Rayse Creek Watershed Management Plan

              Rayse Creek Watershed
Management Plan
by Elisa A. Grafford,
Karl W.J. Williard,
& Cyril Barton
Department of Forestry
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Research Publication No. NS-019
October 2006 RAYSE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Elisa A. Grafford and Karl W.J. Williard
Department of Forestry
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
and the
Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee:
Cyril Barton, Donnie Laird, Rick Corners, John Kerry, John Trader, Rick Pytlinski, Carolyn Hanke, Robert Boldt, Morris Petrie, Linda Panzier, George Bock , Steve Danner, Bruce Hapeman, Danny Kabat, and Raymond Koy
Department of Forestry
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Research Publication No. NS-019
October 2006
This report was prepared using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funds under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act distributed through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The findings and recommendations contained within this report are not necessarily those of the funding agencies.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Technical Advisory Board.........................................................................................4
II. Executive Summary...................................................................................................8
III. Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................9
IV. List of Tables............................................................................................................10
V. List of Figures...........................................................................................................14
VI. Introduction..............................................................................................................15
VII. Mission Statement of the Rayse Creek Watershed Management Plan...............21
VIII. Locally Identified Resource Concerns...................................................................21
IX. Watershed Description............................................................................................22
X. Watershed Program Activities - Previous and Ongoing......................................24
XI. Watershed Resource Inventory...............................................................................25
A. Waterbodies.....................................................................................................26
1. Lakes.....................................................................................................26
2. Streams..................................................................................................30
3. Water Quality........................................................................................31
B. Groundwater.....................................................................................................40
1. Geology.................................................................................................40
2. Glacial Geology....................................................................................40
3. Water Wells..........................................................................................40
C. Irrigation...........................................................................................................42
D. Municipal / Industrial.......................................................................................42
1. Industrial Agriculture Pollution............................................................42
2. Septic Systems......................................................................................42
3. NPDES Permitted Sites.........................................................................42
4. Stormwater Management......................................................................51
E. Riparian Corridors............................................................................................51
1. Streambank Erosion..............................................................................51
2. Hydrologic Modifications.....................................................................51
3. Habitat...................................................................................................52
F. Terrestrial Resources........................................................................................52
1. Soils.......................................................................................................52
2. Soil Erosion...........................................................................................59
3. Topography...........................................................................................60
4. Land Use / Cover..................................................................................60
5. Air Quality............................................................................................64
6. Wildlife.................................................................................................66
7. Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................69
G. Socio-Economic / Human Resources...............................................................70
XII. Best Management Practice Recommendations......................................................72
XIII. Government Cost-Share Programs........................................................................98
XIV. References...............................................................................................................100
XV. List of Contacts and Additional Sources..............................................................102
XVI. Appendix.................................................................................................................103
3
TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD
The following pages include a current list of contacts from private and state agencies to help Rayse Creek stakeholders with their resource questions, comments or concerns. Most of the contacts are local to the watershed. The contacts are not listed in any particular order. If you are unsure about who to talk to at an agency, depending on your needs, they will direct you to the person you need to speak.
Since the first TAC (Technical Advisory Board) list was created (about 10/2004), there have been many agency rearrangements and reorganizations. Many employees, addresses and phone numbers have changed. This list should be updated two to three times a year or as the need arises.
Technical Advisory Board
Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District 618-244-0773
Stacy Pytlinski, Resource Conservationist
109 Shiloh Drive
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Jefferson County Natural Resources Conservation Service 618-244-0773
Art Friederich, District Conservationist
109 Shiloh Drive
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District 618-327-3078
Cole Gaebe, Resource Conservationist
424 E. Holzhauer Drive
Nashville, IL 62263
Washington County Natural Resources and Conservation Service
George Kraper, District Conservationist 618-327-3078
424 E. Holzhauer Drive
Nashville, IL 62263
USDA Rural Development 618-244-0773 ext.4
University of Illinois Extension 618-242-9310
Dennis Epplin
4112 N. Waterplace
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Village of Richview 618-249-8123
Jefferson County Health Department 618-244-7143
Washington County Health Department 618-327-4229
4
Village of Waltonville (Village Hall) 618-279-7226
Village of Woodlawn (Village Hall & Water Dept.) 618-735-2110
Village of Ashley (City Hall and Waterworks) 618-485-2270
Jefferson County Farm Bureau 618-242-7069
Paul Schuette
814 Harrison St.
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Jefferson County Supervisor of Assessments 618-244-8000
Bill Armstrong, Chair
100 S. 10th St., Room 2
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Wayne Kinney, Streambank Stabilization Specialist 618-830-6318
Private Contractor
14 Rockhill Ct.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Illinois Petroleum Resources Board 618-242-2861
Charles Williams
P.O. Box 941
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
Angela Kazakevicius 618-453-5570
Illinois Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Land and Water Resources
150 E. Pleasant Hill Road
Carbondale, IL 62901
IL Department of Natural Resources 618-439-9111
Office of Mines and Minerals
503 E. Main
Benton, IL 62812
IL Department of Natural Resources 618-435-8138
1171 State Hwy 37
Benton, IL 62812
Illinois EPA 618-993-7200
Joe Stiley, Livestock Waste, Jefferson County
Bruce Rodely, Livestock Waste, Washington County
2309 W. Main, Suite 116
Marion, IL 62959
5
Illinois EPA 217-782-3362
Bruce Yurdin
Office of Water Pollution Control
1021 N. Grand Ave East
Springfield, IL 62794
Southern Illinois University Carbondale 618-453-7478
College of Agricultural Sciences
Department of Forestry
Dr. Karl Williard, Hydrology/Watershed Management
Mailcode 4411
Carbondale, IL 62901-7475
IL Department of Natural Resources 618-847-3781
David Johnson, Jefferson County District Forester
1404 W. Main St.
P.O. Box 206
Fairfield, IL 62837
IL Department of Natural Resources 618-242-1272
John Tippett, Wildlife Biologist
13995 E. Game Farm Road
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
IL Department of Natural Resources 618-547-3610
Steve Jenkins, Fish Biologist
Forbes State Park
6924 Omega Road
Kinmundy, IL 62854
U.S. Fish and Wildlife 618-725-3570
Steve Kufrin
Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission
IkeKirkikis 618-549-3306
608 East College
P.O. Box 3160
Carbondale, IL 62902
Army Corps of Engineers 618-724-2493
Ray Zoanetti
Randy Cordray
Rend Lake Project Office
12220 Rend City Road
Benton, IL 62812
6
Resource Conservation and Development 618-993-2924
Roscoe Allen
1305 N. Carbon, Suite 2
Marion, IL 62959
U.S. Geological Survey 618-242-4495
Room 231, Federal Building
105 S. 6th St.
Mt. Vernon, IL 62864
IDNR Office of Oil and Gas 618-533-8979
Alan Whitler
414 E. Calumet
Centralia, IL 62801
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1998, Rayse Creek was listed on the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s (IEPA) 303d list of impaired waters. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) was developed by MWH (formerly Montgomery Watson Harza), an environmental engineering firm and the IEPA. This report assessed data gathered from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), IEPA, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and United States Geological Survey (USGS). Non-point sources of pollution, particularly agriculture were recognized as the major source of pollution. Phosphorus and sediment were the primary pollutants of concern.
In response to the TMDL process, a group of concerned watershed stakeholders formed the Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee. Their mission was to preserve agricultural heritage and improve water quality in the Rayse Creek watershed through stakeholder collaboration, community education and implementation of best management practices. The Watershed Implementation Plan is an outgrowth of their genuine concern for their watershed and the land many have spent their whole lives working and living on. Their primary resource concerns include cropland erosion and runoff, streambank erosion, and flooding. The plan contains a comprehensive resource inventory of the Rayse Creek watershed. Of particular interest to the planning committee is the trend analysis of long-term stream water quality records. Total suspended solids (TSS), total manganese, and total iron concentrations have experienced declining trends over the past two to three decades. Stream nitrate, ammonium, and total phosphorus concentrations have shown slightly increasing levels over the past three decades; however, over the last two to three years of record (1998 to 2000) the stream levels of all three nutrients have decreased. These results, coupled with the declining trend in TSS may be an indication that voluntary implementation of agricultural best management practices such as no-till, grass filter strips, riparian buffers, and grassed waterways through government cost-share programs have made a positive impact on water quality in Rayse Creek. The plan contains best management practice recommendations for each of the twelve watersheds to promote continued water quality improvement. This section includes a prioritized listing of the twelve subwatersheds for future restoration activities from highest to lowest priority. This should help the watershed planning committee more effectively target their restoration activities for maximum water quality benefit.
A TMDL is the maximum amount of any pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and in turn, that amount is allocated toward all the point and non-point sources generating entities in the watershed.
Non-point source pollution is pollution that originates from a diffuse area, such as an agricultural field or a harvested timber stand, during a storm event and it does not have a definite source like point source pollution.
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Art Friederich
NRCS, District Conservationist, Jefferson County NRCS
Stacy Pytlinski
SWCD, Resource Conservationist, Jefferson County, SWCD
Margaret Fertaly
IEPA, Environmental Protection Specialist, Planning Section
Terry Wyciskalla
Independent Crop Consultant, Wyciskalla Consulting, Inc.
