illinois-river-stage1

              Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL and LRS
Development
Watershed Characterization and Source
Assessment Report (Stage 1)
REVIEW DRAFT
August 4, 2010
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -- Region 5
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 620
Cleveland, OH 44113
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -i - August 2, 2010
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. v
1. Background Information ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Setting ...............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Climate .........................................................................................................................................6
1.3 Land Use / Land Cover .................................................................................................................8
1.4 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.5 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................... 13
1.5.1 Seasonal Variation ............................................................................................................. 17
1.5.2 Flow Duration Curves ....................................................................................................... 20
1.5.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Relationships .................................................................... 21
2. Water Quality Indicators and Potential Targets ....................................................................... 23
2.1 Water Quality Impairments ......................................................................................................... 23
2.2 Applicable Standards .................................................................................................................. 24
2.2.1 Designated Uses ................................................................................................................ 24
2.2.2 Water Quality Criteria ....................................................................................................... 24
2.3 Potential Load Reduction Strategy Targets ................................................................................ 25
2.3.1 Nutrients ............................................................................................................................ 26
2.3.2 Total Suspended Solids, Sedimentation, and Siltation ...................................................... 26
3. Data Summary ............................................................................................................................. 28
3.1 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network .............................................................................. 28
3.1.1 Bacteria .............................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.2 Total Suspended Solids ..................................................................................................... 31
3.1.3 Phosphorus ........................................................................................................................ 33
3.1.4 Nitrate ............................................................................................................................... 35
3.1.5 Other Parameters ............................................................................................................... 38
3.2 IEPA Special Study ..................................................................................................................... 39
3.3 USGS Synoptic Survey ................................................................................................................ 39
3.4 Peoria CSO Study ....................................................................................................................... 41
4. Source Assessment .................................................................................................................... 42
4.1 Watershed Clusters ..................................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Overview of Sources .................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.1 Point Sources ..................................................................................................................... 45
4.2.2 Nonpoint Sources .............................................................................................................. 48
4.3 Watershed Cluster Summary ....................................................................................................... 48
4.3.1 Illinois River Mainstem ..................................................................................................... 48
4.3.2 Big Bureau Creek .............................................................................................................. 55
4.3.3 Sandy Creek ...................................................................................................................... 60
4.3.4 Crow Creek / Snag Creek .................................................................................................. 63
4.3.5 Senachwine Creek ............................................................................................................. 65
4.3.6 Farm Creek ........................................................................................................................ 67
4.3.7 Kickapoo Creek ................................................................................................................. 72
5. Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 76
6. References .................................................................................................................................. 77
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -i i- August 2, 2010
Figures
Figure 1-1. Illinois River at Spring Bay. ................................................................................................ 1
Figure 1-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed project map. ............................................................... 2
Figure 1-3. Illinois River basin. ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 1-4. Illinois River (Peoria Area) population density. ..................................................................... 5
Figure 1-5. Illinois River basin mean annual precipitation patterns. ......................................................... 7
Figure 1-6. Average precipitation and monthly temperatures for Peoria. .................................................. 7
Figure 1-7. Precipitation intensity -- Peoria airport gage. ........................................................................ 8
Figure 1-8. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed land use..................................................................... 9
