1 6 73 3.65 2 3.34
7 73 1.93 7 2.44
8 73 1.42 25 2.01
9 73 1.59 22 1.95
10 73 3.03 13 3.96
ii 73 2.38 3 2.12
12 73 3.77 1 2.72
1 74 4.73 6 1.76
2 74 6.20 2 10.82 16 3.06
3 74 8.30 2 10.31 16 6.17
4 74 6.06 6 4.96
5 74 7.42 4 21.46
1750A2 6 73 3.20 2 2.92
7 73 1.70 7 2.12
8 73 1.22 25 1.76
9 73 1.39 22 1.70
10 73 2.63 13 3.45
ii 73 2.07 3 1.84
12 73 3.28 1 2.38
1 74 4.13 6 1.53
2 74 5.44 2 9.49 16 2.66
3 74 7.31 2 9.06 lb 5.44
4 74 5.30 6 4.33
5 74 6.51 4 18.80
175 )ZZ 6 73 0.45 2 0.42
7 73 0.23 7 0.31
8 73 0.20 25 0.25
9 73 0.20 22 0.25
10 73 0.40 13 0.51
11 73 0.31 3 0.28
12 73 0.48 1 0.34
1 74 1.25 6 0.37
2 74 0.76 2 1.33 16 0.40
3 74 0.99 2 I.2S 16 0.74
4 74 0.76 6 0.62
5 74 0.91 4 2.66
-------
APPENDIX D
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/23
175001
42 24 00.0 088 20 40.0
WONDER LAKE
17111 ILLINOIS
1 IEPALES 2111202
3 0008 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY PH T ALK NH3—N TOT KJEL N02&N03 P 1105—015
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 TOTAL N N—TOTAL ORTHO
TO OAY FEET CENT MG/L INCHES MICROMHO SU MG/L M&/L MG/L HG/L P4G/L P
73/05/09 15 45 0000 14.5 8 560 8.10 250 0.210 1.100 2.150 0.096
15 45 0005 14.5 8.4 560 8.10 250 0.230 1.000 2.130 0.096
73/08/07 15 20 0000 26.3 24 747 8.50 334 0.420 2.400 0.390 0.379
15 20 0005 25.9 7.2 743 8.50 330 0.440 2.600 0.410 0.357
73/40/16 16 19 0000 15.5 23 531 8.80 234 0.050 2.100 0.580 0.129
16 19 0004 15.5 14.4 533 8.70 244 0.030 1.900 0.580 0.128
00665 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH P1105—TOT CHLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET MG/L P UG/L
73/05/09 15 45 0000 0.234 20.5
15 45 0005 0.217
73/08/07 15 20 0000 0.518 59.7
15 20 0005 0.560
73/10/16 16 19 0000 0.363 185.0
16 19 0004 0.388
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/23
175002
42 22 28.0 088 21 29.0
WONDER LAKE
17111 ILLINOIS
I1EPALES 2111202
3 0006 FEET DEPTH
00010 00300 00077 00094 00400 00410 00610 00625 00630 00671
DATE TIME DEPTH WATER DO TRANSP CNDUCTVY PH T ALK NH3—N TOT KJEL N02&N03 PHOS—DIS
FROM OF TEMP SECCHI FIELD CACO3 TOTAL N N—TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET CENT MG/L INCHES MICROMHO S I) MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P
73/05/09 16 00 0000 14.8 4 540 8.10 250 0.240 0.900 2.050 0.103
16 00 0004 14.8 8.7 560 8.10 240 0.240 1.300 2.060 0.102
73/08/07 15 35 0000 26.5 12 763 8.50 334 0.580 2.700 0.420 0.441
15 35 0005 26.’. 8.6 761 8.50 336 0.500 2.900 0.430 0.440
73/10/16 16 22 0000 14.2 13 510 8.70 242 0.040 2.300 0.580 0.143
16 22 0003 14..1 12.6 516 8.70 242 0.030 1.000 0.530 0.135
00665 32217
DATE TIME DEPTH PHOS-TOT CHLRPHYL
FROM OF A
TO DAY FEET MG/L P UG/L
73/05/09 16 00 0000 0.323 23.7
16 00 0004 0.266
73/0 /07 15 35 0000 0.678 91.3
15 35 0005 0.66
73/10/16 16 22 0000 0.465 211.0
16 22 0003 0.477
-------
APPENDIX E
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/23
1750A1
42 24 50.0 088 20 35.0
NIPPENSINK CREEK
17183 15 MCHENRY
O/wONDE LAKE
SI D 13 BRUG .5 Ml
1 1EPALES
4
BELO DAM
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
DArE
FROM
TO
73/06/02
73/0 7/0 7
73/08/25
73/09/ 22
73/10/13
73/11/03
73/12/01
74/01/06
74/0 2/0 2
74/ )2/ 16
74/03/0
74/03/16