Wayne Kinney
IDA, Streambank Specialist
Sandy Frick
FSA, Jefferson County
Jennifer
Jefferson County Health Department
Brian Klubek
SIUC, Professor of Soil Microbiology
Gerri Philipps
Village of Richview
Kevin Davie
SIUC, GIS specialist
Joe Stitely
Jefferson County CAFO inspector, IEPA Bureau of Water, Marion
Bruce Rodely
Washington County CAFO inspector, IEPA Bureau of Water, Marion
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of ponds and lakes in Jefferson County.................................................26
Table 2. IEPA 2004 water quality results for Ashley Lake, Richview, IL........................26
Table 3. Potential causes of impairment for Ashley Lake.................................................27
Table 4. Potential sources of impairment for Ashley Lake...............................................27
Table 5. IEPA 2004 water quality results for Rend Lake .................................................28
Table 6. Method of monitoring used for Rend Lake........................................................28
Table 7. Designated uses for Rend Lake...........................................................................28
Table 8. Potential causes of impairment for Rend Lake....................................................29
Table 9. Potential sources of impairment for Rend Lake..................................................29
Table 10. Stream segments as identified by IEPA & IDNR..............................................30
Table 11. Annual mean stream temperature at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek.......................................................................................................................32
Table 12. Annual mean dissolved oxygen concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek..............................................................................................32
Table 13. Annual mean total suspended solid concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek..............................................................................................33
Table 14. Annual mean dissolved nitrate-N concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek..............................................................................................34
Table 15. Annual mean dissolved ammonium-N concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek..............................................................................................34
Table 16. Annual mean total phosphorus concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek..............................................................................................35
Table 17. Annual mean dissolved reactive phosphate concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek.......................................................................................35
Table 18. Annual mean total manganese concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek..............................................................................................36
Table 19. Annual mean total iron concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek...................................................................................................................37
10
Table 20. Annual mean stream water quality data for NK02 monitoring station near Woodlawn.........................................................................................................................37
Table 21. IEPA designated use support for Rayse Creek.................................................38
Table 22. Prioritization of causes and sources of impairments in Rayse Creek watershed39
Table 23. Allowable USEPA effluent limits for Richview STP ......................................50
Table 24. Stream habitat data for segment NK02 of Rayse Creek...................................52
Table 25. Land use/cover for the Rayse Creek watershed................................................60
Table 26. Farm size and number in Jefferson County, Illinois.........................................61
Table 27. Number of cemeteries within the Rayse Creek watershed...............................61
Table 28. Sulfur dioxide levels for two air quality monitoring sites east of Jefferson County...............................................................................................................................66
Table 29. Estimated stationary point source emissions for Jefferson and Washington County ..............................................................................................................................66
Table 30. Amphibians and reptiles living in Jefferson County........................................67
Table 31. Fish data collected near Woodlawn on segment NK02 of Rayse Creek..........69
Table 32. Public comments concerning the TMDL submitted to IEPA...........................70
Table 33. Concerns, comments, and questions generated at a stakeholder workshop.......71
Table 34. Ranking Scheme for Potential Impairment in Subwatersheds..........................74
Table 35. “Large” CAFO Animal Units Table: Approximate number of animals equivalent to 1000 animal units.........................................................................................76
Table 36. “Medium” CAFO Animal Units.......................................................................76
Table 37. Prioritized List for Future Restoration Activities.............................................78
Table 38. Land Use for Subwatershed 4...........................................................................78
Table 39. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 4........................................79
Table 40. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 4............................................................79
Table 41. Land Use for Subwatershed 8...........................................................................80
11
Table 42. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 8........................................80
Table 43. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 8............................................................81
Table 44. Land Use for Subwatershed 3...........................................................................82
Table 45. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 3........................................82
Table 46. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 3............................................................82
Table 47. Land Use for Subwatershed 1...........................................................................83
Table 48. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 1........................................84
Table 49. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 1............................................................84
Table 50. Land Use for Subwatershed 2...........................................................................85
Table 51. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 2........................................86
Table 52. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 2............................................................86
Table 53. Land Use for Subwatershed 11.........................................................................87
Table 54. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 11......................................87
Table 55. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 11..........................................................88
Table 56. Land Use for Subwatershed 6...........................................................................88
Table 57. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 6........................................89
Table 58. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 6............................................................89
Table 59. Land Use for Subwatershed 12.........................................................................90
Table 60. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 12......................................90
Table 61. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 12..........................................................91
Table 62. Land Use for Subwatershed 10.........................................................................91
Table 63. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 10......................................92
Table 64. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 10..........................................................92
Table 65. Land Use Table for Subwatershed 5.................................................................93
12
Table 66. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 5........................................93
Table 67. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 5............................................................93
Table 68. Land Use for Subwatershed 9...........................................................................94
Table 69. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 9........................................95
Table 70. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 9............................................................95
Table 71. Land Use for Subwatershed 7...........................................................................96
Table 72. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 7........................................96
Table 73. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 7............................................................96
13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Rayse Creek watershed boundary.....................................................................23
Figure 2. Subwatersheds of Rayse Creek watershed .......................................................25
Figure 3. Wells within the Rayse Creek watershed..........................................................41
Figure 4. Pollutant sources in Rayse Creek watershed......................................................50
Figure 5. Physiographic divisions of the state of Illinois .................................................53
Figure 6. Locations of coal mines in the Rayse Creek watershed....................................63
Figure 7. Air quality monitoring stations in the state of Illinois.......................................65
Figure 8. Twelve subwatersheds within the Rayse Creek watershed...............................74
Figure 9. Location of livestock/feedlot facilities..............................................................75
14
INTRODUCTION
A Historical Account of Rayse Creek
by long-time resident
Cyril Barton
15
16
17
18
19
20
MISSION STATEMENT OF THE RAYSE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Developed by the Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee
To preserve agricultural heritage and improve water quality in the Rayse Creek watershed through stakeholder collaboration, community education and implementation of best management practices.
Goal of the Plan: To work with the Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan, with the primary goal of improving water quality. We will utilize and expand upon the Rayse Creek TMDL plan developed by Montgomery, Watson, and Harza for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
LOCALLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCE CONCERNS
1. Cropland Erosion and Runoff
2. Streambank Erosion
3. Flooding
4. Abandoned Wells
-oil wells
5. Urban Build-up
6. Pastureland and Livestock Runoff
7. Mine Erosion
8. Timber Management
21
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
Rayse Creek watershed (Figure 1) encompasses approximately 99 square miles of land, water and other natural resources. Approximately 82% or 52,307 ac of the watershed is located in western Jefferson County and 18% or 11,277 ac lies in eastern Washington County in southcentral Illinois. Rayse Creek is 27 miles long and is located at the headwaters of the larger Big Muddy watershed of southern Illinois. Towns included within the watershed are the Village of Richview in Washington County and the Villages of Woodlawn and Waltonville in Jefferson County.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) identification code for Rayse Creek is ILNK01. The hydrologic unit code (HUC) as well as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) identification number is identified near Waltonville as 05595730. Stream segments for Rayse Creek are NK02 near Woodlawn and NK01 near Waltonville.
The NK02 station, also known as the INTB (Intensive River Basin Survey) Sampling Station, is sampled by the IEPA and Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) every 5 years. The INTB stations are selected when data is lacking or historical data needs to be updated. The parameters sampled include water chemistry, fish and macroinvertebrates, instream habitat, and stream discharge. Fish tissue and sediment are sampled for toxic substances. These data are used to characterize the stream as healthy or impaired in terms of water quality and aquatic life (http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/surface-water/river-stream-mon.html#sw4, 2004).
The NK01 station is part of the IEPA’s Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN). Surface water chemistry is sampled on a six week sampling frequency and analyzed for various parameters (i.e. pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, and total and dissolved heavy metals) (http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/surface-water/river-stream-mon.html#swl, 2004). Each subwatershed of Rayse Creek is identified in the plan and identifies the segments relating to each of its tributaries. This information is helpful for identifying the location of the stream and the water quality assessments that are published by the IEPA, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
A watershed is defined as a topographically delineated area that is drained by a network of streams and/or rivers. Thus, the high elevation points around a stream and its’ tributaries form the watershed boundary.
22
Figure 1. Rayse Creek watershed boundary
(Source: IEPA, 2005)
23
WATERSHED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES - PREVIOUS AND ONGOING
The Jefferson County Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) have each conducted numerous educational programs and activities in the watershed. The Jefferson County Farm Bureau (JCFB) and Jefferson County SWCD held their 84th Annual Meeting on November 16, 2004. The local FFA Chapters are usually in attendance. Most of these programs are conducted county-wide. The Illinois Water Well Abandonment Program is also an active program within Jefferson and Washington County.
The Jefferson County SWCD publishes their newsletter Conservation News. The SWCD holds fish sales for stocking ponds and sells tree seedlings for conservation and wildlife purposes. The Neighbor to Neighbor program was initiated by a former employee of the SWCD but was terminated. A 27-acre Outdoor Education Facility was designed with various locally adapted conservation practices for the citizens of Jefferson County to tour. A tour was held in early April 2005 with stakeholders from the watershed and representatives from the SWCD, NRCS and FSA. A local newspaper journalist was also present and published a story about the tour and conservation efforts. The practices on the site included: grassed waterways, water and sediment control basins (WASCOB), a block chute structure, a grade stabilization structure, a wetland, a composting bin and a cattle panel structure. The pamphlet guide to the self-guided tour was very instructional and educational and also informed the citizens of how soil and wind erosion occurs, using a global positioning system (GPS), livestock exclusion fence, water conservation and watershed protection. Unfortunately, the Facility is lacking maintenance.
The SWCD also holds a popular Conservation Tour on a landowner’s property who has adopted one or more conservation practices. The most recent tour was August 26, 2004. The area was located outside of the watershed but many stakeholders from Rayse Creek attended. Wayne Kinney, a privately contracted fluvial geomorphologist (formerly employed with the IL Department of Agriculture), was present at the tour to discuss the streambank stabilization and restoration efforts which he helped design in the area.
To enhance public understanding of the watershed planning process, we held two watershed stakeholder workshops. In the first workshop held in Woodlawn, IL on January 28, 2004, we introduced the watershed planning process and discussed stakeholder’s potential roles in the development of a watershed plan. The second workshop on January 12, 2005 in Woodlawn, gave stakeholders the opportunity to ask questions about the water quality data for Rayse Creek, learn what the Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee is doing to help improve the environment, and give their comments on the Rayse Creek Watershed Management Plan outline. Also, in the winter and spring of 2003-2004, we conducted three facilitated focus groups and in-depth interviews with planning committee members, agency personnel, and elected officials and other watershed stakeholders to assess watershed value and meaning and the overall watershed planning process in Rayse Creek.
24
WATERSHED RESOURCE INVENTORY
The ten subwatersheds of Rayse Creek are shown in Figure 2. Management on a subwatershed level may be more practical in terms of helping to prioritize future restoration activities.
Figure 2. Subwatersheds of Rayse Creek watershed
(Source: IEPA, 2005)
25
WATERBODIES
Lakes
The data retrieved is county-wide. Jefferson County data are recorded in the townships of Grand Prairie, McClellan, Casner, and Blissville. These data are not delineated by the watershed boundary.
Table 1. Number of ponds and lakes in Jefferson County
Township
Ponds
Total Acres
Grand Prairie
76
59
McClellan
31
18
Casner
203
177
Blissville
207
140
(Source: NRCS, 2005)
Ashley Lake
Ashley Lake is located east of Illinois Central Gulf Railroad within the Ashley Township in Washington County at a latitude/longitude of 38.3471/-89.1797 and is located at the mouth of segment (or tributary) 690 in Subwatershed 8. The lake was used as a public water supply and food processing prior to October 1998 (http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/warm/iwcs/1998/nov98.pdf, 2005). It was monitored by the IEPA in 2002 for aquatic life, primary and secondary contact. Results are listed in the table below.
Table 2. IEPA 2004 water quality results for Ashley Lake, Richview, IL
(source: 2004 Illinois Water Quality Report--http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/305b/305b-2004.pdf, 2005)
Assessment Type: M = Monitored, E = Evaluated. Monitored assessments are based on current waterbody-specific monitoring data believed to accurately represent existing resource conditions. Evaluated assessments are resource-quality determinations not based primarily on such information. Since multiple uses are commonly assessed for each lake, an “E” refers only to the assessment of aquatic life, primary contact, and secondary contact uses.
Assessment method used: 155 = Ambient Lake Monitoring Program chemical/physical data >5 but <15 years old.
26
Designated uses:
F = Full
P = Partial Support
N = Nonsupport
X = this use was not assessed
1 = Overall 44 = Secondary Contact (Recreation)
20 = Aquatic Life 46 = Indigenous Aquatic Life
21 = Fish Consumption 50 = Public Water Supply
42 = Primary Contact (Swimming)
Designated uses for Ashley Lake:
P1 = Partial support for overall use
P20 = Partial support for aquatic life
P42 = Partial support for primary contact (swimming)
P44 = Partial support for secondary contact (recreation)
X21 = Fish consumption was not assessed
X50 = Public water supply use was not assessed
Table 3. Potential causes of impairment for Ashley Lake
Source code
Potential Causes of Impairment
0900
Unspecified Nutrients
0910
Total Phosphorus
1100
Sedimentation/Siltation
1220
Oxygen, Dissolved
2100
Total Suspended Solids
2200
Aquatic Plants Native
Table 4. Potential sources of impairment for Ashley Lake
Source Code
Potential Sources of Impairment
1000
Agriculture
1050
Crop-related Sources
1100
Non-irrigated Crop Production
8500
Contaminated Sediments
8960
Forest/Grassland/Parkland
27
Rend Lake
Rend Lake is not located within the Rayse Creek watershed but poses as a potential source of impairment for the southern most segments (NK01) of Rayse Creek especially during waterfowl season (October through May). In turn, the water quality of Rayse Creek affects the water quality of Rend Lake.
Land is managed for agricultural crops during the growing season. Flooding of this same area during the waterfowl season can potentially bring residual nutrients into the water body. This water is released into Rend Lake in May at the end of the waterfowl season. IDNR is responsible for the Big Muddy subimpoundment and the Rend Lake Refuge area (http://dnr.state.il.us/lands/landmgt/PARKS/R5/RENDLAKE/REND.HTM retrieved 10/16/05).
Table 5. IEPA 2004 water quality results for Rend Lake
(source: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/305b/305b-2004.pdf, 2005)
Assessment type:
M = Monitored assessments are based on current waterbody-specific monitoring data believed to accurately represent existing resource conditions.