Figure 1-9. Illinois River basin topography. ......................................................................................... 11
Figure 1-10. Illinois River basin soil permeability / soil groups. ............................................................. 12
Figure 1-11. USGS stream gages within project area. ......................................................................... 15
Figure 1-12. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2007. ............................... 16
Figure 1-13. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2008. ............................... 16
Figure 1-14. Seasonal variation of Illinois River flows. ......................................................................... 18
Figure 1-15. Seasonal variation of Big Bureau Creek flows. ................................................................. 18
Figure 1-16. Peak flow history for Illinois River at Henry gage. ............................................................. 19
Figure 1-17. Peak flow history for Big Bureau Creek gage. .................................................................. 19
Figure 1-18. Seasonal variation of TSS for Big Bureau Creek. ............................................................. 20
Figure 1-19. Flow duration curve for Illinois River at Henry. .................................................................. 21
Figure 1-20. Relationship between flow and SSC using duration curve framework. ................................ 22
Figure 1-21. Relationship between flow and SSC using duration curve framework. ................................ 22
Figure 2-1. Nutrient Ecoregions. ........................................................................................................ 26
Figure 2-2. TSS concentration zones. ................................................................................................ 27
Figure 3-1. Location of Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. ........................................................ 29
Figure 3-2. Longitudinal profile of fecal coliform for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ................................ 30
Figure 3-3. Longitudinal profile of total suspended solids for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ................... 31
Figure 3-4. Water quality duration curve for TSS on Big Bureau Creek. ................................................ 32
Figure 3-5. Longitudinal profile of total phosphorus for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ............................ 33
Figure 3-6. Water quality duration curve for phosphorus on Big Bureau Creek. ...................................... 34
Figure 3-7. Seasonal range of phosphorus on Big Bureau Creek. ......................................................... 35
Figure 3-8. Longitudinal profile of NO2+NO3 for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ...................................... 36
Figure 3-9. Duration curve for nitrate concentration on Big Bureau Creek. ............................................. 37
Figure 3-10. Seasonal analysis of nitrate concentrations on West Bureau Creek. .................................. 37
Figure 3-11. Longitudinal profile of conductivity for the Illinois River (Peoria area). ................................. 38
Figure 3-12. USGS bacteria data on 10/10/2007. ................................................................................ 40
Figure 3-13. Illinois River bacteria data at Hennepin. ........................................................................... 40
Figure 3-14. Illinois River bacteria downstream of Peoria. .................................................................... 41
Figure 4-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters. ................................................................... 44
Figure 4-2. Location of CSOsand SSOs in Illinois River (Peoria area) project area. ................................ 47
Figure 4-3. View of Illinois River in the lakes area. .............................................................................. 50
Figure 4-4. Illinois River mainstem watershed cluster land use. ............................................................ 51
Figure 4-5. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster land use. ................................................................... 56
Figure 4-6. Big Bureau Creek duration curve analysis of TSS. ............................................................. 58
Figure 4-7. Big Bureau Creek duration analysis of phosphorus. ............................................................ 58
Figure 4-8. Seasonal analysis of fecal coliform levels within West Bureau Creek. .................................. 59
Figure 4-9. Seasonal analysis of nitrate levels within West Bureau Creek. ............................................ 59
Figure 4-10. Sandy Creek watershed cluster land use. ........................................................................ 61
Figure 4-11. Crow Creek / Snag Creek watershed cluster land use. ...................................................... 64
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -ii i- August 2, 2010
Figure 4-12. Senachwine Creek watershed cluster land use. ............................................................... 66
Figure 4-13. View of Farm Creek. ...................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4-14. Farm Creek watershed cluster land use. .......................................................................... 68
Figure 4-15. Seasonal fecal coliform patterns in Farm Creek. .............................................................. 70
Figure 4-16. Phosphorus patterns in Farm Creek. ............................................................................... 70
Figure 4-17. View of Kickapoo Creek. ................................................................................................ 72
Figure 4-18. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster land use. .................................................................... 73
Figure 4-19. Seasonal analysis of fecal coliform within Kickapoo creek. ................................................ 75
Figure 4-20. Seasonal analysis of nitrate within Kickapoo Creek. ......................................................... 75
Tables
Table 1-1. County populations within the Illinois River project area. ........................................................ 4
Table 1-2. Climate summary for Peoria (1901 – 2009). .......................................................................... 6
Table 1-3. Illinois River (Peoria area) land use summary. ...................................................................... 8
Table 1-4. Hydrologic Soil Group descriptions. ................................................................................... 12
