Home draft-middle-illinois

Reference URL

To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or document

To embed the entire object, paste this HTML in website

To link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or document

To embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL and LRS Development%3A Watershed Characterization and Source Assessment Report (Stage 1) [review draft]

draft-middle-illinois

1 of 5

View Description

View PDF & Text

Download

small (250x250 max)

medium (500x500 max)

large ( > 500x500)

Full Resolution

This page

All

Subset

PDF
Text

Text Search...

Middle Illinois River Total Maximum Daily Load and Load Reduction Strategies
DRAFT
October 6, 2011
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Region 5
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 620
Cleveland, OH 44113 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -ii- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ xiv
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ xv
1. Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Water Quality Impairments ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Setting ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Problem Identification ............................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Jurisdictions and Population ..................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 11
1.6 Land Use / Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 12
1.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 15
1.8 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 20
1.8.1 Seasonal Flow Variation ............................................................................................... 24
1.8.2 Flow Duration Curves .................................................................................................. 26
1.9 Monitoring and Special Studies .............................................................................................. 28
1.9.1 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring .............................................................................. 28
1.9.2 Special Studies ............................................................................................................. 35
2. Watershed Source Assessment ............................................................................................. 39
2.1 Overview of Watershed Sources ............................................................................................ 39
2.1.1 Point Sources ............................................................................................................... 39
2.1.2 Nonpoint Sources ......................................................................................................... 44
3. TMDL Endpoints and LRS Targets ......................................................................................... 50
3.1 Applicable Standards ............................................................................................................. 50
3.1.1 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................... 50
3.1.2 Water Quality Criteria .................................................................................................. 50
3.2 Load Reduction Strategy Targets ........................................................................................... 52
3.2.1 Nitrogen and Phosphorus .............................................................................................. 52
3.2.2 Total Suspended Solids, Sedimentation, and Siltation ................................................... 53
4. Technical Approach for TMDL and LRS ................................................................................. 55
4.1 Waterbody-Pollutant Impairments .......................................................................................... 55
4.2 Watershed Clusters ................................................................................................................ 58
4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Relationships .......................................................................... 60
4.4 Approach to Estimate Flow .................................................................................................... 62
4.4.1 Drainage Area Weighting Technique ............................................................................ 65
4.4.2 Regression Analysis ..................................................................................................... 66
4.5 TMDL Derivation .................................................................................................................. 68
4.5.1 Load Allocations .......................................................................................................... 68
4.5.2 Wasteload Allocations .................................................................................................. 68
4.5.3 Margin of Safety .......................................................................................................... 70
4.5.4 Critical Conditions and Seasonality .............................................................................. 71
4.6 Load Reduction Strategies ..................................................................................................... 72
5. Illinois River Main Stem .......................................................................................................... 73
5.1 Source Assessment ................................................................................................................ 76
5.1.1 Partridge Creek ............................................................................................................ 82
5.1.2 Tenmile Creek .............................................................................................................. 82 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -iii- 6, 2011 DRAFT
5.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis .................................................................................................. 82
5.2.1 Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................ 83
5.2.2 Fecal Coliform ............................................................................................................. 90
5.2.3 Phosphorus ................................................................................................................... 98
5.2.4 Nitrogen ..................................................................................................................... 104
5.2.5 Manganese (Site D-30) ............................................................................................... 109
5.2.6 Total Dissolved Solids (Site D-30).............................................................................. 111
5.3 Illinois River at Hennepin TMDL and LRS (Site D-16) ........................................................ 112
5.3.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 114
5.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 115
5.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 115
5.4 Illinois River at Peoria Intake TMDL and LRS (Site D-30) .................................................. 118
5.4.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 120
5.4.2 Manganese TMDL ..................................................................................................... 121
5.4.3 Total Dissolved Solids TMDL .................................................................................... 123
5.4.4 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 124
5.4.5 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 124
5.5 Illinois River at Pekin TMDL and LRS (Site D-05) .............................................................. 126
5.5.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 130
5.5.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 131
5.5.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 131
5.6 Illinois River at Lacon LRS (Site D-09) ............................................................................... 133
5.6.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 135
5.6.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 135
6. Big Bureau Creek .................................................................................................................. 138
6.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 140
6.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 144
6.2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 144
6.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 148
6.2.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 151
6.3 West Bureau Creek TMDL and LRS (site DQD-01) ............................................................. 157
6.3.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 157
6.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 158
6.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 159
6.4 Big Bureau Creek TMDL and LRS (Site DQ-03) ................................................................. 161
6.4.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 161
6.4.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 163
6.4.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 163
6.5 Big Bureau Creek LRS (Site DQ-04) ................................................................................... 166
6.5.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 167
6.5.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 167
7. Farm Creek ............................................................................................................................ 170
7.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 172
7.1.1 Ackerman Creek......................................................................................................... 175
7.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 175
7.2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 175
7.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 177
7.2.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 179
7.2.4 Chloride ..................................................................................................................... 182 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -iv- 6, 2011 DRAFT
7.3 Farm Creek TMDL and LRS................................................................................................ 184
7.3.1 Chloride TMDL ......................................................................................................... 185
7.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 187
7.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 187
8. Kickapoo Creek ..................................................................................................................... 190
8.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 192
8.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 195
8.2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 195
8.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 197
8.2.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 198
8.3 Kickapoo Creek TMDL and LRS ......................................................................................... 201
8.3.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 202
8.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 203
8.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 203
9. Senachwine Creek ................................................................................................................ 206
9.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 208
9.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 210
9.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 210
9.2.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 211
9.3 Senachwine Creek LRS ....................................................................................................... 214
9.3.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 214
9.3.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 214
10. Crow Creek and Snag Creek LRS ......................................................................................... 217
10.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 219
10.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 222
10.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 222
10.2.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 223
10.3 Crow Creek and Snag Creek LRS ........................................................................................ 226
10.3.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 226
10.3.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 227
11. Sandy Creek LRS .................................................................................................................. 229
11.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 231
11.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 234
11.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 234
11.2.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 235
11.3 Sandy Creek LRS ................................................................................................................ 238
11.3.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 238
11.3.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 239
12. Lake Depue........................................................................................................................... 241
12.1 Water Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................ 241
12.1.1 Critical Conditions and Internal Loading .................................................................... 247
12.2 Lake Depue TMDL and LRS ............................................................................................... 248
12.2.1 Total Phosphorus TMDL ............................................................................................ 248
12.2.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 251
13. Senachwine Lake .................................................................................................................. 252
13.1 Water Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................ 252
13.2 Senachwine Lake TMDL and LRS ....................................................................................... 257 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -v- 6, 2011 DRAFT
13.2.1 Total Phosphorus TMDL ............................................................................................ 257
13.2.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 260
14. Public Participation ............................................................................................................... 261
15. Implementation and Reasonable Assurance ....................................................................... 262
15.1 Existing Implementation Activities ...................................................................................... 262
15.1.1 Illinois Basin Restoration Comprehensive Plan with Integrated Environmental Assessment (USACE 2007) - Projects in the TMDL Watershed .............................................. 262
15.1.2 River Bluff Restoration .............................................................................................. 264
15.1.3 New Locally Led Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program .................................... 265
15.1.4 Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) Program Project in Big Bureau and Senachwine Watersheds .......................................................................................................... 265
15.2 Implementation Activities .................................................................................................... 266
15.2.1 Future Anticipated Activities in the Watershed ........................................................... 267
15.2.2 Implementation Activities for Agricultural Sources .................................................... 268
15.2.3 Implementation Activities for Urban Sources .............................................................. 268
15.3 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 272
15.4 Reasonable Assurance ......................................................................................................... 273
15.4.1 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ..................................................... 273
15.4.2 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ........................................................................ 274
15.4.3 Conservation 2000 ...................................................................................................... 274
15.4.4 Nonpoint Source Management Program (NSMP) ........................................................ 274
15.4.5 Agricultural Loan Program ......................................................................................... 275
15.4.6 Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative (ICCI) ..................................................... 275
16. References ............................................................................................................................ 276
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................... 280
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -vi- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figures
Figure 1-1. Illinois River at Spring Bay. .................................................................................................. 1
Figure 1-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. ................................................................................... 2
Figure 1-3.The lock and dam system of the Illinois River (USGS, 2007). ................................................. 8
Figure 1-4. Illinois River (Peoria Area) population density. ................................................................... 10
Figure 1-5. Average precipitation and monthly temperatures for Peoria.................................................. 11
Figure 1-6. Precipitation intensity -- Peoria airport gage......................................................................... 12
Figure 1-7. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed land use. .................................................................... 14
Figure 1-8. Illinois River basin topography. ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 1-9. Illinois River basin hydrologic soil groups. .......................................................................... 19
Figure 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. ............................................................................. 22
Figure 1-11. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2007. ................................ 23
Figure 1-12. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2008. ................................ 23
Figure 1-13. Seasonal variation of Illinois River flows. .......................................................................... 24
Figure 1-14. Seasonal variation of Big Bureau Creek flows.................................................................... 25
Figure 1-15. Peak flow history for Illinois River at Henry gage. ............................................................. 25
Figure 1-16. Peak flow history for Big Bureau Creek gage. .................................................................... 26
Figure 1-17. Flow duration curve for Illinois River at Henry gage. ......................................................... 27
Figure 1-18. Flow duration curve for Big Bureau Creek at Princeton gage. ............................................ 28
Figure 1-19. Location of Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. ..................................................... 30
Figure 1-20. Longitudinal profile of fecal coliform for the Illinois River (Peoria area). .......................... 31
Figure 1-21. Longitudinal profile of total suspended solids for the Illinois River (Peoria area). .............. 32
Figure 1-22. Longitudinal profile of total phosphorus for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ....................... 33
Figure 1-23. Longitudinal profile of nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ... 34
Figure 1-24. Longitudinal profile of conductivity for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ............................. 35
Figure 1-25. USGS bacteria data on 10/10/2007..................................................................................... 38
Figure 2-1. Channel evolution model (from Simon and Hupp, 1986). ..................................................... 46
Figure 2-2. Correlation between animal unit density and fecal coliform counts....................................... 49
Figure 3-1. Nutrient ecoregions. ............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 3-2. TSS concentration zones. ..................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4-1. TMDL locations. ................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 4-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters. ..................................................................... 59
Figure 4-3. Unit area flow duration curves for Illinois River tributaries. ................................................. 63
Figure 4-4. Unit area flow duration curves for USGS gage locations along the Illinois River. ................. 64
Figure 4-5. Project area overview including watershed clusters, monitoring stations, and USGS gages. .. 67
Figure 5-1. View of Illinois River in the lakes area. ............................................................................... 73
Figure 5-2. Illinois River main stem segments and stations .................................................................... 75
Figure 5-3. Illinois River main stem watershed cluster land use.............................................................. 77
Figure 5-4. Illinois River main stem watershed cluster segments and stations. ........................................ 81
Figure 5-5. Illinois River main stem longitudinal TSS profile................................................................. 84
Figure 5-6. Illinois River tributary longitudinal TSS profile. .................................................................. 85
Figure 5-7. Annual TSS concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010. ................................... 86
Figure 5-8. TSS water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010. ......................... 87
Figure 5-9. Annual TSS concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 - 2010. ............................. 88
Figure 5-10. TSS water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. .................. 88
Figure 5-11. Annual TSS concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 - 2010. ....................................... 89
Figure 5-12. TSS water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1979 – 2010. ............................. 90
Figure 5-13. Illinois River main stem longitudinal fecal coliform profile. ............................................... 91
Figure 5-14. Illinois River tributary longitudinal fecal coliform profile. ................................................. 91
Figure 5-15. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010. .................. 92 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -vii- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 5-16. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010. ............................... 93
Figure 5-17. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010......... 93
Figure 5-18. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Lacon, 1977 - 2010. ....................... 94
Figure 5-19. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Illinois River at Lacon, 1977 - 2010. ..................................... 94
Figure 5-20. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Lacon, 1978 – 2010. ............. 95
Figure 5-21. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 - 2010. ............ 95
Figure 5-22. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 – 2010. ......................... 96
Figure 5-23. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. .. 96
Figure 5-24. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 - 2010. ........................ 97
Figure 5-25. Seasonal fecal coliform, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 – 2010. ............................................ 97
Figure 5-26. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1979 – 2010. .............. 98
Figure 5-27. Illinois River main stem longitudinal phosphorus profile. ................................................... 99
Figure 5-28. Illinois River tributary longitudinal phosphorus profile. ..................................................... 99
Figure 5-29. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1984 - 2010. .................... 100
Figure 5-30. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010. .......... 101
Figure 5-31. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1969 - 2010. .............. 102
Figure 5-32. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. ..... 102
Figure 5-33. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1980 - 2010. .......................... 103
Figure 5-34. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1980 – 2010. ................ 104
Figure 5-35. Illinois River main stem longitudinal nitrogen profile....................................................... 105
Figure 5-36. Illinois River tributary longitudinal nitrogen profile. ........................................................ 105
Figure 5-37. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010.......................... 106
Figure 5-38. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010. .............. 107
Figure 5-39. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 - 2010. ................... 107
Figure 5-40. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. ......... 108
Figure 5-41. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 - 2010. ............................... 108
Figure 5-42. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1979 – 2010. .................... 109
Figure 5-43. Annual manganese concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1999 - 2005. ............... 110
Figure 5-44. Manganese water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1999 – 2005. ..... 110
Figure 5-45. Annual total dissolved solids concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 2006 - 2008. 111
Figure 5-46. Total dissolved solids water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 2006 - 2008. .......................................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5-47. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ............................. 114
Figure 5-48. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ........................ 116
Figure 5-49. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16)....................................... 117
Figure 5-50. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ....................... 120
Figure 5-51. Manganese load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ............................ 122
Figure 5-52. Total dissolved solids load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ............ 123
Figure 5-53. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ................... 125
Figure 5-54. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ................................ 126
Figure 5-55. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). ................................... 130
Figure 5-56. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05)................................ 132
Figure 5-57. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). ............................................ 133
Figure 5-58. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). .............................. 136
Figure 5-59. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). ........................................... 137
Figure 6-1. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ............................................... 139
Figure 6-2. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster land use. .................................................................... 141
Figure 6-3. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ...................................................... 143
Figure 6-4. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1979 - 2010. ..................... 144
Figure 6-5. Seasonal fecal coliform concentrations, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton , 1979-2010. ......... 145
Figure 6-6. Seasonal fecal coliform concentrations, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1980-2010............ 145 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -viii- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 6-7. Seasonal fecal coliform concentrations, Big Bureau Creek at Outlet, 2009-2010. ............... 146
Figure 6-8. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1979 – 2010. 147
Figure 6-9. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1980 – 2010. . 147
Figure 6-10. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Outlet, 2009 – 2010..... 148
Figure 6-11. Annual TSS concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1977 - 2010. .................................. 149
Figure 6-12. TSS water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1977 – 2010. .............. 150
Figure 6-13. TSS water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1979 – 2010. ............... 150
Figure 6-14. TSS water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Outlet, 2004 – 2010. ................... 151
Figure 6-15. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1978 - 2010. ....................... 152
Figure 6-16. Annual phosphorus concentrations, West Bureau at Wyanet, 1984 - 2010. ....................... 152
Figure 6-17. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1977 - 2010............................. 153
Figure 6-18. Annual nitrogen concentrations, West Bureau at Wyanet, 1979 - 2010. ............................ 153
Figure 6-19. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1978 – 2010. ... 155
Figure 6-20. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek, 1984 – 2010. .................... 155
Figure 6-21. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1977 – 2010. ....... 156
Figure 6-22. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1979 – 2010. ........ 156