Table 6. Method of monitoring used for Rend Lake
Code
Monitoring program used for assessment
205
Ambient Lake Monitoring Program chemical/physical data <5 years old.
260
Fish tissue analysis data.
270
PWS chemical monitoring (ambient water)
275
PWS chemical monitoring (finished water)
Table 7. Designated uses for Rend Lake
Code
Designated uses
F21
Full support for fish consumption
P1
Partial support for overall use
P42
Partial support for primary contact (swimming)
P44
Partial support for secondary contact (recreation)
P50
Partial support for public water supply
28
Table 8. Potential causes of impairment for Rend Lake
Code
Potential causes of impairment
595
Manganese
900
Unspecified nutrients
910
Total phosphorus
1100
Sedimentation/siltation
1220
Oxygen, dissolved
2100
Total suspended solids
2210
Excess algal growth
Table 9. Potential sources of impairment for Rend Lake
Code
Potential sources of impairment
200
Municipal point sources
1000
Agriculture
1050
Crop-related sources
1100
Non-irrigated crop production
4000
Urban runoff, storm sewers
7550
Habitat modification (other than hydromodification)
7700
Bank or shoreline modification/destabilization
8700
Recreation and tourism activities
9000
Source unknown
29
Streams
Rayse Creek is the main stream draining the watershed. It is approximately 27 miles long and drains 99 square miles or 63,581 ac. It is a 4th order stream and is intermittent in its flow regime. Most of the tributaries of Rayse Creek are ephemeral or intermittent. Table 10 lists the subwatersheds and tributaries of Rayse Creek. The segments were identified by the Resource Management Mapping Service provided at http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/. IEPA and IDNR use the segment numbers to identify streams in water quality reports.
The surface area of lakes and streams totals 667 acres or 1% of the watershed’s total area (IDNR, 2002).
Table 10. Stream segments as identified by IEPA & IDNR
Subwatershed/ Name
Segments
12
1373, 1374, 1375
11
1376
10
1370, 1371, 1372
9
1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369
8
690, 1377, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1391
7
1361, 1362, 1363
6
1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360
5
1392, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397
4 / Novak Creek (NKC)
1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1403
3
691, 692, 1355
2 / Back Branch (NKD)
701, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409
1 / Knob Prairie Creek (NKB)
1410, 1411, 1413, 1415, 1416, 1417
(source: http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/, 2005)
Intermittent stream – a stream that flows only a portion of the year; generally during the winter and spring in this climatic zone.
Ephemeral stream – a stream that flows only during and immediately following significant precipitation events.
30
Water Quality
Historical Water Quality Trends
As stated earlier, two water quality monitoring sites have been established in the Rayse Creek watershed. The NK01 site is near the mouth of the watershed at Waltonville. This site is part of IEPA’s Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) and is sampled approximately every six weeks for physical and chemical water quality parameters. Historical water quality data is available for NK01 from 1972 to 2000 (Tables 11 – 19). Monitoring site NK02 is located west of Woodlawn, approximately in the middle of the watershed, upstream of NK01. NK02 is only sampled periodically as part of the Intensive River Basin Surveys. Water quality data for NK02 is available from 1986 to 1995 and from 1998 to 2000 (Table 20). Since the NK01 monitoring site is near the mouth of the watershed, is downstream from NK02, and has a longer period of record, we will focus our assessment of water quality trends on the NK01 site.
Over the past three decades, mean annual stream temperature has slightly increased (Table 11), while mean annual dissolved oxygen levels have decreased (Table 12). This inverse relationship is expected, since cooler water can hold higher dissolved oxygen levels. The mean annual stream oxygen levels have remained above 5 mg/L or ppm, which is above hypoxic levels (<2 mg/L) where fish and macroinvertebrate health declines. Based on the individual AWQMN data points, hypoxic conditions were reached twice in 1974, once in 1976, twice in 1980, and once in 1994. Thus, it appears there is a decrease in the number of hypoxic events in Rayse Creek over time. The vast majority of the low oxygen levels occurred during summer and early fall when water temperatures were higher and streamflow discharge was relatively low.
31
Table 11. Annual mean stream temperature at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 40455055606570197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearStream Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit)
Table 12. Annual mean dissolved oxygen concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 46810197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearDO Concentration (mg/L)
32
Annual mean total suspended solid concentrations, a measure of how many soil particles are carried in the water, experienced a declining trend over the past three decades (Table 13). This may be due to the increased use of no-till and conservation tillage within the watershed. There have also been a significant number of filter strips and riparian buffers established in the watershed (Art Frederich, personal communication), which help to filter sediment from surface runoff before it enters Rayse Creek and its tributaries.
Table 13. Annual mean total suspended solid concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 05010015020025030035040045050019741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearTotal Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Annual mean dissolved nitrate-N, ammonium-N, total phosphorus (sediment-bound + dissolved phosphorus), and dissolved reactive phosphate (plant available phosphate) all had slightly increasing trends over the past two to three decades (Tables 14 - 17). However, nitrate-N, ammonium-N, and total phosphorus concentrations all experienced significant decreases in the last two to three years of the period of record. Given that nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients added to soils via agricultural fertilizers, additional nutrient management planning and establishment of best management practices such as filter strips and riparian buffers are warranted in the watershed to maintain and/or improve upon this downward trend in nutrient leaching. To further improve water quality, agricultural best management practice recommendations were developed at the subwatershed level in the Rayse Creek watershed (see Section XII Best Management Practice Recommendations).
33
Table 14. Annual mean dissolved nitrate-N concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 0.00.51.01.52.02.5197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearNO3-N Concentration(mg/L)
Table 15. Annual mean dissolved ammonium-N concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearNH3-N Concentration (mg/L)
34
Table 16. Annual mean total phosphorus concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 00.10.20.30.40.50.6197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearTotal P Concentration (mg/L)
Table 17. Annual mean dissolved reactive phosphate concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 0.000.050.100.150.200.250.3019801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearDissolved Reactive Phosphate Concentration (mg/L)
35
Mean total manganese and iron concentrations both decreased over the past two decades. High manganese and iron concentrations can be attributed to acid mine drainage and natural sources.
Table 18. Annual mean total manganese concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 0200400600800100012001400160019801982198419861988199019921994199619982000YearTotal Mn Concentration (μg/L)
36
Table 19. Annual mean total iron concentrations at NK01 monitoring site, Waltonville, in Rayse Creek 010002000300040005000600070008000900010000198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997YearTotal Fe Concentration (μg/L)
Table 20. Annual mean stream water quality data for NK02 monitoring station near Woodlawn
Water Year
TSS (mg/L)
NO3-N (mg/L)
NH3-N (mg/L)
Total P (mg/L)
1986
139
0.63
0.12
0.22
1987
187
0.71
0.19
0.29
1988
188
0.49
0.26
0.34
1989
84
0.48
0.17
0.18
1990
32
0.38
0.17
0.20
1991
105
0.96
0.66
0.22
1992
121
0.81
1.20
0.46
1993
50
1.34
0.12
0.17
1994
38
0.99
0.12
0.15
1995
37
0.37
0.58
0.32
1998
78
0.55
0.22
0.23
1999
21
0.80
0.17
0.20
2000
25
0.38
0.12
0.15
37
Designated Use
Designated use is established by the IEPA, and a stream should be supportive of the designated use.
Rayse Creek is divided into two sections by sampling station; NK02 is the upper half of the watershed and NK01 is the southern portion.
Designated uses for NK02:
Overall use, fish consumption, aquatic life and swimming
Designated uses for NK01:
Overall use, fish consumption, aquatic life and swimming
Designated Use Support
Designated use support is defined as the degree to which a waterbody can provide a given use.
This chart is taken from the IEPA Bureau of Water May 2004 Illinois Water Quality Report, also known as the 305(b) report (Table 21).
Table 21. IEPA designated use support for Rayse Creek
(source: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/305b/305b-2004.pdf, 2005)
The full support for the designated uses in the NK02 section is indicative of a high quality water. However, the stream water quality data for NK 02 (Table 20) suggests that agricultural non-point source pollution in that portion of the watershed is impacting water quality in the stream reach.
38
Impairments
Table 22. Prioritization of causes and sources of impairments in Rayse Creek watershed
Potential sources of impairment
Potential causes of impairment
Cropland erosion and runoff
Sediment, nutrients, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, iron
Streambank erosion
Sediment, nutrients, suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, iron
Flooding
Seasonally high water tables, clayey soils, siltation
Abandoned wells (i.e. oil wells)
Sediment, suspended solids, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, iron
Pastureland and livestock runoff
Sediment, nutrients, suspended solids, iron
Mine erosion
Sediment, nutrients, iron, manganese, pH, iron
Timber management
Sediment, nutrients, iron, manganese
(NRCS, 2005)
Oil brine
Oil wells, both functioning and abandoned, are spread throughout the watershed. Oil brine is removed with crude oil from below the surface. Poor handling of brine can result in severe land and water degradation. The brine is composed of dissolved salts primarily sodium and chloride. Other components include, to a lesser extent, magnesium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, and carbonate. Small areas of brine damage can spread across and below adjacent land to cover a larger areas. Soil fertility and water availability to plants are diminished following brine damage. It is important to note that brine has negative effects on water quantity as well as water quality such as higher rates of evaporation and surface runoff due to poor soil infiltration rates(Atalaya et al. 1999; www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/features/success/restbrnsls.html 2004).
Remediation (or treatment) of these areas, depending on how severe the damage, involves adding gypsum, which is costly, and installing a drainage system and other amendments. The local USDA Service Center should be contacted for assistance. Successful remediation has taken place in White, Saline, Gallatin and Hamilton Counties with the help of the Shawnee RC&D (Resource Conservation and Development) and local NRCS personnel through EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) (www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/features/success/restbrnsls.html, 2004). The Southeastern Illinois Oil Brine Damage Taskforce located in Harrisburg, IL has developed management practices to remediate and reclaim oil brine damaged land and has helped perform successful oil brine remediation in the region.
Researchers from Virginia and Oklahoma performed a study in Clearview, Oklahoma on the effects of brine on soil and water quality (Atalaya et al., 1999). They took surface and subsurface soil samples and water samples from the brine disturbed areas and compared those samples to the soil and water that were not affected by brine. They found that the brine changed the soil type from a sandy loam which was
39
nondispersive to a clay loam which was slightly dispersive. This was caused by the high sodium content and higher erosion rate. Earth metal concentrations in the soil were also higher in the brine damaged site than in the undamaged site. Soil pH was higher in the damaged area (7.5) than in the area with no brine damage (6.6).
Water quality results from the Oklahoma site showed significant impairments. Electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved sediment (TDS), hardness, sodium, and chloride all increased. Total suspended solids (TSS) and soluble salt were increased at the mouth of the area during heavy rains. Using relatively inexpensive remediation techniques, within 6 months the brine damaged land in Oklahoma was able to support vegetation.
GROUNDWATER
Geology
The DuQuoin Monocline follows parallel and close to the Washington and Jefferson County borders. The monocline* also stretches through the watershed in Jefferson County. Bedrock geology for the watershed is mainly Pennsylvanian Bond Formation which consists of mainly thick, pure limestone (IDNR, 2002). The northeastern section of the watershed is Pennsylvanian Mattoon Formation which is the youngest formation and is characterized by thin limestone and discontinuous thin coal (IDNR, 2002).
*A monocline is an upward band or fold in the geologic rock.
Glacial Geology
The Illinois Episode of glaciation left a layer of till that is classified as the Vandalia Till Member of the Glasford Formation (Willman and Frye, 1970). The Equality Formation located in the forested area of the northwestern finger of Rend Lake is composed of fine sediments where lakes existed. The majority of the deposits in most of Rayse Creek’s streambed is recognized as the Cahokia Alluvium (Willman and Frye, 1970) The material is composed of silts, clays, and sand and gravel deposited in floodplains. Glacial drift of loess ranges from less than 25 feet deep across the uplands to more than 50 to 100 feet deep to the streambed.