Table 1-5. USGS stream gages within project area. ............................................................................ 14
Table 2-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) impaired waters. ........................................................................ 23
Table 2-2. Summary of water quality standards for Illinois River (Peoria area). ...................................... 25
Table 2-3. Potential Load Reduction Strategies targets. ...................................................................... 25
Table 3-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites. .......................................................................... 28
Table 3-2. USGS bacteria study sampling summary. ........................................................................... 39
Table 4-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters. .................................................................... 43
Table 4-2. MS4 permits in the Illinois River (Peoria area) project watershed. ......................................... 46
Table 4-3. Combined sewer systems within the project area. ............................................................... 46
Table 4-4. Illinois River Mainstem 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .......................................................... 49
Table 4-5. NPDES facilities within the Illinois River mainstem watershed cluster. ................................... 52
Table 4-6. Big Bureau Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ................................................................. 55
Table 4-7. NPDES facilities within the Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster. .......................................... 57
Table 4-8. Sandy Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ........................................................................ 60
Table 4-9. NPDES facilities within the Sandy Creek watershed cluster. ................................................. 62
Table 4-10. Crow Creek / Snag Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .................................................... 63
Table 4-11. NPDES facilities within the Crow Creek / Snag Creek watershed cluster. ............................ 65
Table 4-12. Senachwine Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .............................................................. 65
Table 4-13. Farm Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. ........................................................................ 67
Table 4-14. NPDES facilities within the Farm Creek watershed cluster. ................................................ 69
Table 4-15. Kickapoo Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds. .................................................................. 72
Table 4-16. NPDES facilities within the Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster. ........................................... 74
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -iv - August 2, 2010
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AWQMN Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
CWA Clean Water Act
CSO Combined Sewer Overflows
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
HSG Hydrologic Soil Group
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board
IRBR Illinois River Basin Restoration
LA Load Allocation
LRS Load Reduction Strategies
MEP Maximum Extent Practical
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
VW Volume weighted
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQS Water Quality Standards
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -v - August 2, 2010
Executive Summary
The Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is located in central Illinois. The general vicinity has
often been referred to as the Illinois River Bluffs region. The project area begins near Hennepin,
where the Illinois River makes its “Big Bend” toward the south. It continues downstream past
Peoria, ending near Pekin just above the confluence with the Mackinaw River. The project area
covers nearly 2,100 square miles, and includes land within Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall,
Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell Counties. Major tributaries along this stretch of the river include
Big Bureau Creek, Senachwine Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek West, Crow Creek East, Clear
Creek, Partridge Creek, Tenmile Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek.
Several waters within the project area have been placed on the State of Illinois §303(d) list. The
Clean Water Act (CWA) requires development of TMDLs to address documented water quality
problems on middle segments of the Illinois River in the Peoria area. Other §303(d) listed waters
in the watershed include: Kickapoo Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at West
Peoria continuing upstream); Big Bureau Creek (the five mile segment from Princeton continuing
downstream); West Bureau Creek (from its confluence with Bureau Creek continuing 23 miles
upstream); Farm Creek (the 19 mile segment from its confluence at East Peoria continuing
upstream); Depue Lake (in the Lake Depue State Fish & Wildlife Area near the town of Depue);
and Senachwine Lake (north of Henry).
This Watershed Characterization and Source Assessment report is the first stage of the Illinois
River (Peoria area) watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development process. The
project is intended to address water quality problems in the watershed associated with bacteria,
phosphorus, total suspended solids, sedimentation / siltation, dissolved oxygen, chloride, aquatic
algae, pH, alteration in streamside vegetative cover, manganese, and total dissolved solids
identified on the State of Illinois §303(d) list. The purpose of this report is to provide background
information on the project area, summarize existing available data, and describe potential sources
that contribute to water quality problems in the watershed.
Ultimately, the final TMDL Report will include TMDL allocations for each impairment that has a
numeric water quality standard. TMDL allocations are derived from the numeric water quality
standards that have been approved by the Illinois Pollutions Control Board. These allocations are
separated into wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load allocations (LAs) for
nonpoint sources. For other impairments that do not have numeric standards, target criteria will
be used to develop Load Reduction Strategies (LRSs) that address nonpoint source loads. TMDL
allocations will be developed for dissolved oxygen, phosphorus in lakes, manganese, fecal
coliform and chloride. LRSs will be developed for total suspended solids and phosphorus in
streams. In order to characterize runoff in the watershed, parameters such as nutrients and total
suspended solids can be analyzed from the subwatersheds for loading information.
