U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

In cooperation with Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and City of Gillespie, Illinois

Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and 

Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie 

Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, 

May1996-ApriM997

(With a discussion of lake-management practices)

By Gary P. Johnson

Open-File Report 99-69

Urbana, Illinois 

1999
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does 

not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

For additional information write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

221 North Broadway Avenue

Urbana, Illinois 61801

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey 

Branch of Information Services 

Box 25286 

Denver, CO 80225-0286
CONTENTS

Abstract......................................................................^ 1

Introduction ................................................................................. 1

Data-Collection and Sampling Methods, and Sample Analysis............................................................................................ 3

Water Discharge........................................................................................................................................................... 3

Water Quality.................................................................^ 4

Sample Collection.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Laboratory Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 5

Hydrologic Budgets for Old and New Gillespie Lakes ........................................................................................................ 5

Water Budgets.............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Sediment Budgets........................................................................................................................................................ 8

Nutrient Budgets.......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Phosphorus Budgets .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Nitrogen Budgets............................................................................................................................................... 15

Bathymetric Surveys of Old and New Gillespie Lakes......................................................................................................... 15

Review of Lake-Management Practices ................................................................................................................................ 17

Restoration Techniques................................................................................................................................................ 18

Maintenance Techniques ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Sedimentation Control....................................................................................................................................... 20

Aquatic-Plant Control........................................................................................................................................ 22

Algae Control.................................................................................................................................................... 23

Summary..........................................................................................................................................................^ 28

References Cited............................................................................................................................................................^ 28

Appendix 1. Hydrologic Data................................................................................................................................................ 33

Appendix 2. Water-Quality Data ........................................................................................................................................... 45

FIGURES

1. Map showing locations of discharge-gaging stations and rainfall gages in the Gillespie Lakes watershed,

Macoupin County, 111................................................................................................................................................. 2

2. Graph showing stage-discharge relation of Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek at Highway 16

near Gillespie, 111........................................................................................................................................................ 4

3. Diagram showing water-balance components of lakes.............................................................................................. 5

4-6. Graphs showing relation of total suspended solids load and water discharge:

4. Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie............................................................................................. 10

5. Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie............................................................................... 11

6. Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie.............................................................................. 12

7. Brune's curve for estimating reservoir sediment trap efficiency............................................................................... 12

8-10. Graphs showing relation of total phosphorus load and water discharge:

8. Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie............................................................................................. 14

9. Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie............................................................................... 16

10. Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie.............................................................................. 17

11-13. Graphs showing relation of total kjeldahl nitrogen load and water discharge:

11. Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie............................................................................................. 20

12. Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie............................................................................... 21

13. Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie.............................................................................. 22

14-16. Graphs showing relation of total nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen load and water discharge:

14. Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie............................................................................................. 23

15. Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie............................................................................... 24

Contents III
16. Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie............................................................................. 25

17. Bathymetric map of Old Gillespie Lake near Gillespie, Illinois, August 1996 ........................................................ 26

18. Bathymetric map of New Gillespie Lake near Gillespie, Illinois, August 1996....................................................... 27

TABLES

1. Water-quality parameters and codes analyzed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory....... 5

2. Water budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997 ................................................................................ 7

3. Water budget for New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997............................................................................... 7

4. Monthly rainfall totals from daily observer readings near Gillespie, 111................................................................ 8

5. Sediment budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997................... ....................................................... 9

6. Sediment budget for New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997 ......................................................................... 9

7. Sedimentation-rate projections for Old Gillespie Lake.......................................................................................... 13

8. Sedimentation-rate projections for New Gillespie Lake......................................................................................... 13

9. Phosphorus budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997....................................................................... 13

10. Phosphorus budget for New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997...................................................................... 15

11. Nitrogen budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997 ........................................................................... 18

12. Nitrogen budget for New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997.......................................................................... 19

IV Conteots
CONVERSION FACTORS, WATER-QUALITY ABBREVIATION, AND VERTICAL DATUM

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 

foot (ft) 

mile (mi)

2.54 

0.3048 

1.609

centimeter 

meter 

kilometer

Area

acre 

square mile (mi2 ) 

square mile (mi2 )

0.4047 

259.0 

2.590

hectare 

hectare 

square kilometer

Volume

cubic foot (ft3 ) 

acre-foot (acre-ft)

0.02832 

1,233

cubic meter 

cubic meter

Flow rate

acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 

gallon per day (gal/d)

1,233 

0.02832 

0.003785

cubic meter per day 

cubic meter per second 

cubic meter per day

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 

pound, avoirdupois (Ib) 

ton, short (2,000 Ib) 

ton per day (ton/d) 

ton per square mile (ton/mi2 )

28.35 

0.4536 

0.9072 

0.9072 

0.3503

gram 

kilogram 

metric ton 

metric ton per day 

metric ton per square kilometer

Density

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3 ) 16.02 kilogram per cubic meter

Sea level: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 

of 1929) a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both 

the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.

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

micrograms per liter (|ig/L). For concentrations reported here, milligrams per liter are equivalent to 

parts per million.

Contents
Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric 

Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, 

Illinois, May 1996-ApriM997

ByGary P.Johnson

Abstract

The Gillespie Lakes system serves as a 

drinking water source for the city of Gillespie, 111., 

and is a major recreational area. As part of an 

investigation of a concern that the lakes are being 

adversely affected by excessive sediment and 

nutrient inflows, hydrologic, sediment, and 

nutrient budgets for Old Gillespie Lake and 

New Gillespie Lake were calculated on the basis 

of data collected during May 1996-April 1997. 

Bathymetric data also were collected in the two 

lakes to produce maps of the lakebed elevations.

During the study period, sediment, 

phosphorus, and nitrogen influxes into Old 

Gillespie Lake were 4,063, 6.02, and 

52.3 tons, respectively. Old Gillespie Lake 

retained 92 percent of the inflowing sediment 

(which agrees with theoretical calculations 

of trapping efficiency for Old Gillespie Lake), 

84 percent of the inflowing phosphorus, and 

87 percent of the inflowing nitrogen.

During the study period, sediment, 

phosphorus, and nitrogen influxes into 

New Gillespie Lake were 4,792, 7.56, and 

64.3 tons, respectively. New Gillespie Lake 

retained 95 percent of the inflowing sediment 

(which agrees with theoretical calculations of 

trapping efficiency for New Gillespie Lake), 

82 percent of the inflowing phosphorus, and 

81 percent of the inflowing nitrogen.

The loads per area of phosphorus and 

nitrogen to the Old and New Gillespie Lakes 

were 1.06 tons per square mile (ton/mi2) and

f\

9.26 ton/mi , respectively. For row crops of

corn and soybeans, the literature reports 

phosphorus loads per area range from 0.15 

to 1.43 ton/mi2 , and nitrogen loads per area 

range from 0.86 to 11.43 ton/mi2 . Therefore, 

loads to the Gillespie Lakes are relatively 

high for the given cropping practices, and 

application of Best Management Practices may 

substantially reduce the per area loads of these 

nutrients.

Considering these loads and the retentic *i 

of sediment and nutrients, a review of basic lakemanagement practices is presented and discusred. 

Lake-restoration techniques, such as implementation of Best Management Practices, are compared 

to maintenance-based techniques such as sediment 

dredging and herbicide application. This review is 

presented to assist lake managers in the achievement of lake water-quality goals.

INTRODUCTION

Old and New Gillespie Lakes are in Macoupin 

County in southwestern Illinois (fig. 1). Old Gilles-Die 

Lake is an impoundment reservoir of the North Branch 

of the Dry Fork Creek (constructed in 1926) and is 

approximately 5 mi west of the city of Gillespie. 

The reservoir serves as the public-water supply for *~\

the city. It has a drainage area of 5.73 mi above the 

dam with a surface area of 71 acres. New Gillespie 

Lake also is an impoundment reservoir of the North 

Branch of the Dry Fork Creek (constructed in 1956) 

and located downstream from the outflow of Old

^\

Gillespie Lake. It has a drainage area of 12.3 mi 

and a surface area of 215.8 acres.

The drainage area of the lakes system is 

composed of glacial drift overlying bedrock. The

Introduction 1
89°52'30" 

^J-_

39°10'.

05586686

Total watershed area / 

equals 12.30 \ 

square miles 

(including lake 

surface areas)

Watershed area equals 

3.83 square miles

(excluding / 

New Gillespie Lake

surface area of 

0.34 square miles)

05586684;

/

/--

Watershed area equah / 

5.62 square miles / 

(excluding / 

Old Gillespie Lake 

surface area of /

(Old Gillespie Lake °'U square m0es)/ /

05586685

i

; ^

Gillespie

Watershed area / 

equals 2.40 ; 

square miles

.25

I

.50

I

.75

I

1 MILE

I I I f I

0 .25 .50 .75 1 KILOMETER

EXPLANATION

WATERSHED BOUNDARY

NEW GILLESPIE LAKE RAINFALL GAGE

OLD GILLESPIE LAKE RAINFALL GAGE

05586684 DISCHARGE-GAGING STATION 

« AND NUMBER

Figure 1. Locations of discharge-gaging sites and rainfall gages in the Gillespie Lakes watershed, Macoupin County,

2 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 19£*-April 1997
glacial drift is low permeability soil; hard, compact, 

sandy till (Wolock, 1997). The till is a Vandalia Till 

Member of the Glasford Formation (Lineback, 1979). 

The area is mainly agricultural, with corn and bean row 

crops raised on the level areas, and pasture and timber 

on the higher sloped areas.

The Gillespie Lakes are a eutrophic system, as 

indicated by excessive weeds and algae. Generally, 

August through September is the period of peak 

biomass in the lakes. Currently (1998), five types 

of problems affect the Gillespie Lakes system: 

(1) nuisance algae; (2) excessive shallowness;

(3) excessive rooted plants, weeds, or macrophytes;

(4) objectionable taste, odor, and color of the drinkingwater supply; and (5) degraded fishing quality. 

Causes of these types of problems generally are 

agricultural management practices; runoff from the 

fields, pavement, and lawns; sewage-treatment-plant 

or septic-systems discharge; destruction of shoreline 

vegetation; atmospheric deposition; urbanization; 

and boating activities.

In May 1996, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and the city of 

Gillespie, 111., initiated a 1-year study of the Gillespie 

Lakes system. This report documents the results of 

that study and presents water, sediment, and nutrient 

budgets for the system, bathymetric maps of the lakes, 

and a discussion of lake-management practices. These 

budgets of the Gillespie Lakes system are determined 

by a complex set of physical, chemical, and biological 

factors that vary with current conditions. Important 

factors include surface-water and ground-water 

hydrology, climate, watershed geology, soil fertility, 

hydraulic residence time (average period of time 

required to completely exchange the water volume 

in a lake), lake-basin shapes, external and internal 

nutrient-loading rates, presence or absence of thermal 

stratification, lake habitats, and lake biota. For this 

study, surface-water hydrologic data continuously 

recorded and water-quality data were collected periodically at three sites in the watershed; daily rainfall and 

weekly waterfowl data were collected at two sites in 

the watershed; and bathymetric data were collected in 

both lakes.

DATA-COLLECTION AND SAMPLING METHODS, 

AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS

Water Discharge

The water discharge over the two dams was 

calculated using the following theoretical equation 

for discharge over a broad-crested weir:

- ~ C^

(3l2)

where

Qw is water discharge, in cubic feet per second, 

Cs is a dimensionless coefficient representing 

the roughness and shape of the spillway 

(obtained from discharge measurements at 

the spillway),

b is the width of the spillway, in feet, and

h is the head of the water at the spillway, in feet.

Discharge measurements were made for a range 

of stages at each spillway to determine the correct coefficient for the equation for each spillway. The coefficient for Old Gillespie Lake was calculated as 2.950 

on the basis of six discharge measurements, and the 

New Gillespie Lake coefficient was calculated as 3.032 

on the basis of five discharge measurements. Thes?. 

calculated coefficients agree with literature values 

for similar sized and shaped spillways (Chow, 1959). 

Two local observers, one a resident near Old Gillesnie 

Lake and the other a resident near New Gillespie Lake, 

recorded daily lake elevations (gage heights) by 

reading stage-monitoring gages (sometimes referred 

to as staff gages) located at the dams of each lake. 

Outflows from the two lakes over the spillways were 

computed using the above equation and the daily 

gage-height data.

The drainage areas of the Gillespie Lakes system 

are shown in figure 1. Several tributary inflows account 

for runoff from 1 1.85 mi^, or 96.4 percent of the total 

drainage area (12.3 mi2), of the watershed for the lake 

system. The largest tributary, a tributary to New 

Gillespie Lake called the Southwest Branch of Dry 

Fork Creek (USGS site number 05586685), with

r\

a drainage area of 2.4 mi , was monitored with a 

continuous-recording stream gage. Those results were 

applied to the remaining ungaged tributary-inflow 

drainage area of each lake in proportion to the drair age 

area. The watershed of this inflow to New Gillespie 

Lake is representative of the total Gillespie Lakes

Data-Collection and Sampling Methods, and Sample Analysis 3
watershed and presented the largest drainage area in 

the total watershed suitable for use as a stream-gaging 

and sampling site. The stream was monitored using 

standard USGS methods, as described in the 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water 

Resources Investigations 3-A Series. A stilling well 

was mounted to the downstream side of the Illinois 

State Route 16 Highway bridge, and a datalogger 

recorded the surface-water elevation, or stage, every 

15 minutes. Because the stream stage could rise and 

fall very quickly because of heavy rainfall, the datalogger was programmed to record stage data every 

5 minutes during rapid changes in stream-water 

elevation. On the basis of 18 streamflow discharge 

measurements collected over a range of stages, a 

simple stage-discharge relation was computed (fig. 2). 

Site descriptions, daily surface-water elevations, and 

computed daily water discharges for the three gaged 

sites (Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek at Highway 

16 near Gillespie, 111.; Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie 

Lake Dam near Gillespie, 111.; and Dry Fork Creek at 

New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, 111.) are given 

in appendix 1.

Water Quality

Sample Collection

During the 1-year period of data collection, 

water samples were collected from the Southwest 

Branch Dry Fork Creek at Highway 16 near Gillespie, 

111. (USGS site number 05586685), and frc*n the 

spillways of the Old and New Gillespie Lakes. Within 

this 1-year period, these samples were collected during 

a wide range of hydrologic conditions and with 

application of methods appropriate for the conditions. 

Opportunities for collecting water samples were 

limited because of very low to zero flow over the 

spillways and in the tributary during approximately 

8 months of the 1-year period.

An automatic sampler was installed at the Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek site and interfaced with 

the electronic datalogger at the site that recorded the 

streamflow data. The sampler was equipped with 

flexible tubing in a peristaltic pump and 1-liter plastic 

collection bottles. The automatic sampler was capable 

of collecting 24 samples between visits by field

11

10

uj g

UJ

CD

UJ

X 

UJ

CD 

< 

CD

0.1 1 10 100 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,000

Figure 2. Stage-discharge relation of Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek at Highway 16 near Gillespie, III. (U.S. Geological 

Survey site number 05586685).