Water Wells
There are numerous private water wells throughout the watershed. Although data for Rayse Creek is not available, most of the ground water in Big Muddy watershed is obtained through water wells that are dug and bored and finished within unconsolidated materials above bedrock (IDNR, 2001 vol.2). There are no public water supply wells within the watershed. Most of the reported private water wells within Jefferson County are less than 50 feet deep (#516) followed by 186 wells that are less than 100 feet deep (IDNR, 2001 vol. 2). Well decommissioning is a continuing project throughout the Rayse Creek watershed, Jefferson and Washington Counties (contact local county health department for more information).
40
Figure 3. Wells within the Rayse Creek watershed
(IEPA, 2005)
Vulnerability to Pesticides
Most of the Rayse Creek watershed has very limited aquifer sensitivity to pesticide contamination. However, there are areas in the north and northwestern headwaters that have moderate to excessively high susceptibility to pesticide leaching (IDNR, 2002).
41
IRRIGATION
There are presently no known irrigation practices within the watershed.
MUNICIPAL / INDUSTRIAL
Industrial agricultural pollution
A large CAFO is located within the watershed, specifically in Subwatershed 4 or Novak Creek watershed. It was built in 1998 and is under IEPA regulation using a Waste Management Plan.
Septic systems
The Jefferson County Health Department published “A Guide for the Selection of a Private Sewage Disposal System.” Three types of sewage systems are listed (buried sand filter, waste stabilization pond, and aerators) along with descriptions and advantages and disadvantages of each. Aerators are most common in the county according to an official at the Health Department. Guidelines are given pertaining to the size of the residence and the size of septic tank and method used.
NPDES Permitted Sites
The Richview Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) is a permitted point source discharge in the watershed located in Richview, Washington County (Subwatershed 8). The treatment plant was completed in 2003. Discharge and water quality data for the influent and effluent from the plant was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act via the IEPA. The parameters monitored include discharge, BOD (biological oxygen demand), residual chlorine, pH and TSS (total suspended solids).
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Figure 4. Pollutant sources in Rayse Creek watershed (MWH, 2003)
Table 23. Allowable USEPA effluent limits for Richview STP (MWH,2003)
50
Stormwater management
Stormwater runoff carries oil, grease, road salt, metals, dirt particles from impermeable surfaces (highways, streets, driveways, etc). Paints, solvents and chemicals need to be disposed of properly. Rock salt, or sodium chloride, and a 32% calcium chloride liquid solution are used on maintained highways such as Highway 51, Interstate 64, and Highway 15 in the watershed (IDOT, 2005). When snow and ice melt, the sodium and calcium chloride are dissolved and can runoff into the waterways.
Stormwater Ordinances
The Village of Richview has sewer and stormwater ordinances.
The Village of Waltonville does not have any type of stormwater management systems.
RIPARIAN CORRIDORS
A flyover video was recorded by the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) of the main stream of Rayse Creek in late October 2004 and is available for viewing at the Jefferson County USDA Service Center. A copy of the written report describing the details of the flyover was not available to include in this publication of the plan. When the copy is received by the Jefferson County SWCD, it should be included within this plan for future planning efforts.
Streambank Erosion
Streambank erosion occurs naturally but is significantly increased by human activities on the land and within stream channels. Vegetation removal from the riparian area (the area adjacent to the creek), fallen trees, debris (vegetative or human litter) can all increase erosion of streambanks.
Hydrologic Modifications
Channelization of Rayse Creek is evident in Subwatershed 1 from images of digital ortho photos and the Waltonville quadrangle topographic map from 1998. It is unknown when the channelization occurred due to the lack of historical aerial maps. Stream channelization activities can result in a process referred as a headcutting, where the stream channel incises or downcuts in the upstream direction to establish a new base level.
51
Habitat
Table 24. Stream habitat data for segment NK02 of Rayse Creek
(MWH, 2003)
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES
Soils
The Jefferson/Franklin County and Washington County Soil Surveys were used as the primary source of soil information (USDA NRCS 2003).
Erosion and wetness are the primary management concerns that affect the majority of acres of soil classes throughout the watershed.
52
The Natural Division area of the watershed is known as the Mt. Vernon Hill Country of the Southern Till Plain Division (Figure 5). The dominant soil associations of the area are Bluford-Wynoose, Ava-Bluford-Plumfield, Hoyleton-Cisne, Belknap-Bonnie and Wynoose, Bench-Rend-Bluford, and Bench (USDA NRCS 1998, USDA NRCS 2003).
Figure 5. Physiographic divisions of the state of Illinois
(IDNR 2002)
Bluford-Wynoose Association
The Bluford-Wynoose soils are nearly level to gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained soils that formed in loess and erosional sediments over till. This soil association is found in the most of upland areas in the Rayse Creek watershed. The more specific soils in this association are described below.
Soils found in the uplands of Bluford-Wynoose
Bluford silt loam (13A) is a soil found within this association. The soil is found in 0% to 2% slopes on broad convex flats on divides or interfluves, which are areas of higher land between two rivers that are in the same drainage system. The water table is perched at 1 foot to 3 feet below the surface. Permeability is slow. The land use capability classification is 2w (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or
53
that require moderate conservation practices; w=water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, or K, is 0.43 (K values run between 0.02 and 0.69; the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water). Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” to 5” below the surface and is a grayish-brown, silt loam. Subsurface soil is brown, mottled silt loam. The drained areas in these soils are considered prime farmland.
Wynoose silt loam (12) is found on broad divides in the upland areas. The water table is perched at the surface to 1 foot below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 3w (3=soils have severe limitation that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices or both; w= water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, or K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” to 7” from the surface and is a grayish-brown, silt loam. Subsurface soil ranges from a depth of 7” to 11” and is a light gray, mottled silt loam.
Grantsburg silt loam (301B) is found on 2% to 5% slopes on convex ridgetops on interfluves. The water table is perched at a depth of 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e=the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” to 4” from the surface and is a brown silt loam. Subsurface soil ranges from 4” to 9” and is a strong brown silt loam. These soils are considered prime farmland.
Soils found in the ephemeral areas of Bluford-Wynoose
Creal silt loam (337A) are found on 0% to 2% slopes in the footslopes and shallow closed depressions. The water table is located at 1 foot to 3 feet below the surface. Permeability is moderately slow. The land use capability classification is 2w (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; w= water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, K, is 0.37. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” to 6” from the surface and is a brown silt loam. The subsurface soil is 6” to 25” and is brown, mottled silt loam. The drained areas on these soils are considered prime farmland.
Bluford silt loam (13B2) is found in 2% to 5% slopes and is eroded. The soil is found mainly on the side slopes along drainageways. The water table is perched at a depth of 1 foot to 3 feet below the surface. Permeability is slow. The land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” to 7” from the surface and is a dark,
54
grayish brown silt loam. The subsurface soil is located at 7” to 11” and is pale, brown silty clay loam. The eroded soils of this class are considered prime farmland.
Ava silt loam (14B2) is found on 2% to 5% slopes and is eroded. The soil is found on side slopes of interfluves. The water table is perched at 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” to 6” from the surface and is a dark, grayish brown silt loam. 6” to 9” is also classified as surface soil and is mixed brown and yellowish brown. The subsurface soil is located at 9” to 17” and is a yellowish-brown silty clay loam. The eroded soils of this class are considered prime farmland.
Grantsburg silty clay loam (301C3) is found on 5% to 10% slopes on side slopes. The water table is perched at 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 4e (4=soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located at 0” to 5” from the surface and is a yellowish-brown silty clay loam. The next layer is the subsoil which is located at a depth of 5” to 11” from the surface and is a strong, brown silty clay loam.
Plumfield silty clay loam (10C) is found on 5% to 10% slopes on side slopes. The water table is perched at 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 4e (4=soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located at 0” to 5” from the surface and is yellowish, brown silty clay loam. The subsoil is located at a depth of 5” to 7” and is a yellowish-brown, brittle silty clay loam.
Ava-Bluford-Wynoose Association
The Ava-Bluford-Wynoose soils formed under deciduous forests and have lightly colored soils. Claypans, which are dense, impervious layers of clay in the soil, are characteristic of this soil. It is difficult if not impossible for plant roots to penetrate the pan layer. Water movement through these layers is very slow and results in poor drainage except in areas with steeper slopes. This results in standing water during the wet seasons and drought conditions once the water has penetrated the claypan layer (IDNR, 2002). Ava-Bluford-Plumfield soils are located adjacent to Rayse Creek and its tributaries and in the ephemeral areas. Crops, hay, pasture and woodland are all found within this association. Silt loam and silt clay loam also dominate this soil association. The more specific soils in this association are described below.
55
Soil found in the upland areas of the Ava-Bluford-Wynoose Association
Ava silt loam (14B) is found on 2% to 5% slops on convex ridgetops on interfluves. The water table is perched at 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet. Permeability is very slow. Land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located at 0” to 5” from the surface and is a brown silt loam. The subsurface soil is located at 5” to 13” from the surface and is a yellowish-brown silt loam. These soils are considered prime farmland.
Soil found in the ephemeral areas of the Ava-Bluford-Wynoose Association
Blair silty clay loam (5C3) is found on 5% to 10% slopes and is severely eroded. This soil is found in the head slopes along drainageways. The water table is located at 1.5 foot to 3.5 feet below the surface. Permeability is moderately slow. Land use capability classification is 4e (4=soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.37. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located at 0” to 6” from the surface and is a yellowish-brown silty clay loam. The subsoil is located at 6” to 15” below the surface and is yellowish-brown, mottled silty clay loam.
Hickory-Kell silt loam (908F) is located on side slopes between 18% and 35%. The water table is located at a depth of more than 6 feet below the surface. The erodibility index, K, for Hickory is 0.37 and for Kell is 0.32. The land use capability classification is 6e (6=soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). Hydric soils: Hickory soil at the surface (0” to 3” deep) is dark brown silt loam. The subsurface (3” to 11”) is brown silt loam. The Kell soil at the surface (0” to 3”) is very dark grayish-brown silt loam. The subsoil (3” to 7”) is mixed dark grayish-brown and dark yellowish-brown silt brown.
Hickory clay loam (8D3) is found on side slopes of 10% to 18% and is severely eroded. The water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. Permeability is moderate. The land use capability classification is 4e (4=soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.37. Hydric soils: The surface soil (0” to 8”) is mixed brown and yellowish-brown clay loam. The subsoil is located between 8” to 48” below the surface and is yellowish-brown clay loam.
Hoyleton-Cisne Association
This soil association is characterized by nearly level to gently sloping areas and are somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained soils that formed in loess and erosional sediments over till and is located mainly in the uplands of Rayse Creek watershed. The more specific soils in this association are described below.
56
Soils found in the uplands of the Hoyleton-Cisne association
Cisne silt loam (2) is found in the broad flats and depressions on divides. The water table is perched at the surface to 1 foot below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 3w (3=soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both; w= water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, K, is 0.37. Hydric soil: The surface soil is located at a depth of 0” to 8” from the surface and is a dark brown silt loam. The subsurface is located at a depth of 8” to 20” and is a light, brownish-gray silt loam. The drained areas of these soils are considered prime farmland.
Hoyleton silt loam (3A) is found on the slopes between 0% and 2% on broad convex flats on divides. The water table is at 1 foot to 3 feet below the surface. Permeability is slow. The land use capability classification is 2w (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; w= water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, K, is 0.32. Hydric soils: The soil surface is located between 0” and 7” and is a dark brown, silt loam. The subsurface layer is located between 7” and 9” and is a brown, mottled silt loam. The drained areas of these soils are considered prime farmland.
Soils found in the ephemeral areas of the Hoyleton-Cisne association
Hoyleton silt loam (3B2) is located on 2% to 5% side slopes and summits. The water table is located at a depth of 1 foot to 3 feet below the surface. Permeability is slow. The land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e= the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.32. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” and 7” and is a mixed, dark brown and very dark grayish-brown silt loam. The subsoil is located between 7” and 10” and is a brown mottled, silty clay loam. The eroded areas of these soils are considered prime farmland.