Figure 6-23. Fecal coliform load duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01).................. 158
Figure 6-24. Total phosphorus load duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ............ 159
Figure 6-25. Nitrogen load duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ......................... 160
Figure 6-26. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ................... 162
Figure 6-27. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ............... 164
Figure 6-28. Nitrogen load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ............................ 165
Figure 6-29. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). .............. 168
Figure 6-30. Nitrogen load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). ........................... 169
Figure 7-1. View of Farm Creek. ......................................................................................................... 170
Figure 7-2. Farm Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ......................................................... 171
Figure 7-3. Farm Creek watershed cluster land use. ............................................................................. 173
Figure 7-4. Farm Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ................................................................ 174
Figure 7-5. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ................. 176
Figure 7-6. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979-2010. ................................. 176
Figure 7-7. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 – 2010. ....... 177
Figure 7-8. Annual TSS concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ................................ 178
Figure 7-9. TSS water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 – 2010. ....................... 179
Figure 7-10. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1984 - 2010. ................... 180
Figure 7-11. Seasonal phosphorus data, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1984-2010. ................................... 180
Figure 7-12. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ........................ 181
Figure 7-13. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1984 - 2010. .......... 181
Figure 7-14. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ............... 182
Figure 7-15. Annual chloride concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1999- 2005. ......................... 183
Figure 7-16. Seasonal chloride data, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1999 – 2005. ..................................... 183
Figure 7-17. Chloride water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1999 - 2005. ............... 184
Figure 7-18. Chloride load duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ............................... 186
Figure 7-19. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ................. 188
Figure 7-20. Nitrogen load duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). .............................. 189
Figure 8-1. View of Kickapoo Creek. .................................................................................................. 190
Figure 8-2. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster sampling stations and listed segment. ........................... 191
Figure 8-3. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster land use. ....................................................................... 193
Figure 8-4. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ......................................................... 194
Figure 8-5. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010.................................. 195
Figure 8-6. Seasonal fecal coliform, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville, 1979-2010. ................................. 196
Figure 8-7. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 – 2010. ...................... 196 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -ix- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 8-8. Annual TSS concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010. ............................................... 197
Figure 8-9. TSS water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010. ....................................... 198
Figure 8-10. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1984 - 2010.................................... 199
Figure 8-11. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010. ....................................... 199
Figure 8-12. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1984 – 2010. ......................... 200
Figure 8-13. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 – 2010. ............................. 200
Figure 8-14. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ................... 202
Figure 8-15. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ............... 204
Figure 8-16. Nitrogen load duration curve, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ............................ 205
Figure 9-1. Senachwine Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. .............................................. 207
Figure 9-2. Senachwine Creek watershed cluster land use. ................................................................... 209
Figure 9-3. Annual TSS concentrations, Senachwine Creek, 1999 - 2010. ............................................ 210
Figure 9-4. TSS water quality duration curve, Senachwine Creek, 1999 - 2010. ................................... 211
Figure 9-5. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Senachwine Creek, 1999 – 2010. ................................ 212
Figure 9-6. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Senachwine Creek, 1999 – 2010. ..................................... 212
Figure 9-7. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Senachwine Creek, 1999 – 2010. ....................... 213
Figure 9-8. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Senachwine Creek, 1999 - 2010. ............................ 213
Figure 9-9. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). .................................. 215
Figure 9-10. Nitrogen load duration curve, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). ............................................. 216
Figure 10-1. Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ............................. 218
Figure 10-2. Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster land use. .................................................. 220
Figure 10-3. Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. .................................... 221
Figure 10-4. Annual TSS concentrations, Crow Creek, 2009 – 2010. ................................................... 222
Figure 10-5. TSS water quality duration curve, Crow Creek, 2009 - 2010. ........................................... 223
Figure 10-6. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Crow Creek, 2009 – 2010. ........................................ 224
Figure 10-7. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Crow Creek, 2009 – 2010. ............................................. 224
Figure 10-8. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Crow Creek, 2009 - 2010. ................................ 225
Figure 10-9. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Crow Creek, 2009 - 2010. .................................... 225
Figure 10-10. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Crow Creek East (DO-01). ................................. 227
Figure 10-11. Nitrogen load duration curve, Crow Creek East (DO-01)................................................ 228
Figure 11-1. Sandy Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ..................................................... 230
Figure 11-2. Sandy Creek watershed cluster land use. .......................................................................... 232
Figure 11-3. Sandy Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ............................................................ 233
Figure 11-4. Annual TSS concentrations, Sandy Creek, 2009 – 2010. .................................................. 234
Figure 11-5. TSS water quality duration curve, Sandy Creek, 2009 - 2010. .......................................... 235
Figure 11-6. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Sandy Creek, 2009 – 2010. ....................................... 236
Figure 11-7. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Sandy Creek, 2009 – 2010. ............................................ 236
Figure 11-8. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Sandy Creek, 2009 - 2010. ............................... 237
Figure 11-9. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Sandy Creek, 2009 - 2010. ................................... 237
Figure 11-10. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Sandy Creek (DP-02).......................................... 239
Figure 11-11. Nitrogen load duration curve, Sandy Creek (DP-02). ...................................................... 240
Figure 12-1. Lake Depue sampling stations. ......................................................................................... 243
Figure 12-2. Lake Depue average annual total phosphorus concentrations. ........................................... 244
Figure 12-3. Lake Depue average annual chlorophyll-a concentrations. ............................................... 244
Figure 12-4. Lake Depue seasonal TP concentrations. .......................................................................... 245
Figure 12-5. Lake Depue seasonal chlorophyll-a data. ......................................................................... 245
Figure 12-6. Lake Depue relationship between phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations. .............. 246
Figure 12-7. Correlation between TSS and TP in Lake Depue, all data. ................................................ 246
Figure 12-8. Lake Depue dissolved oxygen depth profile, 1995............................................................ 247
Figure 13-1. Senachwine Lake sampling stations. ................................................................................ 254
Figure 13-2. Senachwine Lake phosphorus data. .................................................................................. 255 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -x- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 13-3. Senachwine Lake Secchi depth data. ................................................................................ 255
Figure 13-4. Senachwine Lake chlorophyll-a data. ............................................................................... 256
Figure 13-5. Senachwine Lake relationship between chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus. ..................... 256
Figure 13-6. Relationship between TP and TSS, Senachwine Lake. ..................................................... 257
Figure 13-7. Phosphorus load duration curve, Senachwine Lake. ......................................................... 258
Tables
Table 1-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) impaired waters. ............................................................................ 3
Table 1-2. Segments not meeting sediment and nutrient targets ................................................................ 4
Table 1-3. Studies and literature relevant to the Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL ................................. 5
Table 1-4. County populations within the Illinois River project area......................................................... 9
Table 1-5. Climate summary for Peoria (1901 – 2009). .......................................................................... 11
Table 1-6. Illinois River (Peoria area) land use summary. ...................................................................... 13
Table 1-7. Hydrologic Soil Group descriptions. ..................................................................................... 17
Table 1-8. Percent composition of HSGs per watershed. ........................................................................ 17
Table 1-9. Percent of highly erodible versus not highly erodible soils per watershed. ............................. 18
Table 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. .............................................................................. 21
Table 1-11. Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. ......................................................................... 29
Table 1-12. USGS bacteria study sampling summary. ............................................................................ 37
Table 2-1. MS4 permits in the Illinois River (Peoria area) project watershed. ......................................... 41
Table 2-2. Combined sewer systems and sanitary sewer overflows within the project area. .................... 42
Table 2-3. Summary of available reported data for CSO Outfalls within the project area. ....................... 42
Table 2-4. Long term control plan status ................................................................................................ 44
Table 2-5. Estimated (area weighted) livestock for each subwatershed in the Illinois River (Peoria Area) watershed. .................................................................................................................................... 49
Table 3-1. Summary of water quality standards for Illinois River (Peoria area). ..................................... 51
Table 3-2. TMDL endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 51
Table 3-3. Load reduction strategies targets ........................................................................................... 52
Table 4-1. Summary of TMDLs ............................................................................................................. 55
Table 4-2. Summary of LRSs ................................................................................................................ 56
Table 4-3. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters. ...................................................................... 58
Table 4-4. Relationship between duration curve zones and contributing sources ..................................... 61
Table 4-5. Available USGS Flow Data .................................................................................................. 65
Table 4-6. Drainage area weighting locations ......................................................................................... 66
Table 4-7. Permitted excess flows .......................................................................................................... 69
Table 4-8. Summary of critical conditions.............................................................................................. 71
Table 5-1. Illinois River main stem 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .......................................................... 74
Table 5-2. Livestock populations in Illinois River main stem watershed cluster. ..................................... 76
Table 5-3. NPDES facilities within the Illinois River main stem watershed cluster. ................................ 78
Table 5-4. Sediment load comparison .................................................................................................... 85
Table 5-5. Illinois River at Hennepin summary table. ........................................................................... 113
Table 5-6. Fecal coliform TMDL, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ................................................... 115
Table 5-7. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Hennepin. .................................................................................. 115
Table 5-8. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). .................................................. 116
Table 5-9. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ............................................................... 117
Table 5-10. Illinois River at Peoria Intake (Site D-30) summary table. ................................................. 118
Table 5-11. Fecal coliform TMDL, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ........................................... 121
Table 5-12. Manganese TMDL, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ................................................ 123
Table 5-13. Total dissolved solids TMDL, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30).................................. 124
Table 5-14. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Peoria. ..................................................................................... 124 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -xi- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 5-15. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ........................................... 125
Table 5-16. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ........................................................ 126
Table 5-17. Illinois River at Pekin summary table. ............................................................................... 127
Table 5-18. Fecal coliform TMDL, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). ....................................................... 131
Table 5-19. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Pekin. ...................................................................................... 131
Table 5-20. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05)........................................................ 132
Table 5-21. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). .................................................................... 133
Table 5-22. Illinois River at Lacon summary table. .............................................................................. 134
Table 5-23. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Lacon. ..................................................................................... 135
Table 5-24. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). ...................................................... 136
Table 5-25. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). ................................................................... 137
Table 6-1. Big Bureau Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ................................................................. 138
Table 6-2. Livestock populations in Big Bureau Creek watershed. ....................................................... 140
Table 6-3. NPDES facilities within the Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster. ....................................... 142
Table 6-4. West Bureau Creek summary table. .................................................................................... 157
Table 6-5. Fecal coliform TMDL, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ....................................... 158
Table 6-6. TSS LRS, West Bureau Creek (DQD-01). ........................................................................... 159
Table 6-7. Total phosphorus LRS, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ...................................... 160
Table 6-8. Nitrogen LRS, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ................................................... 160
Table 6-9. Big Bureau Creek at Princeton summary table. ................................................................... 161
Table 6-10. Fecal coliform TMDL, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ....................................... 162
Table 6-11. TSS LRS, Big Bureau Creek (DQ-03). .............................................................................. 163
Table 6-12. Total phosphorus LRS, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03)........................................ 164
Table 6-13. Nitrogen LRS, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03)..................................................... 165
Table 6-14. Big Bureau Creek (DQ-04) summary table. ....................................................................... 166
Table 6-15. TSS LRS, Big Bureau Creek (DQ-04). .............................................................................. 167
Table 6-16. Total phosphorus LRS, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). ...................................... 168
Table 6-17. Nitrogen LRS, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). ................................................... 169
Table 7-1. Farm Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds............................................................................ 170
Table 7-2. NPDES facilities within the Farm Creek watershed cluster. ................................................. 172
Table 7-3. Livestock populations in Farm Creek watershed. ................................................................. 172
Table 7-4. Farm Creek summary table. ................................................................................................ 185
Table 7-5. Chloride TMDL, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ..................................................... 186
Table 7-6. TSS LRS, Farm Creek. ....................................................................................................... 187
Table 7-7. Total phosphorus LRS, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ........................................... 188
Table 7-8. Nitrogen LRS, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ........................................................ 189
Table 8-1. Kickapoo Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .................................................................... 190
Table 8-2. NPDES facilities within the Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster. .......................................... 192
Table 8-3. Livestock populations in Kickapoo Creek watershed. .......................................................... 192
Table 8-4. Kickapoo Creek summary table. ......................................................................................... 201
Table 8-5. Fecal coliform TMDL, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ......................................... 203
Table 8-6. TSS LRS, Kickapoo Creek.................................................................................................. 203
Table 8-7. Total phosphorus LRS, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ......................................... 204
Table 8-8. Nitrogen LRS, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ...................................................... 205
Table 9-1. Senachwine Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ................................................................ 206
Table 9-2. Livestock populations in Senachwine Creek watershed. ...................................................... 208
Table 9-3. Senachwine Creek summary table. ...................................................................................... 214
Table 9-4. TSS LRS, Senachwine Creek. ............................................................................................. 214
Table 9-5. Total phosphorus LRS, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). .......................................................... 215
Table 9-6. Nitrogen LRS, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). ....................................................................... 216
Table 10-1. Crow Creek and Snag Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ............................................... 217 Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -xii- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 10-2. NPDES facilities within the Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster. ..................... 219
Table 10-3. Livestock populations in Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed. ..................................... 219
Table 10-4. Crow Creek and Snag Creek summary table. ..................................................................... 226
Table 10-5. TSS LRS, Crow Creek and Snag Creek ............................................................................. 226
Table 10-6. Total phosphorus LRS, Crow Creek East (DO-01). ........................................................... 227
Table 10-7. Nitrogen LRS, Crow Creek East (DO-01). ........................................................................ 228
Table 11-1. Sandy Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ....................................................................... 229
Table 11-2. NPDES facilities within the Sandy Creek watershed cluster. ............................................. 231
Table 11-3. Livestock populations in Sandy Creek watershed. ............................................................. 231
Table 11-4. Sandy Creek summary table .............................................................................................. 238
Table 11-5. TSS LRS, Sandy Creek. .................................................................................................... 238
Table 11-6. Total phosphorus LRS, Sandy Creek (DP-02). .................................................................. 239
Table 11-7. Nitrogen LRS, Sandy Creek (DP-02). ............................................................................... 240
Table 12-1. Surface Water Quality Means, Lake Depue, 1995 – 2007. ................................................. 242
Table 12-2. Sediment phosphorus data, Lake Depue. ........................................................................... 248
Table 12-3. In-lake model inputs. ........................................................................................................ 249
Table 12-4. Phosphorus TMDL, Lake Depue. ...................................................................................... 249
Table 12-5. Lake Depue TSS LRS. ...................................................................................................... 251
Table 13-1. Surface Water Quality Means, Senachwine Lake, 2001. .................................................... 252
Table 13-2. Phosphorus TMDL, Senachwine Lake. ............................................................................. 258
Table 13-3. Senachwine Lake TSS LRS. ............................................................................................. 260
Table 15-1. TMDL and LRS summary of pollutants and potential sources. .......................................... 266
Table 15-2. NPDES facilities with chlorination exemptions ................................................................. 270
Table A-1. NPDES fecal coliform WLAs. ........................................................................................... 280
Table A-2. MS4 fecal coliform WLAs. ................................................................................................ 282
Table A-3. NPDES manganese WLAs. ................................................................................................ 282
Table A-4. NPDES TDS WLAs. .......................................................................................................... 285
Table A-5. NPDES chloride WLAs. .................................................................................................... 287
Table A-6. MS4 chloride WLAs. ......................................................................................................... 287
Table A-7. NPDES Total phosphorus WLAs. ...................................................................................... 288
Table A-8. CSO/SSO pathogen WLAs................................................................................................. 289
Table A-9. CSO/SSO TP WLAs. ......................................................................................................... 289
Table A-10. NPDES Fecal Coliform Exceedance Summary (DMR Data 2005-2010). .......................... 290
Table A-11. Reported CSO/SSO maximum flows ................................................................................ 291
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFOs Animal Feeding Operations
AWQMN Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
CAFO Confined Animal Feeding Operation
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CPP Conservation Practice Program
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CWA Clean Water Act
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
DAF Average Design Flow
DAP Diammonium phosphate
DMF Maximum Design Flow
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
HSG Hydrologic Soil Group Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -xiii- 6, 2011 DRAFT
HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
ICCI Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative
IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources
ICCI Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative
Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board
IRBR Illinois River Basin Restoration
ISWS Illinois State Water Survey
LA Load Allocation
LRS Load Reduction Strategies
MBI Macroinvertebrate Biological Integrity
MEP Maximum Extent Practical
MHP Mobile Home Park
MOS Margin of Safety
MRBI Mississippi River Basin Initiative
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint Source
NSMP Nonpoint Source Management Program
SARE Sustainable Agriculture Grant Program
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration
TCRPC Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TP Total Phosphorus
TSS Total Suspended Solids
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
VW Volume Weighted
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQS Water Quality Standards
WY Water Year
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -xiv- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Acknowledgements
The Middle Illinois River TMDL workgroup provided valuable data and documents for watershed characterization, data inventory and stakeholder mailing lists. Meetings were a key component for communicating information and making important project decisions for supporting the TMDL/LRS development. Illinois EPA and U.S. EPA would like to thank these entities/individuals for providing staff and time to meet with us on several occasions and provide this information:
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) United States Geological Survey (USGS) City of Peoria Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Several individuals from engineering firms in the Peoria area