This Watershed Characterization and Source Assessment report begins with background
information on the setting, climate, soils, hydrology, and other key characteristics that may affect
water quality in the Illinois River. Information on Illinois water quality standards are provided,
which pertains to the development of TMDLs for the Illinois River and other listed segments in
the project area. Included is a discussion of potential indicators and targets that could be used in
the TMDL. This document also describes water quality investigations conducted in the Illinois
River (Peoria area) watershed. Results are summarized for parameters and factors that could
contribute to the impairments of the Illinois River and tributaries.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -v i- August 2, 2010
Because source assessments are an important component of water quality management plan and
TMDL development, this report concludes with a discussion of potential sources within the
Illinois River watershed. These sources include facilities regulated through National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, as well as storm water. The increased storm
water volumes also enter the combined sewer system, causing occasional discharge of untreated
domestic wastewater to the Illinois River through combined sewer overflows (CSOs). In
addition, pollutants associated with runoff from agricultural areas have the potential to be carried
to the Illinois River and its tributaries during rain and snowmelt events. TMDLs to be developed
for lakes will address other types of impairments, such as phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and
aquatic algae. Potential sources that deliver pollutants, which contribute to lake impairments, are
included in the source assessment.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -1 - August 2, 2010
1. Background Information
The Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is located in central Illinois (Figure 1-1). The general
vicinity has often been referred to as the Illinois River Bluffs region. The project area begins near
Hennepin, where the Illinois River makes its “Big Bend” toward the south (Figure 1-2). It
continues downstream past Peoria, ending near Pekin just above the confluence with the
Mackinaw River. The project area covers nearly 2,100 square miles, and includes land within
Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall, Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell Counties. Major tributaries
along this stretch of the river include Big Bureau Creek, Senachwine Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow
Creek West, Crow Creek East, Clear Creek, Partridge Creek, Tenmile Creek, Farm Creek, and
Kickapoo Creek.
This section presents a brief history of the Illinois River Valley including information on the
setting, climate, land use, soils / geology and hydrology of the region.
1.1 Project Setting
The geomorphology of the Illinois River Valley was first deposited over 500 million years ago
when the region was covered by a shallow sea. Glacial processes, subsequent glacial melt and
flooding generated from the Illinoian glacier, and the more recent Wisconsin Ice Age carved the
river bed to its general location. Due to the glacial origin, the floodplains of the Illinois River
Valley are much larger than would be expected for a river equivalent in size (Theiling, 1998a).
These floodplains offer unique habitat and productive soils that sustain the current agricultural
economy of the area (Figure 1-3). The Illinois River system remains one of a world-class river
floodplain. It continues to be a surprisingly diverse and biologically productive ecosystem
(IRBR) despite historic degradation and continuing sedimentation.
Figure 1-1. Illinois River at Spring Bay.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -2 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-2. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed project map.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -3 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-3. Illinois River basin.
Over the past 150 years, the Illinois River watershed and floodplain have been subjected to severe
urban pollution and extensive agricultural development. As economic development and
populations grew around the Chicago area, significant anthropogenic disturbances included
increased navigation and spread of agriculture. These cultural changes continue to have lasting
effects on the region.
Directly or indirectly, such disturbances have affected the environment and ecosystems along the
length of the river. First, navigation from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River became crucial
as populations and economic development around Chicago grew (Theiling, 1998). The
establishment of navigation resulted in extensive channel alterations and hydromodifications
associated with an intricate levee system designed to maintain and control sufficient flow for
navigation and agriculture. Seven locks and dams still exist along the Illinois River, creating a
system of navigational pools (USGS, 2007a). Secondly, with the advent of mechanized
equipment, agriculture dramatically increased production of the watershed. Between 1945 and
1976, the acreage of row crop production increased 60 percent (Sparks, 1984). As agriculture
production increased, marginal lands were put into production through wetland filling, field
draining (or field tiling), bank planting and further stream channelization (Theiling, 1998).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -4 - August 2, 2010
As to be expected, with the loss of floodplains, water quality rapidly degraded and aquatic and
terrestrial organisms that depended on the river system had massive reductions in population size
(PCWRP). The destruction of more than 90 percent of the original wetland acreage can be
blamed for high erosion rates from stream banks and bluffs (Havera and Bellrose, 1985). From
1958 to 1961 formerly productive backwaters and lakes along specific reaches of the Illinois
River changed from clear, vegetated areas to turbid, barren basins (Sparks, 2006).
Land uses surrounding the Peoria area include residential, urban, commercial and industrial. In
general, the upper reach of the project area watershed is dominated by agriculture. Corn and
soybeans are the primary crops in the lower Illinois River basin (Warner and Schmidt, 1994).
Secondary farm products include winter wheat, oats, hay, vegetables, cattle, hogs, dairy products,
poultry, sheep and wool (USDA, 1992). To increase agricultural productivity throughout the
project area, a common practice includes field drainage or tiling to quickly transport excess
moisture from the fields to adjacent surface waters. Currently, residential development within the
upper reaches of the project area is predominately low density. The most densely populated areas
of the watershed surround Peoria. Land use within the watershed is described further in Section
1.3.