The ephemeral areas in the Hoyleton-Cisne association also have the Blair silty clay loam (5C3) and Hoyleton silt loam (3A) described previously.
Wynoose, Bench-Rend-Bluford, Bench Association
These soils are located in the southeastern area of the Rayse Creek watershed just north of the west finger of Rend Lake. This soil association is characterized by nearly level to moderately sloping areas, poorly drained to moderately well-drained soils that formed in loess and erosional sediments over till. They are located on benches. The more specific soils in this association are described below.
57
Soils found in the upland areas of the Wynoose, Bench-Rend-Bluford, Bench Association
Wynoose silt loam, bench (639) soil is located on broad flats and depressions. The water table is perched at the surface to 1 foot below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 3w (3=soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practice, or both; w= water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface layer is located between 0” and 3” and is a dark brown, silt loam. The subsurface is located between 3” and 22” and is a mixed light gray and gray, mottled silt loam. The drained areas of these soils are considered prime farmland.
Bluford silt loam, bench (640A) soil is located on broad, convex interfluves of 0% to 2% slopes. The water table is perched at a depth of 1 foot to 3 feet. Permeability is slow. The land use capacity classification is 2w (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; w=water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” and 10” and is dark grayish-brown silt loam. The subsurface layer is located between 10” and 17” and is a brown silt loam. The drained areas of these soils are considered prime farmland.
Bonnie silt loam (3108) is located in toeslopes and is frequently flooded. The water table is located at the surface to 1 foot below the surface. Permeability is moderately slow. The land use capability classification is 3w (3=soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practice, or both; w= water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is composed of 2 layers. The top layer is located between 0” and 5” and is a brown, silt loam. The bottom half of the surface layer is between 5” and 10” and is a mixed light brownish-gray and dark grayish brown, mottled silt loam. The frequently flooded areas are considered prime farmland when they are drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season.
Rend silt loam (518B) is located on slopes between 2% and 5% on convex ridgetops on interfluves. The water table is located 4 feet to 6 feet below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e=the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface layer is located between 0” and 8” and is yellowish-brown, silt loam. The subsurface layer is located between 8” and 11” and is a yellowish-brown silt loam. These soils are considered prime farmland.
Rend silt loam (518B2) is located on side slopes of interfluves on 2% to 5% slopes and are eroded. The water table is located 4 feet to 6 feet below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 2e (2=soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices; e=the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The
58
erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface layer is between 0” and 7” and is a dark, grayish-brown, silt loam. The top layer of the subsoil is located between 7” and 11” and is a pale brown, silty clay loam. The eroded areas of these soils are considered prime farmland.
Bluford silt loam (13A) is also located in the uplands of this association and its characteristics are previously described.
Soils found in the ephemeral areas of the Wynoose, Bench-Rend-Bluford, Bench Association
Rend silt loam (518C2) soils are located on 5% to 10 % side slopes of interfluves. The water table is located 4 feet to 6 feet below the surface. Permeability is very slow. The land use capability classification is 3e (soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practice, or both; e=the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained). The erodibility index, K, is 0.43. Hydric soils: The surface soil is located between 0” and 5” and is a brown silt loam. The top layer of the subsoil is located between 5” and 15” and is a yellowish-brown, silty clay loam.
Additional soils in the ephemeral areas of this association have been previously described. They include: Rend silt loam (518B), Rend silt loam (518B2), and Bluford silt loam (13B2). Soil Erosion
Agriculture
Soil erosion estimates for the Rayse Creek watershed are not available. However, the most recent Soil Conservation Transect Survey Summary (2000) released by the Illinois Department of Agriculture indicates that Illinois producers are minimizing soil erosion by wisely managing their cropland. The tolerable soil loss (or “T”) is between 3 and 5 tons per acre per year. This range keeps the soil at a productive level. Soil loss estimates are determined using RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) developed by the NRCS. The report indicated that the management of retaining more crop residue could improve those areas that are exceeding tolerable soil loss.
Sheet and Rill Erosion
These types of erosion commonly occur when raindrops hit exposed soil and cause displacement of soil particles. The greatest amount of soil loss is produced by rill erosion (Brooks, et al. 2003).
Ephemeral erosion
Ephemeral erosion increased in 2002 and 2004 across Illinois by 25.1%. Ephemeral areas or streams are those located at the headwaters of creeks and rivers that appear as a dry ditch. They contain water during and immediately following a precipitation event and are dry most of the year.
59
Gully erosion
Gully erosion increased across Illinois by 25.9% according to the (http://www.agr.state.il.us/pdf/soiltransectsurvey.pdf, 2005).
Topography
The highest elevation in the watershed is 580 feet above sea level at the headwaters of Rayse Creek located in Subwatershed 12. The lowest elevation is located near the mouth of the creek at 420 feet above sea level located in Subwatershed 3. The size of the watershed is 99 square miles (63,360 acres).
Land Use/Cover
Most of the data associated with land use are county-wide, specifically Jefferson County, unless otherwise noted. The numbers and figures can be generalized for the entire watershed including land that lies in Washington County.
Table 25. Land use/cover for the Rayse Creek watershed
Land Use/Cover
Area (ac)
Proportion (%)
Agriculture
29,718
46.7
Grassland
20,404
32.1
Forest
9,885
15.5
Wetland
3,444
5.4
Urban
101
0.2
Water
33
0.1
Total
63,584
100
(Illinois Natural History Survey et al. 1996; adapted from MWH 2003)
Cropping rotations
The primary cropping rotation in the watershed is a corn/soybean rotation. Wheat and sorghum can also be included in some crop rotations.
60
Farm Size
Mean farm size in Jefferson County is 222 acres.
Table 26. Farm size and number in Jefferson County, Illinois
Farm Size (acres)
Number of Farms
1 to 9
26
10 to 49
364
50 to 179
461
180 to 499
178
500 to 999
76
1,000 acres or more
63
Total
1168
Confinement Livestock Operations
A large CAFO (confined animal facility operation) exists in the NE ¼ of Section 20, 3 S, R 1 E. The facility was built in 1998 by Maschoff and contains 4500 head of hogs. The facility is managed by the landowner who follows an IEPA approved Waste Management Plan (IEPA 2005). Odor from hog manure can be local air quality concern.
Open Feedlots
Thirteen feedlots were recognized by the IEPA in 1997.
Aquaculture
There are no known aquaculture facilities within the watershed.
Woodland Resources
An inventory of woodland resources within the watershed is unavailable, beyond watershed acreage.
Cemeteries
Table 27. Number of cemeteries within the Rayse Creek watershed
Subwatershed
Number of Cemeteries
12
1
8
3
5
1
4
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
61
Roads
Most of the roads within the watershed are oil and chip. In Richview, there are approximately 7 miles of oil and chip streets. (www.haengr.com/Newsletters/newsletter9102002m.htm, 2004).
Railroads
Illinois Central Railroad
Municipalities
The Village of Richview, located in Washington County, has a population of 308.
Airports
There are no airports within the boundaries of the Rayse Creek watershed.
Development
The local attitudes of the landowners within the watershed oppose development on fertile agricultural land.
Illegal Dumps
Illegal dumps exist in the watershed. Creek beds can be littered with trash from paper to large home appliances to rubber tires.
Landfills
There are three landfills in the watershed. The first is a retired or closed landfill located in section 36 in the Casner Township. It is 35 acres in size, and the owner and operator is the City of Mt. Vernon. It is a municipal sewage landfill and was covered/closed on an unknown date. According to the IEPA, this landfill continues to be monitored (http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/), 2005). The second landfill is Mt. Vernon Municipal #2 located in section 35. It is owned by Arthur Shewmake and operated by the mayor and council of Mt. Vernon. It is approximately 60 acres in size, but only 45 acres was filled. The landfill was closed/covered in 1977. It is located near County Road 450. According to the IEPA, it is monitored (http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/, 2005). The third landfill is located in section 24 in the Casner Township. Although there is record of this landfill, no detailed information is given (size, open date, close date).
Natural Areas
There are no natural areas noted in the Rayse Creek watershed.
Septic Systems
Septic systems are scattered throughout the watershed. The Jefferson and Washington County Health Departments have guidelines to follow for private septic systems.
Mining
There is the potential that closed mines across southern Illinois may be reopened for coal exploration. Various mines in the southernmost section of the watershed around Waltonville may be susceptible to subsidence (Figure 6). Subsidence is the sinking or
62
settling of the land’s surface due to the removal of coal. Rend Lake has subsided at least 3 feet in areas since mining began (USACE 1993).
Figure 6. Locations of coal mines in the Rayse Creek watershed
63
Air Quality
There are two monitoring sites that monitor air quality downwind (east) from Jefferson and Washington County. They are both located in Wabash County on the Illinois-Indiana border (Figure 7). Both sites are owned and operated by Public Service of Indiana and are SPMS (Special Purpose Monitoring Stations) stations which measure sulfur dioxide (SO2) (Table 28).
64
Figure 7. Air quality monitoring stations in the state of Illinois
65
Table 28. Sulfur dioxide levels for two air quality monitoring sites east of Jefferson County
Site Name / AIRS Code
Highest 3-hr. Mean (ppm)
Highest 24-hr. Mean (ppm)
Annual Arithmatic Mean (ppm)
Mt. Carmel 1850001
0.132
0.055
0.004
Rural Wabash 1851001
0.129
0.035
0.003
IEPA standards for sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean = 0.03ppm
24-hr = 0.14ppm
3-hr = none
Statewide, the most recent data available is in the 2003 Annual Air Quality Report (IEPA 2004) from data gathered in 2002. Air quality in Illinois was either good or moderate more than 94 percent of the time. Air quality trends for the pollutants monitored across the state (particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead) continued on a downward trend (IEPA 2004). Estimated stationary point source emissions for Jefferson and Washington County are shown in Table 29.
Table 29. Estimated stationary point source emissions for Jefferson and Washington County
Air Quality Parameter
Jefferson County (Tons/yr)
Washington County (Tons/yr)
Carbon monoxide
427.5
20.0
Nitrogen oxides
93.1
43.2
Particulate matter
763.7
204.2
Sulfur dioxide
291.1
0.2
Volatile organic material
683.4
166.3
(IEPA, 2004)
Wildlife
Populations of wildlife within Rayse Creek have not been tabulated but the birds and mammals of the entire Big Muddy watershed, which includes Rayse Creek, have been recorded and are listed within Volume 3 of the Big Muddy River Area Assessment report (IDNR, 2002). Table 30 lists the amphibians and reptiles that live in Jefferson County.
66
Table 30. Amphibians and reptiles living in Jefferson County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Ambystoma maculatum
Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma opacum
Marbled Salamander
Ambystoma texanum
Smallmouth Salamander
Ambystoma tigrinum
Tiger Salamander
Plethodon dorsalis
Zigzag Salamander
Plethodon glutinosus
Northern Slimy Salamander
Bufo fowleri
Fowler’s Toad
Acris crepitans
Cricket Frog
Hyla versicolor- chrysoscelis
Grey Treefrog Complex
Pseudacris triseriata
Western Chorus Frog
Rana areolata
Crawfish Frog
Rana catesbeiana
Bullfrog
Rana clamitans
Green Frog
Rana sphenocephala
Southern Leopard Frog
Chelydra serpentina
Snapping Turtle
Chrysemys picta
Painted Turtle
Pseudemys concinna
River Cooter
Terrapene carolina
Eastern Box Turtle
Terrapene ornata
Ornate Box Turtle
Sceloporus undulatus
Fence Lizard
Eumeces fasciatus
Five-Lined Skink
Eumeces laticeps
Broad-Headed Skink
Scincella lateralis
Ground Skink
Coluber constrictor
Racer
Elaphe obsoleta
Rat Snake
Heterodon platirhinos
Eastern Hognose Snake
Lampropeltis calligaster
Prairie Kingsnake
Nerodia erythrogaster
Plainbelly Water Snake
Nerodia sipedon
Northern Water Snake
Opheodrys aestivus
Rough Green Snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
Common Garter Snake
Agkistrodon contortrix
Copperhead
Crotalus horridus
Timber Rattlesnake
(Illinois Natural History Survey; updated 02/10/2003)
67
Geese
There is concern among watershed stakeholders about the possibility of goose droppings entering Rayse Creek and adding excess nutrients to the aquatic system. Goose droppings are a water pollution concern because the watershed is near the Mississippi flyway, a major migration route for geese. An IDNR wildlife area is also located south of the watershed. There is not quantitative data available concerning the magnitude or effect of this potential nutrient source. This is an issue that merits future attention and study. The southern section of Rayse Creek is flooded according to IDNR’s management regime for waterfowl hunting, as stated previously.