In addition, the following organizations/entities are thanked for their participation:
Illinois American Water Company provided Illinois EPA TMDL monitoring staff timely access to the sampling site on the mainstem of the Illinois River, segment D-30. NPDES facilities that provided data in addition to what is collected under the Illinois EPA discharge monitoring report (DMR) dataset.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -xv- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Executive Summary
The Clean Water Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require that Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) be developed for waters that do not support their designated uses. In simple terms, a TMDL is a plan to attain and maintain water quality standards in waters that are not currently meeting them. In addition to TMDL development, load reduction strategies (LRS) are included to address additional pollutants in the watershed that do not have water quality standards, namely nutrients and sediment.
This TMDL and LRS study addresses the approximately 2,100 square mile portion of the Middle Illinois River watershed near Peoria located in central Illinois, generally referred to as the Illinois River Bluffs region. Major tributaries along this stretch of the river include Big Bureau Creek, Senachwine Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek West, Crow Creek East, Clear Creek, Partridge Creek, Tenmile Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek.
Several waters within the Middle Illinois River project area have been placed on the State of Illinois §303(d) list, and require the development of a TMDL including portions of the main stem of the Illinois River in the Peoria area, Kickapoo Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at West Peoria continuing upstream); Big Bureau Creek (the five mile segment from Princeton continuing downstream); West Bureau Creek (from its confluence with Bureau Creek continuing 23 miles upstream); Farm Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at East Peoria continuing upstream); Depue Lake (in the Lake Depue State Fish & Wildlife Area near the village of Depue); and Senachwine Lake (north of Henry). This project addresses the following pollutants or response indicators: bacteria, phosphorus, total suspended solids, sedimentation / siltation, dissolved oxygen, chloride, aquatic algae, pH, alteration in streamside vegetative cover, manganese, and total dissolved solids as identified on the State of Illinois §303(d) list. In addition, phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended sediment are addressed as part of LRSs. Water quality targets are defined for each LRS pollutant, derived through literature.
The sources of pollutants in the Middle Illinois River watershed, also referred to as the Illinois River (Peoria Area) watershed, include NPDES permitted facilities including wastewater treatment facilities, regulated storm water, combined and separate sanitary sewer overflows. In addition, nonpoint source pollution results from several key sources including storm water runoff (both agricultural and developed); watershed, in-stream, gully and bluff erosion; onsite wastewater treatment systems, animal feeding operations, and livestock populations. An evaluation using flow and water quality duration curves is presented that provides insight into the sources and flow regimes that are affecting water quality.
A TMDL identifies the total allowable load that a waterbody can assimilate (the loading capacity) and still meet water quality standards. The loading capacity for each river and Senachwine Lake was determined using a load duration curve framework. An in-lake response model was used to determine the phosphorus loading capacity for Lake Depue. TMDLs and LRSs are presented in Sections 5 – 13. The required pollutant reductions vary between zero and 100 percent, depending on the waterbody and pollutant.
A TMDL is equal to the loading capacity for a waterbody, and that loading capacity is distributed among load allocations to nonpoint and background sources and wasteload allocations to point sources. Allocations are based on the water quality standard for all pollutants with the exception of phosphorus. A 1 mg/L technology-based phosphorus limit was used for wastewater treatment facilities discharging to phosphorus impaired lakes. An explicit and implicit margin of safety was used, dependent on the pollutant of concern.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -xvi- 6, 2011 DRAFT
An implementation plan is presented in Section 15 which includes potential implementation activities for both urban and agricultural sources of pollutants. A more detailed implementation plan will be developed in the future to further define activities, partners, and milestones.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -1- 6, 2011 DRAFT
1. Watershed Characterization
The Middle Illinois River, also referred to as the Illinois River (Peoria area), watershed is located in central Illinois (Figure 1-1). The general vicinity has often been referred to as the Illinois River Bluffs region. The project area begins near Spring Valley, where the Illinois River makes its “Big Bend” toward the south (803HFigure 1-2). The project area continues downstream past Peoria, ending near Pekin just above the confluence with the Mackinaw River; this reach is bound between the Starved Rock Lock and Dam to the north and the Peoria Lock and Dam further downstream. The project area covers nearly 2,100 square miles, and includes land within Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall, Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell Counties. Major tributaries along this stretch of the river include Big Bureau Creek, Senachwine Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek West, Crow Creek East, Clear Creek, Partridge Creek, Tenmile Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek.
Figure 1-1. Illinois River at Spring Bay.
1.1 Water Quality Impairments
Several waters within the Illinois River project area have been placed on the State of Illinois §303(d) list (843HTable 1-1 and 844HFigure 1-2), and require development of TMDLs. This TMDL project is intended to address documented water quality problems on middle segments of the Illinois River in the Peoria area. Other §303(d) waters included on the 2008 list are: Kickapoo Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at West Peoria continuing upstream); Big Bureau Creek (the five mile segment from Princeton continuing downstream); West Bureau Creek (from its confluence with Bureau Creek continuing 23 miles upstream); Farm Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at East Peoria continuing upstream); Depue Lake (in the Lake Depue State Fish & Wildlife Area near the village of Depue); and Senachwine Lake (north of Henry). Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -2- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -3- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) impaired waters. Impaired Waters Designated Uses Impairments Name Segment ID Miles / Acres
Illinois River
D-05
12
Primary contact recreation
Fecal coliform
D-16
25
D-30
22
D-30
22
Public water supply
Manganese, total dissolved solids
Kickapoo Creek
DL-01
21
Primary contact recreation
Fecal coliform
Big Bureau Creek
DQ-03
5
West Bureau Creek
DQD-01
24
Farm Creek
DZZP-03
20
Aquatic life use
Alteration in streamside vegetative cover, chloride, pH, phosphorus,
total suspended solids
Depue Lake a
RDU
524
Aesthetic quality & aquatic life
Aquatic algae, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, sedimentation / siltation, total suspended solids
Senachwine Lake a
RDZX
3324
a. Included within the Illinois River main stem watershed cluster.
Lake Depue is 524 acres and is a former oxbow lake, the shoreline is approximately 11 miles long and the lake is on average 2.3 feet in depth. It is a backwater lake of the Illinois River that fluctuates in depth with the Illinois River levels. It is connected to the Illinois River at the western end by a narrow shallow channel and separated from the river by a low lying peninsula. Senachwine Lake is a 3,324 acre lake that forms part of the Illinois River valley. It is located in Putnam and Marshall Counties. To the north, Senachwine Lake is connected to Goose Lake by a shallow channel and both are backwaters of the Illinois River.
The middle segments of the main stem Illinois River in the Peoria area appear on the Illinois §303(d) list for not supporting primary contact recreation due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Several tributaries including Big Bureau Creek, West Bureau Creek, and Kickapoo Creek are listed for the same reason. One segment of the Illinois River (D-30) appears on the §303(d) list for not supporting public water supply due to elevated levels of manganese and total dissolved solids. Depue and Senachwine Lakes are on the §303(d) list for not supporting aesthetic quality and aquatic life uses due to aquatic algae, low dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation / siltation, as well as elevated levels of phosphorus and total suspended solids (TSS). Farm Creek is listed as not supporting aquatic life use due to alteration in streamside vegetative cover as well as elevated levels of chloride, pH, phosphorus, and TSS.
In addition to the impairments listed in Table 1-1, several segments are not meeting sediment and nutrient targets, as described in Section 3.2. Table 1-2 and Figure 1-2 identify these segments. Load reduction strategies (LRS) are developed for each of these stream segments.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -4- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-2. Segments not meeting sediment and nutrient targets Stream Segment Total Suspended Solids Total Phosphorus Nitrate Nitrogen
D-05
X
X
X
D-09
X
X
D-16
X
X
D-30
X
X
X
DL-01
X
X
X
DM-01
X
DO-01
X
DP-02
X
DQ-03
X
X
X
DQ-04
X
X
DQD-01
X
X
X
DZZP-03
X
X
X
RDU
X
TMDL
X
RDZX
X
TMDL
X
1.2 Project Setting
The geology of the Illinois River Valley was first deposited over 500 million years ago when the region was covered by a shallow sea. Glacial processes, subsequent glacial melt and flooding generated from the Illinoian Glaciation, and the more recent Wisconsin Glaciation created the river bed in its general location. Due to the glacial origin, the floodplains of the Illinois River Valley are much larger than would be expected for a river equivalent in size (Theiling, 1998a). The floodplains offer unique habitat and productive soils that sustain the current agricultural economy of the area. The Illinois River system remains one of a world-class river floodplain. It continues to be a surprisingly diverse and biologically productive ecosystem despite historic degradation and continuing sedimentation.
1.3 Problem Identification
Across the Illinois River basin, land use and hydrologic changes have reduced the quantity, quality, and functions of floodplain, riparian, and aquatic habitats. Studies have specifically identified the following areas to be principle factors limiting the system’s ecological integrity: excessive sedimentation; loss of productive backwaters, side channels and islands; loss of floodplain, riparian, and aquatic habitats and function; loss of aquatic connectivity on the Illinois River and its tributaries; altered hydrologic regime; water quality and sediment quality; and, invasive species (Table 1-3).
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -5- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-3. Studies and literature relevant to the Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Information Source Year Title
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
2009
Honoring our Water: A Regional Stormwater Plan for Peoria, Tazewell, and Woodford Counties of Illinois (May 2009)
2009
Geographic Information System (GIS) data coverages
2009
Low Impact Development (LID) Model Ordinance Information
2004
Ackerman Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004)
2004
Tenmile Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004)
2004
Partridge Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004)
2003
Farm Creek Watershed Hydrology (May 2003)
2003
Aquatic insect survey from Partridge Creek, Ten Mile Creek and Ackerman Creek, Illinois
2003
Partridge Creek - Tenmile Creek – Ackerman Creek Fishery Resources Description
2003
Tenmile and Partridge Creeks Erosion and Sedimentation Investigation (July 2003)
2003
Ackerman Creek Erosion and Sedimentation Investigation (July 2003)
2002
Mossville Bluffs Watershed Restoration Master Plan (October 2002)
2001
Farm Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004)
City of Peoria
[Peoria Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Study data & Long Term Control Plan]
[Wastewater treatment plant monitoring data]
Illinois State Water Survey
1976
Sediment Conditions in Backwater Lakes along the Illinois River
1979
Sediment Transport in the Illinois River
1984
Sediment Yield of Streams in Northern and Central Illinois
1986
Sediment Loads of Illinois Streams and Rivers
1986
Peoria Lake Sediment Investigations
1999
The Illinois River Decision Support System (ILRDSS)
2001
Sediment and Nutrient Monitoring at Selected Watersheds within the Illinois River Watershed for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Illinois River Conservations Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
2005
Illinois River Basin Assessment Framework
2007
Hydrologic Model Development for the Illinois River Basin Using BASINS 3.0
2004
The Sediment Budget of the Illinois River
2001
Historical Sedimentation at the Mouths of Five Deltas on Peoria Lake
2011
Illinois State Climatology Data
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
2006
Big Bureau Creek Watershed Inventory and Evaluation
2010
Illinois River Bluffs
U.S. Geological Survey
[Synoptic survey data]
[Historic hydrology & water quality data] Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -6- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Information Source Year Title
2006
Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes Region and Adjacent Areas.
1999
Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and Their Effects on Water Quality.
2007
Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. Illinois River.
1998
Water Quality Assessment of the Lower Illinois River Basin: Environmental Setting.
Illinois Scientific Survey
1984
Conceptual Models of Erosion and Sedimentation in Illinois. Vol. 1.
1984
Conceptual Models or Erosion and Sedimentation in Illinois. Vol. II.
Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and Regional Perspectives. Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium
1996
Patterns of Erosion and Sedimentation in the Illinois River Basin
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2007
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database.
Scientific Journal
1985; Havera, S et al.
The Illinois River: A lesson to be learned.
1984; Sparks, R.
The Role of Contaminants in the Decline of the Illinois River: Implications for the Mississippi.
2006; Sparks, R. et al.
Disturbance and Recovery of Large Floodplain Rivers.
1984; Walker, R.
Historical Changes in Illinois Agriculture.
Book
1998; Theiling, C.
Ecological Status and Trends in the Upper Mississippi River System
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2001
National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soil Survey of Marshall County, IL.
2007
The Census of Agriculture
2007-2009
National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS).
1992
National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soil Survey of Peoria County, IL.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)
2007
Illinois River Basin Restoration Comprehensive Plan with Integrated Environmental Assessment
2008
Senachwine Creek Critical Restoration Project, Project Implementation Report with Integrated Environmental Assessment.
U.S. Census Bureau.
2010
Peoria County Illinois.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
2000
Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria, Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient, Ecoregion VI.
2004
Report to Congress, Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs.
2007
An Approach for Using Load Duration Curves in the Development of TMDLs.
2011
Depue/New Jersey Zinc/Mobil Chemical Corp.
National Water-Quality Assessment Program
1994
The Lower Illinois River Basin
Illinois Rivers Decision Support System
2005
Illinois River Basin Assessment. Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -7- 6, 2011 DRAFT
For example, channelization is estimated to impair approximately 1,400 miles within the basin, and backwater lakes have lost 73 percent of their capacity due to sedimentation (USACE, 2007). In all tributary watersheds, some degree of channelization has occurred. The highest degree of channelization occurs in Farm Creek, which includes agricultural channelization as well as flood control. A type of channelization that is particular to this region and others with similar topography is that of transportation channelization. In this region, many roadways and railroad grades occupy the same parallel corridors as streams. The results are nearly always a straightened stream channel that cannot migrate into the hardened structure and is forced into more sensitive (in terms of sediment deliver) bluff area. The erosion results in almost instant sediment transport to the stream and potential transport to the Illinois River. Ever expanding deltas at the mouths of tributaries are a sign of constant sediment loading from these tributaries to the Illinois River; as an example, the Partridge Creek delta expanded by 900 acre-feet in 30 years (Demissie et al., 1986).
In addition to channelization, urban development has increased the volume and concentration of stormwater delivered to tributaries and the main stem. The Mossville Bluffs region, just north of Peoria, represents an extreme example of consequences resulting from stormwater runoff as during the last few decades, increased residential development has occurred at the top of the Bluffs. The increase in imperviousness associated with this development, paired with efficient stormwater conveyance systems, has resulted in the discharge of runoff from discrete points along the steep slopes. These concentrated stormwater flows dislodge soil and create gullies or ravines (TCRPC, 2009). In only 20 to 25 years, huge channels of 20 to 30 feet wide, and ten to 15 feet deep have eroded and in extreme cases, unstable homes and collapsed walls have been caused by gullies or ravines (TCRPC, 2009).
As economic development and populations grew around the Chicago area, significant anthropogenic disturbances included increased navigation and spread of agriculture. These cultural changes continue to have lasting effects on the region; the most significant human influences have been related to commercial navigation, municipal and industrial waste discharge, and agricultural practices in the watershed (Demissie et al., 1999). Directly or indirectly, such disturbances have affected the environment and ecosystems along the length of the river. First, navigation from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River became crucial as populations and economic development around Chicago grew (Theiling, 1998). The establishment of navigation resulted in extensive channel alterations and hydromodifications associated with an intricate levee system designed to maintain and control sufficient flow for navigation and agriculture. Seven locks and dams (805HFigure 1-3) still exist along the Illinois River, creating a system of navigational pools (USGS, 2007).
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -8- 6, 2011 DRAFT
398H
Figure 1-3.The lock and dam system of the Illinois River (USGS, 2007).
Another significant historical disturbance came with the advent of mechanized equipment, which dramatically increased agricultural production of the watershed. Between 1945 and 1976, the acreage of row crop production increased 60 percent (Sparks, 1984). As agricultural production increased, marginal lands were put into production through wetland filling, field draining (or field tiling), bank planting and further stream channelization (Theiling, 1998). Additional factors that have contributed to increased erosion are improvements in tractors and plowing techniques that pulverize the soil more efficiently and the increased use of inorganic fertilizers to farm marginal areas continuously using crop rotation (Demissie, 1996; Walker, 1984). With the loss of floodplains water quality rapidly degraded and aquatic and terrestrial organisms that depended on the river system had massive reductions in population size (PCWRP). The destruction of more than 90 percent of the original wetland acreage can be blamed for high erosion rates from stream banks and bluffs (Havera and Bellrose, 1985). From 1958 to 1961, formerly productive backwaters and lakes along specific reaches of the Illinois River changed from clear, vegetated areas to turbid, barren basins (Sparks, 2006).
Problems within the basin are not limited to sedimentation. As additional issues such as flooding, degradation of aquatic habitats, and water-based recreation also need to be addressed (Demissie et al., 1999). Water quality within the Illinois River has been subjected to many impacts associated with development, including waste discharges from urban areas, water-level control for navigation, and sediment and chemical inflow from agricultural and urban watersheds (Demissie et al., 2004). Both point and nonpoint sources of pollution have been identified as potentially impacting the water quality within the watershed.
1.4 Jurisdictions and Population
Counties with land located in the project area include Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall, Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell. U.S. Census data for each county is given in 807HTable 1-4. Major government units with jurisdiction adjacent to the Illinois River within the project area include the Cities of Hennepin, Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -9- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Henry, Lacon, Sparland, Chillicothe, Spring Bay, Mossville, Peoria Heights, Peoria, and Pekin. The approximate total population for the watershed is over 523,000. Population density within the project area is indicated on 808HFigure 1-4.
Table 1-4. County populations within the Illinois River project area. County 1990 2000 2009a
Peoria County
182,827
183,433
185,816
Bureau County
35,688
35,503
34,699
Putnam County
5,730
6,086
6,009
La Salle County
106,913
111,509
112,498
Marshall County
12,846
13,180
12,702
Tazewell County
123,692
128,485
132,466
Woodford County
32,653
35,469
38,862
TOTAL
500,349
513,665
523,052
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. a. U.S. Census Bureau estimate.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -10- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-4. Illinois River (Peoria Area) population density.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -11- 6, 2011 DRAFT
1.5 Climate
Climate data are available from the Illinois State Water Survey Climatologist; Station 116711 is located in Peoria and was used for analysis within this report. Monthly data from 1901-2009 were available at the time of report development. In general, the climate of the region is continental with hot, humid summers and cold winters (Warner and Schmidt, 1994). 809HTable 1-5 contains historical temperature data collected at the Peoria climate station. From 1980 to 2009 the average winter temperature in Peoria was 27.7 °F and the average summer temperature was 73.7 °F (810HTable 1-5). The average growing season (consecutive days with low temperatures greater than or equal to 32 degrees) is 148 days.
Table 1-5. Climate summary for Peoria (1901 – 2009). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average High oF
32
36
49
62
73
82
86
84
77
65
49
36
Average Low oF
16
20
30
41
51
61
65
63
55
44
32
21
Average Mean oF
24
28
39
51
62
71
76
74
66
54
41
28
Average Precipitation (in)
1.8
1.6
2.8
3.7
4.0
3.9
3.7
3.2
3.6
2.6
2.4
2.0
Average snow fall (in)
7.15
5.41
3.73
0.80
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
1.92
6.23
From 1980 to 2009, the annual average precipitation in Peoria (station 116711) was approximately 36 inches, including approximately 21 inches of snowfall. Peoria represents the middle range of precipitation within the Illinois River drainage. Patterns vary across the watershed from 35 to 40 inches annually. In general, larger volumes of precipitation tend to occur between the months of April and September. 812HFigure 1-5 presents annual precipitation and temperature patterns for the Peoria area.
Rainfall intensity and timing affect watershed response to precipitation. This information is important in evaluating the effects of storm water on the Illinois River. 813HFigure 1-6 presents one way to show rainfall intensity. Evaluating Peoria data collected between 1948 and 2009, 57 percent of the precipitation events were very low intensity (i.e., less that 0.2 inches). Eight percent of the measurable precipitation events were greater than one inch.
Figure 1-5. Average precipitation and monthly temperatures for Peoria. Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -12- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-6. Precipitation intensity -- Peoria airport gage.
1.6 Land Use / Land Cover
Land use in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is heavily influenced by agriculture in the upper and lower reaches in combination with the urban setting surrounding Peoria in the lower portion. Specific land use across the watershed includes agriculture (nearly 70%), forest (approximately 15%), and urban (approximately 11%). 814HFigure 1-7 shows land use within the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. Table 1-6 presents area percent cover by land use type.
In general, the upper reach of the project area watershed is dominated by agriculture. Corn and soybeans are the primary crops in the lower Illinois River basin (Warner and Schmidt, 1994). Secondary farm products include winter wheat, oats, hay, vegetables, cattle, hogs, dairy products, poultry, sheep and wool (USDA, 1992). To increase agricultural productivity throughout the project area, a common practice includes field drainage or tiling to quickly transport excess moisture from the fields to adjacent surface waters. Currently, residential development within the upper reaches of the project area is predominately low density. The most densely populated areas of the watershed surround Peoria.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -13- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-6. Illinois River (Peoria area) land use summary. Land Use / Land Cover Category Acreage Percentage
Cultivated Crops
844,311
62.8%
Deciduous Forest
203,767
15.2%
Pasture/Hay
61,423
4.6%
Developed, Open
62,298
4.6%
Developed, Low-Intensity
61,352
4.6%
Open Water
44,340
3.3%
Woody Wetlands
25,432
1.9%
Developed, Medium-Intensity
20,936
1.6%
Developed, High Intensity
6,441
0.5%
Grassland/Herbaceous
7,229
0.5%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
3,811
0.3%
Barren Land
1,215
0.1%
Evergreen Forest
38
0.0%
Mixed forest
1
0.0%
Shrub/Scrub
1
0.0%
TOTAL
1,342,595
100.0%
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -14- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-7. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed land use.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -15- 6, 2011 DRAFT
1.7 Geology and Soils
Over 500 million years ago, the Illinois River region was covered by an expansive shallow sea that shaped the geology of the area. The Illinoian and Wisconsin Glaciations dramatically influenced the topography and hydrology of the Illinois River. As common to areas covered by glaciers, the basin evolved as the glaciers advanced and retreated. During advances, glaciers modified the previous landscape and with retreat, deposited glacial drift and glacial outwash (USDA, 1992).
In the region, deposited glacial materials include sands, gravels, silts, and clays. The material varies in terms of mixtures and thickness within the region. Ice movement and its melt water influenced the patterns and distribution of various landforms, such as moraines and stream valleys; the Illinois River bed itself was scoured by a series of great floods that resulted from failed ice-dams during the last ice age (approximately 12,000 years ago) (Theiling, 1998). The melt water that created rivers also deposited glacial materials throughout the region. These glacial deposits and associated land forms exerted a major effect that influence present day hydrology, soil types and land cover. Current topography and river valleys carved by such processes are shown in 816HFigure 1-8.
Soil is the dominant natural resource in Peoria County (USDA, 1992) and across the agricultural region. The National Cooperative Soil Survey publishes soil surveys for each county within the U.S. These soil surveys contain predictions of soil behavior for selected land uses. The surveys also highlight limitations and hazards inherent in the soil, general improvements needed to overcome the limitations, and the impact of selected land uses on the environment. The soil surveys are designed for many different uses, including land use planning, the identification of special practices needed to ensure proper performance, and Hydrologic Soil Groups (USDA / NRCS, 2007).
Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSGs) refers to the grouping of soils according to their runoff potential. Soil properties that influence the HSGs include depth to seasonal high water table, infiltration rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to slow permeable layer (USDA, 2002). There are four groups of HSGs: Group A, B, C, and Group D. 817HTable 1-7 describes those HSGs found in the Illinois River watershed and provides a summary description of each group. 818H
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -16- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-8. Illinois River basin topography.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -17- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-7. Hydrologic Soil Group descriptions. HSG Group Description
A
Sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. Low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels with a high rate of water transmission.
B
Silt loam or loam. Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly or moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.