Counties with land located in the project area include Bureau, Putnam, LaSalle, Marshall,
Woodford, Peoria and Tazewell. U.S. Census data for each county is given in Table 1-1. Major
government units with jurisdiction adjacent to the Illinois River within the project area include
the Cities of Hennepin, Henry, Lacon, Sparland, Chillcothe, Spring Bay, Mossville, Peoria
Heights, Peoria, and Pekin. The approximate total population for the watershed is over 523,000.
Table 1-1. County populations within the Illinois River project area.
County 1990 2000 2009*
Peoria County 182,827 183,433 185,816
Bureau County 35,688 35,503 34,699
Putnam County 5,730 6,086 6,009
La Salle County 106,913 111,509 112,498
Marshall County 12,846 13,180 12,702
Tazewell County 123,692 128,485 132,466
Woodford County 32,653 35,469 38,862
TOTAL 500,349 513,665 523,052
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
* U.S. Census Bureau estimate.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -5 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-4. Illinois River (Peoria Area) population density.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -6 - August 2, 2010
1.2 Climate
Climate data is available from the Illinois State Water Survey Climatologist; Station 116711 is
located in Peoria and was used for analysis within this report. Monthly data from 1901-2009
were available at the time of report development. In general, the climate of the region is
continental with hot, humid summers and cold winters (Warner and Schmidt, 1994). Table 1-2
contains historical temperature data collected at the Peoria climate station. From 1980 to 2009
the average winter temperature in Peoria was 27.7 °F and the average summer temperature was
73.7 °F (Table 1-2). The average growing season (consecutive days with low temperatures
greater than or equal to 32 degrees) is 148 days.
Table 1-2. Climate summary for Peoria (1901 – 2009).
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average High
oF 32 36 49 62 73 82 86 84 77 65 49 36
Average Low
oF 16 20 30 41 51 61 65 63 55 44 32 21
Average
Mean oF 24 28 39 51 62 71 76 74 66 54 41 28
Average
Precipitation
(in)
1.8 1.6 2.8 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.0
Average
snow fall (in) 7.15 5.41 3.73 0.80 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 1.92 6.23
Examination of precipitation patterns is also a key component of watershed characterization,
specifically for a floodplain system such as the Illinois River. From 1980 to 2009, the annual
average precipitation in Peoria (station 116711) was approximately 36 inches, including
approximately 21 inches of snowfall. Peoria represents the middle range of precipitation within
the Illinois River drainage. Patterns vary across the watershed from 35 to 40 inches annually
(Figure 1-5). In general, larger volumes of precipitation tend to occur between the months of
April and September. Figure 1-6 presents annual precipitation and temperature patterns for the
Peoria area.
Of particular interest in relation to precipitation, rainfall intensity and timing affect watershed
response to precipitation. This information is important in evaluating the effects of storm water
on the Illinois River. Figure 1-7 presents one way to show rainfall intensity. Using Peoria airport
data from 1948 to 2009, 52 percent of the precipitation events were very low intensity (i.e., less
that 0.2 inches). On the other hand, seven percent of the measurable precipitation events were
greater than one inch.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -7 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-5. Illinois River basin mean annual precipitation patterns.
Figure 1-6. Average precipitation and monthly temperatures for Peoria.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -8 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-7. Precipitation intensity -- Peoria airport gage.
1.3 Land Use / Land Cover
Land use in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed is heavily influenced by agriculture in the
upper and lower reaches in combination with the urban setting surrounding Peoria in the lower
portion. Specific land use across the watershed includes agriculture (nearly 70%), forest
(approximately 15%), and urban (approximately 11%). Figure 1-8 shows land use within the
Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. The categories associated with each color are described in
Table 1-3, which also provides a detailed acreage total and percent cover by land use type.
Table 1-3. Illinois River (Peoria area) land use summary.