4 Water, Sediment and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 191^-April 1997
personnel. The datalogger had the capability to trigger 

the automatic sampler. The sampler was programmed 

to collect one sample per hour when the gage height 

was above a certain stage and also to collect a sample 

if the gage height changed rapidly over a specified time 

period, such as shortly after a storm. During the study 

period, more than 100 water-quality samples were 

collected with the automatic sampler. Sometimes the 

samples were not retrieved for several days to weeks 

after the storm event, however, because field personnel 

were not always aware of the event. These samples 

were discarded because of concern that they may have 

degraded with time. Manual samples, sometimes called 

grab samples or dip samples, also were collected at this 

site. At the spillway sites, all samples were collected 

manually. During sample collection, specific conductance, pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO) 

concentration were measured with a multiparameter 

water-quality meter.

Laboratory Analysis

Immediately after collection, samples were 

prepared for laboratory analysis by USGS personnel 

before transport to the IEPA Laboratory in Champaign, 

111. During sample preparation, each sample was 

shaken to insure sample homogeneity, and raw sample 

water was poured into bottles to be analyzed for total 

concentrations of constituents. Then the homogenized 

water was filtered through 142-millimeter diameter, 

0.45-micron pore-size cellulose nitrate membrane 

filters into bottles to be analyzed for dissolved constituents. After all sample bottles were filled, they were 

immediately chilled on ice for transport to the IEPA 

Laboratory. Then USGS personnel analyzed most 

samples on site for total alkalinity. Upon delivery to the 

IEPA Laboratory, the samples were analyzed for the

parameters listed in table 1. All field parameters and 

analytical data are listed in appendix 2.

Table 1. Water-quality parameters and codes analyzed by the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Laboratory

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Parameter Parameter 

code

Ammonia as nitrogen, total, in mg/L 00610

Nitrate plus nitrite, total as nitrogen, in mg/L 00630

Nitrogen as nitrogen, total kjeldahl, in mg/L 00625

Phosphorus, dissolved as phosphorus, in mg/L 00666

Phosphorus as phosphorus, total, in rng/L 006^5

Solids, total suspended, in mg/L 00530

Solids, volatile, in mg/L 00535

Turbidity, in Nepholometric turbidity units 00076

HYDROLOGIC BUDGETS FOR OLD AND 

NEW GILLESPIE LAKES

A hydrologic budget is the basis for understanding many of the processes in a lake and its watershed. Because determining the nutrient and sediment 

budgets depend on the water budget, the nutrient and 

sediment budgets cannot be reliably evaluated without 

an accurate water budget. If the water budget is inaccurate, propagation and magnification of error results 

when computing the subsequent nutrient and sediment 

budgets. In some cases, however, literature values are 

not appropriate for estimating the water budget.

The components of the water-balance equal'on 

are shown in figure 3, and the equation can be represented as

INFLOW + PRECIPITATION = OUTFLOW 

+ EVAPORATION + CHANGE IN STORAGE

Studies have verified that sediment and 

constituent concentrations in streams can vary 

greatly depending on the duration and intensity of

PRECIPITATION EVAPORATION

TRIBUTARY INFLOWS

DIRECT RUNOFF

POINT-SOURCE 

DISCHARGES

GROUND-WATER INFLOWS

WITHDRAWALS

SURFACE OUTFLOW

GROUND-WATER OUTFLOWS

Figure 3. Water-balance components of lakes (North American Lake Management Society, 1990).

Hydrologic Budgets for Old and New Gillespie Lakes 5
rainfall and the time of year of the rainfall (Goolsby 

and others, 1991; Johnson and Coupe, 1993). Conditions in the watershed at the time of the rainfall can 

substantially affect the chemical composition and 

quantity of the runoff. Therefore, similar to estimating 

water discharges, application of literature values or 

modeling results to estimate watershed constituent 

yields can result in an estimate with uncertain reliability. If possible, water samples should be collected 

to determine sediment and nutrient budgets.

Although phosphorus and nitrogen are not the 

only nutrients required for algal growth, they are generally considered the principal nutrients affecting the 

lake-eutrophication process. The effect of carbon as a 

limiting nutrient is not entirely certain. Phosphorus 

commonly is the key nutrient in determining the 

quantity of algae in a lake (North American Lake 

Management Society, 1990). For eutrophication 

studies, total phosphorus (parameter code 00665 in 

table 1) is the most important nutrient to determine in 

the inflows and outflows of the lake system because 

many lake-management decisions will be made on the 

basis of the concentration of this nutrient. Dissolved 

phosphorus is not used in calculating a phosphorus 

budget but may be helpful to lake managers because 

dissolved phosphorus is the form of phosphorus most 

readily available for uptake by plants.

Lake-nutrient budgets, similar to lake water and 

sediment budgets, are a summation of all inflows and 

outflows of nutrients of the lake system. Inflows of 

nutrients result from tributary inflows, precipitation 

and dustfall, point-source discharges, ground-water 

inflows and shoreline septic tanks, and input from 

migrant waterfowl. Outflows from a lake system can 

be in the form of surface outflow, withdrawals, and 

ground-water outflows. Net sedimentation of nutrients 

also can result, where the nutrients are retained or accumulated in the bottom sediments. Because several 

complex processes are involved and vary temporally 

and spatially, it is generally infeasible to directly 

measure net sedimentation of nutrients. Consequently, 

net sedimentation of nutrients usually is calculated as 

the difference between inflow and outflow values.

Water Budgets

A water budget for Old and New Gillespie Lakes 

was determined to account for all water inflows to and 

outflows from the lake system during the period from 

May 1996 through April 1997. The stage-discharge

relation shown in figure 2 was applied to the recorded 

gage heights to compute monthly totals for this site as 

shown in table 3. These monthly totals for the 2.4 mi2 

of gaged drainage area were applied to the remaining 

ungaged drainage area of the tributary and direct 

surface inflow of each lake in proportion to the 

drainage area, as shown in tables 2 and 3.

The remaining 3.6 percent of the drainage area is 

the actual surface area of the lakes. Precipitation falling 

on the surface areas of each lake was considered direct 

inflow. Monthly totals of precipitation computed from 

daily readings of precipitation collected by the two 

local observers are shown in table 4. These monthly 

precipitation totals were applied directly to the surface 

area of the lakes, and these totals of direct inflow are 

shown in tables 2 and 3. The Gillespie Lakes area 

received about 33 in. of precipitation over the 1-year 

period of data collection. This amount is 1 in. less than 

the long-term average rainfall for the region of about 

34 in. (Roberts and Stall, 1967).

Net ground-water inflow and outflow to the lake 

was assumed to be negligible or zero. It was assumed 

that the relatively impervious soil structure in the area 

does not allow for appreciable exchange of water 

between the lakes and ground water.

Generally, tributary inflows, direct runoff, and 

ground-water input account for the major inflows to a 

lake. For the Gillespie Lakes system, however, a 

unique condition is present. Water flowing out of Old 

Gillespie Lake over the spillway enters directly into 

New Gillespie Lake; therefore, Old Gillesp; e Lake 

outflow must be treated as a tributary inflow to New 

Gillespie Lake. Likewise, in order to maintain Old 

Gillespie Lake levels at an elevation suitable for withdrawals of drinking water by the city of Gillespie Water 

Treatment Plant, water occasionally is pumoed from 

New Gillespie Lake to Old Gillespie Lake. This 

pumpage must be considered as an outflow of New 

Gillespie Lake and an inflow of Old Gillespie Lake. 

A pump rating was applied to the pump log kept by 

the operator to calculate total pumpage from New 

Gillespie Lake into Old Gillespie Lake. The pump 

was reported (oral communication, Mr. Ron Durbin, 

city of Gillespie) to operate at a rate of 350,000 gal/d 

(1.074109 acre-ft/d). Applying this pump rrfing to the 

number of days the pump ran each month, the total 

pumpage from New Gillespie Lake into Old Gillespie 

Lake was calculated, and these data also are shown in 

tables 2 and 3.

6 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 199~-April 1997
Table 2. Water budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997

fna, not applicable]

Month and year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

Ungaged 

tributaries 

(5.62 mi2 ), 

in acre-feet

1,190.41

82.22

.00

12.36

.19

18.57

406.77

16.39

15.29

1,044.66

205.67

59.03

3,051.56

91.0

Inflows Outflows

Pumpage into

Old Gillespie Rainfall- Flow over _. ,. iix j- nu o-n Drinking water Lake from direct Old Gillespie ... , 

 .,, . - i i withdrawals, New Gillespie inflow, Lake spillway, . , 

. . . , . . , in acre-feet Lake, in acre-feet m acre-feet

in acre-feet

0.00

.00

24.70

18.26

21.48

22.56

.00

.00

.00

18.26

.00

.00

105.26

3.1

Table 3. Water budget for New Gillespie Lake

[na, not applicable]

41.54

16.63

8.28

6.63

14.97

11.12

36.80

2.07

16.45

18.70

14.67

8.76

196.62

5.9

1,014.55

1

65.06

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

545.85

264.99

.00

,890.45

62.0

75.40

76.50

84.00

92.50

75.50

76.40

68.80

81.30

90.20

78.30

75.80

74.00

948.70

31.1

Evaporation, 

in aero-feet

27.90

33.10

37.90

30.70

21.30

13.80

6.50

3.00

3.00

4.70

10.70

18.90

211.50

6.9

Netto'al 

(in-oirt)

114.10

-75.81

-88.92

-85.95

-60.16

-37.95

368.27

-65.84

-61.46

452.77

-131.15

-25.11

302.79

na

, May 1996-April 1997

Inflows

Month and year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

Southwest 

Branch Dry 

Fork Creek, 

in acre-feet

508.36

35.11

.00

5.28

.08

7.93

173.71

7.00

6.53

446.12

87.83

25.21

1,303.16

22.2

Remaining 

ungaged 

tributaries 

(3.83 mi2), 

in acre-feet

811.89

56.07

.00

8.43

.13

12.66

277.43

11.18

10.43

712.49

140.27

40.26

2,081.24

35.5

Inflow from RainfallOld Gillespie direct 

Lake, inflow, 

in acre-feet in acre-feet

1,014.55

65.06

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

545.85

264.99

.00

1,890.45

32.2

102.33

59.17

28.05

21.04

44.78

36.51

109.10

6.29

49.99

56.82

48.02

26.80

588.90

10.0

Pumpage

from New 

Gillespie 

Lake into 

Old Gillespie 

Lake,

in acre-feet

0.00

.00

24.70

18.26

21.48

22.56

.00

.00

.00

18.26

.00

.00

105.26

2.0

Outflows

Evaporation, 

in acre-feet

84.70

100.70

115.10

93.20

64.70

41.90

19.80

9.00

9.00

14.40

32.50

57.50

642.50

12.1

Flow over 

New Gillespie 

Lake spillway, 

in acre-feet

2,477.95

395.70

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

821.95

756.30

125.55

4,577.45

86.0

Net total 

(in-out)

-125.52

-280.99

-111.75

-76.71

-41.19

-7.36

540.44

15.47

57.95

906.67

-247.69

-90.78

538.54

na

Hydrologic Budgets for Old and New Gillespie Lakes
Table 4. Monthly rainfall totals from daily observer 

readings near Gillespie, III.

[All values are in inches]

Month and year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Yearly total

Old 

Gillespie Lake 

observer

7.02

2.81

1.40

1.12

2.53

1.88

6.22

.35

2.78

3.16

2.48

1.48

33.23

New 

Gillespie Lake 

observer

5.69

3.29

1.56

1.17

2.49

2.06

6.07

.35

2.78

3.16

2.67

1.49

32.78

The city of Gillespie Water Treatment Plant 

withdraws raw water from Old Gillespie Lake for use 

as a public-water supply. This water is metered and 

exact numbers for withdrawals were available from the 

treatment plant. For the purpose of computing the 

hydrologic budget, these withdrawals for consumptive 

use are considered an outflow of Old Gillespie Lake 

and also are included in table 2. Finally, outflow of 

water by evaporation from the two lakes was determined on the basis of methods and data described in 

Roberts and Stall (1967). These data also are shown in 

tables 2 and 3.

The water budget for the Gillespie Lakes system 

was computed for the period from May 1996 through 

April 1997 and is summarized in tables 2 and 3. The 

relatively small net difference between inflow and 

outflow (approximately 9 percent of the total inflow) 

could be attributed to various factors measurement 

error, error associated with applying the gaged 

drainage-area yield to the ungaged drainage area, net 

ground-water inflows and outflows may not have been 

zero, errors in the pump and drinking water withdrawal 

data, or other factors. Monthly change in storage of the 

two lakes accounts for some difference. However, 

differences in lake elevations at the beginning and end 

of the data-collection period were 0.09 ft and 1.00 ft 

for New Gillespie Lake and Old Gillespie Lake, 

respectively; therefore, this difference over the year 

should be negligible. It is interesting to note that the 

months with the highest precipitation totals generally 

indicate more water inflow than outflow during that 

month; for example May, November, and February at

Old Gillespie Lake. This result gives an ind: nation of 

the storage capability of the lakes.

Sediment Budgets

A sediment budget was calculated for Old and 

New Gillespie Lakes on the basis of streamflow and 

water-quality data collected by USGS personnel. The 

sediment budget quantifies all sediment inflows and 

outflows of a lake system, and the net difference 

indicates whether the lake is a net source or sink for 

sediment.

For the sediment budget, the hydrologic data 

(explained earlier) were used in conjunction with the 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS, parameter code 00530) 

data to compute total sediment loads in the tributary 

to New Gillespie Lake (05586685), the outflow of 

Old Gillespie Lake (05586684), and the outflow of 

New Gillespie Lake (05586686). The results of the 

sediment-load calculations from the tributary to 

New Gillespie Lake (05586685) were applied using a 

per-area yield basis to the remaining ungaged tributary 

drainage area for each lake. The results of these analyses are summarized in tables 5 and 6. Again, the 

outflow of Old Gillespie Lake was considered an 

inflow of New Gillespie Lake, and the pumoage from 

New Gillespie Lake to Old Gillespie Lake was considered an outflow of New Gillespie Lake and an inflow of 

Old Gillespie Lake. For purposes of this calculation, it 

was assumed that water pumped, for water-treatment 

plant withdrawals and fromNew Gillespie Lake to Old 

Gillespie Lake, was at a constant 20 mg/L concentration of TSS.

The load calculations were done using the daily 

streamflow data at each gaged site (presented in 

appendix 1). These daily streamflow data were applied 

to transport curves developed using the TSS data from 

each site. Transport curves are plots of water discharge, 

in cubic feet per second, in relation to the load of a 

constituent, usually reported in tons per day. These 

constituent-transport rating curves have been widely 

used to compute loads at sites by the USGS, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(Colby, 1956).