C
Soils are sandy clay loam. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine structure.
D
Soils are clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. Group D has the highest runoff potential. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.
B/D
Dual Hydrologic Soil Groups. Certain wet soils are placed in group D based solely on the presence of a water table within 24 inches of the surface even though the saturated hydraulic conductivity may be favorable for water transmission. If these soils can be adequately drained, then they are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups (A/D, B/D, and C/D) based on their saturated hydraulic conductivity and the water table depth when drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition.
Figure 1-9 shows the location of different HSGs in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. Soils in this area are typically Group B, composed of loamy soils with a moderate infiltration rate and to a lesser degree, Group A, C and B/D (USDA, 2002). 819HTable 1-8 summarizes the composition of HSGs per watershed. The protection of areas with high infiltration capacity (e.g., Group A soils) is important for maintaining hydrology and temperature regimes within the watershed. Additionally, 820HTable 1-9 shows the percent of highly erodible soils. Although much of the soil within the watershed has not been assessed, that which has been assessed shows that 13 to over 30 percent of the soils within the watersheds are highly erodible.
Table 1-8. Percent composition of HSGs per watershed. Watershed A A/D B B/D C C/D D No Data %
Big Bureau Creek
1.12
0.12
79.62
16.72
1.44
0.27
0.10
0.61
Farm Creek
0.00
0.00
86.04
11.64
0.16
0.00
0.00
2.15
Illinois River Main Stem
2.90
0.09
68.12
14.57
5.05
0.06
0.61
8.59
Kickapoo Creek
0.85
0.00
78.33
4.87
13.72
0.00
0.65
1.58
Sandy Creek
0.68
0.00
50.77
18.11
25.84
4.29
0.00
0.31
Senachwine Creek
0.75
0.00
88.00
5.00
4.36
0.00
0.32
1.56
Snag Creek and Crow Creek
0.60
0.16
63.09
22.55
9.93
1.69
0.62
1.36
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -18- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-9. Percent of highly erodible versus not highly erodible soils per watershed. Watershed Highly Erodible Not Highly Erodible Not Assessed %
Big Bureau Creek
15.23
0.00
84.77
Farm Creek
27.11
0.00
72.89
Illinois River Main Stem
22.04
0.94
77.02
Kickapoo Creek
33.74
0.00
66.26
Sandy Creek
13.21
0.00
86.79
Senachwine Creek
31.52
0.00
68.48
Snag Creek and Crow Creek
13.30
2.24
84.46
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -19- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-9. Illinois River basin hydrologic soil groups.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -20- 6, 2011 DRAFT
1.8 Hydrology
Hydrology plays an important role in evaluating water quality. The hydrology of the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is driven by local climate conditions and alterations to the landscape. In addition, ditching and channelizing has been used throughout this region to drain areas where soils are too wet for settlement and agriculture. This creates situations that often result in flashy flows on tributary creeks, where streams respond to and recover from precipitation events relatively quickly. Flooding periodically occurs in areas of the watershed, flowing over roads and encroaching on streamside properties.
Some of the tributaries that flow to the Illinois River have been channelized or relocated to facilitate agricultural or commercial development. A common practice for improving drainage is to install subsurface tile drains and ditches to lower the water table beneath agricultural fields. Subsurface drains (e.g., corrugated plastic tile or pipe) installed beneath the ground surface serve as conduits to collect and / or convey drainage water, either to a stream channel or to a surface field drainage ditch. While these drainage alterations increase the amount of land available for cultivation, they also influence the hydrology, the aquatic habitat, and water quality of area streams.
Drains intercept precipitation and snowmelt as they infiltrate the subsurface soil layer. This intercepted water would normally reach the water table where it would be stored as groundwater. Instead, the subsurface flow is quickly conveyed through the network of drains and ditches to nearby waterbodies. This process can increase the volume of water that reaches local streams during rainfall and snowmelt events, which leads to a rapid rise in stream levels during runoff events. Often this rapid response is similar to that observed in areas where natural vegetation has been replaced by impervious surfaces. Extensive tiling can also alter the quality of drainage water exiting the fields to receiving waters. For example, shorter delivery times to a stream often reduce the benefits associated with longer filtration through soil layers. In addition to water volume excesses due to storm water and flooding, natural dry weather periods (e.g., the lack of sufficient water) can make water quantity a factor that affects water quality.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored flow at several locations in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed (821HTable 1-10 and 822HFigure 1-10). 823HFigure 1-11 and 824HFigure 1-12 illustrate the hydrologic variability in stream flow for the Illinois River, as well as for two tributary streams: Big Bureau Creek and Farm Creek. These graphs also show daily precipitation measured at the Peoria site.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -21- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. Gage ID Area (mi.2) Location Latitude Longitude Period of Record
05556500
196
Big Bureau Creek at Princeton
41o 21’ 57”
89o 29’ 54”
1936 - 2010
05557000
86.7
West Bureau Creek at Wyanet
41o 21’ 54”
89o 34’ 08”
1936 - 1966
05557500
99.0
East Bureau Creek near Bureau
41o 20’ 05”
89o 22’ 55”
1936 - 1966
05558300
13,544
Illinois River at Henry
41o 06’ 26”
89o 21’ 22”
1981 - 2010
05558500
56.2
Crow Creek (West) near Henry
41o 09’ 00”
89o 25’ 00”
1949 - 1971
05559000
5.66
Gimlet Creek at Sparland
41o 01’ 37”
89o 26’ 21”
1945 - 1971
05559500
115
Crow Creek near Washburn
40o 57’ 15”
89o 18’ 30”
1944 - 1971
05560500
27.4
Farm Creek at Farmdale
40o 40’ 03”
89o 30’ 15”
1948 - 2008
05561000
11.2
Ackerman Creek at Farmdale
40o 39’ 43”
89o 30’ 13”
1953 - 1980
05561500
5.54
Fondulac Creek near East Peoria
40o 40’ 38”
89o 31’ 52”
1948 - 2009
05562000
61.2
Farm Creek at East Peoria
40o 40’ 04”
89o 34’ 40”
1943 - 1980
05563000
119
Kickapoo Creek near Kickapoo
40o 48’ 02”
89o 48’ 01”
1944 - 1962
05563500
297
Kickapoo Creek at Peoria
40o 40’ 52”
89o 39’ 19”
1942 - 1971
05568500
15,818
Illinois River at Kingston Mines
40o 33’ 11”
89o 46’ 38”
1939 - 2010
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -22- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -23- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-11. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2007.
Figure 1-12. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2008. Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -24- 6, 2011 DRAFT
1.8.1 Seasonal Flow Variation
Seasonal variation in flow is a key part of the overall TMDL assessment because water quality parameters are often related to stream flow rates. This is a particularly important component of subsequent analyses linking sources to observed water quality, where the timing of source loads is connected to seasonal water quality patterns.
825HFigure 1-13 shows the seasonal variation of flow for the Illinois River at Henry site using the entire period of record (1981 – 2010). In addition to showing general patterns, the box and whisker format used in 826HFigure 1-13 highlights the variability of flows from month to month. For example, the highest flows typically occur between March and May. Flows during these months also tend to vary, reflecting the significant effect that air temperatures exert on hydrology. Periods of heavy snow followed by warmer temperatures can result in major runoff events. Conversely, lower winter flows may coincide with extended periods of below freezing temperatures.
Related to seasonal variation, year-to-year variability is another consideration that affects watershed hydrology. This in turn influences water quality, in particular sediment transport. Peak flow history is one way to view the effect of interannual variation, as shown in 827HFigure 1-15 using the Illinois River at Henry gage. 828HFigure 1-16 shows the peak flow history for the Big Bureau Creek gage which demonstrates the difference between main stem and tributary peak flows. The information in both figures is expressed as unit area flows.
Figure 1-13. Seasonal variation of Illinois River flows.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -25- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-14. Seasonal variation of Big Bureau Creek flows.
Figure 1-15. Peak flow history for Illinois River at Henry gage.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -26- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-16. Peak flow history for Big Bureau Creek gage.
1.8.2 Flow Duration Curves
The daily average, peak history, and monthly flow data show the inherent variability associated with hydrology. Flow duration curves provide a way to address that variability and flow related water quality patterns. Duration curves describe the percentage of time during which specified flows are equaled or exceeded. Flow duration analysis looks at the cumulative frequency of historic flow data over a specified period, based on measurements taken at uniform intervals (e.g., daily average or 15-minute instantaneous). Duration analysis results in a curve that relates flow values to the percent of time those values have been met or exceeded. Low flows are exceeded a majority of the time, whereas floods are exceeded infrequently. In the case of this TMDL, a load duration curve approach is used in which the curve represents the target value for a given pollutant in order to determine flow conditions, or intervals, under which exceedances occur. This approach is further described in Section 829H4.2.
Duration curves provide the benefit of considering the full range of flow conditions (U.S. EPA, 2007). Development of a flow duration curve is typically based on daily average stream discharge data. A typical curve runs from high flows to low flows along the x-axis, as illustrated in 830HFigure 1-17. Note the flow duration interval of sixty associated with a stream discharge of 9,400 cfs (i.e., sixty percent of all observed stream discharge values equal or exceed 9,400 cfs).
Flow duration curve intervals can be grouped into several broad categories or zones. These zones provide additional insight about conditions and patterns associated with water quality impairments where hydrology may play a major role. One common way to look at the duration curve is by dividing it into five zones, as illustrated in 831HFigure 1-17: one representing high flows (0-10%), another for moist conditions (10-40%), one covering mid-range flows (40-60%), another for dry conditions (60-90%), and one representing low flows (90-100%). Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -27- 6, 2011 DRAFT
This particular approach places the midpoints of the moist, mid-range, and dry zones at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles respectively (i.e., the quartiles). The high zone is centered at the 5th percentile, while the low zone is centered at the 95th percentile. Other schemes can be used, depending on local hydrology, the water quality issues being addressed by assessment efforts, data availability, and the way in which water quality criteria are expressed.
Figure 1-17. Flow duration curve for Illinois River at Henry gage.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -28- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-18. Flow duration curve for Big Bureau Creek at Princeton gage.
1.9 Monitoring and Special Studies
1.9.1 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
Routine water quality monitoring is a key part of the Illinois EPA assessment program. The goals of Illinois EPA surface water monitoring programs are to identify causes of pollution (toxics, nutrients, sedimentation) and sources (point or nonpoint) of surface water impairments, determine the overall effectiveness of pollution control programs and identify long term resource quality trends. Illinois EPA has operated a widespread, active long-term monitoring network in Illinois since 1977, known as the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN). The AWQMN is utilized by the Illinois EPA to provide baseline water quality information, to characterize and define trends in the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the state’s waters, identify new or existing water quality problems and to act as a triggering mechanism for special studies or other appropriate actions.
Additional uses of the data collected by the Illinois EPA through the AWQMN program include the review of existing water quality standards and establishment of water quality based effluent limits for NPDES permits. The AWQMN is integrated with other Illinois EPA chemical and biological stream monitoring programs which are more regionally based (specific watersheds or point source receiving stream) and cover a shorter span of time (e.g. one year) to evaluate compliance with water quality standards and determine designated use support. Information from this program is compiled by Illinois EPA into a biennial report required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -29- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Within the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed, there are eight active stations that are part of AWQMN (832HTable 1-11 and 833HFigure 1-19). Parameters sampled include field measurements (e.g., conductivity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) as well as those that require lab analyses (e.g., bacteria, nutrients, total suspended solids). Additional sites were sampled during Stage 2 of this TMDL process for tributary data. Water samples were analyzed for fecal coliform, total phosphorus, nitrate nitrogen, and total suspended solids.
A large amount of information exists that can be used to closely examine longitudinal, seasonal, and year-to-year patterns. Examples are shown in 834HFigure 1-20 through 835HFigure 1-24. Improved pattern analysis can help focus additional watershed characterization activities, prioritize source assessment needs, and strengthen the TMDL linkage analysis. Longitudinal, seasonal, and year-to-year profiles for all parameters can be developed that support efforts to assess important patterns, identify critical conditions, and evaluate potential cause – effect relationships.
Table 1-11. Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. AWQMN and TMDL Sites USGS Gage Water Body Location County Lat Long
D-05
05563800
Illinois River
Route 9 at Pekin
Peoria
40.5730
89.6547
D-09
05558995
Route 17 at Lacon
Marshall
41.0250
89.4172
D-16
05556200
Route 26 at Hennepin
Putnam
41.2575
89.3469
D-30
05559900
Peoria PWS Intake
Peoria
40.7250
89.5494
DL-01
05563525
Kickapoo Creek
US 24 north of Bartonville
Peoria
40.6550
89.6477
DQ-03
05556500
Big Bureau Creek
Route 6 near west edge of Princeton
Bureau
41.3652
89.4986
DQD-01
05557000
West Bureau Creek
US 6/34 at east edge of Wyanet
Bureau
41.3650
89.5688
DZZP-03
05562010
Farm Creek
Camp Street north of East Peoria, Gage #05562000 Main St.
Tazewell
40.6711
89.5800
DM-01a
na
Senachwine Creek
1 Mi NNW Chillicothe
Peoria
40.9403
-89.5008
DO-01 a
na
Crow Creek E
Route 26 7 Mi W Washburn
Marshall
40.9321
-89.4282
DP-01 a
na
Sandy Creek
Route 89 Br 1 Mi S Magnolia
Marshall
41.0917
-89.2039
DP-02 a
na
Sandy Creek
2.5 Mi ESE Henry
Marshall
41.0894
-89.3129
DQ-04 a
na
Big Bureau Creek
Route29 Br 1Mi SW Bureau
Bureau
41.2787
-89.3833
RDU-1
na
Lake Depue
SITE 1 TIP OF SW PENN. MID LAKE
Bureau
41.3110
-89.3196
RDU-2
SITE 2 1.75 MI NE SITE 1 MIDL
Bureau
41.3185
-89.3116
RDU-3
SITE 3 2MI ENE S2 MIDLAKE
Bureau
41.3205
-89.2995
RDZX-1
na
Senachwine Lake
SITE 1 N END OF LK
Putnam
41.1517
-89.3377
RDZX-2
SITE 2 75 YDS S OF ISLAND
Putnam
41.1743
-89.3398
RDZX-3
ST3 600 YDS S OF RAMP NEAR HOUSES
Putnam
41.1906
-89.3545
na – no USGS gage at/near sampling site
a. Sites sampled during Stage 2 TMDL development Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -30- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-19. Location of Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -31- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Bacteria
Fecal coliform is used as a water quality indicator for the possible risk associated with the presence of bacteria. When elevated, harmful bacteria and viruses may be present. Potential sources of bacteria include agricultural runoff, illicit sewage connections, domestic pet waste, water fowl, and animal waste in storm sewer lines (e.g., rats and raccoons).
Box and whisker plots provide one way to analyze the variability in bacteria data. The Box is divided at the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the Whiskers extend from the 75th and 25th percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively. 836HFigure 1-20 presents a box and whisker plot representing available bacteria data per drainage area of the tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, concentrations within the tributaries were highly variable and elevated in relation to concentrations found within the main stem of the Illinois River. This may represent seasonal runoff from agricultural areas. Within the Illinois River, concentrations of fecal coliform indicate a declining trend to the Peoria Intake. Downstream of Peoria, concentrations of fecal bacteria tend to be elevated relative to other points along the Illinois River. Sources from Peoria, being an urbanized area, include storm water runoff, combined sewer overflows, and point source discharges.
Figure 1-20. Longitudinal profile of fecal coliform for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Total Suspended Solids
Loading of total suspended solids (TSS) can increase the system’s turbidity and lead to accelerated sedimentation. Primary sources of TSS are typically associated with runoff events and include: construction sites, poorly stabilized slopes, different types of erosion, or bare farm fields. Due to the Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -32- 6, 2011 DRAFT
association with runoff, TSS can be paired with other constituents for enhanced source evaluation. For example, elevated nitrate levels that follow a similar trend as elevated TSS may indicate a similar source such as a farm field.
Figure 1-21 presents a box and whisker plot presenting available TSS data per drainage area of tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, tributaries exhibited high variability while the Illinois River had considerably less. Along the Illinois River, median concentrations of TSS corresponded to increased drainage area, with increasing concentrations further downstream. Variability within the tributaries may indicate seasonal differences associated with runoff events.
Figure 1-21. Longitudinal profile of total suspended solids for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Nutrients
Elevated levels of phosphorus and nitrogen can lead to undesirable algal blooms, low oxygen levels, and ultimately, decreased aquatic life. Phosphorus can originate from both point and nonpoint sources. Typical sources include: wastewater treatment facilities, lawn fertilizers, pet waste, grass clippings, leaves, sediments, and phosphorus accumulated on impervious surfaces; all of which can be transported to receiving waters either directly or during rain and snowmelt events.
838HFigure 1-22 presents a box and whisker plot presenting available phosphorus data per drainage area of tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, a wide range of concentrations were found within the tributaries; less variability but consistently higher median concentrations were found within the main stem of the Illinois River.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -33- 6, 2011 DRAFT
839HFigure 1-23 presents a box and whisker plot presenting available nitrate data per drainage area of tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, nitrate concentrations within the tributaries had considerable variability, and in some cases, the highest median concentrations. The main stem of the Illinois River has relatively decreased variability and a consistent range in concentrations with increasing drainage area.
Figure 1-22. Longitudinal profile of total phosphorus for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -34- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-23. Longitudinal profile of nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Other Parameters
Conductivity can be a good indicator of water quality, in particular the concentration of ions within the water column. 840HFigure 1-24 presents conductivity data within the tributaries and main stem of the Illinois River. In general, a wide range of concentrations were found in both the tributaries and main stem of the Illinois River, with the highest median concentrations found in Farm Creek and Kickapoo Creek, which could be due to the urban land uses within these two watersheds.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -35- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-24. Longitudinal profile of conductivity for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
1.9.2 Special Studies
Illinois State Water Survey Sediment Studies
Due to concern surrounding sedimentation and siltation across the Illinois River valley, numerous studies have been conducted to identify sources of sediment and evaluate the transport and total sediment yield or load generated within the watershed. The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) has been instrumental in the effort to better characterize sediment loading within the Illinois River valley.
It has been identified that many of the environmental problems in the Illinois River Basin are due to urban and agricultural development, fragmentation of the landscape, alteration of upland drainage networks and floodplain alterations. These and other landscape alterations have resulted in advanced rates of landscape erosion; destabilization of the Illinois River main stem and tributary streams; sedimentation of the river main stem, backwaters, and side-channels; sedimentation of significant tributary floodplain pools and lakes; and, unnatural flow regimes (White et al., 2005).
In parts of Illinois, nearly 70 percent of the topsoil has been lost due to wind and water erosion (Bhowmik, 1984). Such erosion and subsequent sedimentation have long been recognized as the primary causes for most of the environmental and ecological problems across the Illinois River Valley (Demissie et al., 2004). One of the most serious problems identified is the sedimentation in the river channel and Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -36- 6, 2011 DRAFT
backwater lakes (Demissie et al., 1999). For example, it has been found that excessive sedimentation has led to the loss of over 68 percent of the original volume of Lake Peoria (Demissie and Bhowmik, 1986) as the deltas within the Lake continue to grow (Bhowmik et al,. 2001). Although conditions in bottomland lakes along the Illinois River were significantly altered when the State of Illinois increased diversion of water from Lake Michigan (Lee et al., 1979; Demissie, 1996), studies have now identified the main sources of sediment to the Illinois River valley as watershed erosion, streambank erosion, and bluff erosion (Demissie et al., 2004). A sediment budget calculation based on suspended sediment data shows that tributary streams deliver a significant amount of the sediment to the Illinois River valley, of which a portion is discharged into the Mississippi River or trapped in the Illinois River (Demissie, 1996).
The evaluation of sediment loading can be potentially useful in evaluating and predicting the relative effects of seasonal differences in tillage practices, cropping patterns, and pesticide applications on stream sediment and water quality (Adams et al., 1984; Bhowmik et al., 1986). For example, data show that spring (February through May) and summer months (June through September) both carry a much higher percentage of the total annual load than fall and winter (October through January) seasons (Adams et al., 1984; Bhowmik et al., 1986). This trend is likely related to land use practices such as tilling fields and exposing soil to spring rains.
It should be noted that most soil conservation-oriented agencies concentrate erosion control practices in the uplands of agricultural and urban areas yet current evidence now suggests that streambeds, streambanks, and near-channel areas such as hill slopes are significant sources of sediment where conservation practices need to be targeted (White et al., 2005).
USGS Synoptic Bacteria Survey
The USGS monitored the main stem Illinois River and tributaries for fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria from October 2007 to September 2008. Monthly samples were collected on the main stem at Hennepin and downstream of Peoria. Random samples were taken throughout the watershed. 841HTable 1-12 summarizes the number of samples and geometric mean of all samples at each location. For a comparison of fecal coliform and E. coli, 842HFigure 1-25 contains data at pertinent locations for the day of October 10, 2007. This is the only day in which samples were obtained for all locations. Tributaries are on the left and the main stem locations are on the right side of the figure. Sandy Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek had the highest tributary concentrations. The Illinois River at Peoria had the highest main stem bacteria concentration.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -37- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Table 1-12. USGS bacteria study sampling summary. USGS Site USGS Site Description Number of Samples Data Geomean (cfu/100 mL)
05556500
Big Bureau Creek at Princeton
11
410
05558000
Big Bureau Creek at Bureau
1
200
05558295
SANDY CREEK AT HENRY
1
400
05558500
CROW CREEK (WEST) NEAR HENRY
1
6
05558990
THENIUS CREEK AT SPARLAND
1
216
05559590
CROW CREEK NEAR CHILLICOTHE
1
146
05559700
SENACHWINE CREEK AT CHILLICOTHE
9
168
05559770
RICHLAND CREEK BL DRY CREEK NR CHILLICOTHE
1
987
05559800
PARTRIDGE CREEK NEAR METAMORA
4
573
05559820
PARTRIDGE CREEK TRIBUTARY NEAR METAMORA
3
608
05559830
PARTRIDGE CREEK NEAR SPRING BAY
1
34
05559840
BLALOCK CREEK NEAR SPRING BAY
1
640
05559890
TENMILE CREEK AT TRAILPARK GARDENS
1
6
05560500
FARM CREEK AT FARMDALE
10
357
05561800
FARM CREEK AT RT 150 AT EAST PEORIA
1
800
05562000
FARM CREEK AT EAST PEORIA
1
83
05562010
FARM CR AT CAMP ST BRIDGE AT EAST PEORIA
1
140
05563525
KICKAPOO CREEK AT BARTONVILLE
2
336
05556200
ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENNEPIN
35
59
05558300
ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENRY
3
59
05558995
ILLINOIS RIVER AT LACON
3
37
05559600
ILLINOIS RIVER AT CHILLICOTHE
4
47
05559850
ILLINOIS RIVER AT SOUTH ROME
2
41
05559900
ILLINOIS RIVER AT WATER COMPANY AT PEORIA
3
9
05560000
ILLINOIS RIVER AT PEORIA
6
72
05562100
ILLINOIS RIVER AT FRANKLIN ST BRIDGE AT PEORIA
4
79
05562200
ILLINOIS RIVER BELOW PEORIA LAKE AT PEORIA
34
72
05563590
ILLINOIS R AB PEORIA LOCK AND DAM NR CREVE COEUR
1
520
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -38- 6, 2011 DRAFT
Figure 1-25. USGS bacteria data on 10/10/2007.
Middle Illinois River TMDL
October -39- 6, 2011 DRAFT
2. Watershed Source Assessment
Source assessments are an important component of water quality management plans and TMDL development. Source assessment methods vary widely with respect to their applicability, ease of use, and acceptability. This section provides a summary of potential watershed-wide sources that contribute listed pollutants to the Illinois River (Peoria area) Watershed. Watershed specific source assessments are provided in Sections 5 through 13.
Approximately 68 percent of the watershed area is devoted to agricultural activities. Wetlands and upland forest occupy approximately 17 percent of the watershed area. Other land use categories, including urban, represent the remaining 11 percent. There are numerous point source discharges (e.g., municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plants, urban storm water, livestock facilities) in this watershed. Potential nonpoint sources include agriculture, pasture management, and crop-related sources, land disposal of human / animal waste, on-site wastewater systems, bank or shoreline modification / destabilization, habitat modification, urban runoff / stormwater and waterfowl.
Historic development revolving around the growth and urbanization of the greater Peoria area has created a wide array of potential sources that could deliver contaminants to the Illinois River. For example, one dominant source of pollutants to the Illinois River is associated with storm water. The high percentage of impervious surface in the urbanized portion of the watershed has resulted in a network of drainage systems. Storm water is quickly conveyed to the Illinois River (Peoria area) through numerous storm water outfalls. The increased storm water volumes also enter the combined sewer system, causing occasional discharge of untreated domestic wastewater to the Illinois River through CSOs. In addition, pollutants associated with runoff from agricultural areas have the potential to be carried to the Illinois River and its tributaries during rain and snowmelt events.
2.1 Overview of Watershed Sources
Pollutants of concern evaluated within this source assessment include fecal coliform, phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, chloride, manganese, and total dissolved solids. These pollutants can originate from an array of sources including point and nonpoint sources. Point sources typically discharge at a specific location from pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources that have multiple routes of entry into surface waters, particularly overland runoff. This section provides a summary of potential point and nonpoint sources that contribute listed pollutants to the impaired waterbodies.
2.1.1 Point Sources
Point source pollution is defined by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §502(14) as: any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pip