Land Use / Land Cover Category Acreage Percentage
Cultivated Crops 844,311 62.8%
Deciduous Forest 203,767 15.2%
Pasture/Hay 61,423 4.6%
Developed, Open 62,298 4.6%
Developed, Low-Intensity 61,352 4.6%
Open Water 44,340 3.3%
Woody Wetlands 25,432 1.9%
Developed, Medium-Intensity 20,936 1.6%
Developed, High Intensity 6,441 0.5%
Grassland/Herbaceous 7,229 0.5%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 3,811 0.3%
Barren Land 1,215 0.1%
Evergreen Forest 38 0.0%
Mixed forest 1 0.0%
Shrub/Scrub 1 0.0%
TOTAL 1,342,595 100.0%
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -9 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-8. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -10 - August 2, 2010
1.4 Geology and Soils
Over 500 million years ago, the Illinois River region was covered by an expansive shallow sea
that shaped the geology of the area. Glacial periods followed with the Illinoian and Wisconsin
glaciers dramatically influencing the topography and hydrology of Illinois River. As common to
areas covered by glaciers, the basin evolved as the glaciers advanced and retreated. During
advances, glaciers modified the previous landscape and with retreat, deposited glacial drift and
glacial outwash (USDA, 1992).
In the region, glacial materials deposited included sands, gravels, silts, and clays. The material
varied in terms of mixtures and thickness within the region. Ice movement and its melt water
influenced the patterns and distribution of various landforms, such as moraines and stream
valleys; the Illinois River bed itself was scoured by a series of great floods that resulted from
failed ice-dams during the last ice age (approximately 12,000 years ago) (Theiling, 1998). The
melt water that created rivers also deposited glacial materials throughout the region. These
glacial deposits and associated land forms exerted a major effect that influence present day
hydrology, soil types and land cover. Current topography and river valleys carved by such
processes are shown in Figure 1-9.
Soil is the dominant natural resource in Peoria County (USDA, 1992) and across the agricultural
region. The National Cooperative Soil Survey publishes soil surveys for each county within the
U.S. These soil surveys contain predictions of soil behavior for selected land uses. The surveys
also highlight limitations and hazards inherent in the soil, general improvements needed to
overcome the limitations, and the impact of selected land uses on the environment. The soil
surveys are designed for many different uses, including land use planning, the identification of
special practices needed to ensure proper performance, and Hydrologic Soil Groups (USDA /
NRCS, 2007).
Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSGs) refers to the grouping of soils according to their runoff potential.
Soil properties that influence the HSGs include depth to seasonal high water table, infiltration rate
and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to slow permeable layer (USDS, 2002).
There are four groups of HSGs: Group A, B, C, and Group D. Table 1-4 describes those HSGs
found in the Illinois River (Marshall County) watershed and provides a summary description of
each group. Figure 1-10 shows the location of different HSGs in the Illinois River (Peoria area)
watershed. Soils in this area are typically Group B, composed of loamy soils with a moderate
infiltration rate and to a lesser degree, Group A, C and B/D (USDA, 2002). The protection of
areas with high infiltration capacity (e.g., Group A soils) is important for maintaining hydrology
and temperature regimes within the watershed.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -11 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-9. Illinois River basin topography.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -12 - August 2, 2010
Table 1-4. Hydrologic Soil Group descriptions.
HSG Group Description
A
Sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. Low runoff potential and high infiltration rates
even when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or
gravels with a high rate of water transmission.
B
Silt loam or loam. Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly or
moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to
moderately coarse textures.
C
Soils are sandy clay loam. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of
soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to
fine structure.
D
Soils are clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. Group D has the highest
runoff potential. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of clay soils with
a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.
B/D
Dual Hydrologic Soil Groups. Certain wet soils are placed in group D based solely on the
presence of a water table within 24 inches of the surface even though the saturated hydraulic
conductivity may be favorable for water transmission. If these soils can be adequately drained,
then they are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups (A/D, B/D, and C/D) based on their
saturated hydraulic conductivity and the water table depth when drained. The first letter applies
to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition.
Figure 1-10. Illinois River basin soil permeability / soil groups.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -13 - August 2, 2010
1.5 Hydrology
Hydrology plays an important role in evaluating water quality. The hydrology of the Illinois
River (Peoria area) watershed is driven by local climate conditions. This includes situations that
often result in flashy flows on tributary creeks, where streams respond to and recover from
precipitation events relatively quickly. Flooding periodically occurs in areas of the watershed,
flowing over roads and encroaching on streamside properties. In addition, ditching and
channelizing has been used throughout this region to drain areas where soils are too wet for
settlement and agriculture.
Some areas of tributaries that flow to the Illinois River have been channelized or relocated to
facilitate agricultural or commercial development. A common practice for improving drainage is
to install subsurface tile drains and ditches to lower the water table beneath agricultural fields.