Fish
The only fish kill known to IEPA and the IDNR took place in Rayse Creek in 1993 but the precise location is unknown. Table 31 shows fish data collected by the IEPA and IDNR in 1995 and 2000 from a reach of stream in segment NK02 near Woodlawn.
68
Table 31. Fish data collected near Woodlawn on segment NK02 of Rayse Creek
(IDNR, 2005)
Threatened and Endangered Species
The bald eagle is a threatened species that winters in Jefferson County. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/RockIsland/activity/endangrd/il_list.htm#Jefferson, updated January 2005 and retrieved 10/17/05). The Indiana bat is another T&E species that potentially exists in both Jefferson and Washington Counties.
69
SOCIO-ECONOMIC / HUMAN RESOURCES
The following table lists the oral comments made by the stakeholders during the TMDL public comment period and submitted to the IEPA by the Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Table 32. Public comments concerning the TMDL submitted to IEPA
• The watershed model used to develop the TMDL does not accurately simulate the nature of the watershed.
• The TMDL does not mention the large hog operation in existence in the watershed.
• The data used in the TMDL is not up-to-date. BMPs have been implemented since then, and water quality could have improved.
• Samples are not dated.
• The amount of data that the report states is “not enough”, “more needed”, and “none available” seems to make the report inaccurate. Landowners will likely dismiss the report since it is incomplete.
• The Jefferson County SWCD was requested by the engineers to provide data. The engineers were offered a chance to come help themselves to any information they needed. They did not accept, which caused the SWCD to wonder if there was information that the company needed that was not included.
• Are other events, such as construction, planting, heavy storms, and conservation project construction taken into account?
• Designated use of swimming is highly improbable. It is also doubtful that anyone fishes from the creek. The designated uses should be revised.
• The Sub Impoundment dam created backwater in Rayse Creek. This has not been taken into account.
• The amount of time and money spent on this is disturbing, as the TMDL simply suggests that the landowners implement BMPs they are already implementing. This money could have been used to improve the watershed by means of conservation money or for operations and salaries. The TMDL process seems counterproductive.
• Tests need to be conducted to determine the impact of an old landfill.
• Placing blame solely on the bottom half of the watershed is not practical.
70
• The involvement of the watershed, in the form of the Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee, needs to be noted.
A stakeholder workshop was organized by the researchers at SIUC in Woodlawn. Thirty-one people attended and comments and concerns were made about the health of the watershed.
Table 33. Concerns, comments, and questions generated at a stakeholder workshop
• Sedimentation
• Water Quality
• How big/bad is the problem? How bad does it have to be to have a TMDL?
• What action is taken, who takes it, and how?
• Are the actions mandatory or voluntary?
• Don’t overreact
• Is there a Phosphorous problem?
• Disappointment that grant is not large enough to sample water quality
• Why is the Northern segment clean? What are they doing to make it so?
• Where did the water samples come from?
• Are the oil companies dumping in the watershed?
• What are the farmers’ goals and objectives for the plan?
• What is the proposal for buffer zones in the bad areas?
• Do trees and grass really help?
• Is doing something voluntary first the best thing?
• Is there a Phosphorous problem in Rend Lake?
• Where does the Phosphorous originate?
• How many water samples are needed, how much does it cost, and can volunteers collect them?
• Is sedimentation the second main problem?
• What about dissolved oxygen?
• Is the IEPA continuing testing?
• What are the effects of no-till practices?
• How many testing stations would be needed for accuracy in a watershed this size?
• If we test and there are no problems, then what?
71
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Rayse Creek watershed is located in Jefferson and Washington Counties in Illinois: 82% (52,307 acres) are located in Jefferson County and 18% (11,277 acres) are located in Washington County (MWH, 2003). The primary land use is row-crop agriculture, specifically corn/soybean rotation, followed by pasture land, and forest land (IDNR, 2002).
Rayse Creek is a sinuous 4th order stream. Ephemeral and intermittent streams are prominent throughout the watershed. Ephemeral streams comprise the beginning of the channel network and convey water during and immediately after periods of rainfall or snowmelt and are dry for most of the year. Intermittent streams normally contain baseflow only during part of the year, usually the winter, spring, and early summer. These headwater channel areas are important in terms of soil erosion and runoff. Land use within these headwater channel areas can negatively impact water quality in the perennial stream (Rayse Creek), since they comprise the majority of the drainage network in the watershed. Headwater areas are especially important contributors of sediment and sediment bound nutrients, as most of these pollutants are transported during storm events.
In the fall of 2004, an aerial video was recorded of the primary, perennial stream channel of Rayse Creek by the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Human-made crossings, log and debris jams and significant streambank erosion were evident. The location of these features was indicated on the DVD as well as in the report from the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
The majority of the cropland within Rayse Creek is on a corn/soybean rotation with some milo, winter wheat and cover crops. The watershed contains primarily moderately to poorly drained soils that contribute to seasonal wetness and ponding. The soils are susceptible to erosion and shrink-swell action. Most of the soils are suitable for the crops grown in the watershed except for those with moderate slopes. The riparian soils immediately adjacent to Rayse Creek and its tributaries are moderately to poorly drained and suited for woodland but are typically unsuited for cultivated crops, hay and pasture. Frequent flooding occurs between January and June. According to some landowners, historical subsurface tiles have been discovered in fields, particularly within the NK01 section. It is not possible to locate these tiles due to the lack of documentation. Currently, when a grassed waterway is designed, surface tiles are installed to remove excessive water through the waterway so that the grass seed becomes established. The tile remains there for the life of the waterway (NRCS personal communication, 2005).
When implementing BMPs (best management practices) on site, a soil survey should be consulted as to the specific soil characteristics and an on-site evaluation should also be conducted. According to the NRCS, most landowners are familiar with the practices that are needed to control soil erosion. Some landowners consult with local extension and FS (Farm Service) offices for nutrient and pesticide management. The most popular conservation practices used in the watershed are grassed waterways, filter strips (grass), quail buffers, grade stabilization structures, no-till, and nutrient management systems. There are a few landowners who have installed riparian buffers (trees), water and sediment control basins (WASCOBS), and terraces. There have been requests from landowners for wetland creation structures and timber stand improvements
72
(TSIs) (NRCS personal communication, 2005), but there’s also been destruction of wetlands.
Dwellings with and without basements are moderately to severely susceptible to wetness, flooding, and shrink-swell potential. Septic tank absorption fields are common in the Rayse Creek watershed. However, most of the soils in the watershed are not suitable for septic tank absorption fields due to poor drainage. Local and state guidelines are administered by the Jefferson County Health Department.
Two large oil fields are concentrated in the Richview and Woodlawn areas with a smaller field in the Roaches area. Scattered oil wells are located throughout the watershed (http://meltwater.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm). Oil pumping activities have caused brine and sodic spots which have left areas void of vegetation and are sources of significant soil erosion. Brine (or sodic) “hot spots” exist on the land and in waterways where structural systems are installed to try and prevent erosion because vegetation cannot be established (NRCS personal communication, 2005).
The location of livestock facilities and feedlots in the TMDL report was developed from data collected from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in 1997. According to stakeholders and personnel at the USDA Service Center, since 1997 the large animal feeding operations (AFOs) have drastically decreased within the watershed. Currently, a large CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) is located in Blissville Township (see details under Subwatershed 4). Another CAFO within the watershed closed in 1993. This facility was blamed for causing a large fish kill in Rayse Creek prior to closing. The specific location is unknown (IEPA personal communication, 2005). Small livestock facilities and feedlots are spread throughout the entire watershed. The main management concern with these areas is the residual and continuous nutrient inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus into the soil and ultimately the waterways. The lower section (NK01) is a significant livestock area.
SUBWATERSHED RANKING FOR FUTURE BMP ESTABLISHMENT
There are 12 subwatersheds or tributary watersheds within the Rayse Creek watershed (Figure 8). We have chosen to provide “site-specific” BMP recommendations at the scale of the subwatershed because it is a logical unit of management that provides an effective way of subdividing the larger watershed for more targeted placement of future BMPs to improve water quality. We have ranked and listed the subwatersheds in priority order from highest to lowest for future restoration activities. Our ranking scheme was based on a summation of the following potential sources of water quality impairment (Table 34). A higher score indicates more potential for water quality impairment and thus, a higher priority for future restoration activities. The following is a detailed description of how each potential impairment was scored.
73
Figure 8. Twelve subwatersheds within the Rayse Creek watershed
(MWH, 2003)
Table 34. Ranking Scheme for Potential Impairment in Subwatersheds
Potential Impairment
Point Scale
Cropland
1-12 points
Livestock facility/feedlots
0-12 points
CAFOs
up to an additional 10 points
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
up to an additional 12 points
Retired landfills
up to an additional 10 points
Livestock facility/feedlots
The twelve subwatersheds were ranked according to the number of livestock facilities/feedlots located within its boundary (Figure 9). The facilities were also weighted with respect to the total acreage of the subwatershed and proximity to a stream. The number of head within each livestock facility/feedlot is unknown.
74
Figure 9. Location of livestock/feedlot facilities
(MWH, 2003)
75
Cropland
Cropland can contribute to excess nutrient runoff and increased erosion especially under excess fertilizer applications and conventional tillage. The twelve subwatersheds were ranked 12 to 1 according to the percent of the subwatershed acreage in cropland.
CAFOs
“Large” CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operation’s) are defined by the USEPA as facilities containing more than 1000 animal units (Table 35). These facilities are required to have a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit. An NPDES permit is also required of “medium” CAFO’s (Table 36) that discharge pollutants (e.g. manure, wastewater) into any ditch, stream, or other water conveyance system, whether man-made or natural or have animals in contact with surface water in areas where they are confined.
Table 35. “Large” CAFO Animal Units Table: Approximate number of animals equivalent to 1000 animal units
Animal Type
Number
Beef cattle or heifers
1,000
Mature dairy cows
700
Swine (55 lbs. or more)
2,500
Sheep or lambs
10,000
Horses
500
Turkeys
55,000
Laying Hens
82,000
(http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/cafo/
Table 36. “Medium” CAFO Animal Units
Animal Type
Number
Beef cattle or heifers
300 - 999
Mature dairy cows
200 - 699
Swine (55 lbs. or more)
750 – 2,499
Sheep or lambs
3000 – 9,999
Horses
150 - 499
Turkeys
16,500 – 54,999
Laying Hens
25,000 – 81,999
(http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/cafo/
The Rayse Creek watershed contained one CAFO in subwatershed 4, which resulted in an additional 5 points.
76
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
Oil brine and sodic damaged land received up to 12 additional points because of the high susceptibility to erosion. Oil brine and sodic areas have an approximate erosion rate of 35 tons/acre/year (www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/features/success/restbrnsls.html, 2004) up to 260 tons/acre/year (Greater Egypt Regional Planning Commission, 1980). These areas were identified using the Jefferson and Washington County Soil Surveys (NRCS 2003 and 1998 respectively) along with recent (2005) field reconnaissance and NRCS witness accounts in the fields and waterways.
The subwatersheds were ranked by the number and relative size of oil brine and sodic damaged areas. Oil brine and sodic damage land were not found in each subwatershed.