The transport curves for each of the three gaged 

sites are presented in figures 4, 5, and 6. By inspection, 

excellent correlation of data is indicated in the plots. 

The equation of the best-fit line in each of the three 

plots was used to calculate the daily loads at the sites. 

These daily loads then were summed to obtain the

8 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 199~-April 1997
monthly totals shown in the sediment-budget tables 

(tables 5 and 6). The daily loads at each site are 

included in appendix 2.

Of the approximately 4,063 tons of sediment that 

entered Old Gillespie Lake during the 1-year study 

period, only about 314 tons exited the lake. Therefore,

Table 5. Sediment budgetfor Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997 

[mi2 , square miles; na, not applicable]

Inflows

Month and year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

Ungaged 

tributaries 

(5.62 mi2), 

in tons

1,162.33

1.66

.00

.33

.00

.30

580.73

.21

.19

2,263.64

49.15

1.87

4,060.41

99.90

Pumpage

into 

Old Gillespie 

Lake from 

New Gillespie

Lake,

in ton

0

0

.67

.5

.58

.61

0

0

0

.5

0

0

2.86

.10

Outflows

Flow over 

Old Gillespie Lake 

spillway, 

in tons

165.10

3.18

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

100.91

19.11

.00

288.30

91.70

Drinking 

water 

withdrawals, 

in tons

2.05

2.08

2.29

2.52

2.06

2.08

1.87

2.21

2.62

2.13

2.06

2.01

25.98

8.30

Net total 

(in-out)

995.18

-3.60

-1.62

-1.69

-1.48

-1.17

578.86

-2.00

-2.43

2,161.10

27.98

-.14

3,748.99

na

Table 6. Sediment budgetfor New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997

[mi", square miles; na, not applicable]

Month and year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

Southwest Branch 

Dry Fork Creek, 

in tons

496.37

.71

.00

.14

.00

.13

248.00

.09

.08

966.68

20.99

.80

1,733.99

36.20

Inflows

Ungaged 

tributaries 

(3.83 mi2),

in tons

792.74

1.13

0

.22

0

.21

396.08

.14

.13

1,543.9

33.5

1.3

2,769.35

57.70

Outflows

Inflow from 

Old Gillespie 

Lake outflow.

in tons

165.10

3.18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100.91

19.11

0

288.30

6.00

Flow over 

New Gillespie 

Lake spillway,

in tons

134.31

17.52

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

48.13

34.55

4.45

238.96

98.80

Pumpage

from New 

Gillespie Lake 

into Old

Gillespie Lake,

in tons

0

0

.67

.5

.58

.61

0

0

0

.5

0

0

2.86

1.20

Net total 

(in-out)

1,319.90

-12.50

-.67

-.14

-.58

-.27

644.08

.23

.21

2,562.86

39.05

-2.35

4,549.82

na

Hydrologic Budgets for Old and New Gillespie Lakes
Q

§

W

o

_i 

O 

W

Q 

UJ 

Q

z

UJ

a.

W

=>

W

10,000

1,000

100

10

0.1

0.01

y = 0.1341x 

R2 = 0.8681

0.1 1 10 100 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,000

Figure 4. Relation of total suspended solids load and water discharge, Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie, Illinois 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586685).

from May 1996 through April 1997, approximately 

3,749 tons of sediment were deposited in Old Gillespie 

Lake, or about 92 percent of the incoming load. This 

value agrees with literature values based on Brune's 

curve for estimating trap efficiency of a reservoir 

(Brune, 1953). Brune's curve is shown in figure 7. The 

hydraulic residence time (Rc/i ) of Old Gillespie Lake 

is calculated by

RCII = (Lake capacity, in acre-feet) 

/ (Yearly inflow of the lake, in acre-feet)

Using a capacity of 592 acre-ft for Old Gillespie 

Lake and the inflow for the study year of 3,052 acre-ft, 

RCji is equal to 0.19. Applying this number to figure 7 

and using the median curve for normal ponded reservoirs, a trap efficiency of about 92 percent is estimated 

with Brune's curve. This value for trap efficiency is 

identical to the results from data analysis. Likewise, 

applying Brune's curve to the New Gillespie Lake RC/I 

of 0.40 (2,325 acre-ft capacity divided by yearly inflow 

of 5,863 acre-ft), a theoretical trapping efficiency of

about 95 percent is determined. This value is identical 

to the results from data analysis. In the New Gillespie 

Lake sediment budget (table 6), about 95 percent 

(4,552 tons) of the 4,792 tons of sediment entering the 

lake is trapped in the lake.

Using the methods described in Linsley and 

Franzini (1979, p. 162-163), the storage caoacity 

projections of each of the Gillespie Lakes was calculated. Using the inflow data presented in the Hydrologic Budget section, the hydraulic residence time of 

Old Gillespie Lake is 0.19 years and for New Gillespie 

Lake is 0.40 years. The hydraulic residence times 

represent an average of how long it would take for the 

lakes to fill with water if they were empty. The hydrologic and sediment budget data presented earlier and 

Brune's curve (fig. 7) were used in the calculations 

presented in tables 7 and 8. For these calculations, it 

was assumed the deposited sediment is permanently 

submerged silt with a specific weight of 70 Ib/ft . 

These projections are the calculated numbe*1 of years 

until the storage capacities for each reservoir is 

one-half of its original capacity.

10 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 19"X5-April 1997
100

10

Q

g

CO 

Q

O 

CO 

Q 

LJJ 

Q 

Z 

LJJ 

Q. 

CO 

3 

(O

2

O

y = 0.0442X1 

R2 = 0.9714.

0.1

0.01

10 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100

Figure 5. Relation of total suspended solids load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, Illinois 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586684).

Nutrient Budgets

Phosphorus Budgets

On the basis of methodology previously 

described, a total phosphorus budget was calculated for 

Old and New Gillespie Lakes. Results for Old Gillespie 

Lake are shown in table 9. Inflows to Old Gillespie 

Lake were calculated as described below. The inflow of 

phosphorus from the 5.62 mi2 of ungaged tributary area 

was extrapolated from the yield for the gaged and 

sampled tributary to New Gillespie Lake (U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586685) on a per-area basis 

as described in the Hydrologic and Sediment Budget 

sections. A transport curve was developed for this site 

that related total phosphorus load, in tons per day, to 

streamflow, in cubic feet per second (fig. 8).

The total phosphorus load per area for 

the sampled tributary for the study period was 

1.06 ton/mi . Beaulac and Reckhow (1982) summarized load per area information for a wide variety 

of land-use and cropping practices. They reported 

loads per acre for phosphorus ranging from about

0.15 ton/mi2 to 1.43 ton/mi2 for corn and soybean row 

crops, which compose the Gillespie Lakes watershed. 

This comparison illustrates the reliability (that is, the 

measured value in the Gillespie tributary falls in tH 

expected range) and usefulness (because the range is 

broad, the measured data allow a more accurate aralysis) of the measured data. The per-area yield for the 

Gillespie Lakes area for phosphorus (1.06 ton/mi ) is 

on the high end of the range of available literature 

values.

Ground-water inflows were assumed to be zero 

for the Gillespie Lakes; however, septic-tank leacbate 

from the numerous septic systems at cabins around the 

lake was estimated on the basis of literature value? of 

0.88 kg/yr (1.94 Ib/yr) per person and an 80 percent 

soil-retention factor (Jacoby and others, 1981), and 

an estimated year-round average population at Old 

Gillespie Lake of 50 persons. Discharge of septic tank 

effluent to a lake or tributary stream, either through 

overland flow or ground-water seepage, can contribute 

to localized increases in algae or aquatic plant growth. 

Originally, septic systems were used to serve individual 

homes in rural areas where population densities wQ-re

Hydrologic Budgets for Old and New Gillespie Lakes 11
100

Q

g

V) Q

_i 

o

CO 

Q 

111 

Q

Z 

111 

Q. 

W

3 

W

10

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.01

y = 0.0615x 

R2 = 0.9901

0.1 1 10

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100 1,000

Figure 6. Relation of total suspended solids load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, Illinois, 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586686).

UJ 

O 

tt 

LU 

Q.

UJ 

Q. 

0.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Median curve for 

normal ponded reservoir

H 

Z 

UJ 

2

Q 

UJ 

V)

Envelope curves for 

normal ponded reservoir

7

Z

NORMAL PONDED RESERVOIRS

NORMAL PONDED RESERVOIRS 

WITH SLUICING OR VENTING 

OPERATIONS IN EFFECT

DESILTING BASINS

SEMI-DRY RESERVOIRS

30

20

10

0

0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 23 5710

CAPACITY-INFLOW RATIO, ACRE-FEET CAPACITY PER ACRE-FEET ANNUAL INFLOW

Figure 7. Brune's (1953) curve for estimating reservoir sediment trap efficiency.

12 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 19"*;-April 1997
too low to economically justify public sanitary sewers. 

Septic systems also have been used to serve more

densely populated areas where, at least originally, 

occupancy was seasonal, such as at Gillespie Lakes.

Table 7. Sedimentation-rate projections for Old Gillespie Lake

Beginning and ending 

capacity for fill period1 

(acre-feet)

592.0-511.6

511.6-431.2

431.2-350.9

350.9-296.0

Hydraulic 

residence 

time

0.19

.15

.15

.10

Percent 

trapped

92

90

89

86

Sediment per year

tons

3,750

3,657

3,616

3,494

(cubic 

feet)

107,143

104,486

103,314

99,829

Change in 

volume 

(cubic feet)

3,500,000

3,500,000

3,500,000

2,391,000

Years to fill 

for change 

in volume1

32.6

33.5

33.9

24

'Total time to fill from the original capacity of the lake (592.0 acre-feet) to one-half of the original 

capacity (296.0 acre-feet) is 124 years.

Table 8. Sedimentation-rate projections for New Gillespie Lake

Beginning and ending 

capacity for fill period1 

(acre-feet)

2,325-2,084

2,084-1,843

1,843-1,602

1,602-1,162.5

Hydraulic 

residence 

time

0.40

.36

.31

.27

Percent 

trapped

95

95

95

95

Sediment per year

tons

4,550

4,550

4,550

4,550

cubic 

feet

130,000

130,000

130,000

130,000

Change in 

volume 

(cubic feet)

10,500,000

10,500,000

10,500,000

19,131,500 .

Years to fill 

for change 

in volume

80.8

80.8

80.8

147

'Total time to fill from the original capacity of the lake (2,325 acre-feet) to one-half of the original 

capacity (1,162.5 acre-feet) is 389.4 years.

Table9. Phosphorus budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997

[mi , square miles; na, not applicable]

Inflows

Month and year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

Ungaged 

tributaries 

(5.62 mi2 ), 

in tons

1.971

.043

0

.002

0

.002

.871

.019

.002

2.9

.135

.012

5.957

98.90

Pumpage 

into Old 

Gillespie Lake 

from New 

Gillespie Lake,

in ton

0

0

.002

.001

.001

.001

0

0

0

.001

0

0

0.006

.10

Septic tank 

input 

from cabins, 

in ton

0.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

0.048

.80

Waterfowl 

inputs, 

in ton

0.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.001

.003

.002

.000 ,

.001

.003

.001

0.011

.20

Outflows

Flow over 

Old Gillespie 

Lake spillway, 

in ton

0.491

.026

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.270

.113

.000

0.899

93.50

Drinking 

water 

withdrawals, 

in ton

0.005

.005

.006

.006

.005

.005

.005

.005

.006

.005

.005

.005

0.063

6.50

Net total 

(in-out)

1.479

.016

.000

.001

.000

.003

.873

.020

.000

2.631

.024

.012

5.060

na

Hydrologic Budgets for Old and New Gillespie Lakes 13
10

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

y = O.OOOGx 

R2 = 0.9644

0.1 1 10 100 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,000

Figure 8. Relation of total phosphorus load and water discharge, Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie, Illinois, 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586685).

Because phosphorus leaves a lake system slowly, 

sewage inputs often affect the system long after the 

input has been discontinued.

Waterfowl manure inputs to the lake system, 

which are deposited directly into the water and are 

washed in from the shoreline or boat docks, were estimated by calculating loads on the basis of a per-bird 

loading rate times the number of waterfowl observed 

by the two volunteer local observers. The volume of 

manure that waterfowl produce varies with age and size 

of the waterfowl and the season (Boss, 1994). The 

biggest problem in estimating nutrient loading by 

aquatic birds is usually counting the birds. More than 

one-half of the birds that use a lake may be airborne 

during the day or difficult to see during the night. For 

greatest accuracy of nutrient loadings, birds were 

counted weekly during seasonal migrations when the 

number of birds using lakes is highest. Most of the 

annual load of phosphorus from aquatic birds is added 

during migrations. The daily nutrient load to a lake (on 

average) by a migrant Canadian goose is 1.57 gr

(0.0554 oz) nitrogen and 0.49 gr (0.0173 oz) phosphorus (Manny and others, 1994).

Atmospheric deposition of phosphorus to the 

lakes was assumed to be negligible. For computational 

purposes, outflows of Old Gillespie Lake were measured at the spillway and the water-treatmert plant. 

Water from Old Gillespie Lake was withdrawn for 

consumptive use at the plant. Water pumped from 

New Gillespie Lake to Old Gillespie Lake and from 

Old Gillespie Lake to the water-treatment plant was 

assumed to have a constant concentration of 0.05 mg/L 

of total phosphorus. A total phosphorus budget for New 

Gillespie Lake was computed in the same manner and 

is shown in table 10. Transport curves for Old and New 

Gillespie Lakes are shown in figures 9 and 10.

The phosphorus budget data indicate a net retention of 5.06 tons of phosphorus in Old Gillespie Lake 

out of an inflow of 6.02 tons for the year and 6.17 tons 

of phosphorus retention in New Gillespie Lake out of 

an inflow of 7.56 tons for the year. About 84 percent 

of the phosphorus entering Old Gillespie Lake was 

retained in Old Gillespie Lake. Similarly, about

14 Water, Sediment and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1f96-April 1997
82 percent of the phosphorus entering New Gillespie 

Lake was retained in New Gillespie Lake.

Nitrogen Budgets

The monthly nitrogen budgets for Old and 

New Gillespie Lakes are presented in tables 11 and 12. 

The total nitrogen load of a stream is calculated by 

summing the totals of Kjeldahl nitrogen as nitrogen 

load (which is ammonia nitrogen plus organic

nitrogen) and the total nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen 

load in tons per day. The daily loads of these 

compounds were summed by month and are included 

in the nitrogen budgets for Old and New Gillespie 

Lakes shown in tables 11 and 12. The transport curves 

for the three gaged and sampled sites are presented in 

figures 11-16. The daily load data are presented in 

appendix 2.