74/04/06
74/05/ 04
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
09 40
uS 45
17 00
09 15
08 45
09 00
08 49
10 15
09 01
09 40
1 )8 50
09 00
09 00
19 00
00630
N02&N03
N—TOTAL
M&/L
0.138
0.336
0.330
0.130
0.690
0.320
0.672
2.52u
3.500
2.800
3.080
2.050
1.320
1 • 360
00625
TOT KJEL
N
MG/L
2.520
4.200
2 • 900
1.680
1.800
1.450
2.000
0.800
1.300
0.900
1.000
1.000
2.000
0.100K
00610
NH3-N
TOTAL
MG/L
0.046
0.220
0.420
0.0 72
0.260
0.0 75
0.036
0.096
0.140
o • 195
0.115
0.050
0.030
0.0 60
00671
PHOS—DIS
OPT HO
MG/L P
0.033
0.220
0.470
0.200
0.198
0.092
0.048
0.104
0.140
0.135
0.095
0.120
0.025
0.065
00665
HOS—TOT
MG/L P
0.165
0.360
0.573
0.350
0.J4 5
0.390
0.360
0.160
0.190
0.190
0. 18
0.185
0.155
0.230
K VALUE KNOWN TO B
LESS THAN INDICATED
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/23
1750A2
42 24 15.0 088 22 15.0
NIPPE SINK CREEK
17 15 MCrILNRY
I/WONDER LAKE
THOMPSON RD GROG W
1 1LPALES
4
SIDE OF LAKE
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
00630
00625
00610
00671
00665
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
N026N03
TOT KJEL
NH3—N
PHOS—DIS
PiIOS-TOT
FROM
OF
N-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
M&/L P
73/06/02
09
25
2.300
1.980
0.085
0.240
0.360
73/07/07
08
25
1.860
1.150
0.029
0.300
0.390
73/08/25
16
20
1.800
0.690
0.042
0.180
0.370
73/09/22
08
45
1.260
1.900
0.138
0.580
0.990
73/10/13
08
30
1.340
2.100
0.072
0.410
0.650
73/11/03
08
30
1.500
0.950
0.032
0.390
0.630
73/12/01
08
30
2.800
0.800
0.028
0.168
0.375
74/01/06
10
00
2.800
0.800
0.192
0.300
0.390
74/02/02
08
45
4.000
0.700
0.115
0.130
0.190
74/02/lb
09
12
2.640
0.900
).210
0.220
0.300
74/03/02
08
30
3.200
2.150
0.115
0.120
0.260
74/03/16
08
50
4.480
1.300
0.175
0.145
0.260
74/04/06
08
30
2.600
1.400
0.115
0.125
0.190
74/u5/04
16
35
2.200
0.500
0.090
0.170
0.330
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 75/10/23
1750AA AS I7SOAA P010000
42 19 34.0 088 27 25.0
0ODSTOCK STP
17183 7.5 OODSTOCK
T/WONDER LAKE
NIPPERSINK CREEK
IIEPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJEL N113—N PHOS—DIS PIIOS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO RATE FLO -MGD
TO DAY FEET MG/I MG/I MG/L MG/L P MG/I P INST MOD MONTHLY
73/07/18 12 00
CP(T)— 0.200 17.600 2.100 5.500 8.300 1.700 1.650
73/07/18 24 00
73/08/15 12 00
CP(T)— 0.280 22.000 1.700 2.600 1.900 1.340
73/08/15 24 00
73/09/19 12 00
CP(T)— 0.100 15.000 2.800 2.100 12.000 2.000 1.700
73/09/19 24 00
73/10/24 12 00
CP(T)— 0.170 21.000 2.800 4.100 8.100 2.100 2.200
73/10/24 24 00
73/11/20 12 00
CP(T)— 0.200 21.000 4.200 1.760 7.200 2.200 2.000
fl/11/20 24 00
73/12/19 12 00
CP(T)— 0.080 17.500 2.560 4.800 8.150 2.300 2.400
73/12/19 24 00
74/01/16 12 00
CP(T)— 0.320 19.000 0.084 5.040 8.500 2.200 2.200
74/01/16 24 00
74/02/20 12 00
CPIT)— 0.12U 11.000 0.230 3.400 6.150 3.100 2.800
74/02/20 24 00
74/03/20 12 00
CP(T)— 0.320 9.700 0.310 3.900 6.950 3.200 3.900
74/03/20 24 00
74/04/24 12 00
CPT)— 1.240 8.400 0.050K 2.900 5.900 4.000 3.300
74/04/2’. 24 00
74/05/15 12 00
CPU)— 1.240 9.000 0.190 3.300 5.900 1.800 1.900
74/05/15 24 00
74/06/19 12 00
CP(T1— 0.0a4 14.000 0.415 1.830 7.800 2.900 3.000
74/06/19 24 00
1< VALUE KNOWN TO 8E
LESS TrIAN INDICAIEL )
------- |