Subsurface drains (e.g., corrugated plastic tile or pipe) installed beneath the ground surface serve
as conduits to collect and / or convey drainage water, either to a stream channel or to a surface
field drainage ditch. While these drainage improvements increase the amount of land available
for cultivation, they also influence the hydrology, the aquatic habitat, and water quality of area
streams.
Drains intercept precipitation and snowmelt as they infiltrate the subsurface soil layer. This
intercepted water would normally reach the water table where it would be stored as groundwater.
Instead, the subsurface flow is quickly conveyed through the network of drains and ditches to
nearby waterbodies. This process can increase the volume of water that reaches local streams
during rainfall and snowmelt events, which leads to a rapid rise in stream levels during runoff
events. Often this rapid response is similar to that observed in areas where natural vegetation has
been replaced by impervious surfaces. Extensive tiling can also alter the quality of drainage
water exiting the fields to receiving waters. For example, shorter delivery times to a stream often
reduce the benefits associated with longer filtration through soil layers. In addition to water
volume excesses due to storm water and flooding, natural dry weather periods (e.g., the lack of
sufficient water) can make water quantity a factor that affects water quality.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored flow at several locations in the Illinois River
(Peoria area) watershed (Table 1-5 and Figure 1-11). Figure 1-12 and Figure 1-13 illustrate the
variability in stream flow for the Illinois River near Peoria, as well as for two tributary streams:
Big Bureau Creek and Farm Creek. These graphs also show daily precipitation measured at the
Peoria airport site.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -14 - August 2, 2010
Table 1-5. USGS stream gages within project area.
Gage
ID
Area
(mi.2) Location Latitude Longitude Period of
Record
05556500 196 Big Bureau Creek at Princeton 41o 21’ 57” 89o 29’ 54” 1936 - 2010
05557000 86.7 West Bureau Creek at Wyanet 41o 21’ 54” 89o 34’ 08” 1936 - 1966
05558300 13,544 Illinois River at Henry 41o 06’ 26” 89o 21’ 22” 1981 - 2010
05558500 56.2 Crow Creek (West) near Henry 41o 09’ 00” 89o 25’ 00” 1949 - 1971
05559000 5.66 Gimlet Creek at Sparland 41o 01’ 37” 89o 26’ 21” 1945 - 1971
05559500 115 Crow Creek near Washburn 40o 57’ 15” 89o 18’ 30” 1944 - 1971
05560500 27.4 Farm Creek at Farmdale 40o 40’ 03” 89o 30’ 15” 1948 - 2008
05561000 11.2 Ackerman Creek at Farmdale 40o 39’ 43” 89o 30’ 13” 1953 - 1980
05561500 5.54 Fondulac Creek near East Peoria 40o 40’ 38” 89o 31’ 52” 1948 - 2009
05562000 61.2 Farm Creek at East Peoria 40o 40’ 04” 89o 34’ 40” 1943 - 1980
05563500 297 Kickapoo Creek at Peoria 40o 40’ 52” 89o 39’ 19” 1942 - 1971
05568500 15,818 Illinois River at Kingston Mines 40o 33’ 11” 89o 46’ 38” 1939 - 2010
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -15 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-11. USGS stream gages within project area.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -16 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-12. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2007.
Figure 1-13. Daily average flow at several USGS gages in the Peoria area -- 2008.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -17 - August 2, 2010
1.5.1 Seasonal Variation
Seasonal variation must be considered in TMDL development. Seasonal variation in flow is a
key part of the overall TMDL assessment because water quality parameters are often related to
stream flow rates. This is a particularly important component of subsequent analyses linking
sources to observed water quality, where the timing of source loads is connected to seasonal
water quality patterns.
Figure 1-14 shows the seasonal variation of flow for the Illinois River at Henry site using the
entire period of record (1981 – 2010). In addition to showing general patterns, the “Box and
Whisker” format used in Figure 1-14 highlights the variability of flows from month to month.
For example, the highest flows typically occur between March and May. Flows during these
months also tend to vary, reflecting the significant effect that air temperatures exert on hydrology.
Periods of heavy snow followed by warmer temperatures can result in major runoff events.
Conversely, lower winter flows may coincide with extended periods of below freezing
temperatures.
Related to seasonal variation, year-to-year variability is another consideration that affects
watershed hydrology. This in turn influences water quality, in particular sediment transport.