Table 10, Phosphorus budgetfor New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997 

[mi', square mile; na, not applicable]

Remaining 

Month and year Southwest Branch ungaged 

Dry Fork Creek, tributaries 

in tons (3.83 mi2}, 

in tons

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

0.84

.02

.00

.00

.00

.00

.37

.00

.00

1.24

.06

.01

2.54

33.50

1.34

.03

.00

.00

.00

.00

.59

.00

.00

1.97

.09

.01

4.03

53.50

Inflows

Septic tank 

input from 

cabins, 

in ton

0.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

0.048

.60

Outflows

Waterfowl 

input, 

in ton

0.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.002

.008

.005

.001

.002

.008

.002

0.033

.40

Old Gillespie 

Lake spillway 

inflow, 

in ton

0.491

.026

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

.270

.113

.000

0.900

11.90

Flow over 

New Gillespie 

Lake spillway, 

in ton

0.790

.096

.000

.000

.COO

.000

.000

.000

.000

.290

.192

.023

1.391

99.60

Pumpage 

from New 

Gillespie Lake 

into Old 

Gillespie Lake,

in ton

0.000

.000

.002

.001

.001

.001

.000

.000

.000

.001

.000

.000

0.006

.40

Net total 

(in-cut)

1.89

-.02

.00

.01

.00

.01

.98

.01

.01

3.21

.08

.00

6.17

nr

The total nitrogen load per area for the sampled 

tributary for the study period was calculated at

r\

9.26 ton/mi . Beaulac and Reckhow (1982) summarized load per area information for a wide variety of 

land-use and cropping practices. They reported loads

/^

for nitrogen ranging from about 0.86 to 11.43 ton/mi 

for corn and soybean row crops, which compose the 

Gillespie Lakes watershed. As with phosphorus, the 

per-area yield of nitrogen for the Gillespie Lakes area 

(9.26 ton/mi2) is on the high end of the available literature values.

The nitrogen budget data indicate that of the 

52.3 tons of nitrogen inflow to Old Gillespie Lake 

during the study year, about 45.7 tons of nitrogen 

(or 87 percent) was retained in Old Gillespie Lake. 

Similarly, of the 64.3 tons of nitrogen inflow into

New Gillespie Lake, about 52.1 tons (or 81 percent) 

was retained in New Gillespie Lake.

BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS OF OLD AND 

NEW GILLESPIE LAKES

A bathymetric survey of Old Gillespie Lake 

and New Gillespie Lake was completed by the US'GS 

in August 1996. Contour maps of the lakebed elevations were produced from the bathymetric survey. 

Horizontal-position data were collected utilizing a 

differentially corrected global-positioning-system 

(GPS) unit. GPS units are specialized radio receivers 

that receive data transmitted from 24 U.S. Department 

of Defense (DOD) satellites orbiting the earth in six 

planes and calculate a position on the basis of that data.

Bathymetric Surveys of Old and New Gillespie Lakes 15
0.1

0.01 y = 0.0007X 

R2 =0.8916

0.001

0.0001 1 10 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100

Figure 9. Relation of total phosphorus load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, Illinois 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586684).

Common hand held GPS units typically have an accuracy of+/-50 m (164 ft) because of errors intentionally 

introduced in the satellite transmissions by the DOD. 

The differentially corrected GPS unit that was used in 

this project, however, computes the error introduced 

and corrects for it, such that the horizontal position data 

have a horizontal position accuracy of +/-1 m (3.28 ft).

Water-depth data were collected utilizing a 

PTS1000 digital fathometer, or echo sounder, produced 

by Ocean Data Equipment Corporation. This echo 

sounder collects water-depth data at an accuracy of 

+1-2 cm (0.7874 in.). Inherent errors of the datacollection setup (tilt, roll, and pitch of the boat 

because of wave action and boat instability), however, 

can make the accuracy of the echo sounder as high as 

+/-30 cm (11.81 in.). This error was greatly reduced 

because the data were collected in relatively calm 

water.

In the field, the GPS and echo-sounder data were 

merged in the field during data collection by utilizing a 

hydrographic surveying software package called 

Hypack. The software produced an x, y, z file (x and y

are horizontal position, and z is water depth) that was 

read into a mapping software.

The survey output was an ASCII file of Universal 

Transverse Mercator zone 16 (UTM 16) coordinates 

(in meters) and depth measurements (in fee*:). A 

geographically referenced data layer of points was 

created using Arc/Info Geographic Information System 

(GIS) software with the file of UTM 16 coordinates. 

The data layer was attributed with the lake-depth 

measurements, resulting in a two-dimensional, digital 

representation of the survey data. A module within the 

Arc/Info software called TOPOGRIDTOOL was used 

to generate a raster representation of the lake bottom 

from the data layer. This raster representation, known 

as a grid or lattice, is a continuous representation of the 

data layer. A grid consists of geographically referenced, discrete, and uniform units called ceT ls. Every 

cell represents a specified portion of the earth, such as 

a square kilometer, hectare, or square meter. Each cell 

is given a value to correspond to the feature or characteristic that is located at or describes the site.

16 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May U°fi-April 1997
0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

0.00001

0.000001

y = O.OOOSx 

R2 = 0.999

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,000

Figure 10. Relation of total phosphorus load and water discharge. Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, Illinois 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586686).

Input data for grids of Old and New Gillespie 

Lakes included a digitized outline of each lake 

(attributed with zero elevation) and the data layer of 

survey points. All data outside the lake boundaries 

were designated "no data." The cell size for Old 

and New Gillespie Lakes was 2 m (6.56 ft). The grid 

for each lake was input into the Arc/Info command 

LATTICECONTOUR, generating contours at a 

specified contour interval of 2 ft. No smoothing or 

filtering was done to the generated contours. The 

Arcplot module was used to prepare the contours for 

final map production. The color maps are included in 

figures 17 and 18. Maximum depths of 20.2 ft and 

25.0 ft were measured at Old Gillespie Lake and 

New Gillespie Lake, respectively.

REVIEW OF LAKE-MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The following discussion presents and describes 

summaries of some potential restoration and maintenance techniques that could be applied to the Gillespie

Lakes system. Restoration and maintenance techniques 

for the Gillespie Lakes system should be considered 

separately. A restoration oriented technique, such as a 

technique that improves the water quality of lake 

inflows, would usually cost more at the outset to implement but probably would have longer lasting effects on 

water quality. A maintenance-based technique, such as 

dredging or treating with herbicide, is sometimes less 

expensive and easier to implement but often is only a 

temporary solution for water-quality problems. When 

considering the lake-management practices described 

in the following sections, remember that fish production is related to lake fertility. Nutrient-rich water 

favors and encourages fish biomass but also may 

promote algal blooms repugnant to swimmers.

Improvement of fishing (increases in number, 

size, and health of popular game fish) requires fish 

management. An evaluation of fish conditions is the 

first step in a fish-management strategy. A balance 

between a healthy fishing lake and a lake suitable for 

swimming, boating, and drinking water is sometimes 

difficult to achieve.

Review of Lake-Management Practices 17
Restoration Techniques

Restoration techniques involve treating the cause 

of the water-quality problem rather than treating the 

symptoms. If the inflows to a waterbody are of poor 

quality and it is not feasible or practical to improve the 

inflows, then protection of the waterbody will be 

impossible. Also, reducing nutrient loading from 

inflows will not correct weed problems if the nutrients,

which are already in the lake sediments, are capable of 

sustaining the weeds. The lake watershed system is a 

functioning unit with interacting biological, physical, 

chemical, and human components. The goals of lake 

restoration must be realistically set to the limits 

imposed by the natural background of inflows and the 

chemistry of the lake bottom sediments. It is important 

to consider the limits of what is practical tc achieve in 

lake restoration.

Table 11. Nitrogen budget for Old Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997 

[mi2 , square miles; na, not applicable]

Inflows

Month and ysar

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

M j Pumpageinto c Ungaged ,. , , Septic tank 

.. M . Old Gillespie Lake . F .. tributaries . input from I*- ««. .?i from .. (5.62 mi ), .. .... . , . cabins. New Gillespie Lake, in tons . . in ton

15.66

.33

0

0.03

0

.04

7.39

.04

.03

27.38

1.00

.14

52.04

99.40

in ton

0

0

.03

.03

.03

.03

0

0

0

.03

0

0

0.15

.30

0.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

.004

0.048

.10

Waterfowl 

input, 

in ton

0.003

.003

.003

.003

.003

.006

.025

.016

.004

.006

.025

.005

0.102

.20

Outflows

Flow over 

Old Gillespie 

Lake spillway, 

in tons

3.59

.17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2.00

.77

0

6.53

99.00

Drinking water 

withdrawals, 

in ton

0.005

.005

.006

.006

.005

.005

.005

.005

.006

.005

.005

.005

0.063

1.00

Net total 

(in-out)

12.07

.16

.03

.05

.03

.07

7.41

.05

.03

25.41

.25

.15

45.71

na

Lake ecosystems are complex and highly interrelated. In the long term, the condition of a waterbody is 

affected primarily by the water entering it. Protecting 

and maintaining the watershed is critical for the quality 

of the lake system. Major contributors of nutrients and 

sediment can be agricultural runoff and wastewater 

discharges, such as feed-lot and pasture runoff, 

wastewater-treatment plants, and septic systems 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1974). 

Inflows to the Gillespie Lakes system result from 

extensive areas of nonpoint source discharges over 

several property lines. These high inflows make loadings high and improvements in stream water quality 

challenging and require participation by land owners 

in the watershed.

Sediment budgets and nutrient budgets presented 

earlier in this report indicate that sediment and nutrient 

loads will continue to affect the water quality of the

Gillespie Lakes system. Currently, the large volumes of 

inflowing sediment that is deposited in the Gillespie 

Lakes is a problem and will undoubtedly become a 

larger problem as the years go by. High retention of the 

nutrients in the inflows is most likely a major cause of 

excessive weed and algae growth, which inHbits recreation, fishing, and aesthetics, and can cause poor taste 

and odor in the finished water from the water-treatment 

plant.

The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's), such as conservation tillage, grassed 

waterways, filter strips, sediment control/retention 

basins, grade stabilization structures, and many others, 

can be used to prevent sediments and nutrients from 

entering the lakes through inflow of surface water. 

Other BMP's that can be applied to agricultural 

land include permanent seeding, terraces, livestock 

watering facilities (as opposed to watering livestock

18 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 19°6-April 1997
directly in streams), windbreaks and shelterbelts, 

water-impoundment reservoirs, wildlife-cover 

plantings, animal waste-control structures, and rotation 

seedings (North American Lake Management Society, 

1990). Combining several complementary BMP's 

typically results in effective reduction of nutrients and 

sediment in runoff from agricultural areas (Melching,

1997). Because of the relatively high range of nutrient 

loads in the Gillespie Lakes system when compared 

with watersheds with similar cropping practices, 

implementation of BMP's in the watershed probably 

would result in the improvement of water entering the 

lake system.

Table 12. Nitrogen budget for New Gillespie Lake, May 1996-April 1997

[mi", square miles; na, not applicable]

Inflows

Remaining 

Month and year Southwest Branch ungaged 

Dry Fork Creek, tributaries 

in tons (3.83 mi2).

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Percent of

inflow and

outflow

6.68

.14

.00

.01

.00

.02

3.16

.01

.01

11.69

.43

.06

22.21

34.60

in tons

10.67

.22

.00

.02

.00

.03

5.04

.02

.02

18.66

.68

.10

35.46

55.10

... . , . Flow from Waterfowl ,. .,, . , , Old Gillespie Lake input, r 

. . spillway, in ton " ' in tons

0.003

.003

.003

.003

.003

.006

.025

.016

.004

.006

.025

.005

0.102

0.20

3.59

.17

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

2.00

.77

.00

6.53

10.10

Outflows

Flow over 

New Gillespie Lake 

spillway, 

in tons

6.67

.96

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

2.31

1.86

.27

12.07

98.80

Pumpage from 

New Gillespie Lake Net total 

into (in-out) 

Old Gillespie Lake,

in ton

0.000

.000

.033

.025

.029

.030

.000

.000

.000

.025

.000

.000

0.142

1.20

14.27

-.42

-.03

.01

-.03

.02

8.22

.05

.04

30.02

.04

-.11

52.08

na

The activities of homeowners around a lake can 

substantially affect lake water quality. For example, 

rain can wash improperly applied fertilizers and pesticides into lakes. On the other hand, prudent lawn care 

and landscaping can improve and protect water quality 

(Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1995). 

Education programs on BMP's for farmers and other 

landowners pertaining to proper fertilization and lawn 

care can help remind landowners that excessive 

nutrient inputs can negatively affect the lakes, as well 

as property values, recreational opportunities, and raw 

water usage. Several governmental agencies (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

Extension Service, and others) advise, educate, and 

provide assistance in implementation of BMP's in a 

watershed.

Most of the restoration measures mentioned 

above, such as the implementation of BMP's, not only 

attempt to decrease the incoming nutrient loads but

also decrease the incoming sediment loads. Reductions 

in sediment and nutrient loads and improvements in 

lake water quality resulting from BMP's may take 

many years to be detected. Thus, BMP's should not be 

thought of as a "quick fix" to lake quality problems 

(Melching, 1997).

Lake community homeowners, such as those in 

cabins around Old and New Gillespie Lakes, have a 

special responsibility to also ensure that their septic 

systems are not polluting the lakes. Sewage is high in 

phosphorus, which usually is the nutrient that limits 

algae and rooted aquatic plant growth in Illinois. A 

properly functioning septic system will remove rrost 

disease-causing organisms and some nutrients and 

chemicals from wastewater. Many septic systems, 

however, will not remove all nutrients or treat many 

water-soluble pollutants, such as solvents, drain 

cleaners, and many household chemicals. Consequently, the proper location, design, construction,

Review of Lake-Management Practices 19
100

10

0.1

UJ Q.

(/> 

O

Q

S

LLI

o 

o 

a:

w 0.01

X

Q

_l 

UJ

5 0.001

0.0001

y = 0.0017x 

R2 = 0.8946

0.1 1 10 100 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,000

Figure 11. Relation of total kjeldahl nitrogen load and water discharge, Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie, Illinois 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586685).

and operation of septic systems are critical in areas 

close to lakes and streams, as well as in shallow 

ground water. Additionally, septic tanks require 

regular maintenance to operate efficiently. Many 

septic systems do not have sufficient capacity for 

the type of use they receive, are located too close to 

the water table, or are located in poor soils (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1995). The 

County Soil and Water Conservation District can 

help determine the type, depth, and location of the 

various soils on a residential property and their suitability for septic systems.

Maintenance Techniques

Maintenance techniques for management of 

lake water quality can address an existing problem 

that cannot be rectified by restoration techniques.

Some alternative maintenance-based techniques 

are described below.