Object Description

Title

Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL and LRS Development%3A Watershed Characterization and Source Assessment Report (Stage 1) [review draft]

Description

Title

draft-middle-illinois

Transcript

Middle Illinois River Total Maximum Daily Load and Load Reduction Strategies DRAFT October 6, 2011 Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Region 5 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. 1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 620 Cleveland, OH 44113 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -ii- 6, 2011 DRAFT Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ xiv Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ xv 1. Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Water Quality Impairments ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Setting ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Problem Identification ............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Jurisdictions and Population ..................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 11 1.6 Land Use / Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 15 1.8 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 20 1.8.1 Seasonal Flow Variation ............................................................................................... 24 1.8.2 Flow Duration Curves .................................................................................................. 26 1.9 Monitoring and Special Studies .............................................................................................. 28 1.9.1 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring .............................................................................. 28 1.9.2 Special Studies ............................................................................................................. 35 2. Watershed Source Assessment ............................................................................................. 39 2.1 Overview of Watershed Sources ............................................................................................ 39 2.1.1 Point Sources ............................................................................................................... 39 2.1.2 Nonpoint Sources ......................................................................................................... 44 3. TMDL Endpoints and LRS Targets ......................................................................................... 50 3.1 Applicable Standards ............................................................................................................. 50 3.1.1 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................... 50 3.1.2 Water Quality Criteria .................................................................................................. 50 3.2 Load Reduction Strategy Targets ........................................................................................... 52 3.2.1 Nitrogen and Phosphorus .............................................................................................. 52 3.2.2 Total Suspended Solids, Sedimentation, and Siltation ................................................... 53 4. Technical Approach for TMDL and LRS ................................................................................. 55 4.1 Waterbody-Pollutant Impairments .......................................................................................... 55 4.2 Watershed Clusters ................................................................................................................ 58 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Relationships .......................................................................... 60 4.4 Approach to Estimate Flow .................................................................................................... 62 4.4.1 Drainage Area Weighting Technique ............................................................................ 65 4.4.2 Regression Analysis ..................................................................................................... 66 4.5 TMDL Derivation .................................................................................................................. 68 4.5.1 Load Allocations .......................................................................................................... 68 4.5.2 Wasteload Allocations .................................................................................................. 68 4.5.3 Margin of Safety .......................................................................................................... 70 4.5.4 Critical Conditions and Seasonality .............................................................................. 71 4.6 Load Reduction Strategies ..................................................................................................... 72 5. Illinois River Main Stem .......................................................................................................... 73 5.1 Source Assessment ................................................................................................................ 76 5.1.1 Partridge Creek ............................................................................................................ 82 5.1.2 Tenmile Creek .............................................................................................................. 82 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -iii- 6, 2011 DRAFT 5.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis .................................................................................................. 82 5.2.1 Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................ 83 5.2.2 Fecal Coliform ............................................................................................................. 90 5.2.3 Phosphorus ................................................................................................................... 98 5.2.4 Nitrogen ..................................................................................................................... 104 5.2.5 Manganese (Site D-30) ............................................................................................... 109 5.2.6 Total Dissolved Solids (Site D-30).............................................................................. 111 5.3 Illinois River at Hennepin TMDL and LRS (Site D-16) ........................................................ 112 5.3.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 114 5.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 115 5.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 115 5.4 Illinois River at Peoria Intake TMDL and LRS (Site D-30) .................................................. 118 5.4.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 120 5.4.2 Manganese TMDL ..................................................................................................... 121 5.4.3 Total Dissolved Solids TMDL .................................................................................... 123 5.4.4 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 124 5.4.5 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 124 5.5 Illinois River at Pekin TMDL and LRS (Site D-05) .............................................................. 126 5.5.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 130 5.5.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 131 5.5.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 131 5.6 Illinois River at Lacon LRS (Site D-09) ............................................................................... 133 5.6.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 135 5.6.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 135 6. Big Bureau Creek .................................................................................................................. 138 6.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 140 6.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 144 6.2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 144 6.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 148 6.2.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 151 6.3 West Bureau Creek TMDL and LRS (site DQD-01) ............................................................. 157 6.3.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 157 6.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 158 6.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 159 6.4 Big Bureau Creek TMDL and LRS (Site DQ-03) ................................................................. 161 6.4.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 161 6.4.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 163 6.4.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 163 6.5 Big Bureau Creek LRS (Site DQ-04) ................................................................................... 166 6.5.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 167 6.5.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 167 7. Farm Creek ............................................................................................................................ 170 7.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 172 7.1.1 Ackerman Creek......................................................................................................... 175 7.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 175 7.2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 175 7.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 177 7.2.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 179 7.2.4 Chloride ..................................................................................................................... 182 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -iv- 6, 2011 DRAFT 7.3 Farm Creek TMDL and LRS................................................................................................ 184 7.3.1 Chloride TMDL ......................................................................................................... 185 7.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 187 7.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 187 8. Kickapoo Creek ..................................................................................................................... 190 8.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 192 8.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 195 8.2.1 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 195 8.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 197 8.2.3 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 198 8.3 Kickapoo Creek TMDL and LRS ......................................................................................... 201 8.3.1 Bacteria TMDL .......................................................................................................... 202 8.3.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 203 8.3.3 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 203 9. Senachwine Creek ................................................................................................................ 206 9.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 208 9.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 210 9.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 210 9.2.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 211 9.3 Senachwine Creek LRS ....................................................................................................... 214 9.3.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 214 9.3.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 214 10. Crow Creek and Snag Creek LRS ......................................................................................... 217 10.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 219 10.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 222 10.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 222 10.2.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 223 10.3 Crow Creek and Snag Creek LRS ........................................................................................ 226 10.3.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 226 10.3.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 227 11. Sandy Creek LRS .................................................................................................................. 229 11.1 Source Assessment .............................................................................................................. 231 11.2 Watershed Linkage Analysis ................................................................................................ 234 11.2.1 Total Suspended Solids .............................................................................................. 234 11.2.2 Nutrients .................................................................................................................... 235 11.3 Sandy Creek LRS ................................................................................................................ 238 11.3.1 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 238 11.3.2 Nutrient LRS .............................................................................................................. 239 12. Lake Depue........................................................................................................................... 241 12.1 Water Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................ 241 12.1.1 Critical Conditions and Internal Loading .................................................................... 247 12.2 Lake Depue TMDL and LRS ............................................................................................... 248 12.2.1 Total Phosphorus TMDL ............................................................................................ 248 12.2.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 251 13. Senachwine Lake .................................................................................................................. 252 13.1 Water Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................ 252 13.2 Senachwine Lake TMDL and LRS ....................................................................................... 257 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -v- 6, 2011 DRAFT 13.2.1 Total Phosphorus TMDL ............................................................................................ 257 13.2.2 Total Suspended Solids LRS....................................................................................... 260 14. Public Participation ............................................................................................................... 261 15. Implementation and Reasonable Assurance ....................................................................... 262 15.1 Existing Implementation Activities ...................................................................................... 262 15.1.1 Illinois Basin Restoration Comprehensive Plan with Integrated Environmental Assessment (USACE 2007) - Projects in the TMDL Watershed .............................................. 262 15.1.2 River Bluff Restoration .............................................................................................. 264 15.1.3 New Locally Led Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program .................................... 265 15.1.4 Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) Program Project in Big Bureau and Senachwine Watersheds .......................................................................................................... 265 15.2 Implementation Activities .................................................................................................... 266 15.2.1 Future Anticipated Activities in the Watershed ........................................................... 267 15.2.2 Implementation Activities for Agricultural Sources .................................................... 268 15.2.3 Implementation Activities for Urban Sources .............................................................. 268 15.3 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 272 15.4 Reasonable Assurance ......................................................................................................... 273 15.4.1 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ..................................................... 273 15.4.2 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ........................................................................ 274 15.4.3 Conservation 2000 ...................................................................................................... 274 15.4.4 Nonpoint Source Management Program (NSMP) ........................................................ 274 15.4.5 Agricultural Loan Program ......................................................................................... 275 15.4.6 Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative (ICCI) ..................................................... 275 16. References ............................................................................................................................ 276 Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................... 280 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -vi- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figures Figure 1-1. Illinois River at Spring Bay. .................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. ................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-3.The lock and dam system of the Illinois River (USGS, 2007). ................................................. 8 Figure 1-4. Illinois River (Peoria Area) population density. ................................................................... 10 Figure 1-5. Average precipitation and monthly temperatures for Peoria.................................................. 11 Figure 1-6. Precipitation intensity -- Peoria airport gage......................................................................... 12 Figure 1-7. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed land use. .................................................................... 14 Figure 1-8. Illinois River basin topography. ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 1-9. Illinois River basin hydrologic soil groups. .......................................................................... 19 Figure 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. ............................................................................. 22 Figure 1-11. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2007. ................................ 23 Figure 1-12. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2008. ................................ 23 Figure 1-13. Seasonal variation of Illinois River flows. .......................................................................... 24 Figure 1-14. Seasonal variation of Big Bureau Creek flows.................................................................... 25 Figure 1-15. Peak flow history for Illinois River at Henry gage. ............................................................. 25 Figure 1-16. Peak flow history for Big Bureau Creek gage. .................................................................... 26 Figure 1-17. Flow duration curve for Illinois River at Henry gage. ......................................................... 27 Figure 1-18. Flow duration curve for Big Bureau Creek at Princeton gage. ............................................ 28 Figure 1-19. Location of Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. ..................................................... 30 Figure 1-20. Longitudinal profile of fecal coliform for the Illinois River (Peoria area). .......................... 31 Figure 1-21. Longitudinal profile of total suspended solids for the Illinois River (Peoria area). .............. 32 Figure 1-22. Longitudinal profile of total phosphorus for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ....................... 33 Figure 1-23. Longitudinal profile of nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ... 34 Figure 1-24. Longitudinal profile of conductivity for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ............................. 35 Figure 1-25. USGS bacteria data on 10/10/2007..................................................................................... 38 Figure 2-1. Channel evolution model (from Simon and Hupp, 1986). ..................................................... 46 Figure 2-2. Correlation between animal unit density and fecal coliform counts....................................... 49 Figure 3-1. Nutrient ecoregions. ............................................................................................................ 52 Figure 3-2. TSS concentration zones. ..................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4-1. TMDL locations. ................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 4-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters. ..................................................................... 59 Figure 4-3. Unit area flow duration curves for Illinois River tributaries. ................................................. 63 Figure 4-4. Unit area flow duration curves for USGS gage locations along the Illinois River. ................. 64 Figure 4-5. Project area overview including watershed clusters, monitoring stations, and USGS gages. .. 67 Figure 5-1. View of Illinois River in the lakes area. ............................................................................... 73 Figure 5-2. Illinois River main stem segments and stations .................................................................... 75 Figure 5-3. Illinois River main stem watershed cluster land use.............................................................. 77 Figure 5-4. Illinois River main stem watershed cluster segments and stations. ........................................ 81 Figure 5-5. Illinois River main stem longitudinal TSS profile................................................................. 84 Figure 5-6. Illinois River tributary longitudinal TSS profile. .................................................................. 85 Figure 5-7. Annual TSS concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010. ................................... 86 Figure 5-8. TSS water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010. ......................... 87 Figure 5-9. Annual TSS concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 - 2010. ............................. 88 Figure 5-10. TSS water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. .................. 88 Figure 5-11. Annual TSS concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 - 2010. ....................................... 89 Figure 5-12. TSS water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1979 – 2010. ............................. 90 Figure 5-13. Illinois River main stem longitudinal fecal coliform profile. ............................................... 91 Figure 5-14. Illinois River tributary longitudinal fecal coliform profile. ................................................. 91 Figure 5-15. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010. .................. 92 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -vii- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 5-16. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010. ............................... 93 Figure 5-17. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010......... 93 Figure 5-18. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Lacon, 1977 - 2010. ....................... 94 Figure 5-19. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Illinois River at Lacon, 1977 - 2010. ..................................... 94 Figure 5-20. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Lacon, 1978 – 2010. ............. 95 Figure 5-21. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 - 2010. ............ 95 Figure 5-22. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 – 2010. ......................... 96 Figure 5-23. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. .. 96 Figure 5-24. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 - 2010. ........................ 97 Figure 5-25. Seasonal fecal coliform, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 – 2010. ............................................ 97 Figure 5-26. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1979 – 2010. .............. 98 Figure 5-27. Illinois River main stem longitudinal phosphorus profile. ................................................... 99 Figure 5-28. Illinois River tributary longitudinal phosphorus profile. ..................................................... 99 Figure 5-29. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1984 - 2010. .................... 100 Figure 5-30. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010. .......... 101 Figure 5-31. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1969 - 2010. .............. 102 Figure 5-32. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. ..... 102 Figure 5-33. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1980 - 2010. .......................... 103 Figure 5-34. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1980 – 2010. ................ 104 Figure 5-35. Illinois River main stem longitudinal nitrogen profile....................................................... 105 Figure 5-36. Illinois River tributary longitudinal nitrogen profile. ........................................................ 105 Figure 5-37. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1977 - 2010.......................... 106 Figure 5-38. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin, 1981 – 2010. .............. 107 Figure 5-39. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1977 - 2010. ................... 107 Figure 5-40. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1979 – 2010. ......... 108 Figure 5-41. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Illinois River at Pekin, 1977 - 2010. ............................... 108 Figure 5-42. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin, 1979 – 2010. .................... 109 Figure 5-43. Annual manganese concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1999 - 2005. ............... 110 Figure 5-44. Manganese water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 1999 – 2005. ..... 110 Figure 5-45. Annual total dissolved solids concentrations, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 2006 - 2008. 111 Figure 5-46. Total dissolved solids water quality duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake, 2006 - 2008. .......................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 5-47. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ............................. 114 Figure 5-48. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ........................ 116 Figure 5-49. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16)....................................... 117 Figure 5-50. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ....................... 120 Figure 5-51. Manganese load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ............................ 122 Figure 5-52. Total dissolved solids load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ............ 123 Figure 5-53. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ................... 125 Figure 5-54. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ................................ 126 Figure 5-55. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). ................................... 130 Figure 5-56. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05)................................ 132 Figure 5-57. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). ............................................ 133 Figure 5-58. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). .............................. 136 Figure 5-59. Nitrogen load duration curve, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). ........................................... 137 Figure 6-1. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ............................................... 139 Figure 6-2. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster land use. .................................................................... 141 Figure 6-3. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ...................................................... 143 Figure 6-4. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1979 - 2010. ..................... 144 Figure 6-5. Seasonal fecal coliform concentrations, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton , 1979-2010. ......... 145 Figure 6-6. Seasonal fecal coliform concentrations, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1980-2010............ 145 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -viii- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 6-7. Seasonal fecal coliform concentrations, Big Bureau Creek at Outlet, 2009-2010. ............... 146 Figure 6-8. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1979 – 2010. 147 Figure 6-9. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1980 – 2010. . 147 Figure 6-10. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Outlet, 2009 – 2010..... 148 Figure 6-11. Annual TSS concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1977 - 2010. .................................. 149 Figure 6-12. TSS water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1977 – 2010. .............. 150 Figure 6-13. TSS water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1979 – 2010. ............... 150 Figure 6-14. TSS water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Outlet, 2004 – 2010. ................... 151 Figure 6-15. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1978 - 2010. ....................... 152 Figure 6-16. Annual phosphorus concentrations, West Bureau at Wyanet, 1984 - 2010. ....................... 152 Figure 6-17. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Big Bureau at Princeton, 1977 - 2010............................. 153 Figure 6-18. Annual nitrogen concentrations, West Bureau at Wyanet, 1979 - 2010. ............................ 153 Figure 6-19. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1978 – 2010. ... 155 Figure 6-20. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek, 1984 – 2010. .................... 155 Figure 6-21. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton, 1977 – 2010. ....... 156 Figure 6-22. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet, 1979 – 2010. ........ 156 Figure 6-23. Fecal coliform load duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01).................. 158 Figure 6-24. Total phosphorus load duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ............ 159 Figure 6-25. Nitrogen load duration curve, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ......................... 160 Figure 6-26. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ................... 162 Figure 6-27. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ............... 164 Figure 6-28. Nitrogen load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ............................ 165 Figure 6-29. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). .............. 168 Figure 6-30. Nitrogen load duration curve, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). ........................... 169 Figure 7-1. View of Farm Creek. ......................................................................................................... 170 Figure 7-2. Farm Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ......................................................... 171 Figure 7-3. Farm Creek watershed cluster land use. ............................................................................. 173 Figure 7-4. Farm Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ................................................................ 174 Figure 7-5. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ................. 176 Figure 7-6. Seasonal fecal coliform data, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979-2010. ................................. 176 Figure 7-7. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 – 2010. ....... 177 Figure 7-8. Annual TSS concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ................................ 178 Figure 7-9. TSS water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 – 2010. ....................... 179 Figure 7-10. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1984 - 2010. ................... 180 Figure 7-11. Seasonal phosphorus data, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1984-2010. ................................... 180 Figure 7-12. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ........................ 181 Figure 7-13. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1984 - 2010. .......... 181 Figure 7-14. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1979 - 2010. ............... 182 Figure 7-15. Annual chloride concentrations, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1999- 2005. ......................... 183 Figure 7-16. Seasonal chloride data, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1999 – 2005. ..................................... 183 Figure 7-17. Chloride water quality duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria, 1999 - 2005. ............... 184 Figure 7-18. Chloride load duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ............................... 186 Figure 7-19. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ................. 188 Figure 7-20. Nitrogen load duration curve, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). .............................. 189 Figure 8-1. View of Kickapoo Creek. .................................................................................................. 190 Figure 8-2. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster sampling stations and listed segment. ........................... 191 Figure 8-3. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster land use. ....................................................................... 193 Figure 8-4. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ......................................................... 194 Figure 8-5. Annual fecal coliform concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010.................................. 195 Figure 8-6. Seasonal fecal coliform, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville, 1979-2010. ................................. 196 Figure 8-7. Fecal coliform water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 – 2010. ...................... 196 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -ix- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 8-8. Annual TSS concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010. ............................................... 197 Figure 8-9. TSS water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010. ....................................... 198 Figure 8-10. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1984 - 2010.................................... 199 Figure 8-11. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 - 2010. ....................................... 199 Figure 8-12. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1984 – 2010. ......................... 200 Figure 8-13. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Kickapoo Creek, 1979 – 2010. ............................. 200 Figure 8-14. Fecal coliform load duration curve, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ................... 202 Figure 8-15. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ............... 204 Figure 8-16. Nitrogen load duration curve, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ............................ 205 Figure 9-1. Senachwine Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. .............................................. 207 Figure 9-2. Senachwine Creek watershed cluster land use. ................................................................... 209 Figure 9-3. Annual TSS concentrations, Senachwine Creek, 1999 - 2010. ............................................ 210 Figure 9-4. TSS water quality duration curve, Senachwine Creek, 1999 - 2010. ................................... 211 Figure 9-5. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Senachwine Creek, 1999 – 2010. ................................ 212 Figure 9-6. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Senachwine Creek, 1999 – 2010. ..................................... 212 Figure 9-7. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Senachwine Creek, 1999 – 2010. ....................... 213 Figure 9-8. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Senachwine Creek, 1999 - 2010. ............................ 213 Figure 9-9. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). .................................. 215 Figure 9-10. Nitrogen load duration curve, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). ............................................. 216 Figure 10-1. Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ............................. 218 Figure 10-2. Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster land use. .................................................. 220 Figure 10-3. Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. .................................... 221 Figure 10-4. Annual TSS concentrations, Crow Creek, 2009 – 2010. ................................................... 222 Figure 10-5. TSS water quality duration curve, Crow Creek, 2009 - 2010. ........................................... 223 Figure 10-6. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Crow Creek, 2009 – 2010. ........................................ 224 Figure 10-7. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Crow Creek, 2009 – 2010. ............................................. 224 Figure 10-8. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Crow Creek, 2009 - 2010. ................................ 225 Figure 10-9. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Crow Creek, 2009 - 2010. .................................... 225 Figure 10-10. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Crow Creek East (DO-01). ................................. 227 Figure 10-11. Nitrogen load duration curve, Crow Creek East (DO-01)................................................ 228 Figure 11-1. Sandy Creek watershed cluster segments and stations. ..................................................... 230 Figure 11-2. Sandy Creek watershed cluster land use. .......................................................................... 232 Figure 11-3. Sandy Creek watershed cluster NPDES facilities. ............................................................ 233 Figure 11-4. Annual TSS concentrations, Sandy Creek, 2009 – 2010. .................................................. 234 Figure 11-5. TSS water quality duration curve, Sandy Creek, 2009 - 2010. .......................................... 235 Figure 11-6. Annual phosphorus concentrations, Sandy Creek, 2009 – 2010. ....................................... 236 Figure 11-7. Annual nitrogen concentrations, Sandy Creek, 2009 – 2010. ............................................ 236 Figure 11-8. Phosphorus water quality duration curve, Sandy Creek, 2009 - 2010. ............................... 237 Figure 11-9. Nitrogen water quality duration curve, Sandy Creek, 2009 - 2010. ................................... 237 Figure 11-10. Total phosphorus load duration curve, Sandy Creek (DP-02).......................................... 239 Figure 11-11. Nitrogen load duration curve, Sandy Creek (DP-02). ...................................................... 240 Figure 12-1. Lake Depue sampling stations. ......................................................................................... 243 Figure 12-2. Lake Depue average annual total phosphorus concentrations. ........................................... 244 Figure 12-3. Lake Depue average annual chlorophyll-a concentrations. ............................................... 244 Figure 12-4. Lake Depue seasonal TP concentrations. .......................................................................... 245 Figure 12-5. Lake Depue seasonal chlorophyll-a data. ......................................................................... 245 Figure 12-6. Lake Depue relationship between phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations. .............. 246 Figure 12-7. Correlation between TSS and TP in Lake Depue, all data. ................................................ 246 Figure 12-8. Lake Depue dissolved oxygen depth profile, 1995............................................................ 247 Figure 13-1. Senachwine Lake sampling stations. ................................................................................ 254 Figure 13-2. Senachwine Lake phosphorus data. .................................................................................. 255 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -x- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 13-3. Senachwine Lake Secchi depth data. ................................................................................ 255 Figure 13-4. Senachwine Lake chlorophyll-a data. ............................................................................... 256 Figure 13-5. Senachwine Lake relationship between chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus. ..................... 256 Figure 13-6. Relationship between TP and TSS, Senachwine Lake. ..................................................... 257 Figure 13-7. Phosphorus load duration curve, Senachwine Lake. ......................................................... 258 Tables Table 1-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) impaired waters. ............................................................................ 3 Table 1-2. Segments not meeting sediment and nutrient targets ................................................................ 4 Table 1-3. Studies and literature relevant to the Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL ................................. 5 Table 1-4. County populations within the Illinois River project area......................................................... 9 Table 1-5. Climate summary for Peoria (1901 – 2009). .......................................................................... 11 Table 1-6. Illinois River (Peoria area) land use summary. ...................................................................... 13 Table 1-7. Hydrologic Soil Group descriptions. ..................................................................................... 17 Table 1-8. Percent composition of HSGs per watershed. ........................................................................ 17 Table 1-9. Percent of highly erodible versus not highly erodible soils per watershed. ............................. 18 Table 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. .............................................................................. 21 Table 1-11. Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. ......................................................................... 29 Table 1-12. USGS bacteria study sampling summary. ............................................................................ 37 Table 2-1. MS4 permits in the Illinois River (Peoria area) project watershed. ......................................... 41 Table 2-2. Combined sewer systems and sanitary sewer overflows within the project area. .................... 42 Table 2-3. Summary of available reported data for CSO Outfalls within the project area. ....................... 42 Table 2-4. Long term control plan status ................................................................................................ 44 Table 2-5. Estimated (area weighted) livestock for each subwatershed in the Illinois River (Peoria Area) watershed. .................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 3-1. Summary of water quality standards for Illinois River (Peoria area). ..................................... 51 Table 3-2. TMDL endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 51 Table 3-3. Load reduction strategies targets ........................................................................................... 52 Table 4-1. Summary of TMDLs ............................................................................................................. 55 Table 4-2. Summary of LRSs ................................................................................................................ 56 Table 4-3. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters. ...................................................................... 58 Table 4-4. Relationship between duration curve zones and contributing sources ..................................... 61 Table 4-5. Available USGS Flow Data .................................................................................................. 65 Table 4-6. Drainage area weighting locations ......................................................................................... 66 Table 4-7. Permitted excess flows .......................................................................................................... 69 Table 4-8. Summary of critical conditions.............................................................................................. 71 Table 5-1. Illinois River main stem 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .......................................................... 74 Table 5-2. Livestock populations in Illinois River main stem watershed cluster. ..................................... 76 Table 5-3. NPDES facilities within the Illinois River main stem watershed cluster. ................................ 78 Table 5-4. Sediment load comparison .................................................................................................... 85 Table 5-5. Illinois River at Hennepin summary table. ........................................................................... 113 Table 5-6. Fecal coliform TMDL, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ................................................... 115 Table 5-7. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Hennepin. .................................................................................. 115 Table 5-8. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). .................................................. 116 Table 5-9. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Hennepin (D-16). ............................................................... 117 Table 5-10. Illinois River at Peoria Intake (Site D-30) summary table. ................................................. 118 Table 5-11. Fecal coliform TMDL, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ........................................... 121 Table 5-12. Manganese TMDL, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ................................................ 123 Table 5-13. Total dissolved solids TMDL, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30).................................. 124 Table 5-14. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Peoria. ..................................................................................... 124 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -xi- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 5-15. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ........................................... 125 Table 5-16. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Peoria Intake (D-30). ........................................................ 126 Table 5-17. Illinois River at Pekin summary table. ............................................................................... 127 Table 5-18. Fecal coliform TMDL, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). ....................................................... 131 Table 5-19. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Pekin. ...................................................................................... 131 Table 5-20. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05)........................................................ 132 Table 5-21. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Pekin (D-05). .................................................................... 133 Table 5-22. Illinois River at Lacon summary table. .............................................................................. 134 Table 5-23. TSS LRS, Illinois River at Lacon. ..................................................................................... 135 Table 5-24. Total phosphorus LRS, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). ...................................................... 136 Table 5-25. Nitrogen LRS, Illinois River at Lacon (D-09). ................................................................... 137 Table 6-1. Big Bureau Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ................................................................. 138 Table 6-2. Livestock populations in Big Bureau Creek watershed. ....................................................... 140 Table 6-3. NPDES facilities within the Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster. ....................................... 142 Table 6-4. West Bureau Creek summary table. .................................................................................... 157 Table 6-5. Fecal coliform TMDL, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ....................................... 158 Table 6-6. TSS LRS, West Bureau Creek (DQD-01). ........................................................................... 159 Table 6-7. Total phosphorus LRS, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ...................................... 160 Table 6-8. Nitrogen LRS, West Bureau Creek at Wyanet (DQD-01). ................................................... 160 Table 6-9. Big Bureau Creek at Princeton summary table. ................................................................... 161 Table 6-10. Fecal coliform TMDL, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03). ....................................... 162 Table 6-11. TSS LRS, Big Bureau Creek (DQ-03). .............................................................................. 163 Table 6-12. Total phosphorus LRS, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03)........................................ 164 Table 6-13. Nitrogen LRS, Big Bureau Creek at Princeton (DQ-03)..................................................... 165 Table 6-14. Big Bureau Creek (DQ-04) summary table. ....................................................................... 166 Table 6-15. TSS LRS, Big Bureau Creek (DQ-04). .............................................................................. 167 Table 6-16. Total phosphorus LRS, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). ...................................... 168 Table 6-17. Nitrogen LRS, Big Bureau Creek at the mouth (DQ-04). ................................................... 169 Table 7-1. Farm Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds............................................................................ 170 Table 7-2. NPDES facilities within the Farm Creek watershed cluster. ................................................. 172 Table 7-3. Livestock populations in Farm Creek watershed. ................................................................. 172 Table 7-4. Farm Creek summary table. ................................................................................................ 185 Table 7-5. Chloride TMDL, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ..................................................... 186 Table 7-6. TSS LRS, Farm Creek. ....................................................................................................... 187 Table 7-7. Total phosphorus LRS, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ........................................... 188 Table 7-8. Nitrogen LRS, Farm Creek at East Peoria (DZZP-03). ........................................................ 189 Table 8-1. Kickapoo Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .................................................................... 190 Table 8-2. NPDES facilities within the Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster. .......................................... 192 Table 8-3. Livestock populations in Kickapoo Creek watershed. .......................................................... 192 Table 8-4. Kickapoo Creek summary table. ......................................................................................... 201 Table 8-5. Fecal coliform TMDL, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ......................................... 203 Table 8-6. TSS LRS, Kickapoo Creek.................................................................................................. 203 Table 8-7. Total phosphorus LRS, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ......................................... 204 Table 8-8. Nitrogen LRS, Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville (DL-01). ...................................................... 205 Table 9-1. Senachwine Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ................................................................ 206 Table 9-2. Livestock populations in Senachwine Creek watershed. ...................................................... 208 Table 9-3. Senachwine Creek summary table. ...................................................................................... 214 Table 9-4. TSS LRS, Senachwine Creek. ............................................................................................. 214 Table 9-5. Total phosphorus LRS, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). .......................................................... 215 Table 9-6. Nitrogen LRS, Senachwine Creek (DM-01). ....................................................................... 216 Table 10-1. Crow Creek and Snag Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ............................................... 217 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -xii- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 10-2. NPDES facilities within the Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed cluster. ..................... 219 Table 10-3. Livestock populations in Crow Creek and Snag Creek watershed. ..................................... 219 Table 10-4. Crow Creek and Snag Creek summary table. ..................................................................... 226 Table 10-5. TSS LRS, Crow Creek and Snag Creek ............................................................................. 226 Table 10-6. Total phosphorus LRS, Crow Creek East (DO-01). ........................................................... 227 Table 10-7. Nitrogen LRS, Crow Creek East (DO-01). ........................................................................ 228 Table 11-1. Sandy Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ....................................................................... 229 Table 11-2. NPDES facilities within the Sandy Creek watershed cluster. ............................................. 231 Table 11-3. Livestock populations in Sandy Creek watershed. ............................................................. 231 Table 11-4. Sandy Creek summary table .............................................................................................. 238 Table 11-5. TSS LRS, Sandy Creek. .................................................................................................... 238 Table 11-6. Total phosphorus LRS, Sandy Creek (DP-02). .................................................................. 239 Table 11-7. Nitrogen LRS, Sandy Creek (DP-02). ............................................................................... 240 Table 12-1. Surface Water Quality Means, Lake Depue, 1995 – 2007. ................................................. 242 Table 12-2. Sediment phosphorus data, Lake Depue. ........................................................................... 248 Table 12-3. In-lake model inputs. ........................................................................................................ 249 Table 12-4. Phosphorus TMDL, Lake Depue. ...................................................................................... 249 Table 12-5. Lake Depue TSS LRS. ...................................................................................................... 251 Table 13-1. Surface Water Quality Means, Senachwine Lake, 2001. .................................................... 252 Table 13-2. Phosphorus TMDL, Senachwine Lake. ............................................................................. 258 Table 13-3. Senachwine Lake TSS LRS. ............................................................................................. 260 Table 15-1. TMDL and LRS summary of pollutants and potential sources. .......................................... 266 Table 15-2. NPDES facilities with chlorination exemptions ................................................................. 270 Table A-1. NPDES fecal coliform WLAs. ........................................................................................... 280 Table A-2. MS4 fecal coliform WLAs. ................................................................................................ 282 Table A-3. NPDES manganese WLAs. ................................................................................................ 282 Table A-4. NPDES TDS WLAs. .......................................................................................................... 285 Table A-5. NPDES chloride WLAs. .................................................................................................... 287 Table A-6. MS4 chloride WLAs. ......................................................................................................... 287 Table A-7. NPDES Total phosphorus WLAs. ...................................................................................... 288 Table A-8. CSO/SSO pathogen WLAs................................................................................................. 289 Table A-9. CSO/SSO TP WLAs. ......................................................................................................... 289 Table A-10. NPDES Fecal Coliform Exceedance Summary (DMR Data 2005-2010). .......................... 290 Table A-11. Reported CSO/SSO maximum flows ................................................................................ 291 Acronyms and Abbreviations AFOs Animal Feeding Operations AWQMN Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network CAFO Confined Animal Feeding Operation CFR Code of Federal Regulation CPP Conservation Practice Program CRP Conservation Reserve Program CWA Clean Water Act CSO Combined Sewer Overflows DAF Average Design Flow DAP Diammonium phosphate DMF Maximum Design Flow EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program HUC Hydrologic Unit Code HSG Hydrologic Soil Group Middle Illinois River TMDL October -xiii- 6, 2011 DRAFT HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICCI Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources ICCI Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board IRBR Illinois River Basin Restoration ISWS Illinois State Water Survey LA Load Allocation LRS Load Reduction Strategies MBI Macroinvertebrate Biological Integrity MEP Maximum Extent Practical MHP Mobile Home Park MOS Margin of Safety MRBI Mississippi River Basin Initiative MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS Nonpoint Source NSMP Nonpoint Source Management Program SARE Sustainable Agriculture Grant Program STP Sewage Treatment Plant SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration TCRPC Tri-County Regional Planning Commission TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geological Survey VW Volume Weighted WLA Wasteload Allocation WQS Water Quality Standards WY Water Year WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Middle Illinois River TMDL October -xiv- 6, 2011 DRAFT Acknowledgements The Middle Illinois River TMDL workgroup provided valuable data and documents for watershed characterization, data inventory and stakeholder mailing lists. Meetings were a key component for communicating information and making important project decisions for supporting the TMDL/LRS development. Illinois EPA and U.S. EPA would like to thank these entities/individuals for providing staff and time to meet with us on several occasions and provide this information: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) United States Geological Survey (USGS) City of Peoria Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Several individuals from engineering firms in the Peoria area In addition, the following organizations/entities are thanked for their participation: Illinois American Water Company provided Illinois EPA TMDL monitoring staff timely access to the sampling site on the mainstem of the Illinois River, segment D-30. NPDES facilities that provided data in addition to what is collected under the Illinois EPA discharge monitoring report (DMR) dataset. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -xv- 6, 2011 DRAFT Executive Summary The Clean Water Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require that Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) be developed for waters that do not support their designated uses. In simple terms, a TMDL is a plan to attain and maintain water quality standards in waters that are not currently meeting them. In addition to TMDL development, load reduction strategies (LRS) are included to address additional pollutants in the watershed that do not have water quality standards, namely nutrients and sediment. This TMDL and LRS study addresses the approximately 2,100 square mile portion of the Middle Illinois River watershed near Peoria located in central Illinois, generally referred to as the Illinois River Bluffs region. Major tributaries along this stretch of the river include Big Bureau Creek, Senachwine Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek West, Crow Creek East, Clear Creek, Partridge Creek, Tenmile Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek. Several waters within the Middle Illinois River project area have been placed on the State of Illinois §303(d) list, and require the development of a TMDL including portions of the main stem of the Illinois River in the Peoria area, Kickapoo Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at West Peoria continuing upstream); Big Bureau Creek (the five mile segment from Princeton continuing downstream); West Bureau Creek (from its confluence with Bureau Creek continuing 23 miles upstream); Farm Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at East Peoria continuing upstream); Depue Lake (in the Lake Depue State Fish & Wildlife Area near the village of Depue); and Senachwine Lake (north of Henry). This project addresses the following pollutants or response indicators: bacteria, phosphorus, total suspended solids, sedimentation / siltation, dissolved oxygen, chloride, aquatic algae, pH, alteration in streamside vegetative cover, manganese, and total dissolved solids as identified on the State of Illinois §303(d) list. In addition, phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended sediment are addressed as part of LRSs. Water quality targets are defined for each LRS pollutant, derived through literature. The sources of pollutants in the Middle Illinois River watershed, also referred to as the Illinois River (Peoria Area) watershed, include NPDES permitted facilities including wastewater treatment facilities, regulated storm water, combined and separate sanitary sewer overflows. In addition, nonpoint source pollution results from several key sources including storm water runoff (both agricultural and developed); watershed, in-stream, gully and bluff erosion; onsite wastewater treatment systems, animal feeding operations, and livestock populations. An evaluation using flow and water quality duration curves is presented that provides insight into the sources and flow regimes that are affecting water quality. A TMDL identifies the total allowable load that a waterbody can assimilate (the loading capacity) and still meet water quality standards. The loading capacity for each river and Senachwine Lake was determined using a load duration curve framework. An in-lake response model was used to determine the phosphorus loading capacity for Lake Depue. TMDLs and LRSs are presented in Sections 5 – 13. The required pollutant reductions vary between zero and 100 percent, depending on the waterbody and pollutant. A TMDL is equal to the loading capacity for a waterbody, and that loading capacity is distributed among load allocations to nonpoint and background sources and wasteload allocations to point sources. Allocations are based on the water quality standard for all pollutants with the exception of phosphorus. A 1 mg/L technology-based phosphorus limit was used for wastewater treatment facilities discharging to phosphorus impaired lakes. An explicit and implicit margin of safety was used, dependent on the pollutant of concern. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -xvi- 6, 2011 DRAFT An implementation plan is presented in Section 15 which includes potential implementation activities for both urban and agricultural sources of pollutants. A more detailed implementation plan will be developed in the future to further define activities, partners, and milestones. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -1- 6, 2011 DRAFT 1. Watershed Characterization The Middle Illinois River, also referred to as the Illinois River (Peoria area), watershed is located in central Illinois (Figure 1-1). The general vicinity has often been referred to as the Illinois River Bluffs region. The project area begins near Spring Valley, where the Illinois River makes its “Big Bend” toward the south (803HFigure 1-2). The project area continues downstream past Peoria, ending near Pekin just above the confluence with the Mackinaw River; this reach is bound between the Starved Rock Lock and Dam to the north and the Peoria Lock and Dam further downstream. The project area covers nearly 2,100 square miles, and includes land within Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall, Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell Counties. Major tributaries along this stretch of the river include Big Bureau Creek, Senachwine Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek West, Crow Creek East, Clear Creek, Partridge Creek, Tenmile Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek. Figure 1-1. Illinois River at Spring Bay. 1.1 Water Quality Impairments Several waters within the Illinois River project area have been placed on the State of Illinois §303(d) list (843HTable 1-1 and 844HFigure 1-2), and require development of TMDLs. This TMDL project is intended to address documented water quality problems on middle segments of the Illinois River in the Peoria area. Other §303(d) waters included on the 2008 list are: Kickapoo Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at West Peoria continuing upstream); Big Bureau Creek (the five mile segment from Princeton continuing downstream); West Bureau Creek (from its confluence with Bureau Creek continuing 23 miles upstream); Farm Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at East Peoria continuing upstream); Depue Lake (in the Lake Depue State Fish & Wildlife Area near the village of Depue); and Senachwine Lake (north of Henry). Middle Illinois River TMDL October -2- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -3- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) impaired waters. Impaired Waters Designated Uses Impairments Name Segment ID Miles / Acres Illinois River D-05 12 Primary contact recreation Fecal coliform D-16 25 D-30 22 D-30 22 Public water supply Manganese, total dissolved solids Kickapoo Creek DL-01 21 Primary contact recreation Fecal coliform Big Bureau Creek DQ-03 5 West Bureau Creek DQD-01 24 Farm Creek DZZP-03 20 Aquatic life use Alteration in streamside vegetative cover, chloride, pH, phosphorus, total suspended solids Depue Lake a RDU 524 Aesthetic quality & aquatic life Aquatic algae, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, sedimentation / siltation, total suspended solids Senachwine Lake a RDZX 3324 a. Included within the Illinois River main stem watershed cluster. Lake Depue is 524 acres and is a former oxbow lake, the shoreline is approximately 11 miles long and the lake is on average 2.3 feet in depth. It is a backwater lake of the Illinois River that fluctuates in depth with the Illinois River levels. It is connected to the Illinois River at the western end by a narrow shallow channel and separated from the river by a low lying peninsula. Senachwine Lake is a 3,324 acre lake that forms part of the Illinois River valley. It is located in Putnam and Marshall Counties. To the north, Senachwine Lake is connected to Goose Lake by a shallow channel and both are backwaters of the Illinois River. The middle segments of the main stem Illinois River in the Peoria area appear on the Illinois §303(d) list for not supporting primary contact recreation due to elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Several tributaries including Big Bureau Creek, West Bureau Creek, and Kickapoo Creek are listed for the same reason. One segment of the Illinois River (D-30) appears on the §303(d) list for not supporting public water supply due to elevated levels of manganese and total dissolved solids. Depue and Senachwine Lakes are on the §303(d) list for not supporting aesthetic quality and aquatic life uses due to aquatic algae, low dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation / siltation, as well as elevated levels of phosphorus and total suspended solids (TSS). Farm Creek is listed as not supporting aquatic life use due to alteration in streamside vegetative cover as well as elevated levels of chloride, pH, phosphorus, and TSS. In addition to the impairments listed in Table 1-1, several segments are not meeting sediment and nutrient targets, as described in Section 3.2. Table 1-2 and Figure 1-2 identify these segments. Load reduction strategies (LRS) are developed for each of these stream segments. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -4- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-2. Segments not meeting sediment and nutrient targets Stream Segment Total Suspended Solids Total Phosphorus Nitrate Nitrogen D-05 X X X D-09 X X D-16 X X D-30 X X X DL-01 X X X DM-01 X DO-01 X DP-02 X DQ-03 X X X DQ-04 X X DQD-01 X X X DZZP-03 X X X RDU X TMDL X RDZX X TMDL X 1.2 Project Setting The geology of the Illinois River Valley was first deposited over 500 million years ago when the region was covered by a shallow sea. Glacial processes, subsequent glacial melt and flooding generated from the Illinoian Glaciation, and the more recent Wisconsin Glaciation created the river bed in its general location. Due to the glacial origin, the floodplains of the Illinois River Valley are much larger than would be expected for a river equivalent in size (Theiling, 1998a). The floodplains offer unique habitat and productive soils that sustain the current agricultural economy of the area. The Illinois River system remains one of a world-class river floodplain. It continues to be a surprisingly diverse and biologically productive ecosystem despite historic degradation and continuing sedimentation. 1.3 Problem Identification Across the Illinois River basin, land use and hydrologic changes have reduced the quantity, quality, and functions of floodplain, riparian, and aquatic habitats. Studies have specifically identified the following areas to be principle factors limiting the system’s ecological integrity: excessive sedimentation; loss of productive backwaters, side channels and islands; loss of floodplain, riparian, and aquatic habitats and function; loss of aquatic connectivity on the Illinois River and its tributaries; altered hydrologic regime; water quality and sediment quality; and, invasive species (Table 1-3). Middle Illinois River TMDL October -5- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-3. Studies and literature relevant to the Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Information Source Year Title Tri-County Regional Planning Commission 2009 Honoring our Water: A Regional Stormwater Plan for Peoria, Tazewell, and Woodford Counties of Illinois (May 2009) 2009 Geographic Information System (GIS) data coverages 2009 Low Impact Development (LID) Model Ordinance Information 2004 Ackerman Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004) 2004 Tenmile Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004) 2004 Partridge Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004) 2003 Farm Creek Watershed Hydrology (May 2003) 2003 Aquatic insect survey from Partridge Creek, Ten Mile Creek and Ackerman Creek, Illinois 2003 Partridge Creek - Tenmile Creek – Ackerman Creek Fishery Resources Description 2003 Tenmile and Partridge Creeks Erosion and Sedimentation Investigation (July 2003) 2003 Ackerman Creek Erosion and Sedimentation Investigation (July 2003) 2002 Mossville Bluffs Watershed Restoration Master Plan (October 2002) 2001 Farm Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (January 2004) City of Peoria [Peoria Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Study data & Long Term Control Plan] [Wastewater treatment plant monitoring data] Illinois State Water Survey 1976 Sediment Conditions in Backwater Lakes along the Illinois River 1979 Sediment Transport in the Illinois River 1984 Sediment Yield of Streams in Northern and Central Illinois 1986 Sediment Loads of Illinois Streams and Rivers 1986 Peoria Lake Sediment Investigations 1999 The Illinois River Decision Support System (ILRDSS) 2001 Sediment and Nutrient Monitoring at Selected Watersheds within the Illinois River Watershed for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Illinois River Conservations Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 2005 Illinois River Basin Assessment Framework 2007 Hydrologic Model Development for the Illinois River Basin Using BASINS 3.0 2004 The Sediment Budget of the Illinois River 2001 Historical Sedimentation at the Mouths of Five Deltas on Peoria Lake 2011 Illinois State Climatology Data Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2006 Big Bureau Creek Watershed Inventory and Evaluation 2010 Illinois River Bluffs U.S. Geological Survey [Synoptic survey data] [Historic hydrology & water quality data] Middle Illinois River TMDL October -6- 6, 2011 DRAFT Information Source Year Title 2006 Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes Region and Adjacent Areas. 1999 Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and Their Effects on Water Quality. 2007 Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. Illinois River. 1998 Water Quality Assessment of the Lower Illinois River Basin: Environmental Setting. Illinois Scientific Survey 1984 Conceptual Models of Erosion and Sedimentation in Illinois. Vol. 1. 1984 Conceptual Models or Erosion and Sedimentation in Illinois. Vol. II. Erosion and Sediment Yield: Global and Regional Perspectives. Proceedings of the Exeter Symposium 1996 Patterns of Erosion and Sedimentation in the Illinois River Basin Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2007 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Scientific Journal 1985; Havera, S et al. The Illinois River: A lesson to be learned. 1984; Sparks, R. The Role of Contaminants in the Decline of the Illinois River: Implications for the Mississippi. 2006; Sparks, R. et al. Disturbance and Recovery of Large Floodplain Rivers. 1984; Walker, R. Historical Changes in Illinois Agriculture. Book 1998; Theiling, C. Ecological Status and Trends in the Upper Mississippi River System U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001 National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soil Survey of Marshall County, IL. 2007 The Census of Agriculture 2007-2009 National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). 1992 National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soil Survey of Peoria County, IL. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) 2007 Illinois River Basin Restoration Comprehensive Plan with Integrated Environmental Assessment 2008 Senachwine Creek Critical Restoration Project, Project Implementation Report with Integrated Environmental Assessment. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Peoria County Illinois. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 2000 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria, Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient, Ecoregion VI. 2004 Report to Congress, Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. 2007 An Approach for Using Load Duration Curves in the Development of TMDLs. 2011 Depue/New Jersey Zinc/Mobil Chemical Corp. National Water-Quality Assessment Program 1994 The Lower Illinois River Basin Illinois Rivers Decision Support System 2005 Illinois River Basin Assessment. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -7- 6, 2011 DRAFT For example, channelization is estimated to impair approximately 1,400 miles within the basin, and backwater lakes have lost 73 percent of their capacity due to sedimentation (USACE, 2007). In all tributary watersheds, some degree of channelization has occurred. The highest degree of channelization occurs in Farm Creek, which includes agricultural channelization as well as flood control. A type of channelization that is particular to this region and others with similar topography is that of transportation channelization. In this region, many roadways and railroad grades occupy the same parallel corridors as streams. The results are nearly always a straightened stream channel that cannot migrate into the hardened structure and is forced into more sensitive (in terms of sediment deliver) bluff area. The erosion results in almost instant sediment transport to the stream and potential transport to the Illinois River. Ever expanding deltas at the mouths of tributaries are a sign of constant sediment loading from these tributaries to the Illinois River; as an example, the Partridge Creek delta expanded by 900 acre-feet in 30 years (Demissie et al., 1986). In addition to channelization, urban development has increased the volume and concentration of stormwater delivered to tributaries and the main stem. The Mossville Bluffs region, just north of Peoria, represents an extreme example of consequences resulting from stormwater runoff as during the last few decades, increased residential development has occurred at the top of the Bluffs. The increase in imperviousness associated with this development, paired with efficient stormwater conveyance systems, has resulted in the discharge of runoff from discrete points along the steep slopes. These concentrated stormwater flows dislodge soil and create gullies or ravines (TCRPC, 2009). In only 20 to 25 years, huge channels of 20 to 30 feet wide, and ten to 15 feet deep have eroded and in extreme cases, unstable homes and collapsed walls have been caused by gullies or ravines (TCRPC, 2009). As economic development and populations grew around the Chicago area, significant anthropogenic disturbances included increased navigation and spread of agriculture. These cultural changes continue to have lasting effects on the region; the most significant human influences have been related to commercial navigation, municipal and industrial waste discharge, and agricultural practices in the watershed (Demissie et al., 1999). Directly or indirectly, such disturbances have affected the environment and ecosystems along the length of the river. First, navigation from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River became crucial as populations and economic development around Chicago grew (Theiling, 1998). The establishment of navigation resulted in extensive channel alterations and hydromodifications associated with an intricate levee system designed to maintain and control sufficient flow for navigation and agriculture. Seven locks and dams (805HFigure 1-3) still exist along the Illinois River, creating a system of navigational pools (USGS, 2007). Middle Illinois River TMDL October -8- 6, 2011 DRAFT 398H Figure 1-3.The lock and dam system of the Illinois River (USGS, 2007). Another significant historical disturbance came with the advent of mechanized equipment, which dramatically increased agricultural production of the watershed. Between 1945 and 1976, the acreage of row crop production increased 60 percent (Sparks, 1984). As agricultural production increased, marginal lands were put into production through wetland filling, field draining (or field tiling), bank planting and further stream channelization (Theiling, 1998). Additional factors that have contributed to increased erosion are improvements in tractors and plowing techniques that pulverize the soil more efficiently and the increased use of inorganic fertilizers to farm marginal areas continuously using crop rotation (Demissie, 1996; Walker, 1984). With the loss of floodplains water quality rapidly degraded and aquatic and terrestrial organisms that depended on the river system had massive reductions in population size (PCWRP). The destruction of more than 90 percent of the original wetland acreage can be blamed for high erosion rates from stream banks and bluffs (Havera and Bellrose, 1985). From 1958 to 1961, formerly productive backwaters and lakes along specific reaches of the Illinois River changed from clear, vegetated areas to turbid, barren basins (Sparks, 2006). Problems within the basin are not limited to sedimentation. As additional issues such as flooding, degradation of aquatic habitats, and water-based recreation also need to be addressed (Demissie et al., 1999). Water quality within the Illinois River has been subjected to many impacts associated with development, including waste discharges from urban areas, water-level control for navigation, and sediment and chemical inflow from agricultural and urban watersheds (Demissie et al., 2004). Both point and nonpoint sources of pollution have been identified as potentially impacting the water quality within the watershed. 1.4 Jurisdictions and Population Counties with land located in the project area include Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall, Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell. U.S. Census data for each county is given in 807HTable 1-4. Major government units with jurisdiction adjacent to the Illinois River within the project area include the Cities of Hennepin, Middle Illinois River TMDL October -9- 6, 2011 DRAFT Henry, Lacon, Sparland, Chillicothe, Spring Bay, Mossville, Peoria Heights, Peoria, and Pekin. The approximate total population for the watershed is over 523,000. Population density within the project area is indicated on 808HFigure 1-4. Table 1-4. County populations within the Illinois River project area. County 1990 2000 2009a Peoria County 182,827 183,433 185,816 Bureau County 35,688 35,503 34,699 Putnam County 5,730 6,086 6,009 La Salle County 106,913 111,509 112,498 Marshall County 12,846 13,180 12,702 Tazewell County 123,692 128,485 132,466 Woodford County 32,653 35,469 38,862 TOTAL 500,349 513,665 523,052 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. a. U.S. Census Bureau estimate. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -10- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-4. Illinois River (Peoria Area) population density. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -11- 6, 2011 DRAFT 1.5 Climate Climate data are available from the Illinois State Water Survey Climatologist; Station 116711 is located in Peoria and was used for analysis within this report. Monthly data from 1901-2009 were available at the time of report development. In general, the climate of the region is continental with hot, humid summers and cold winters (Warner and Schmidt, 1994). 809HTable 1-5 contains historical temperature data collected at the Peoria climate station. From 1980 to 2009 the average winter temperature in Peoria was 27.7 °F and the average summer temperature was 73.7 °F (810HTable 1-5). The average growing season (consecutive days with low temperatures greater than or equal to 32 degrees) is 148 days. Table 1-5. Climate summary for Peoria (1901 – 2009). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average High oF 32 36 49 62 73 82 86 84 77 65 49 36 Average Low oF 16 20 30 41 51 61 65 63 55 44 32 21 Average Mean oF 24 28 39 51 62 71 76 74 66 54 41 28 Average Precipitation (in) 1.8 1.6 2.8 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 Average snow fall (in) 7.15 5.41 3.73 0.80 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 1.92 6.23 From 1980 to 2009, the annual average precipitation in Peoria (station 116711) was approximately 36 inches, including approximately 21 inches of snowfall. Peoria represents the middle range of precipitation within the Illinois River drainage. Patterns vary across the watershed from 35 to 40 inches annually. In general, larger volumes of precipitation tend to occur between the months of April and September. 812HFigure 1-5 presents annual precipitation and temperature patterns for the Peoria area. Rainfall intensity and timing affect watershed response to precipitation. This information is important in evaluating the effects of storm water on the Illinois River. 813HFigure 1-6 presents one way to show rainfall intensity. Evaluating Peoria data collected between 1948 and 2009, 57 percent of the precipitation events were very low intensity (i.e., less that 0.2 inches). Eight percent of the measurable precipitation events were greater than one inch. Figure 1-5. Average precipitation and monthly temperatures for Peoria. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -12- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-6. Precipitation intensity -- Peoria airport gage. 1.6 Land Use / Land Cover Land use in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is heavily influenced by agriculture in the upper and lower reaches in combination with the urban setting surrounding Peoria in the lower portion. Specific land use across the watershed includes agriculture (nearly 70%), forest (approximately 15%), and urban (approximately 11%). 814HFigure 1-7 shows land use within the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. Table 1-6 presents area percent cover by land use type. In general, the upper reach of the project area watershed is dominated by agriculture. Corn and soybeans are the primary crops in the lower Illinois River basin (Warner and Schmidt, 1994). Secondary farm products include winter wheat, oats, hay, vegetables, cattle, hogs, dairy products, poultry, sheep and wool (USDA, 1992). To increase agricultural productivity throughout the project area, a common practice includes field drainage or tiling to quickly transport excess moisture from the fields to adjacent surface waters. Currently, residential development within the upper reaches of the project area is predominately low density. The most densely populated areas of the watershed surround Peoria. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -13- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-6. Illinois River (Peoria area) land use summary. Land Use / Land Cover Category Acreage Percentage Cultivated Crops 844,311 62.8% Deciduous Forest 203,767 15.2% Pasture/Hay 61,423 4.6% Developed, Open 62,298 4.6% Developed, Low-Intensity 61,352 4.6% Open Water 44,340 3.3% Woody Wetlands 25,432 1.9% Developed, Medium-Intensity 20,936 1.6% Developed, High Intensity 6,441 0.5% Grassland/Herbaceous 7,229 0.5% Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 3,811 0.3% Barren Land 1,215 0.1% Evergreen Forest 38 0.0% Mixed forest 1 0.0% Shrub/Scrub 1 0.0% TOTAL 1,342,595 100.0% Middle Illinois River TMDL October -14- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-7. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed land use. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -15- 6, 2011 DRAFT 1.7 Geology and Soils Over 500 million years ago, the Illinois River region was covered by an expansive shallow sea that shaped the geology of the area. The Illinoian and Wisconsin Glaciations dramatically influenced the topography and hydrology of the Illinois River. As common to areas covered by glaciers, the basin evolved as the glaciers advanced and retreated. During advances, glaciers modified the previous landscape and with retreat, deposited glacial drift and glacial outwash (USDA, 1992). In the region, deposited glacial materials include sands, gravels, silts, and clays. The material varies in terms of mixtures and thickness within the region. Ice movement and its melt water influenced the patterns and distribution of various landforms, such as moraines and stream valleys; the Illinois River bed itself was scoured by a series of great floods that resulted from failed ice-dams during the last ice age (approximately 12,000 years ago) (Theiling, 1998). The melt water that created rivers also deposited glacial materials throughout the region. These glacial deposits and associated land forms exerted a major effect that influence present day hydrology, soil types and land cover. Current topography and river valleys carved by such processes are shown in 816HFigure 1-8. Soil is the dominant natural resource in Peoria County (USDA, 1992) and across the agricultural region. The National Cooperative Soil Survey publishes soil surveys for each county within the U.S. These soil surveys contain predictions of soil behavior for selected land uses. The surveys also highlight limitations and hazards inherent in the soil, general improvements needed to overcome the limitations, and the impact of selected land uses on the environment. The soil surveys are designed for many different uses, including land use planning, the identification of special practices needed to ensure proper performance, and Hydrologic Soil Groups (USDA / NRCS, 2007). Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSGs) refers to the grouping of soils according to their runoff potential. Soil properties that influence the HSGs include depth to seasonal high water table, infiltration rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to slow permeable layer (USDA, 2002). There are four groups of HSGs: Group A, B, C, and Group D. 817HTable 1-7 describes those HSGs found in the Illinois River watershed and provides a summary description of each group. 818H Middle Illinois River TMDL October -16- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-8. Illinois River basin topography. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -17- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-7. Hydrologic Soil Group descriptions. HSG Group Description A Sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. Low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels with a high rate of water transmission. B Silt loam or loam. Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly or moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. C Soils are sandy clay loam. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine structure. D Soils are clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. Group D has the highest runoff potential. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. B/D Dual Hydrologic Soil Groups. Certain wet soils are placed in group D based solely on the presence of a water table within 24 inches of the surface even though the saturated hydraulic conductivity may be favorable for water transmission. If these soils can be adequately drained, then they are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups (A/D, B/D, and C/D) based on their saturated hydraulic conductivity and the water table depth when drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition. Figure 1-9 shows the location of different HSGs in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. Soils in this area are typically Group B, composed of loamy soils with a moderate infiltration rate and to a lesser degree, Group A, C and B/D (USDA, 2002). 819HTable 1-8 summarizes the composition of HSGs per watershed. The protection of areas with high infiltration capacity (e.g., Group A soils) is important for maintaining hydrology and temperature regimes within the watershed. Additionally, 820HTable 1-9 shows the percent of highly erodible soils. Although much of the soil within the watershed has not been assessed, that which has been assessed shows that 13 to over 30 percent of the soils within the watersheds are highly erodible. Table 1-8. Percent composition of HSGs per watershed. Watershed A A/D B B/D C C/D D No Data % Big Bureau Creek 1.12 0.12 79.62 16.72 1.44 0.27 0.10 0.61 Farm Creek 0.00 0.00 86.04 11.64 0.16 0.00 0.00 2.15 Illinois River Main Stem 2.90 0.09 68.12 14.57 5.05 0.06 0.61 8.59 Kickapoo Creek 0.85 0.00 78.33 4.87 13.72 0.00 0.65 1.58 Sandy Creek 0.68 0.00 50.77 18.11 25.84 4.29 0.00 0.31 Senachwine Creek 0.75 0.00 88.00 5.00 4.36 0.00 0.32 1.56 Snag Creek and Crow Creek 0.60 0.16 63.09 22.55 9.93 1.69 0.62 1.36 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -18- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-9. Percent of highly erodible versus not highly erodible soils per watershed. Watershed Highly Erodible Not Highly Erodible Not Assessed % Big Bureau Creek 15.23 0.00 84.77 Farm Creek 27.11 0.00 72.89 Illinois River Main Stem 22.04 0.94 77.02 Kickapoo Creek 33.74 0.00 66.26 Sandy Creek 13.21 0.00 86.79 Senachwine Creek 31.52 0.00 68.48 Snag Creek and Crow Creek 13.30 2.24 84.46 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -19- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-9. Illinois River basin hydrologic soil groups. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -20- 6, 2011 DRAFT 1.8 Hydrology Hydrology plays an important role in evaluating water quality. The hydrology of the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is driven by local climate conditions and alterations to the landscape. In addition, ditching and channelizing has been used throughout this region to drain areas where soils are too wet for settlement and agriculture. This creates situations that often result in flashy flows on tributary creeks, where streams respond to and recover from precipitation events relatively quickly. Flooding periodically occurs in areas of the watershed, flowing over roads and encroaching on streamside properties. Some of the tributaries that flow to the Illinois River have been channelized or relocated to facilitate agricultural or commercial development. A common practice for improving drainage is to install subsurface tile drains and ditches to lower the water table beneath agricultural fields. Subsurface drains (e.g., corrugated plastic tile or pipe) installed beneath the ground surface serve as conduits to collect and / or convey drainage water, either to a stream channel or to a surface field drainage ditch. While these drainage alterations increase the amount of land available for cultivation, they also influence the hydrology, the aquatic habitat, and water quality of area streams. Drains intercept precipitation and snowmelt as they infiltrate the subsurface soil layer. This intercepted water would normally reach the water table where it would be stored as groundwater. Instead, the subsurface flow is quickly conveyed through the network of drains and ditches to nearby waterbodies. This process can increase the volume of water that reaches local streams during rainfall and snowmelt events, which leads to a rapid rise in stream levels during runoff events. Often this rapid response is similar to that observed in areas where natural vegetation has been replaced by impervious surfaces. Extensive tiling can also alter the quality of drainage water exiting the fields to receiving waters. For example, shorter delivery times to a stream often reduce the benefits associated with longer filtration through soil layers. In addition to water volume excesses due to storm water and flooding, natural dry weather periods (e.g., the lack of sufficient water) can make water quantity a factor that affects water quality. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored flow at several locations in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed (821HTable 1-10 and 822HFigure 1-10). 823HFigure 1-11 and 824HFigure 1-12 illustrate the hydrologic variability in stream flow for the Illinois River, as well as for two tributary streams: Big Bureau Creek and Farm Creek. These graphs also show daily precipitation measured at the Peoria site. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -21- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. Gage ID Area (mi.2) Location Latitude Longitude Period of Record 05556500 196 Big Bureau Creek at Princeton 41o 21’ 57” 89o 29’ 54” 1936 - 2010 05557000 86.7 West Bureau Creek at Wyanet 41o 21’ 54” 89o 34’ 08” 1936 - 1966 05557500 99.0 East Bureau Creek near Bureau 41o 20’ 05” 89o 22’ 55” 1936 - 1966 05558300 13,544 Illinois River at Henry 41o 06’ 26” 89o 21’ 22” 1981 - 2010 05558500 56.2 Crow Creek (West) near Henry 41o 09’ 00” 89o 25’ 00” 1949 - 1971 05559000 5.66 Gimlet Creek at Sparland 41o 01’ 37” 89o 26’ 21” 1945 - 1971 05559500 115 Crow Creek near Washburn 40o 57’ 15” 89o 18’ 30” 1944 - 1971 05560500 27.4 Farm Creek at Farmdale 40o 40’ 03” 89o 30’ 15” 1948 - 2008 05561000 11.2 Ackerman Creek at Farmdale 40o 39’ 43” 89o 30’ 13” 1953 - 1980 05561500 5.54 Fondulac Creek near East Peoria 40o 40’ 38” 89o 31’ 52” 1948 - 2009 05562000 61.2 Farm Creek at East Peoria 40o 40’ 04” 89o 34’ 40” 1943 - 1980 05563000 119 Kickapoo Creek near Kickapoo 40o 48’ 02” 89o 48’ 01” 1944 - 1962 05563500 297 Kickapoo Creek at Peoria 40o 40’ 52” 89o 39’ 19” 1942 - 1971 05568500 15,818 Illinois River at Kingston Mines 40o 33’ 11” 89o 46’ 38” 1939 - 2010 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -22- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-10. USGS stream gages within project area. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -23- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-11. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2007. Figure 1-12. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2008. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -24- 6, 2011 DRAFT 1.8.1 Seasonal Flow Variation Seasonal variation in flow is a key part of the overall TMDL assessment because water quality parameters are often related to stream flow rates. This is a particularly important component of subsequent analyses linking sources to observed water quality, where the timing of source loads is connected to seasonal water quality patterns. 825HFigure 1-13 shows the seasonal variation of flow for the Illinois River at Henry site using the entire period of record (1981 – 2010). In addition to showing general patterns, the box and whisker format used in 826HFigure 1-13 highlights the variability of flows from month to month. For example, the highest flows typically occur between March and May. Flows during these months also tend to vary, reflecting the significant effect that air temperatures exert on hydrology. Periods of heavy snow followed by warmer temperatures can result in major runoff events. Conversely, lower winter flows may coincide with extended periods of below freezing temperatures. Related to seasonal variation, year-to-year variability is another consideration that affects watershed hydrology. This in turn influences water quality, in particular sediment transport. Peak flow history is one way to view the effect of interannual variation, as shown in 827HFigure 1-15 using the Illinois River at Henry gage. 828HFigure 1-16 shows the peak flow history for the Big Bureau Creek gage which demonstrates the difference between main stem and tributary peak flows. The information in both figures is expressed as unit area flows. Figure 1-13. Seasonal variation of Illinois River flows. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -25- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-14. Seasonal variation of Big Bureau Creek flows. Figure 1-15. Peak flow history for Illinois River at Henry gage. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -26- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-16. Peak flow history for Big Bureau Creek gage. 1.8.2 Flow Duration Curves The daily average, peak history, and monthly flow data show the inherent variability associated with hydrology. Flow duration curves provide a way to address that variability and flow related water quality patterns. Duration curves describe the percentage of time during which specified flows are equaled or exceeded. Flow duration analysis looks at the cumulative frequency of historic flow data over a specified period, based on measurements taken at uniform intervals (e.g., daily average or 15-minute instantaneous). Duration analysis results in a curve that relates flow values to the percent of time those values have been met or exceeded. Low flows are exceeded a majority of the time, whereas floods are exceeded infrequently. In the case of this TMDL, a load duration curve approach is used in which the curve represents the target value for a given pollutant in order to determine flow conditions, or intervals, under which exceedances occur. This approach is further described in Section 829H4.2. Duration curves provide the benefit of considering the full range of flow conditions (U.S. EPA, 2007). Development of a flow duration curve is typically based on daily average stream discharge data. A typical curve runs from high flows to low flows along the x-axis, as illustrated in 830HFigure 1-17. Note the flow duration interval of sixty associated with a stream discharge of 9,400 cfs (i.e., sixty percent of all observed stream discharge values equal or exceed 9,400 cfs). Flow duration curve intervals can be grouped into several broad categories or zones. These zones provide additional insight about conditions and patterns associated with water quality impairments where hydrology may play a major role. One common way to look at the duration curve is by dividing it into five zones, as illustrated in 831HFigure 1-17: one representing high flows (0-10%), another for moist conditions (10-40%), one covering mid-range flows (40-60%), another for dry conditions (60-90%), and one representing low flows (90-100%). Middle Illinois River TMDL October -27- 6, 2011 DRAFT This particular approach places the midpoints of the moist, mid-range, and dry zones at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles respectively (i.e., the quartiles). The high zone is centered at the 5th percentile, while the low zone is centered at the 95th percentile. Other schemes can be used, depending on local hydrology, the water quality issues being addressed by assessment efforts, data availability, and the way in which water quality criteria are expressed. Figure 1-17. Flow duration curve for Illinois River at Henry gage. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -28- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-18. Flow duration curve for Big Bureau Creek at Princeton gage. 1.9 Monitoring and Special Studies 1.9.1 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Routine water quality monitoring is a key part of the Illinois EPA assessment program. The goals of Illinois EPA surface water monitoring programs are to identify causes of pollution (toxics, nutrients, sedimentation) and sources (point or nonpoint) of surface water impairments, determine the overall effectiveness of pollution control programs and identify long term resource quality trends. Illinois EPA has operated a widespread, active long-term monitoring network in Illinois since 1977, known as the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN). The AWQMN is utilized by the Illinois EPA to provide baseline water quality information, to characterize and define trends in the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the state’s waters, identify new or existing water quality problems and to act as a triggering mechanism for special studies or other appropriate actions. Additional uses of the data collected by the Illinois EPA through the AWQMN program include the review of existing water quality standards and establishment of water quality based effluent limits for NPDES permits. The AWQMN is integrated with other Illinois EPA chemical and biological stream monitoring programs which are more regionally based (specific watersheds or point source receiving stream) and cover a shorter span of time (e.g. one year) to evaluate compliance with water quality standards and determine designated use support. Information from this program is compiled by Illinois EPA into a biennial report required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -29- 6, 2011 DRAFT Within the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed, there are eight active stations that are part of AWQMN (832HTable 1-11 and 833HFigure 1-19). Parameters sampled include field measurements (e.g., conductivity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) as well as those that require lab analyses (e.g., bacteria, nutrients, total suspended solids). Additional sites were sampled during Stage 2 of this TMDL process for tributary data. Water samples were analyzed for fecal coliform, total phosphorus, nitrate nitrogen, and total suspended solids. A large amount of information exists that can be used to closely examine longitudinal, seasonal, and year-to-year patterns. Examples are shown in 834HFigure 1-20 through 835HFigure 1-24. Improved pattern analysis can help focus additional watershed characterization activities, prioritize source assessment needs, and strengthen the TMDL linkage analysis. Longitudinal, seasonal, and year-to-year profiles for all parameters can be developed that support efforts to assess important patterns, identify critical conditions, and evaluate potential cause – effect relationships. Table 1-11. Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. AWQMN and TMDL Sites USGS Gage Water Body Location County Lat Long D-05 05563800 Illinois River Route 9 at Pekin Peoria 40.5730 89.6547 D-09 05558995 Route 17 at Lacon Marshall 41.0250 89.4172 D-16 05556200 Route 26 at Hennepin Putnam 41.2575 89.3469 D-30 05559900 Peoria PWS Intake Peoria 40.7250 89.5494 DL-01 05563525 Kickapoo Creek US 24 north of Bartonville Peoria 40.6550 89.6477 DQ-03 05556500 Big Bureau Creek Route 6 near west edge of Princeton Bureau 41.3652 89.4986 DQD-01 05557000 West Bureau Creek US 6/34 at east edge of Wyanet Bureau 41.3650 89.5688 DZZP-03 05562010 Farm Creek Camp Street north of East Peoria, Gage #05562000 Main St. Tazewell 40.6711 89.5800 DM-01a na Senachwine Creek 1 Mi NNW Chillicothe Peoria 40.9403 -89.5008 DO-01 a na Crow Creek E Route 26 7 Mi W Washburn Marshall 40.9321 -89.4282 DP-01 a na Sandy Creek Route 89 Br 1 Mi S Magnolia Marshall 41.0917 -89.2039 DP-02 a na Sandy Creek 2.5 Mi ESE Henry Marshall 41.0894 -89.3129 DQ-04 a na Big Bureau Creek Route29 Br 1Mi SW Bureau Bureau 41.2787 -89.3833 RDU-1 na Lake Depue SITE 1 TIP OF SW PENN. MID LAKE Bureau 41.3110 -89.3196 RDU-2 SITE 2 1.75 MI NE SITE 1 MIDL Bureau 41.3185 -89.3116 RDU-3 SITE 3 2MI ENE S2 MIDLAKE Bureau 41.3205 -89.2995 RDZX-1 na Senachwine Lake SITE 1 N END OF LK Putnam 41.1517 -89.3377 RDZX-2 SITE 2 75 YDS S OF ISLAND Putnam 41.1743 -89.3398 RDZX-3 ST3 600 YDS S OF RAMP NEAR HOUSES Putnam 41.1906 -89.3545 na – no USGS gage at/near sampling site a. Sites sampled during Stage 2 TMDL development Middle Illinois River TMDL October -30- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-19. Location of Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -31- 6, 2011 DRAFT Bacteria Fecal coliform is used as a water quality indicator for the possible risk associated with the presence of bacteria. When elevated, harmful bacteria and viruses may be present. Potential sources of bacteria include agricultural runoff, illicit sewage connections, domestic pet waste, water fowl, and animal waste in storm sewer lines (e.g., rats and raccoons). Box and whisker plots provide one way to analyze the variability in bacteria data. The Box is divided at the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the Whiskers extend from the 75th and 25th percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively. 836HFigure 1-20 presents a box and whisker plot representing available bacteria data per drainage area of the tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, concentrations within the tributaries were highly variable and elevated in relation to concentrations found within the main stem of the Illinois River. This may represent seasonal runoff from agricultural areas. Within the Illinois River, concentrations of fecal coliform indicate a declining trend to the Peoria Intake. Downstream of Peoria, concentrations of fecal bacteria tend to be elevated relative to other points along the Illinois River. Sources from Peoria, being an urbanized area, include storm water runoff, combined sewer overflows, and point source discharges. Figure 1-20. Longitudinal profile of fecal coliform for the Illinois River (Peoria area). Total Suspended Solids Loading of total suspended solids (TSS) can increase the system’s turbidity and lead to accelerated sedimentation. Primary sources of TSS are typically associated with runoff events and include: construction sites, poorly stabilized slopes, different types of erosion, or bare farm fields. Due to the Middle Illinois River TMDL October -32- 6, 2011 DRAFT association with runoff, TSS can be paired with other constituents for enhanced source evaluation. For example, elevated nitrate levels that follow a similar trend as elevated TSS may indicate a similar source such as a farm field. Figure 1-21 presents a box and whisker plot presenting available TSS data per drainage area of tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, tributaries exhibited high variability while the Illinois River had considerably less. Along the Illinois River, median concentrations of TSS corresponded to increased drainage area, with increasing concentrations further downstream. Variability within the tributaries may indicate seasonal differences associated with runoff events. Figure 1-21. Longitudinal profile of total suspended solids for the Illinois River (Peoria area). Nutrients Elevated levels of phosphorus and nitrogen can lead to undesirable algal blooms, low oxygen levels, and ultimately, decreased aquatic life. Phosphorus can originate from both point and nonpoint sources. Typical sources include: wastewater treatment facilities, lawn fertilizers, pet waste, grass clippings, leaves, sediments, and phosphorus accumulated on impervious surfaces; all of which can be transported to receiving waters either directly or during rain and snowmelt events. 838HFigure 1-22 presents a box and whisker plot presenting available phosphorus data per drainage area of tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, a wide range of concentrations were found within the tributaries; less variability but consistently higher median concentrations were found within the main stem of the Illinois River. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -33- 6, 2011 DRAFT 839HFigure 1-23 presents a box and whisker plot presenting available nitrate data per drainage area of tributaries and the main stem of the Illinois River. In general, nitrate concentrations within the tributaries had considerable variability, and in some cases, the highest median concentrations. The main stem of the Illinois River has relatively decreased variability and a consistent range in concentrations with increasing drainage area. Figure 1-22. Longitudinal profile of total phosphorus for the Illinois River (Peoria area). Middle Illinois River TMDL October -34- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-23. Longitudinal profile of nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen for the Illinois River (Peoria area). Other Parameters Conductivity can be a good indicator of water quality, in particular the concentration of ions within the water column. 840HFigure 1-24 presents conductivity data within the tributaries and main stem of the Illinois River. In general, a wide range of concentrations were found in both the tributaries and main stem of the Illinois River, with the highest median concentrations found in Farm Creek and Kickapoo Creek, which could be due to the urban land uses within these two watersheds. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -35- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-24. Longitudinal profile of conductivity for the Illinois River (Peoria area). 1.9.2 Special Studies Illinois State Water Survey Sediment Studies Due to concern surrounding sedimentation and siltation across the Illinois River valley, numerous studies have been conducted to identify sources of sediment and evaluate the transport and total sediment yield or load generated within the watershed. The Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) has been instrumental in the effort to better characterize sediment loading within the Illinois River valley. It has been identified that many of the environmental problems in the Illinois River Basin are due to urban and agricultural development, fragmentation of the landscape, alteration of upland drainage networks and floodplain alterations. These and other landscape alterations have resulted in advanced rates of landscape erosion; destabilization of the Illinois River main stem and tributary streams; sedimentation of the river main stem, backwaters, and side-channels; sedimentation of significant tributary floodplain pools and lakes; and, unnatural flow regimes (White et al., 2005). In parts of Illinois, nearly 70 percent of the topsoil has been lost due to wind and water erosion (Bhowmik, 1984). Such erosion and subsequent sedimentation have long been recognized as the primary causes for most of the environmental and ecological problems across the Illinois River Valley (Demissie et al., 2004). One of the most serious problems identified is the sedimentation in the river channel and Middle Illinois River TMDL October -36- 6, 2011 DRAFT backwater lakes (Demissie et al., 1999). For example, it has been found that excessive sedimentation has led to the loss of over 68 percent of the original volume of Lake Peoria (Demissie and Bhowmik, 1986) as the deltas within the Lake continue to grow (Bhowmik et al,. 2001). Although conditions in bottomland lakes along the Illinois River were significantly altered when the State of Illinois increased diversion of water from Lake Michigan (Lee et al., 1979; Demissie, 1996), studies have now identified the main sources of sediment to the Illinois River valley as watershed erosion, streambank erosion, and bluff erosion (Demissie et al., 2004). A sediment budget calculation based on suspended sediment data shows that tributary streams deliver a significant amount of the sediment to the Illinois River valley, of which a portion is discharged into the Mississippi River or trapped in the Illinois River (Demissie, 1996). The evaluation of sediment loading can be potentially useful in evaluating and predicting the relative effects of seasonal differences in tillage practices, cropping patterns, and pesticide applications on stream sediment and water quality (Adams et al., 1984; Bhowmik et al., 1986). For example, data show that spring (February through May) and summer months (June through September) both carry a much higher percentage of the total annual load than fall and winter (October through January) seasons (Adams et al., 1984; Bhowmik et al., 1986). This trend is likely related to land use practices such as tilling fields and exposing soil to spring rains. It should be noted that most soil conservation-oriented agencies concentrate erosion control practices in the uplands of agricultural and urban areas yet current evidence now suggests that streambeds, streambanks, and near-channel areas such as hill slopes are significant sources of sediment where conservation practices need to be targeted (White et al., 2005). USGS Synoptic Bacteria Survey The USGS monitored the main stem Illinois River and tributaries for fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria from October 2007 to September 2008. Monthly samples were collected on the main stem at Hennepin and downstream of Peoria. Random samples were taken throughout the watershed. 841HTable 1-12 summarizes the number of samples and geometric mean of all samples at each location. For a comparison of fecal coliform and E. coli, 842HFigure 1-25 contains data at pertinent locations for the day of October 10, 2007. This is the only day in which samples were obtained for all locations. Tributaries are on the left and the main stem locations are on the right side of the figure. Sandy Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek had the highest tributary concentrations. The Illinois River at Peoria had the highest main stem bacteria concentration. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -37- 6, 2011 DRAFT Table 1-12. USGS bacteria study sampling summary. USGS Site USGS Site Description Number of Samples Data Geomean (cfu/100 mL) 05556500 Big Bureau Creek at Princeton 11 410 05558000 Big Bureau Creek at Bureau 1 200 05558295 SANDY CREEK AT HENRY 1 400 05558500 CROW CREEK (WEST) NEAR HENRY 1 6 05558990 THENIUS CREEK AT SPARLAND 1 216 05559590 CROW CREEK NEAR CHILLICOTHE 1 146 05559700 SENACHWINE CREEK AT CHILLICOTHE 9 168 05559770 RICHLAND CREEK BL DRY CREEK NR CHILLICOTHE 1 987 05559800 PARTRIDGE CREEK NEAR METAMORA 4 573 05559820 PARTRIDGE CREEK TRIBUTARY NEAR METAMORA 3 608 05559830 PARTRIDGE CREEK NEAR SPRING BAY 1 34 05559840 BLALOCK CREEK NEAR SPRING BAY 1 640 05559890 TENMILE CREEK AT TRAILPARK GARDENS 1 6 05560500 FARM CREEK AT FARMDALE 10 357 05561800 FARM CREEK AT RT 150 AT EAST PEORIA 1 800 05562000 FARM CREEK AT EAST PEORIA 1 83 05562010 FARM CR AT CAMP ST BRIDGE AT EAST PEORIA 1 140 05563525 KICKAPOO CREEK AT BARTONVILLE 2 336 05556200 ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENNEPIN 35 59 05558300 ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENRY 3 59 05558995 ILLINOIS RIVER AT LACON 3 37 05559600 ILLINOIS RIVER AT CHILLICOTHE 4 47 05559850 ILLINOIS RIVER AT SOUTH ROME 2 41 05559900 ILLINOIS RIVER AT WATER COMPANY AT PEORIA 3 9 05560000 ILLINOIS RIVER AT PEORIA 6 72 05562100 ILLINOIS RIVER AT FRANKLIN ST BRIDGE AT PEORIA 4 79 05562200 ILLINOIS RIVER BELOW PEORIA LAKE AT PEORIA 34 72 05563590 ILLINOIS R AB PEORIA LOCK AND DAM NR CREVE COEUR 1 520 Middle Illinois River TMDL October -38- 6, 2011 DRAFT Figure 1-25. USGS bacteria data on 10/10/2007. Middle Illinois River TMDL October -39- 6, 2011 DRAFT 2. Watershed Source Assessment Source assessments are an important component of water quality management plans and TMDL development. Source assessment methods vary widely with respect to their applicability, ease of use, and acceptability. This section provides a summary of potential watershed-wide sources that contribute listed pollutants to the Illinois River (Peoria area) Watershed. Watershed specific source assessments are provided in Sections 5 through 13. Approximately 68 percent of the watershed area is devoted to agricultural activities. Wetlands and upland forest occupy approximately 17 percent of the watershed area. Other land use categories, including urban, represent the remaining 11 percent. There are numerous point source discharges (e.g., municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plants, urban storm water, livestock facilities) in this watershed. Potential nonpoint sources include agriculture, pasture management, and crop-related sources, land disposal of human / animal waste, on-site wastewater systems, bank or shoreline modification / destabilization, habitat modification, urban runoff / stormwater and waterfowl. Historic development revolving around the growth and urbanization of the greater Peoria area has created a wide array of potential sources that could deliver contaminants to the Illinois River. For example, one dominant source of pollutants to the Illinois River is associated with storm water. The high percentage of impervious surface in the urbanized portion of the watershed has resulted in a network of drainage systems. Storm water is quickly conveyed to the Illinois River (Peoria area) through numerous storm water outfalls. The increased storm water volumes also enter the combined sewer system, causing occasional discharge of untreated domestic wastewater to the Illinois River through CSOs. In addition, pollutants associated with runoff from agricultural areas have the potential to be carried to the Illinois River and its tributaries during rain and snowmelt events. 2.1 Overview of Watershed Sources Pollutants of concern evaluated within this source assessment include fecal coliform, phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, chloride, manganese, and total dissolved solids. These pollutants can originate from an array of sources including point and nonpoint sources. Point sources typically discharge at a specific location from pipes, outfalls, and conveyance channels. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources that have multiple routes of entry into surface waters, particularly overland runoff. This section provides a summary of potential point and nonpoint sources that contribute listed pollutants to the impaired waterbodies. 2.1.1 Point Sources Point source pollution is defined by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §502(14) as: any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pip

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home draft-middle-illinois

Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL and LRS Development%3A Watershed Characterization and Source Assessment Report (Stage 1) [review draft]

Object Description

Description

Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL and LRS Development%3A...

	All
	Pages Enter page numbers or page ranges separated by commas. For example: 1,3,5-12