Retired landfills
Subwatersheds containing retired landfills received up to 10 additional points because of the potential for toxics and nutrients in landfill leachate being transported to groundwater and adjacent watercourses. Ranking was based on the fill size of the landfill related to the total acreage of the watershed. Landfills were identified using the Resource Management Mapping Service website provided by the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/).
BMP RECOMMENDATIONS
Potential BMPs for each subwatershed of Rayse Creek are identified in this report. The detailed description of each BMP is listed in Appendix I. Recommendations for tree plantings are located in Appendices II and III. Tributaries or segments of Rayse Creek can be identified using the website http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/ (2005), which is a useful, interactive tool for all stakeholders.
The detailed Land Use/Land Cover summaries for each subwatershed were adapted from the TMDL report (MWH 2003). We condensed the detailed land use tables into the following categories: Cropland which includes row crops, small grains, orchards/nurseries; Urban/suburban which includes high and medium density housing including roads and other impervious surfaces; Forest which includes deciduous closed and open canopy forests; Pasture which includes rural grasslands; and Wetland which includes shallow marshes/wet meadows, deep marshes, forested wetlands, and shallow water wetlands.
77
Prioritized List of Subwatersheds for Future Restoration Activities – Highest Priority to Lowest Priority
Table 37. Prioritized List for Future Restoration Activities
Watershed
Total Points
1. Subwatershed 4
29
2. Subwatershed 8
26
3. Subwatershed 3
25
4. Subwatershed 1
25
5. Subwatershed 2
23
6. Subwatershed 11
19
7. Subwatershed 6
19
8. Subwatershed 12
11
9. Subwatershed 10
9
10.Subwatershed 5
5
11.Subwatershed 9
2
12.Subwatershed 7
1
1. Subwatershed 4
Total acreage within this subwatershed is approximately 7,649 acres and is located in the Blissville Township in Jefferson County as well as the Ashley Township in Washington County. This basin is the Novak Creek basin (IEPA code: NKC), a tributary to Rayse Creek. Tributaries (segments) include 1398, 1400, 1401, 1403, 1399.
Monitoring station—NK01
Table 38. Land Use for Subwatershed 4
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
51%
Urban
0%
Forest
10%
Pasture
36%
Wetland
3%
78
Table 39. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 4
(MWH, 2003)
Table 40. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 4
Potential source
Points
Cropland
7
Livestock facility/feedlot
9
CAFO
5
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
8
Retired landfills
0
Total
29
Ranking
A large CAFO (confined animal facility operation) exists in the NE ¼ of Section 20, 3 S, R 1 E. The facility was built in 1998 by Maschoff and contains 4500 head of hogs. The facility is managed by the landowner who follows an IEPA approved Waste Management Plan (IEPA 2005). Regardless of the WMP, trampling and wallowing can cause excessive damage to the soil. Odor from the waste is also a concern for local air quality.
There are six livestock/feedlot facilities within the watershed. Four sodic areas exist in section 6. There are seven eroded areas in sections 7 and 8. Cropland accounts for 51% of the land cover within this subwatershed.
Other concerns
There are seven wet spots in the watershed which should be avoided of any mechanical equipment or animal grazing in sections 31 and 5.
79
BMP Recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Rotational grazing
Establish permanent cover on highly erodible land
Soil testing
2. Subwatershed 8
This subwatershed is the largest of all the watersheds located in the Rayse Creek watershed draining 13,937 acres. Approximately 11,277 acres of the area of this watershed are located within the Richview and Ashley Townships in Washington County. In Jefferson County, this subwatershed includes about 2,660 acres in the Casner Township. The major stream is Rayse Creek Tr and its tributaries (or segments)--1377, 1380, 1379, 1391, 1381, 1386, 1388, 1387, 690, 1384, 1385, and 1383.
Monitoring station—NK02
Table 41. Land Use for Subwatershed 8
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
47%
Urban
0%
Forest
17%
Pasture
32%
Wetland
2%
Table 42. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 8
(MWH, 2003)
80
Table 43. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 8
Potential source
Points
Cropland
4
Livestock facility/feedlot
10
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
12
Retired landfills
0
Total
26
Ranking
This subwatershed has seven known livestock facility/feedlots and 47% of the watershed is cropland. There are twenty-two severely eroded spots within the watershed noted in the Washington County soil survey (1998). There are no known CAFOs or landfills within this subwatershed.
Other concerns
Richview oil fields and other scattered oil wells are prominent in this watershed which can contribute to increased soil erosion. There are also dry and abandoned oil wells outside of the Richview oil fields (http://meltwater.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm, 2005). The village of Richview also maintains a wastewater treatment plant. Discharge from the treatment plant is permitted as a point source by Illinois EPA.
BMP recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Brine or sodic area management
Soil testing
3. Subwatershed 3
The total acreage in this subwatershed is approximately 4,531 acres. Rayse Creek is the major stream with its tributaries (segments)—1355, 692, and 691. The watershed lies within the McClellan Township in Jefferson County.
81
Monitoring station—NK01
Table 44. Land Use for Subwatershed 3
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
53%
Urban
0%
Forest
4%
Pasture
22%
Wetland
21%
Table 45. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 3
(MWH, 2003)
Table 46. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 3
Potential source
Points
Cropland
6
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
9
Retired landfills
10
Total
25
Ranking
Cropland accounts for 53% of the watershed and nutrients and erosion can be contributed from these activities. According to the most recent data from the IEPA in
82
Marion, there are no known livestock facility/feedlots in this subwatershed. There is a retired or closed landfill located in section 36 in the Casner Township. It is 35 acres in size, owner and operator is the City of Mt. Vernon. It is a municipal sewage landfill and was covered/closed on an unknown date. According to the IEPA, this landfill continues to be monitored (http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/), 2005).
Other concerns:
This subwatershed has seven severely eroded areas in section 7 and thirteen eroded spots in section 12. There are a few wet spots in the basin. The yearly flooding from Rend Lake most likely affects the southernmost region of this watershed.
BMP Recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Rotational grazing
Soil testing
4. Subwatershed 1
This subwatershed drains approximately 3,590 acres. The major stream is Knob Prairie Creek (NKB) and includes tributaries (segments) 1410, 1411, 1413, 1415, 1416, and 1417. It lies in the McClellan and Blissville Townships in Jefferson County.
Monitoring station—NK01
Table 47. Land Use for Subwatershed 1
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
56%
Urban/Suburban
0%
Forest
4%
Pasture/Grassland
32%
Wetland
8%
83
Table 48. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 1
(MWH, 2003)
Table 49. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 1
Potential source
Points
Cropland
10
Livestock facility/feedlot
12
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
3
Retired landfills
0
Total
25
Ranking
There are six livestock facility/feedlots within this subwatershed. The proximity of these facilities to waterways is critical. Cropland makes up 56% of the watershed.
Other concerns
Wide ephemeral headwaters exist in this watershed as well as intermittent streams. There are many wet areas and dammed waters. The Big Muddy Subimpoundment dam gates are closed every year, 2 weeks before waterfowl hunting season opens to increase water levels to 409 feet of elevation. Elevation at the subimpoundment crest is 412 feet (USACE, 1993). The area north of the dam is filled with rain water and/or water from Rend Lake. The operation of the dam is to create habitat to attract various wildlife for hunting. On March 1, the gates are opened to allow the waters to flow into Rend Lake and in time for the next growing season (USACE, 1993). This flooding affects the natural flow of Rayse Creek as well as degrades the
84
water quality by decreasing dissolved oxygen, increasing water temperature and saturating the soil. Flooding of the croplands causes concern because of nutrients and erosion carried off when the gates are opened and the water flows into Rend Lake. There is one severely eroded spot located in section 36. In sections 19 and 30 of the McClellan Township, there is a major alteration of the hydrology with channelization (approximately 4420 ft in length on segment 1411). This causes an increase in streamflow and peak flow discharges. Excessive sediment deposits from erosion can cause channel aggradation which can contribute to flooding. This channelization may eventually lead to channel morphology (change of the shape of the channel) upstream and degradation.
BMP Recommendations:
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Restoration of meanders in channelized stream reach
Rotational grazing
Soil testing
5. Subwatershed 2
Total acreage in this subwatershed is approximately 5,956 acres. The Back Branch (NKD) creek is the major stream in this watershed and includes the following tributaries (segments): 1405, 1404, 701, 1406, 1407, 1409, and 1408. The land and the tributaries lie within the Blissville Township in Jefferson County.
Monitoring station—NK01
Table 50. Land Use for Subwatershed 2
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
56%
Urban
0%
Forest
5%
Pasture
36%
Wetland
3%
85
Table 51. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 2
(MWH, 2003)
Table 52. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 2
Potential source
Points
Cropland
8
Livestock facility/feedlot
11
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
4
Retired landfills
0
Total
23
Ranking
There are seven livestock facility/feedlots within this subwatershed which can contribute to increased nutrients and erosion. Cropland makes up about 56% of the land area within this subwatershed. Oil brine/sodic damaged land is prominent in this watershed. There are approximately twelve oil brine spots and one sodic spot.
BMP Recommendations:
Brine or sodic area management
Soil testing
Rotational grazing
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
86
6. Subwatershed 11
This subwatershed drains approximately 2,271 acres. Its major stream is Rayse Creek and a tributary—segment 1376 (IEPA). Most of this watershed lies in the Grand Prairie Township in Jefferson County with a small area lying west into the Irvington Township in Washington County.
Monitoring station—NK02
Table 53. Land Use for Subwatershed 11
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
64%
Urban
0%
Forest
12%
Pasture
21%
Wetland
3%
Table 54. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 11
(MWH, 2003)
87
Table 55. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 11
Potential source
Points
Cropland
12
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
7
Retired landfills
0
Total
19
Ranking
Cropland makes up 64% of this subwatershed. There are no recorded livestock facility/feedlots, CAFOs or retired landfills. There are three sodic areas in section 18, two brine spots in section 30 and four wet spots in section 31 and 18.
Other concerns
The Irvington East Oil Fields are located in sections 19, 30, 31 of the Grand Prairie Township in Jefferson County. These oil fields should be monitored for brine damage.
BMP recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Brine or sodic area management
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Soil testing
7. Subwatershed 6
This subwatershed drains approximately 5,626 acres and lies within the Casner Township in Jefferson County. The tributaries (or segments) of the creek in this watershed are 1360, 1357, 1356, 1359, and 1358.
Monitoring station—NK02
Table 56. Land Use for Subwatershed 6
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
38%
Urban
0%
Forest
15%
Pasture
40%
88
Wetland
5%
Table 57. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 6
(MWH, 2003)
Table 58. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 6
Potential source
Points
Cropland
3
Livestock facility/feedlot
8
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
4
Retired landfills
4
Total
19
Ranking
There is one livestock facility/feedlot located within this watershed and no CAFOs. Cropland makes up 38% of the total acreage in this subwatershed. There are six brine areas located within the Woodlawn oil field.
There are 2 known landfills located in this subwatershed. The first, Mt. Vernon Municipal #2, is located in section 35. It is owned by Arthur Shewmake and operated by mayor and council of Mt. Vernon. It is approximately 60 acres in size but only 45 acres was filled. This landfill was closed/covered in 1977. It is located near County Road 450. According to the IEPA, it is monitored (http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/, 2005).
The other landfill in the subwatershed is located in section 24 in the Casner Township. Although there is record of this landfill, no detailed information is given (size, open date, close date).
89
BMP recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Brine or sodic area management
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Soil testing
8. Subwatershed 12
This watershed drains approximately 2,461 acres and lies within the Grand Prairie Township in Jefferson County. Rayse Creek is the major waterbody and includes tributaries (or segments) 1375, 1373, and 1374 (as identified by the IEPA).
Monitoring station—NK02
Table 59. Land Use for Subwatershed 12
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
58%
Urban
0%
Forest
16%
Pasture
24%
Wetland
2%
Table 60. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 12
(MWH, 2003)
90
Table 61. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 12
Potential source
Points
Cropland
11
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
0
Retired landfills
0
Total
11
Ranking
There are no recorded facility/feedlots in this subwatershed, no CAFOs and no landfills. Cropland makes up 58% of this watershed. There are two wet areas in section 20.