Sedimentation Control

Some areas of the Gillespie Lakes system are 

excessively shallow. Removal of silt by dredging can 

deepen the lakes, but incoming silt will return the lake 

to its predredged condition if no improvements are 

made in the incoming water. First, attempt? should be 

made to control silt sources. Sediment removal also can 

limit submerged weed growth by deepening the water 

and, thereby, limiting the light penetration needed for 

weed growth. Weed roots also can be removed. Weed 

removal is effective only when the source cf the sediments is controlled. The sediment layer that contains 

the highest concentration of phosphorus ne~-ds to be 

removed. Sediment removal to retard nutrient release 

can be highly effective but can be very expensive

20 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1£%~April 1997
0.1

y = 0.0034X 

R2 = 0.9849

0.01

0.001

10 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100

Figure 12. Relation of total kjeldahl nitrogen load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, Illinois 

(U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586684).

(Pullman, 1992). Removing sediments creates a major 

disruption throughout lake systems and can become a 

particular problem when heavy metals or other toxins 

are present in the dredging spoils. Normally, a permit 

is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

before dredging can be done.

Sediment aggradation impairs fish respiration 

and plant productivity, reduces water depth, and 

reduces aesthetic enjoyment of lakes. Although most of 

the sediment aggradation in the Gillespie Lakes comes 

from overland erosion, shoreline erosion also contributes to aggradation. Shoreline erosion is evident in 

large areas of bare soil on a steep, high shoreline bank; 

in noticeable areas of a receding shoreline over time; 

by leaning or downed trees with exposed roots along 

the shoreline; by muddy patches of water near the 

shore; or by excessive deposits of sediments on the bed 

along the shoreline.

Shoreline stabilization can improve the 

aesthetics and "useful" life of a lake. The powerful 

forces of waves, currents, wind, and ice can move 

soil particles toward, away from, and along the

shoreline. Points usually have relatively high erosion 

rates because they are attacked from all sides by 

these forces, whereas bays are usually the most 

bank-erosion-resistant areas. Generally, natural 

erosion proceeds very slowly, and the plants and 

animals that live along the shoreline can adjust to 

these slow changes, maintaining a healthy, productive 

ecosystem. When some catastrophic natural or human 

disturbance causes the equilibrium of the shoreline to 

be upset, accelerated erosion can result. Examples of 

natural disturbances include large trees uprooted by a 

windstorm or a flood. Human disturbances include 

vegetation removal, dredging, filling, or construct on 

on or near the shoreline.

To control or prevent shoreline erosion, roc^s 

and vegetation present along the banks could be 

preserved; major construction could be prevented 

within a specified distance from the shoreline; and 

the amount of foot traffic, boat wakes, and other 

recreational activities in erosion-prone areas could 

be limited. There are three types of reactive shoreline 

erosion control methods: (1) vegetative planting

Review of Lake-Management Practices 21
10

z 

o~

O

z

LL!

O 

O

H

z

(0

0.1

0.01

y = 0.0028x 

R2 = 0.9974

uj 0.001

0.0001

0.01 0.1 1 10

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100 1,000

Figure 13. Relation of total kjeldahl nitrogen load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam noar 

Gillespie, Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586686).

trees or woody shrubs (for their effect of soil binding 

by their large root systems), grass and herbaceous 

plants (for their effect of protecting against raindrop 

impact and scouring from surface-runoff), or emergent 

aquatic plants to stabilize bottom sediments and 

dampen wave actions; (2) structural constructing 

protective structures, possibly rip-rap, bulkheads, 

gabions (rock-filled baskets), sandbags filled with 

concrete, or railroad ties; and (3) manipulative 

removing streamflow obstructions, grading banks, 

and rerouting flows (mostly used on streams) 

(Fuller, 1995). State permits are required for most 

erosion control projects.

Aquatic-Plant Control

Aquatic plants are beneficial and necessary 

features of lakes and ponds. Plants stabilize 

shorelines, prevent wave erosion, provide cover 

for fish and nesting areas for other wildlife, and

can be aesthetically pleasing. Thus, complete eradication of plants in lakes arid ponds is not desirable. 

Aquatic plants can become problems, however, when 

they interfere with the intended use of a lake or pond, 

whether it is fishing or swimming or boating, drinking 

water, or other purposes. Most plant problems start in 

shallow water (Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, 1974).

The application of herbicides is perhaps the 

oldest and most widely used method for management 

of weeds, but herbicides are usually expensive for what 

they accomplish. Herbicides produce no restorative 

benefit and must be applied at least annually. Application can be an effective short-term solution but cannot 

be equated with lake restoration because th°t causes of 

the weed growth are not addressed and nutrients are not 

removed. Also, caution must be exercised vhen using 

herbicides. Herbicides should be applied in the early 

spring when the aquatic vegetation is actively growing

22 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1£96-April 1997
0.1

0.01

0.001

y = 0.0038x 

R2 = 0.8545

0.1 1 10 100 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1,000

Figure 14. Relation of total nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen load and water discharge, Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek near Gillespie, 

Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586685).

and before it has reached the seeding stage. As 

mentioned earlier, if herbicides are applied after 

the weeds have become well established, the 

dieback caused by the herbicides can lower DO 

concentrations, release nutrients, and cause 

numerous other problems (Pullman, 1992).

Algae Control

As explained earlier, phosphorus generally is the 

key, or controlling, nutrient in the quantity of algae in a 

lake (North American Lake Management Society, 

1990). Because phosphorus is not a volatile chemical, 

its sources in a watershed are limited. Controlling 

phosphorus at its sources is usually the only practical 

solution to the problems of algal growth in a lake. 

Sometimes, however, the lake and watershed can be 

manipulated to make phosphorus concentrations low 

enough to limit algal growth. The restoration techniques for phosphorus described earlier concentrated 

on controlling the inflow of phosphorus, whereas 

maintenance-based solutions for phosphorus problems

depend on curtailing internal phosphorus release 

from the bottom sediments in the lake. A few 

maintenance-based techniques for phosphorus 

problems are described below.

Internal loading of phosphorus is a major 

eutrophication factor in many lakes. Phosphorus can be 

released from rich, flocculent sediment as a result of 

high pH or very low DO concentrations. Phosphoms 

also can be indirectly introduced by macrophyte uptake 

from sediments and through subsequent decompo'dtion. Decomposing macrophytes also may supply 

substantial amounts of phosphorus to the lake during 

winter dieback. Macrophytes also release phosphorus 

to the water column by excretion during growth. 

Internal loading of nutrients can decrease the effectiveness of restoration measures that are aimed at controlling external inputs (North American Lake 

Management Society, 1990).

Anaerobic release of phosphorus generally 

does not occur in shallower nonstratified lakes where 

DO concentrations near the bottom sediments stay 

relatively high. The presence or absence of thermal

Review of Lake-Management Practices 23
0.1

0.01

y = 0.0011x 

R2 =0.9193

0.001

10 

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100

Figure 15. Relation of total nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near 

Gillespie, Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey statioin number 05586684).

stratification in the water column is important because 

plant nutrients, commonly stored in bottom sediment, 

can be stirred up during the two turnovers per year that 

occur in most stratified waterbodies and also because 

of internal cycling, where more nutrients are released 

when low DO concentrations are present (Jacoby and 

others, 1981). In the Gillespie Lakes system, the lakes 

do become stratified. However, the DO concentration 

at the greatest depths, although low enough that they 

may not support fish respiration, are high enough that 

release of nutrients from the bottom sediments because 

of anaerobic conditions is not accelerated.

If in-lake phosphorus concentrations are high or 

if appreciable amounts of phosphorus are released in a 

lake, an alum treatment may be effective in lowering 

phosphorus concentrations. Alum bonds with the phosphorus and creates a floe precipitate that settles to the 

bottom. If enough alum is added, a layer of 1-2 inches 

of aluminum hydroxide will cover the sediments and 

prevent phosphorus from entering as an "internal load." 

The floe appears to continue to sorb phosphorus as it 

settles to the bottom and in this way acts as a chemical

barrier to phosphorus release from the sediments. 

Although alum treatments are highly effective in 

thermally stratified lakes, they may not be effective 

in smaller reservoirs like the Gillespie Lakes and 

could significantly lower the pH of the water. Alum 

treatments also could increase water clarity so that 

light penetration is deeper; and, thus, a potential 

problem with increased macrophytes may result 

(Jacoby and others, 1981).

Underwater currents from outboard motors can 

stir up bottom sediments in shallow lakes and, thus, 

release nutrients available for algae. Boat wakes also 

can greatly affect shoreline erosion (Fuller, 1995). 

Old and New Gillespie Lakes have ordinances to 

enforce no-wake zones, maximum speed limits, and 

horsepower ratings to limit stirring up of nutrient-laden 

sediments. Recently, personal watercraft, sometimes 

called jet skis, have risen in popularity and have great 

potential to stir up the nutrient-laden bottom sediments 

if operated in shallow areas. Restricting personal 

watercraft usage to deeper parts of lakes could minimize the stirring up of these bottom sediments.

24 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1S%-April 1997
0.1

-1 0.01

LLJ 

O

o

OL

H

Z

(0

< 0.001

LLJ

0.0001

y = 0.0012x 

R2 = 0.9941

0.00001

0.01 0.1 1 10

WATER DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100 1,000

Figure 16. Relation of total nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen load and water discharge, Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near 

Gillespie, Illinois (U.S. Geological Survey site number 05586686).

An effective, maintenance treatment for excessive algae is copper sulfate, the most widely used 

algicidal chemical. Simazine also is used extensively 

to control algae. Copper inhibits algal photosynthesis 

and alters nitrogen metabolism. Copper sulfate often is 

very effective, but response may be brief and frequent 

applications may be required again, the causes of the 

original problem are not addressed. Application should 

be in the spring (Illinois Department of Conservation, 

1994).

Use of dyes in the water and coverings on the 

water surface to limit the light available to plants 

and the application of sheets over the sediments are 

effective methods to limit weed and algae growth. 

Applications of silt, sand, clay, and gravel also can 

be used, but eventually plants root through. Best 

results are obtained when sediment covers the black 

plastic sheeting; however, adding more sediment to 

the Gillespie Lakes probably is not an option at this 

time. Shading also can be accomplished by use of dyes, 

which contain only inert coloring matter and nontoxic 

material. The dye limits light penetration and thus

photosynthesis, which inhibits plant growth. This 

method will work only in water deeper than about 

3 ft (Illinois Department of Conservation, 1994).

Drawdown of a lake can cause nuisance plants to 

be dried out and killed and is especially successful if 

the water level can be kept down during the winter 

This practice obviously can be used only in lakes with 

water control structures. Some plants are not affected 

by drying, so it is important to understand the biology 

of the plant species present in the lake before using this 

method. Drawdown also can consolidate sediments 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1974).

Harvesting the weeds from a lake, whereby 

nuisance rooted plants and associated filamentous 

algae are cut and removed, provides temporary relief 

from nuisance plants without addition of potentially 

toxic substances. Disposal of the material usually is 

not a problem; the spoils can be used as mulch and 

fertilizer. Harvesting can be very expensive, however, 

and could possibly cause the spread of some plants 

because of spreading fragments of plants from which 

new growth can begin. Also, when bottom-dwelling

Review of Lake-Management Practices 25
89°51'45" 89°51'30" 89051'15" 89°51'

39°09'

39°08'45" 

39°08'30" 

39°081 15" 

NEW

GILLESPIE

LAKE

LAKE SURFACE ELEVATION EQUALS 

621.06 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL

EXPLANATION

D BARN A CAMPGROUND

WOODS DWELLING 

= LIGHT-DUTY ROAD DAM 

== UNIMPROVED ROAD \> SPILLWAY

LAKE DEPTH

D 0 TO 4 FEET 

D 4 TO 8 FEET 

8 TO 12 FEET 

12 TO 16 FEET 

16 TO 20 FEET

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle 

Gillespie North, III. 1:24.000, 1974.

Bathymetric data collected using a Differential Global 

Positioning System and Digital Fathometry

Figure 17. Bathymetric map of Old Gillespie Lake near Gillespie, Illinois, August 1996.

plants are cut off or die off, phosphorus from the 

plants is released into the water column to be used 

by suspended algae or phytoplankton, which support

algal blooms. Plants, such as cattails, arrowhead, and 

water lily, can be removed by pulling them at first 

growth. Cut vegetation should always be removed from

26 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997
l\i

PLANATION

X

UJ

PGROUND 

LLING

:> £

< ^

0 D

« 

CO

Q

1§CD ^

°D

s

3 

1

Q

§

o:

£

D

h1-

O

_i

II

1_1

Q. 

CO

->

D 

<

O

a:

D

UJ 

0

o:

a_2

2

ID

ii 

II

AKE DEPTH

_i

UJ 

UJ 

LL

 *

0 

o

UJ 

UJ 

LL 

CO

O

Tlan

LU 

UJ 

LL 

CM

O 

00

a

UJ 

UJ 

LL 

(D

RCM

!

H

111

H H K 

UJ LU ^ 

UJ LU 8 

LL LL o 

O Tf ^ 

CM CM

0 0

 - -§- 

(DO "^ 

T- CM

 

oOT

o: 

[H

LU

2

-g 

CM

in-CM

-o

B£

CD 

§

E >-

Review of Lake-Management Practices 27
the lake so that it does not decompose in the lake. 

Mowing cattails after the heads are well formed but 

not mature and following up with another mowing 

about a month later will kill most of the plants 

(Illinois Department of Conservation, 1994).

Biological control of weeds also may be an 

option for the Gillespie Lakes. Triploid sterile grass 

carp are voracious consumers of macrophytes and 

have very high growth rates (up to 6 Ibs per year). 

However, grass carp cannot only control but may 

eradicate all plants. Most studies find that fish are 

exceptionally effective in eliminating nuisance 

vegetation but can significantly alter the structure 

of a lake, particularly when the macrophytes are 

completely eradicated. Triploid sterile grass carp 

also do not need to be "applied" each year; they will 

live for many years in a lake. Aquatic-vegetation 

control with triploid grass carp will take time to 

implement. If desired results are not achieved within 

three summers after stocking, lake managers sometimes increase the number of grass carp in the lake. 

Use of grass carp to control aquatic vegetation is 

possible but sometimes at the expense of the bass, 

bluegill, and catfish, whose well-being is dependent 

upon some of the aquatic vegetation remaining in the 

lake (Illinois Department of Conservation, 1994).

SUMMARY

Water, sediment, and nutrient budgets for 

Old Gillespie Lake and New Gillespie Lake were 

calculated by the U.S. Geological Survey with data 

collected during May 1996-April 1997. Bathymetric 

data also were collected in the two lakes to produce 

maps of the lakebed elevations. This study was done 

in cooperation with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the city of Gillespie, Illinois.

Of the approximately 4,063 tons of sediment 

that entered Old Gillespie Lake during the 1-year 

study period, only about 314 tons exited the lake 

system. From May 1996 through April 1997, approximately 3,749 tons of sediment were deposited in Old 

Gillespie Lake, or about 92 percent of the incoming 

load. This value agrees with literature values using 

Brune's curve for estimating trap efficiency of a 

reservoir. Likewise, applying Brune's curve to New 

Gillespie Lake, a theoretical trap efficiency of about 

95 percent is found. This theoretical value is identical 

to the results from the data analysis. Approximately 

4,792 tons of sediment entered New Gillespie Lake

during the study period and 4,550 tons (or 95 percent) 

were trapped in the lake.

The phosphorus budget data indicate a net 

retention of 5.06 tons of phosphorus in Old Gillespie 

Lake from an inflow of 6.02 tons for the year and 

6.17 tons of phosphorus retention in New Gillespie 

Lake from an inflow of 7.56 tons for the year. About 

84 percent of the phosphorus entering Old Gillespie 

Lake was retained in Old Gillespie Lake. Similarly, 

about 82 percent of the phosphorus entering New 

Gillespie Lake was retained in New Gillespie Lake. 

The total phosphorus load per area for the sampled 

tributary, the Southwest Branch Dry Fork Creek 

near Gillespie, Illinois, for the study period was 

1.06 ton/mi2 .

The nitrogen budget data indicate that of the 

52.3 tons of nitrogen inflow to Old Gillespie Lake 

during the study year, about 45.7 tons of nitrogen 

(or 87 percent) was retained in Old Gillespie Lake. 

Similarly, of the 64.3 tons of nitrogen inflow into 

New Gillespie Lake, about 52.1 tons (or 81 percent) 

was retained in New Gillespie Lake. The to'al nitrogen 

load per area for the sampled tributary for the study 

period was 9.26 ton/mi2 .

Considering these loads and retention of sediment and nutrients, a review of basic lake-rranagement 

practices is presented and discussed. Lake-restoration 

techniques, such as implementation of Best Management Practices, are compared to maintenance-based 

techniques such as sediment dredging and herbicide 

application. This review is presented to assist lake 

managers in the achievement of lake water-quality 

goals.

REFERENCES CITED

Beaulac, M.N., and Reckhow, K.H., 1982, An examination 

of land use- nutrient export relationships: Water 

Resources Bulletin, v. 18, no. 6, Decembe- 1982, 

p. 1013-1024.

Boss, J.W., 1994, Michigan's exploding goose population: 

The Michigan Riparian, November 1994, p. 6-7.

Brune, G.M., 1953, Trap efficiency of reservoirs: Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 34, p. 407-418.

Chow, V.T., 1959, Open-Channel Hydraulics: New York, 

McGraw-Hill, 680 p.

Colby, B.R., 1956, Relationship of sediment discharge to 

streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 56-4, 170 p.

28 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May ir%-April 1997
Fuller, D., 1995, Understanding, living with, and controlling 

shoreline erosion: Conway, Mich., Tip of the Mitt 

Watershed Council, 90 p.

Goolsby, D.A., Coupe, R.H., and Markovchick, D.J., 1991, 

Distribution of selected herbicides and nitrate in the 

Mississippi River and its major tributaries, April 

through June 1991: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4163, 35 p.

Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC), 1994, Aquatic 

plants their identification and management: Division 

of Fisheries, Fishery Bulletin no. 4, 56 p.

Jacoby, J.M., Lynch, Welch, and Perkins, 1981, Internal 

phosphorus loading in a shallow eutrophic lake: Water 

Resources Bulletin, v.16, p. 911-919.

Johnson, G.P., and Coupe, R.H., 1993, Transport and 

concentrations of selected herbicides and nitrate in 

the Sangamon River, Illinois, April 1991-March 1992 

in Morganwalp, D.W., and Aronson, D.A., editors, 

U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology 

Program Proceedings of the technical meeting, 

Colorado Springs, Colo., 1993: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4015, 

p. 471-478.

Lineback, J., 1979, Quaternary deposits in Illinois: 

Champaign, Illinois, Illinois State Geological 

Survey Map Report.

Linsley, R.K., and Franzini, J.B., 1979, Water resources 

engineering: New York, McGraw-Hill, 716 p.

Manny, B.A., Johnson, and Wetzel, 1994, Nutrient additions 

by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs Predicting their 

effects on productivity and water quality: Hydrobiologia, v. 279/280, p. 121-132.

Melching, C.S., 1997, Effectiveness of agricultural best 

management practices for control of nutrients in rmoff 

in Kwan, S.K., Yoon, C.G., and Kim, S.J., editors, 

International Symposium on Rural Environment 

Improvement: Seoul, South Korea, Korean Society 

of Agricultural Engineers, p. 1-20.

North American Lake Management Society, 1990, The lake 

and reservoir restoration guidance manual: Merrifield, 

Va., NALMS, U.S. Environment Protection Agency 

Report Number 440/4-90-006, 326 p.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1995, Lake 

Notes, A series of pamphlets published by the NIPC, 

Chicago, 111.

Pullman, G.D., 1992, Aquatic Vegetation Management

Guidance Manual: Midwest Aquatic Plant Management 

Society, Issues in Aquatic Vegetation Management 

Series, v. 1, Version 1.1, 44 p.

Roberts, W.J., and Stall, J.B., 1967, Lake Evaporation in 

Illinois: Illinois State Water Survey Report of 

Investigation 57, 44 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, Standard Techniques of Water

Resources Investigations, TWRI3-A Series, pubUshed 

over several years.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 

1974, Survey of lake rehabilitation techniques ard 

experiences: Madison, Wise., Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources Technical Bulletin no. 75, 179 p.

Wolock, D.M., 1997, STATSGO soil characteristics for the 

conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Su"vey 

Open-File Report 97-656.

References Cited 29
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1. Hydrologic Data

STATION NO. 05586684

WRITTEN 06-11-96

BY J. D. Muhs

CK 06-12-96

BY G. P. Johnson

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Description of Gaging Station on Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, 111.

LOCATION.-Lat 39° 08' 48" , Long 89° 51' 51", in SW1/4 sec.10 T.8N. R.7W., Macoupin County, 

Hydrologic Unit 07130012, at dam and spillway of Old Lake Gillespie, 2.3 mi. northwest of Gillespie, 111.

TO REACH GAGE.-Drive 1.3 mi west of Gillespie on State Highway 16, 1.5 mi north on Lake Road, follow road 

west 0.5 mi, turn south and follow road to Old Gillespie Lake Dam and Spillway.

ESTABLISHMENT.-The staff gage was installed May 1, 1996 by J. J. Duncker and G. P. Johnson on a round, 

concrete water intake structure on Old Gillespie Lake Dam.

DRAINAGE AREA.-- 5.73 mi2

GAGE.-Staff gage is mounted on the water intake structure on the Old Gillespie Lake Dam. 

The elevation of 16.72' on the staff gage is 623.57" MSL.

REFERENCE AND BENCHMARKS.--A chiseled square on the right bank wingwall of the spillway has an 

elevation of 627.00' MSL (from levels run by local surveying firm, Crawford and Associates).

CHANNEL AND CONTROL.--The flow is controlled by the dam and spillway. The spillway is a concrete ogee 

weir that is 70' wide.

DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS.-During periods of low flow the flow from Old Lake Gillespie can be zero. 

Measurements during high flows can be made by wading at top of spillway.

POINT OF ZERO FLOW.--The lowest elevation of the crest of the spillway, 621.02' MSL, is the point of zero flow. 

This is a staff gage height of 14.17'.

REGULATION AND DIVERSION.-None.

COOPERATION.-This station was established to collect data which will be used in an IEPA Clean Lakes Program 

study.

OBSERVER.--Mr. Bill Loges, 1 Western Lane, Gillespie, IL 62033, (217) 839-3171, is the observer at this site. He 

records daily staff gage readings and rainfall totals.

Appendixl. 33
Daily Surface-Water Elevations

PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

r- r- 'X1 '-o LO 

PO PO PO ro PO

LO LO ^r ^r ^r 

PO PO PO PO PO

^T ^T PO PO CM 

PO PO PO PO PO

CM CM <N «H t-H

.

PO PO PO PO PO

o o o o o en

CTi LO Cn t-H

 X1 PO PO PO

CN CN CM CN PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

W 

U £

gg*

S

PL) D

^ O 

< U

J

E- 5

CM CM C\J CN CM

PO ro PO

r~ co o o CN

PO PO PO PO PO

PO CN CN --H O 

PO PO PO PO PO

CMCNCNCNCN CNCNCMCMCN CMCNCNCMCN CNCNCNCNCNCM 'X'CMCNCN

O O O O

PO PO on PO oo ro PO PO PO PO PO ro PO PO PO

r- co co r- rPO PO PO PO PO

CN CM CN CN CM CN

PO t-H co m rPO PO PO PO PO

PO PO PO ro PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

O O rH rH I

CMCMCNCNCN CMCNCNCNCN CNCMCNCNCN CNCMCNCNCN CM PO PO PO PO

PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

PO CN CN t-H O 

PO PO PO PO PO

o o cr> co co rPO PO CN CN CN CN

PO CM CM CM CM CN CN CN PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

CM PO PO CM

CM PO PO CN

o o o o en

r- co en o r- co en o

34 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1£% April 1997
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - ILLINOIS INSTALLAT

STATION NUMBER 05586684 DRY F AT OLD GILLESPIE LK DAM NR GILLESPIE, IL LAKE S

LATITUDE 390848 LONGITUDE 0895151 DATUM 606.85 STATE 17 COUNTY 

PROVISIONAL DATA cmptd from th rating 

DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, YEAR MAY 1996 TO APRIL 1997 

DAILY MEAN VALUES

DAY MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5.9

2.3

7.0

124

66

17

52

43

29

24

5.0

9.6

5.1 

.78 

.02

2.7 

2.9

1.1

.71 

1.0

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

11

12

13

14

15

13

3.9

4.0

4.6

12

3.2 

.69

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

16

17

18

19

20

4.5 

2.2 

.62

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

00

00

00

00

00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

21

22

23

24

25

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

00

00

00

00

00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

26

27

28

29

30

31

5.9

55

31

4.1

1.5

.05

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

00

00

00

00

00

.-_

,00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

TOTAL 

MEAN 

MAX 

MIN

512.57

16.5

124

.00

32.80

1.09

9.6

.00

0.00

.000

.00

.00
STATION NO. 05586685

WRITTEN 06-11-96

BY J. E . Muhs

CK 06-12-96

BY G. P. Johnson

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Description of Gaging Station on Southwest Branch Dry Fork at Hwy 16 near Gillespie, 111.

LOCATION.-Lat 39° 07' 45", Long 89° 52' 52", in SW1/4SE1/4SW1/4 sec.16T.8N. R.7W., Macoupin County, 

Hydrologic Unit 07130012, at State Highway 16, 3.0 mi west of Gillespie, 111.

TO REACH GAGE.-Drive 3.0 mi west of Gillespie on State Highway 16 to bridge crossing the creek.

ESTABLISHMENT.-- A stilling well and 55 gallon drum (to house gaging equipment) were installed at the site on 

May 1, 1996 by J. J. Duncker and G. P. Johnson.

DRAINAGE AREA.-- 2.40 sq. miles

GAGE.--A 6' in pvc stilling well is located on the downstream side of the triple box culverts (8' by 8') under the Route 16 

bridge. A float, tape and weight, and potentiometer are inside the well. Inside the drum is a CR10, SM192, and an ISCO 

3700 automatic sampler.

Two file marks on the outer lip of the Hoffman Box mounted on the top of the pvc stilling well have an arbitrary datum of 

15.00 ft.

CHANNEL AND CONTROL. During low flow, the control is a weir in the channel made of concrete blocks. At high flow, 

control above the gage is the triple 8 ft by 8 ft box culverts under Rt. 16.

DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS.-During periods of low flow measurements taken by wading 40 ft below bridge. 

During high flows discharge is calculated using water velocity measured in box culverts of bridge along with the geometry 

of the culverts.

REGULATION AND DIVERSION.-None.

COOPERATION.-This station was established to collect data which will be used in an IEPA Clean Lakes Program study.

36 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1f% April 1997
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - ILLINOIS INSTALLATION 01

STATION NUMBER 05586685 SOUTHWEST B DRY FORK AT HWY 16 NR GILLESPIE, IL STREAM SOURCE AGE

LATITUDE 390745 LONGITUDE 0895252 DRAINAGE AREA 2.4 DATUM STATE 17 COUN

PROVISIONAL DATA crlO 

GAGE HEIGHT, FEET, YEAR MAY 1996 TO APRIL 1997 

DAILY MEAN VALUES

DAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

TOTAL

MEAN

MAX

MIN

MAY

5.62

5.64

5.63 

6.67

6.06

5.84

7.05

6.38

5.88

6.28

5. 94

5.80

5.65

5.75

5.73

5.62

5.59

5.56

5.55

5.53

5.57

5.52

5.53

5.51

5.79

5.73

6.62

5.68

5.59

5.58

5.57

180.46

5.82

7.05

5.51

JUN

5.86

5.77.

5.61 

5.59

5.58

5.67

5.59

5.58

5.63

5.61

5.59

5.55

5.50

5.45

5.40

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.35

5.34

 

164.22

5.47

5.86

5.34

JUL

5.31

5.30

5.30 

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

164.31

5.30

5.31

5.30

AUG

5.30

5.30

5.30 

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.30

5.31

5.38

5.50

5.50

5.50

5.50

5.50

5.50

5.50

5.50

5.33

4.99

5.00

5.03

.5.03

5.02

4.99

5.00

5.00

163.68

5.28

5.50

4.99

SEP

5.00

5.00

4.98 

5.02

5.11

5.10

5.09

5.08

5.10

5.11

5.10

5.12

5.13

5.12

5.14

5.13

5.12

5.14

5.17

5.21

5.23

5.27

5.32

5.31

5.34

5.34

5.36

5.37

5.38

5.38

 

155.27

5.18

5.38

4.98

OCT

5.38

5.37

5.41 

5.41

5.41

5.41

5.42

5.43

5.43

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.43

5.44

5.43

5.43

5.46

5.46

5.46

5.45

5.44

5.47

5 .44

5.44

5.44

5.44

5.44

5 .44

5 .44

5 .44

168.34

5.43

5.47

5.37

NOV

5.44

5.44

5.44 

5.43

5.37

5.52

7.22

5.56

5.42

5.41

5.41

5.41

5.41

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.40

5.64

5.59

5.58

5.54

5.46

5.59

 

165.28

5.51

7.22

5.37

DEC

5.45

5.43

5.43 

5.42

5.44

5 .44

5.43

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5 .42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.43

5.43

5.43

5.43

5.43

 5.43

5.43

5.42

5.42

168.19

5.43

5.45

5.42

JAN

5.42

5.42

5.42 

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.42

5.43

5.43

5.43

5.43

5.43

5.43

5.43

168.09

5.42

5.43

5.42
Computed Daily Water Discharges

oo co oo r- r- r 

o o o o o 00000 o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o oo n oo

ooooo 

o o o o o

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

O O O CM CM I 

OOOOO I

ooooo 

ooooo

o o o r- o

O O O O 00

O O Ol O O 

m CO r-H O O

o o o o o o 

o o o o o o

0000

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

o o o o o o

000000

0000

o o o o

ooooo 

ooooo

ooooo 

ooooo

OOOOO I 

OOOOO I

r- r- CM 01 o

38 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996 April 1997
STATION NO. 05586686

WRITTEN 06-11-96

BY J. D. Muhs

CK 06-12-96

BY G. P. Johnson

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Description of Gaging Station on Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam near Gillespie, 111.