Most of the oil wells are dry and abandoned according to the Illinois State Geological Survey (http://meltwater.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm). There are some oil wells located in this watershed and they should be monitored for brine damage.
BMP recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Soil testing
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
9. Subwatershed 10
This subwatershed drains approximately 2,649 acres. Its major stream is Rayse Creek and its tributaries are segments 1371, 1372, and 1370 (IEPA). The entire subwatershed lies in Grand Prairie Township in Jefferson County.
Monitoring station—NK02
Table 62. Land Use for Subwatershed 10
Land use
% of subwatershed
Cropland
52%
Urban
0%
Forest
24%
Pasture
20%
Wetland
3%
91
Table 63. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 10
(MWH, 2003)
Table 64. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 10
Potential source
Points
Cropland
9
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
0
Retired landfills
0
Total
9
Ranking
Cropland makes up 52% of this subwatershed. There are no known livestock facility/feedlots, CAFOs, oil brine/sodic damaged lands or retired landfills. There are a couple of wet spots in section 33 that should be avoided with heavy machinery and livestock. There are soils within this watershed which have high erosion risks and should be avoided when cultivating.
BMP recommendations:
Grassed waterways
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Establish permanent cover on highly erodible land
Soil testing
92
10. Subwatershed 5
This subwatershed drains approximately 5,997 acres. Rayse Creek is the main stream with tributaries (or segments) 1397, 1395, 1396, 1394, and 1392. It lies within the Casner Township in Jefferson County.
Monitoring Station—NK02
Table 65. Land Use Table for Subwatershed 5
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
40%
Urban
0%
Forest
25%
Pasture
29%
Wetland
5%
Table 66. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 5
(MWH, 2003)
Table 67. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 5
Potential source
Points
Cropland
5
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
0
Retired landfills
0
Total
5
93
Ranking
Subwatershed 5 is covered by 40% cropland and has many severely eroded areas (sections 30, 31 and 32). There is one oil well active the others are dry and abandoned (http://meltwater.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm, 2005). Three sodic areas and one severely eroded spot exist in section 32. Section 31 has five severely eroded spots and one oil brine spot. Section 28 has one oil brine spot. These areas lie just south of the Roaches area which has a smaller oil field than Richview or Woodlawn. There are no known livestock facility/feedlots, CAFOs or landfills in this subwatershed.
Other concerns
There is a wet spot in section 30 that heavy equipment and livestock should avoid.
BMP Recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Rotational grazing
Brine or sodic area management
Soil testing
11. Subwatershed 9
This subwatershed drains approximately 5,715 acres. Rayse Creek is the major stream that runs through the watershed its tributaries also include segments 1369, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1364, and 1365 as indicated by the IEPA. This watershed is located in the Grand Prairie and Casner Townships in Jefferson County.
Monitoring Station—NK02
Table 68. Land Use for Subwatershed 9
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
32%
Urban
0%
Forest
32%
Pasture
29%
Wetland
7%
94
Table 69. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 9
(MWH, 2003)
Table 70. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 9
Potential source
Points
Cropland
2
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
0
Retired landfills
0
Total
2
Ranking
Cropland covers 32% of this subwatershed. There are no known livestock facility/feedlots, CAFOs, oil brine/sodic damaged land or retired landfills.
BMP recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Soil testing
95
12. Subwatershed 7
This subwatershed drains approximately 3,202 acres. Its major drainage is Rayse Creek. Tributaries (or segments) included in this subwatershed include--1363, 1362, and 1361. It lies in the Casner Township of Jefferson County.
Monitoring station—NK02
Table 71. Land Use for Subwatershed 7
Land use
% of Subwatershed
Cropland
25%
Urban
0%
Forest
22%
Pasture
45%
Wetland
8%
Table 72. Detailed Land Use/Land Cover for Subwatershed 7
(MWH, 2003)
Table 73. Ranking Summary for Subwatershed 7
Potential source
Points
Cropland
1
Livestock facility/feedlot
0
CAFO
0
Oil brine/sodic damaged land
0
Retired landfills
0
Total
1
96
Ranking
Cropland makes up 25% of this watershed and pastureland makes up 45% of the watershed. There are no known livestock facility/feedlots, CAFOs, oil brine/sodic damaged land, or landfills in this subwatershed.
Other concerns
Wide, deep ephemerals are present; soil in some of the ephemeral areas are frequently flooded. There are ten wet spots scattered throughout sections 14, 15, 22 and 34. These areas should be avoided with heavy machinery and livestock.
BMP recommendations:
Grassed watercourses
Riparian buffers / filter strips
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas
Soil testing
97
GOVERNMENT COST-SHARE PROGRAMS
The implementation of best management practices to improve water quality within the watershed can be realized through a suite of different federal and state government cost-share programs to meet the needs and desires of the individual landowner. The best entity to develop a realistic schedule for best management practice implementation is the Rayse Creek Watershed Planning Committee, who is ultimately responsible for plan implementation and revision. A brief synopsis of individual programs is described below. See www.usda.gov for a full description of available federal conservation programs.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The CRP program allows farmers to convert highly erodible and riparian land to vegetative cover through grass filter strips, riparian buffers, native grasses, trees, and wildlife plantings. Farmers receive an annual rental payment based on soil productivity and up to 50% of the cost of establishing the vegetative cover is provided. Voluntary contract lengths are 10 to 15 years in duration. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) builds upon the successful CRP program, but is only available in certain high priority watersheds. In the state of Illinois, the Illinois River watershed is the only one with a current CREP program. Rayse Creek is part of the larger Big Muddy watershed.
Conservation Securities Program (CSP)
The relatively new CSP program supports ongoing stewardship of private agricultural lands. It provides payments to farmers and ranchers for maintaining and improving natural resources on their lands. CSP is available in selected watersheds throughout the 50 states. Farmers are encouraged to complete a self-assessment that describes existing conservation activities on their land to help determine their eligibility for CSP and in which program tier and enrollment category they can participate. Current contact lengths are from 5 to 10 years.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
The WRP program works to restore and protect wetlands on private lands. Landowners can establish 30 year or permanent conservation easements or participate in restoration cost-share agreements of a minimum 10 year duration. Permanent easements pay the landowner up to the agricultural value of the land and 100% of wetland restoration costs. Thirty year easements pay the landowner up to 75% of the agricultural value of the land and 75% of the restoration costs. Cost-share agreements pay for 75% of the associated wetland restoration activities. WRP lands provide critical wildlife habitat, especially waterfowl, throughout the state of Illinois.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
The EQIP program provides technical assistance, cost share (up to 75-90%), incentive payments, and educational assistance to establish conservation practices such as manure management systems, pest management, and erosion control on agricultural land. Contracts are 5 to 10 years in duration and activities are carried out according to a
98
developed conservation plan. Half of the financial resources under EQIP are dedicated to livestock-related concerns.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
The WHIP program seeks to improve fish and wildlife habitat on private land by providing technical assistance and cost-share payments to landowners for conservation practice establishment. Cost-share agreements are 5 to 10 years in duration and participants agree to prepare and implement a wildlife habitat development plan.
Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)
FIP is a nationwide program that provides up to 65% of the costs of tree planting, timber stand improvements, site preparation for natural regeneration, and related practices on non-industrial private forest land.
Small Watershed Program
The Small Watershed Program provides technical and financial assistance to watersheds for projects including watershed protection, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, wetland creation and restoration, public recreation, flood prevention, and water supply. Watersheds with 250,000 or fewer acres are eligible to apply, which includes Rayse Creek.
STATE PROGRAMS
Conservation 2000
Conservation 2000 is multi-program, multi-agency initiative with the goal of conserving, restoring, and managing Illinois natural lands and water resources through long-term ecosystem and watershed based management. The Conservation 2000 Program funds programs across 3 agencies including the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Ecosystems Program, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s Illinois Clean Lakes Program, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Practices Cost-Share Program, Sustainable Agriculture Grants Program, and Streambank Stabilization and Restoration Program.
Section 319 NPS Pollution Control Program
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency administers Section 319(h) funding under the Clean Water Act to implement nonpoint source pollution control projects. Section 319 projects can involve technical and financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration activities, planning, and monitoring. Maximum federal costs are 60% of the total project costs.
99
REFERENCES
Atalay, A., Pyle, T.A., and Lynch, R.A. (1999). Strategy for restoration of brine- disturbed land. Journal of Soil Contamination 8(3):307-328.
Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. (2002). The Nature and Properties of Soils 13th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Brooks, K., Ffolliott, P., Gregersen, H. and DeBano, L. (2003). Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds, 3rd Edition. Iowa State Press: Ames, Iowa.
Floress, K., Mangun, J.C., Williard, K.W.J., Davenport, M., Grafford, E. (2004). Assessing stakeholder values and concerns with the Rayse Creek watershed management plan: a series of facilitated focus groups. Research Publication NS- 014. Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Friederich, Art. 2005. Personal communication. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources. (2002). Big Muddy River Area Assessment Vol. 1. Critical Trends Assessment Program. Springfield, IL
Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (2002). Big Muddy River Area Assessment, Vol. 1-4. Critical Trends Assessment Program. Springfield, IL.
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). (2005). Web e-mail contact.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Personal communication. Joe Stitely, CAFO inspector.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Illinois Annual Air Quality Report 2003. Bureau of Air. Publication IEPA/BOA/04-019. Springfield, IL. www.epa.state.il.us/air/air-quality-report/2003/air-quality-report-2003.pdf
Illinois State Geological Survey. (2005). Interactive map of Illinois’ oil and gas resources. http://meltwater.isgs.uiuc.edu/website/iloil/viewer.htm
Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois State Geological Survey, and Illinois Department
of Natural Resource. (1996). Critical Trends Assessment Land Cover Database of Illinois. 1991-1995.
Illinois Watershed Management Clearinghouse. (2005). Interactive map of Illinois’ watershed resources. http://space1.itcs.uiuc.edu/website/rmms/
Montgomery, Watson, and Harza (MWH). (2003). Rayse Creek (ILNK01) TMDL and
Implementation Plan. Prepared for Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
100
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1993). Rend Lake Master Plan. Design Memorandum No. 6B. St. Louis District.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). (1998). Soil Survey of Washington County, Illinois. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). (2003). Soil Survey of Franklin and Jefferson Counties, Illinois. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Waltonville Village Hall Sewer and Water Dept. (2005). Telephone contact.
Willman, H.B. and Frye, J.C. (1970). Pleistocene Stratigraphy of Illinois. ISGS Bulletin 94. Illinois State Geological Survey. Urbana, IL.
101
LIST OF CONTACTS AND ADDITIONAL SOURCES
CONTACTS
Illinois Department of Agriculture
Wayne Kinney, Fluvial Geomorphologist
cd-aerial video and report
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Water- Greg Good, Amy Walkenbach, Scott Ristau
USDA Service Center, Jefferson County
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)-Stacy Pytlinski
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)-Art Friederich
Farm Service Agency (FSA)-Sandy Frick
Prairie Rivers Network
Traci Barkley, Watershed Scientist
Glynnis Collins, Watershed Scientist
Kim Erndt, Watershed Organizer
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Illinois State Geological Survey (Oct 2005)
Illinois Historical Aerial Photography Project (Interactive map)
Washington County only. http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/webdocs/ilhap/launchims.html
Illinois Watershed Management Clearinghouse http://www.watershed.uiuc.edu/
Jeffersoncountyinfo.com
102
APPENDIX I
List of BMP Recommendation Descriptions
in Alphabetical Order
Avoid mechanical equipment in persistently wet or flooded areas to prevent compaction, impermeability, soil erosion, and nutrient runoff.
Brine or sodic areas are considered critical areas. The local NRCS technician uses federal, state and local soil salinity management regulations when ameliorating the problem area(s). NRCS tries to establish