LOCATION.-Lat 39° 08' 39", Long 89° 53' 17", in SE1/4SE1/4SE1/4 sec.8T.8N. R.7W., Macoupin County, 

Hydrologic Unit 07130012, at dam and spillway of New Lake Gillespie, 3.6 mi. northwest of Gillespie, 111.

TO REACH GAGE.-Drive 3.3 mi west of Gillespie on State Highway 16, 1.1 mi north to Old Gillespie Lake spillway.

ESTABLISHMENT.-The wire-weight gage was installed May 1, 1996 by J. J. Duncker and G. P. Johnson 20 ft above New 

Gillespie Lake spillway. The staff gage was installed below May 1, 1996 by J. J. Duncker and G. P. Johnson at right concrete edge just below the spillway.

DRAINAGE AREA. 12.3 mi2

GAGE.-Wire-weight gage is 20 ft above New Gillespie Lake spillway near the public road at the dam. The staff gage is on 

the right edge concrete retaining wall, above the 5 ft wide outlet channel, and a crest stage gage is beside and above staff 

gage.

REFERENCE AND BENCHMARKS.-The top of the staff gage mounting board is 582.04 ft MSL. A chiseled square in 

the concrete wingwall on the left edge of the spillway is 613.01 ft MSL (from levels run by local surveying firm, Crawford 

and Associates).

CHANNEL AND CONTROL.-The dam and spillway control the flow at this station. A 5' wide flume at the bottom of the 

spillway is the ultimate control of flow at this station.

DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS.-Measurements taken in 5ft channel just below New Gillespie Lake spillway.

POINT OF ZERO FLOW.--The lowest elevation of the crest of the spillway is 604.09 ft MSL, which is a wire weight gage 

height of 10.00 ft, is the point of zero flow.

REGULATION AND DIVERSION.-None.

COOPERATION.-This station was established to collect data which will be used in an IEPA Clean Lakes Program st'dy.

OBSERVER.-Observer is Mr. Ron Durbin, #1 Carney Drive, Gillespie, IL 62033, 618-362-6363. He records daily gage 

elevations and rainfall totals.

Appendix 1. 39
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - ILLINOIS INSTALLATION 

STATION NUMBER 05586686 DRY F AT NEW GILLESPIE LK DAM NR GILLESPIE, IL LAKE SOURCE AG

PROVISIONAL DATA

DAY

1

2

3 

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

TOTAL

MEAN

MAX

MIN

MAY

10.13

10.08

10.10 

10.50

10.48

10.26

10.52

10.40

10.29

10.20

10.17

10.12

10.08

10.11

10.17

10.13

10.10

10.07

10.06

10.05

10.06

10.05

10.05

10.05

10.09

10.38

10.58

10.33

10.12

10.07

10.05

315.85

10.19

10.58

10.05

JUN

10.07

10.26

10.17 

10.08

10.06

10.12

10.10

10.07

10.08

10.09

10.08

10.06

10.06

10.05

10.05

10.05

10.04

10.03

10.03

10.02

10.00

9.99

9.98

9.97

' 9.96

9.94

9.91

9.89

9.87

9.85

 

300.93

10.03

10.26

9.85

LATITUDE

JUL

9.86

9.86

9.87 

9.83

9.82

9.79

9.76

9.73

9.70

9.66

9.62

9.58

9.55

9.55

9.55

9.51

9.48

9.45

9.42

9.40

9.40

9.37

9.34

9.30

9.26

9.21

9.18

9.16

9.12

9.09

9.05

294.47

9.50

9.87

9.05

390839 LONGITUDE 0895317 DATUM STATE 17 COUNTY 117 

wire weight gage 

GAGE HEIGHT, FEET, YEAR MAY 1996 TO APRIL 1997 

DAILY MEAN VALUES

AUG

9.02

8.98

8.94 

8.90

8.86

8.83

8.80

8.76

8.72

8.68

8.64

8.59

8.55

8.51

8.47

8.44

8.42

8.42

8.41

8.40

8.40

8.38

8.38

8.42

8.42

8.42

8.40

8.39

8.37

8.35

8.34

265.61

8.57

9.02

8.34

SEP

8.32

8.31

8.30 

8.28

8.27

8.25

8.24

8.22

8.20

8.18

8.14

8.09

8.04

8.01

7.98

7.96

7.93

7.89

7.85

7.81

7.78

7.75

7.72

7.74

7.75

7.75

7.75

7 .75

7.73

7.71

___

239.70

7.99

8.32

7.71

OCT

7.69

7.67

7.65 

7.63

7.61

7.59

7.56

7.54

7.52

7.50

7.47

7.44

7.42

7.39

7.35

7.32

7.29

7.27

7.27

7.24

7.21

7.22

7.24

7.21

7.19

7 .14

7.10

7.05

7.00

6.98

6.94

227.70

7.35

7.69

6.94

NOV

6.90

6.86

6.82 

6.81

6.78

6.89

7.70

8.51

8.62

8.60

8.58

8.56

8.54

8.52

8.50

8.48

8.46

8.44

8.44

8.42

8.40

8.38

8.36

8.33

8.33

8.32

8.32

8.30

8.28

8.26

- 

242.71

8.09

8.62

6.78

DEC

8.24

8.24

8.22 

8.20

8.19

8.18

8.16

8.14

8.12

8.10

8.08

8.06

8.05

8.03

8.01

8.00

7.99

7.98

7.97

7.96

7.95

7 .94

7.93

7.92

7.91

7.90

7.89

7.89

7.87

7.86

7.85

248.83

8.03

8.24

7.85

JAN

7 .84

7.83

7.82 

7.81

7.81

7.80

7.80

7 .80

7.80

7.80

7.82

7.84

7.86

7.88

7.90

7.92

7.94

7.95

7.98

8.05

8.10

8.15

8.24

8.29

8 .40

8.47

8.51

8.52

8.52

8.51

8.51

249.47

8.05

8.52

7 .80
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - ILLINOIS INSTALLATIO

STATION NUMBER 05586686 DRY F AT NEW GILLESPIE LK DAM NR GILLESPIE, IL LAKE SOU

LATITUDE 390839 LONGITUDE 0895317 DATUM STATE 17 COUNTY 1

PROVISIONAL DATA from wire weight 

DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, YEAR MAY 1996 TO APRIL 1997 

DAILY MEAN VALUES

DAY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

MAY

12

9.2

16

144

130

53

147

99

62

36

JUN JUL AUG SEP

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

OCT NOV

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

DEC JAN 

11

12

13

14

15

28

17

7.6

15

26

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

16

17

18

19

20

19

11

5.5 

4.7

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

21

22

23

24

25

5.2

4.6

4.4

4.4

12

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

26

27

28

29

30

31

93

172

77

17

7.2

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00 

.00

TOTAL 

MEAN 

MAX 

MIN

1250.2

40.3

172

4.4

199.63

6.65

53

.00
Raw water metered. May 1996 through April 1997

city of Gillespie water treatment plant 

from Dan Fisher, Consultant to City of Gillespie

Month and Year

May 1996

June 1996

July 1996

August 1996

September 1996

October 1996

November 1996

December 1996

January 1997

February 1997

March 1997

April 1997

Total

Gallons/month

24,560,000

24,920,000

27,360,000

30,145,000

24,600,000

24,900,000

22,403,000

26,500,000

29,400,000

25,500,000

24,700,000

24,100,000

309,088,000

Acre-feet/month

75.4

76.5

84.0

92.5

75.5

76.4

68.8

81.3

90.2

78.3

75.8

74.0

948.7

42 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996 April 1997
SECTioH-410 PAce 408

DATED JULYJ971

Ikfyi

^sgw+jp

c# »

4x5xlOB SERIES 410

ENCLOSED IMPELLER

MAX. SPHERES -

IMP. PATT. HQ.-444A133

CASE PATT. NO. -

UOMQ2? UfTU (AU)

200 400 60} BOO 100C 1200 

CAPACITY-G.P.M.

14X3 1600

AURORA RUMP

A UNfT OF atMMAJL »MHAI. CORTOitATtOM 

AUKOfIA -«-UMOt«

Appendix 1. 43
J'LINEI

TURBINE PUMP CURVE

JANUARY 1895

12HC 1760 RPM

10

200 400 400 90C 1000 F2DO 1400 1800 1«OQ 2000 U.S.CPK

100 150 200 290 360 400 4fiO

CAPAcrnr

IMPELLER DATA

f mpotter Number: 291 4 

Mcwrirt BRONZE 

Typ* CLOSED 

Thrutt F-acior: K-1 0.50 

Ey» Aro: 32.40 «q. In. 

Weight 11.50 )t>.

TRW; (A) 8.533* X 

(fl) 9.231* X 

(C) 5.875* X

yy

xr 

3cr

Ufatmum ubrMrgvfM* 

poovj f^ji of bottoni

EFFICIENCY CORRECTION

Numbtr orf Bowls i

Change as foflow* 4

234

-2 -1 0

C^w^hrf^ncym.y^^t^nWi^hort.p^r,

Pwfbmtano* b«Md on pumpmg cl»«r. fttMh wittr «ti 

 bfMivvs, vn^ with bowfc prooorty adju«t*d and «gb«

BOWL DATA

BowiNumMr 2915 CJ./DUW. 

Bow Dw. 1 1 -5^3 roox 1 1 ^ioOrfuo 

Max No. 8UQM 15 

On* Stage VSteigm 2MO Ifa 

Addl Stage Weight 100 it 

Std Shaft Di«. tjgaa in 

Sy. Lateral 0>7SO ^

Sucfcfl Size 8 - 10 In 

Max Sprwre Size 0.750 In 

Ma*. Cparaljort RS.I. &84 («pac«o()

THE PUMP SHOP

MliSOUia MACHINERY ft ENGINEERING CQ

916 South 4tft SfcMt $t.lcufe. MO 63102 «

44 Water. Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996 April 1997
Appendix 2. Water-Quality Data

Dry Fork Creek at Old Gillespie Lake Dam, 05586684, Sample analysis results

Date Time p00630 p00666 p00530 p00625 p00020 p00299 p00400 p00610 p00665 p00535 p00076 pOOOIQ p00094 pOOOOO

5/8/96 13:15

5/8/96 19:15

6/10/96 14:40

2/20/97 17:40

2/21/97 12:00

2/27/97 11:00

1.44

1.45

0.5

0.46

0.278

0.279

0.307

0.018

0.019

0.17

124

192

20

20

42

136

1.8

1.7

1.1

1.6

1

1.6

26

26

21

12.5

10

3

9.73

9.7

9.5

9.5

7.31

7.32

7.35

7.63

7.6

7.76

0.14

0.14

0.38

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.52

0.543

0.412

0.155

0.108

0.44

20

32

4

8

8

20

75

69

32

16

17

77

17

17

21.3

2

2

2

171

172

242

286

289

225

14.41

14.65

14.22

14.25

14.45

14.7

Code

p00630

p00666

P00530

p00625

p00020

p00299

p00400

p00610

p00665

p00535

p00076

poooto

p00094 

pOOOOO

Analyte

Total Nitrate + Nitrite, in mg/L

Dissolved Phosphorus, in mg/L

Total suspended solids, in mg/L

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, in mg/L

Air temp, in degrees C

D.O., in mg/L

pH

Total Ammonia, in mg/L

Total Phosphorus, in mg/L

Solids, volatile, in mg/L

Turbidity, in NTU

Water temp, in degrees C

Spec. Cond

Gage Height, in feet

Appendix T. 45
Southwest Br Dry Fork Creek at Highway 16 near Gillespie, IL, 05586685, sample analysis results

Date Time p00630 p00666 p00530 p00625 p00020 p00299 p00400 p00410 p00610 300076 pOOOIQ P0(n94 pOOOOO

96/06/10

96/05/27

96/05/27

96/05/26

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/25

96/05/08

96/05/08

96/05/08

96/05/08

96/05/08

96/05/08

96/05/08

96/05/06

97/02/27

97/02/21

97/02/20

97/02/20

97/02/20

97/02/20

97/02/20

97/02/21

97/02/27

97/02/27

13:00

5:09

4:59

1:09

23:14

22:20

22:04

21:44

20:59

20:44

20:34

20:29

16:05

15:20

15:00

18:46

14:37

14:15

14:00

14:15

9:30

12:15

15:00

14:40

17:00

18:00

20:00

10:18

11:45

11:40

0.72

0.65

0.52

1.26

1.22

1

0.92

1.03

0.97

0.9

0.71

0.42

1.52

1.53

1.5

1.31

1.45

1.98

1.95

2.5

0.96

2.9

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.7

2.9

3.1

0.99

1.67

0.122

0.153

0.217

0.341

0.279

0.315

0.259

0.3

0.242

0.272

0.122

0.145

0.254

0.254

0.238

0.265

0.226

0.226

0.238

0.155

0.215

0.288

0.29

0.316

0.276

0.316

0.298

0.297

0.212

0.35

34

2425

1470

935

610

995

1390

1535

2185

1145

7105

2595

536

956

524

244

262

3296

1676

24

188

100

665

585

490

455

340

155

128

96

0.8

6.5

3.5

3.7

3

3.9

8.6

9.1

12.3

9

11.6

6.8

49

47

39

43

37

36

36

1.1

1.7

2.2

6

3.7

3.5

3.4

2.8

2.4

1.4

1.5

21 9.2

21

21

21

21

26

26

26

26

26

26

26

20 9.11

3 12.4

10 12

12.5 12

12.5 12

12.5 12

12.5 12

12.5 12

10 12

3 14.4

3 12.1

Code

P00630

p00666

P00530

p00625

p00020

p00299

p00400

p00610

p00665

P00535

p00076

p00010

p00094

pOOOOO

7.65 64 0.04 0.213

6.84 30 0.4 2

6.92 38 0.096 1.04

6.95 31 0.135 1.04

6.93 19 0.321 1.45

6.9 17 0.347 1.56

7.18 25 0.358 2.03

6.9 16 0.472 2.17

6.9 15 1.13 4.38

7.14 23 0.667 2.09

6.93 32 0.886 3.22

6.9 54 0.319 2.05

7.18 0.15 1.15

7.18 0.14 1.33

7.16 0.14 1.65

7.19 0.07 0.735

7.22 0.14 1.99

7.4 0.21 1.81

7.6 0.02 1 .46

7.6 0.11 0.218

7.84 40 0.13 0.47

7.67 55 0.01 0.359

7.5 33 0.21 1

7.52 31 0.04 1

7.44 35 0.02 0.814

7.54 38 0.07 0.687

7.64 41 0.24 0.685

7.68 56 0.01 0.493

7.85 42 0.14 0.411

7.78 31 0.16 0.59

Analyte

Total Nitrate + Nitrite, in mg/L

Dissolved Phosphorus, in mg/L

Total suspended solids, in mg/L

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, in mg/L

Air temp, in degrees C

D.O., in mg/L

pH

Total Ammonia, In mg/L

Total Phosphorus, in mg/L

Solids, volatile, In mg/L

Turbidity, in NTU

Water temp, In degrees C

Spec. Cond

Gage Height, in feet

6

180

135

110

70

110

130

165

205

150

515

205

56

100

56

52

64

252 .

132

6

20

16

60

75

55

50

35

25

16

12

36

230

170

310

180

190

250

200

210

220

170

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

22

80

97

920

93

52

160

150

96

81

75

19

26

16

16

16

16

16

16

13

2

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2

2

548

276

329

238

206

180

172

171

170

182

289

430

154

139

127

208

1287

150

238

413

167

276

198

200

202

207

225

272

178

167

5.6

7.46

6.09

6.01

6.52

7.35

7.61

8.22

8.89

8.35

7.58

6.97

7.35

8.3

8.8

6.4

9.25

8.75

8.16

5.71

6.19

6.04

7.56

7.66

6.86

6.63

6.38

6.16

6.1

6.1

46 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Ivlacoupin County, Illinois, May 19M April 1997
Dry Fork Creek at New Gillespie Lake Dam, 05586686, Sample analysis results

Date Time p00630 p00666 p00530 p00625 p00020 p00299 p00400 p00610 p00665 p00535 p00076 pOOOIQ p00094 prOOOO

5/8/96 12:30 0.94 0.131

5/8/96 18:06 0.95 0.133

6/10/96 13:45 0.83 0.088

2/21/97 11:15 0.27 0.009

2/27/97 10:20 0.6 0.06

38

32

20

19

82

1.5

1.2

0.85

1

1.3

26

26

21

10

3

8.8

8.81

10.1

9.5

10.1

7.48

7.42

8.7

7.7

7.76

0.22

0.22

0.01

0.02

0.23

0.25

0.243

0.155

0.06

0.23

6

6

6

5

10

22

25

35

6.8

47

15.5

15.5

22.8

2

2

239

236

268

343

280

10.3

10.46

10.1

10

10.7

Code

P00630

P00666

p00530

p00625

p00020

p00299

p00400

p00610

p00665

p00535

p00076

p00010

p00094

pOOOOO

Analyte

Total Nitrate + Nitrite, in mg/L

Dissolved Phosphorus, in mg/L

Total suspended solids, in mg/L

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, in mg/L

Air temp, in degrees C

D.O., in mg/L

PH

Total Ammonia, in mg/L

Total Phosphorus, in mg/L

Solids, volatile, in mg/L

Turbidity, in NTU

Water temp, in degrees C

Spec. Cond

Gage Height, in feet

Appendix 7. 47
Daily water discharge at Old Gillespie Lake outflow. May 1996-April 1997, in cubic feet per second

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

5.9

2.3

7

124

66

17

52

43

29

24

13

3.9

4

4.6

12

4.5

2.2

.62

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.9

55

31

4.1

1.5

.05.

512.57

June

5

9.6

5.1

.78

.02

2.7

2.9

1.1

.71

1

3.2

.69

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32.80

July

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Aug.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sept.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oct.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nov.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

Dec.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Jan.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Feb.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.6

21

19

8.2

4.4

13

122

69

17

275.2

M-r.

14

7.7

4.7

4.3

3.3

4.5

6.4

8.8

16

11

4.7

3.1

5.8

23

9.2

3.1

1.9

1.1

.84

.15

0

0

0

0

0

0

C

C

C

C

C

13", 59

Apr.

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

0

0

0

0

0

0

48 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996 April 1997
Daily total kjeldahl nitrogen loads at Old Gillespie Lake outflow, May 1996-April 1997, in ton per dry

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.02

.01

.03

.53

.27

.07

.21

.18

.12

.10

.05

.01

.01

.02

.05

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.23

.12

.01

.01

.00

2.10

June

0.02

.04

.02

.00

.00

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.11

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.08

.07

.03

.02

.05

.52

.29

.07

1.14

Mar.

0.05

.03

.02

.02

.01

.02

.02

.03

.06

.04

.02

.01

.02

.09

.03

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.50

Apr.

0.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.CO

.CO

.CO

.CO

.CO

.CO

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Appendix 2. 49
Daily total nitrite plus nitrate loads at Old Gillespie Lake outflow, May 1996-April 1997, in tor per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.01

.00

.01

.46

.21

.04

.16

.12

.07

.06

.03

.01

.01

.01

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.17

.08

.01

.00

.00

1.50

June

0.01

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.04

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.05

.04

.02

.01

.03

.45

.22

.04

0.86

Mar.

0.03

.01

.01

.01

.00

.01

.01

.02

.04

.02

.01

.00

.01

.06

.02

.oc

.oc

.oc

.oc

.oc

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.26

Apr.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

50 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997
Daily total suspended sediment loads at Old Gillespie Lake outflow, May 1996-April 1997, in tons per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.64

.15

.82

61.98

24.02

3.13

16.78

12.61

6.98

5.25

2.09

.34

.36

.44

1.85

.42

.14

.02

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.64

18.26

7.71

.37

.08

.00

165.08

June

0.50

1.32

.51

.03

.00

.20

.22

.05

.03

.04

.25

.03

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

3.18

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

-.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.09

4.30

3.70

1.04

.41

2.09

60.48

25.68

3.13

100.92

Mar.

2.33

.95

.45

.40

.27

.42

.72

1.16

2.85

1.62

.45

.24

.62

4.92

1.24

.24

.12

.05

.03

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

19.08

Apr.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Appendix ?, 51
Daily total phosphorus loads at Old Gillespie Lake outflow. May 1996-April 1997, in ton per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.00

.00

.01

.13

.07

.02

.05

.04

.03

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.05

.03

.00

.00

.00

0.47

June

0.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.01

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.02

.01

.00

.01

.13

.07

.02

0.28

Mar.

0.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.oc

.oc

.oc

0.09

Apr.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

52 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997
Daily water discharge at W Br. Dry Fork Creek at Rt. 16, May 1996-April 1997, in cubic feet per second

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.75

.89

.9

62

9.2

4.3

61

20

4

14

4.7

2.7

1.2

3.9

2

.69

.51

.46

.41

.37

.48

.34

.38

.32

8.8

2.1

47

1.4

.53

.5

.47

256.3

June

7.4

3.1

.6

.53

.5

1.4

.52

.5

.97

.68

.54

.43

.3

.18

.05

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

17.7

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.07

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.19

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

2.66

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.02

.01

.07

.08

.07

.07

.11

.14

.13

.11

.11

.1

.11

.13

.14

.13

.13

.19

.2

.21

.17

.14

.22

.16

.15

.15

.15

.15

.15

.15

.15

4

Nov.

0.15

.15

.15

.12

.01

2.3

77

1.9

.09

.07

.06

.06

.06

.06

.06

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

2.4

.62

.5

.41

.2

.76

87.58

Dec.

0.16

.13

.12

.1

.14

.16

.12

.11

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.12

.13

.13

.13

.13

.13

.12

.1

.1

3.53

Jan.

0.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.11

.12

.13

.13

.12

.12

.13

.13

3.29

Feb.

0.13

.13

.13

.13

.35

.49

.5

.42

.32

.32

.32

.32

.31

.32

.34

.32

.34

.43

.42

15

12

2.4

.53

.44

.41

164

23

1.1

224.92

Mar.

1.3

1.3

.5

.46

.45

.44

.42

.4

7.3

1.2

.53

.5

11

10

.58

.54

.53

.52

.52

.5

.5

.5

.48

.48

.48

.48

.48

.48

.47

.47

.47

44.28

Apr.

0.47

.47

.46

.46

.45

.45

.45

.44

.43

.43

.43

.42

.43

.42

.42

.41

.41

.41

.4

.41

.44

.42

.41

.41

.4

.4

.4

.39

.39

.38

12.71

Appendix 2. 53
Daily total kjeldahl nitrogen loads at W Br. Dry Fork Creek at Rt. 16, May 1996-April 1997, in tons per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.00

.00

.00

1.94

.07

.02

1.89

.28

.02

.15

.02

.01

.00

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.07

.01

1.21

.00

.00

.00

.00

5.72

June

0.05

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.06

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

2.81

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

2.84

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.17

.12

.01

.00

.00

.00

10.20

.36

.00

10.86

Mar.

0.00

.00

.oc

.oc

.oc

.oc

.oc

.oc

.05

.00

.00

.00

.10

.09

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.24

Apr.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

54 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997
Daily total nitrite plus nitrate loads at W Br. Dry Fork Creek at Rt. 16, May 1996-April 1997, in ton

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.00

.00

.00

.23

.03

.02

.23

.07

.02

.05

.02

.01

.00

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.03

.01

.17

.01

.00

.00

.00

0.92

June

0.03

.01

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.05

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.28

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.31

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.06

.04

.01

.00

.00

.00

.60

.09

.00

0.80

Mar.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.03

.00

.00

.00

.04

.04

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.11

Apr.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Appendix 2. 55
Daily total suspended sediment loads at W Br. Dry Fork Creek at Rt. 16, May 1996-April 1997, in tons per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.08

.11

.11

169.22

6.24

1.67

164.52

23.90

1.48

12.89

1.95

.75

.18

1.41

.44

.07

.04

.04

.03

.02

.04

.02

.03

.02

5.77

.48

104.79

.24

.04

.04

.04

496.66

June

4.28

.95

.06

.04

.04

.24

.04

.04

.13

.07

.05

.03

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.60

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.17

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

0.13

Nov.

0.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.57

246.18

.41

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.61

.06

.04

.03

.01

.08

248.02

Dec.

0.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.02

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00 .

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.04

.04

.03

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.02

.03

.03

14.53

9.87

.61

.04

.03

.03

910.61

30.43

.16

966.68

Mar.

0.21

.21

.04

.04

.03

.03

.03

.03

4.18

.18

.04

.04

8.49

7.20

.05

.05

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

.04

21.45

Apr.

0.04

.04

.04

.04

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

.03

0.94

56 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997
Daily total phosphorus loads at W Br. Dry Fork Creek at Rt. 16, May 1996-April 1997, in ton per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.00

.00

.00

.27

.02

.01

.26

.05

.00

.03

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.18

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.84

June

0.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.01

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.37

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.37

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.03

.02

.00

.00

.00

.00

l.li

.06

.00

1.22

Mar.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.00

.02

.02

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.05

AP".

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.CO

.CO

.CO

.CO

.00

.CO

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Appendix 2. 57
Daily water discharges at New Gillespie Lake outflow. May 1996-April 1997, in cubic feet pe- second

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

12

9.2

16

144

130

53

147

99

62

36

28

17

7.6

15

26

19

11

6.8

5.5

4.7

5.2

4.6

4.4

4.4

12

93

172

77

17

7.2

4.6

1,250.2

June

7.1

53

29

8

5.9

16

12

6.4

8.1

11

7.8

5.7

5.3

4.5

4.4

4.4

3.6

2.7

2.6

1.8

.33

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

199.63

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

8.1

157

195

54

414.10

l^«r.

25

21

14

7.7

6.7

6.4

4.6

5.7

36

42

24

12

15

55

33

14

7.7

6.6

5.6

4.6

3.7

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.4

2.7

2.6

2.7

3.3

3.5

382.5

Apr.

3.2

2.6

2.6

2.9

5.6

3.8

2.8

2.6

2.7

3.3

2.7

1.8

.99

.12

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.06

3.3

3.5

2.8

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

1.9

1.8

1.7

63.17

58 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 15%-April 1997
Daily total phosphorus loads at New Gillespie Lake outflow. May 1996-April 1997, in ton per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.01

.00

.01

.10

.09

.03

.10

.06

.04

.02

.01

.01

.00

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.06

.12

.05

.01

.00

.00

0.76

June

0.00

.03

.02

.00

.00

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.07

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.11

.14

.03

0.28

Mar.

0.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.02

.01

.01

.01

.03

.02

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.16

Ap-.

0.00

.00

.00

.CO

.CO

.CO

.CO

.CO

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Appendix 2. 59
Daily total nitrite plus nitrate loads at New Gillespie Lake outflow, May 1996-April 1997, in ton per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.02

.01

.03

.32

.29

.10

.33

.21

.12

.07

.05

.03

.01

.03

.05

.03

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.02

.20

.39

.16

.03

.01

.01

2.61

June

0.01

.10

.05

.01

.01

.03

.02

.01

.01

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.34

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.35

.45

.11

0.92

Mar.

0.04

.04

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.07

.0?

.04

.02

.0?

.11

.Of

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.63

Apr.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.02

60 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997
Daily total suspended sediment loads at New Gillespie Lake outflow. May 1996-April 1997, in tons per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

1.01

.75

1.40

16.71

14.89

5.41

17.11

10.95

6.46

3.50

2.64

1.50

.61

1.30

2.42

1.70

.92

.53

.42

.35

.39

.34

.33

.33

1.01

10.21

20.42

8.25

1.50

.57

.34

134.27

June

0.56

5.41

2.74

.64

.46

1.40

1.01

.50

.65

.92

.62

.44

.40

.34

.33

.33

.26

.19

.18

.12

.02

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

17.52

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.65

18.43

23.53

5.53

48.14

Mar.

2.32

1.91

1.21

.61

.53

.50

.34

.44

3.50

4.16

2.22

1.01

1.30

5.64

3.17

1.21

.61

.52

.43

.34

.27

.25

.25

.25

.25

.24

.19

.18

.19

.24

.25

34.53

Apr.

0.23

0.18

0.18

.20

.43

.28

.20

.18

.19

.24

.19

.12

.06

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.24

.25

.20

.18

.18

.18

.18

.13

.12

.11

4.46

Appendix 2. 61
Daily total kjeldahl nitrogen loads at New Gillespie Lake outflow, May 1996-April 1997, in tot per day

Day

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Total

May

0.04

.03

.05

.48

.43

.17

.49

.33

.20

.11

.09

.05

.02

.05

.08

.06

.03

.02

.02

.01

.02

.01

.01

.01

.04

.31

.58

.25

.05

.02

.01

4.07

June

0.02

.17

.09

.02

.02

.05

.04

.02

.02

.03

.02

.02

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.61

July

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Aug.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Sept.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Oct.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Nov.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Dec.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Jan.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

0.00

Feb.

0.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.02

.53

.66

.17

1.38

Mar.

0.08

.07

.04

.02

.02

.02

.01

.02

.11

.13

.08

.04

.05

.18

.1C

.04

.02

.02

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

1.19

Apr.

0.01

.01

.01

.01

.02

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

0.22

62 Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Budgets, and Bathymetric Survey of Old and New Gillespie Lakes, Macoupin County, Illinois, May 1996-April 1997