Peak flow history is one way to view the effect of interannual variation, as shown in Figure 1-16
using the Illinois River at Henry gage. Figure 1-17 shows the peak flow history for the Big
Bureau Creek gage. The information in both figures is expressed as unit area flows.
It is also important to analyze seasonal variation in the context of land use activities. More
specifically, seasonal variation in water quality as it relates to seasonal land use activities must be
considered. For example, seasonal application of fertilizers and seasonal trends in vegetative or
cropland cover (in contrast to bare or exposed soils) will both have a corresponding effect on
water quality. Figure 1-18 shows the seasonal analysis of total suspended solids on Big Bureau
Creek. From this analysis, a clear seasonal trend shows increasing median concentration during
the spring and summer. Through the identification of TSS concentrations associated with rainfall
events (red points), it is also evident that elevated concentrations of TSS often correspond to
rainfall events. Additional discussion regarding seasonal trends is included in Section 3.1 and
Section 4.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -18 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-14. Seasonal variation of Illinois River flows.
Figure 1-15. Seasonal variation of Big Bureau Creek flows.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -19 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-16. Peak flow history for Illinois River at Henry gage.
Figure 1-17. Peak flow history for Big Bureau Creek gage.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -20 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-18. Seasonal variation of TSS for Big Bureau Creek.
1.5.2 Flow Duration Curves
The daily average, peak history, and monthly flow information presented earlier shows the
inherent variability associated with hydrology. Flow duration curves provide a way to address
that variability and flow related water quality patterns. Duration curves describe the percentage
of time during which specified flows are equaled or exceeded (Leopold, 1994). Flow duration
analysis looks at the cumulative frequency of historic flow data over a specified period, based on
measurements taken at uniform intervals (e.g., daily average or 15-minute instantaneous).
Duration analysis results in a curve that relates flow values to the percent of time those values
have been met or exceeded. Low flows are exceeded a majority of the time, whereas floods are
exceeded infrequently.
Duration curves provide the benefit of considering the full range of flow conditions (USEPA,
2007). Development of a flow duration curve is typically based on daily average stream discharge
data. A typical curve runs from high flows to low flows along the x-axis, as illustrated in Figure
1-19. Note the flow duration interval of sixty associated with a stream discharge of 9,444 cfs
(i.e., sixty percent of all observed stream discharge values equal or exceed 9,444 cfs).
Flow duration curve intervals can be grouped into several broad categories or zones. These zones
provide additional insight about conditions and patterns associated with water quality
impairments where hydrology may play a major role. One common way to look at the duration
curve is by dividing it into five zones, as illustrated in Figure 1-19: one representing high flows
(0-10%), another for moist conditions (10-40%), one covering mid-range flows (40-60%), another
for dry conditions (60-90%), and one representing low flows (90-100%).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -21 - August 2, 2010
This particular approach places the midpoints of the moist, mid-range, and dry zones at the 25th,
50th, and 75th percentiles respectively (i.e., the quartiles). The high zone is centered at the 5th
percentile, while the low zone is centered at the 95th percentile. Other schemes can be used,
depending on local hydrology, the water quality issues being addressed by assessment efforts,
data availability, and the way in which water quality criteria are expressed.
Figure 1-19. Flow duration curve for Illinois River at Henry.
1.5.3 Hydrology and Water Quality Relationships
The primary benefit of flow duration curves in TMDL development is to provide insight
regarding patterns associated with hydrology and water quality concerns. The duration curve
approach is particularly applicable because water quality is often a function of stream flow. For
instance, sediment concentrations typically increase with rising flows as a result of factors such as
channel scour from higher velocities. Other parameters, such as chloride, may be more
concentrated at low flows and more diluted by increased water volumes at higher flows.
The use of duration curves in water quality assessment creates a framework that enables data to
be characterized by flow conditions. The method provides a visual display of the relationship
between stream flow and water quality. This concept is illustrated by using suspended sediment
concentration (SSC) data collected for the Illinois River at Chillicothe. In the case of Figure
1-20, sediment concentrations are the greatest under high flow conditions. In addition, the
display also shows that the highest levels are generally associated with runoff events (as indicated
by the shaded diamonds). Figure 1-21 show the same information using only the “box and
whisker” format. A similar analysis to the one shown in Figure 1-20 can be completed using
other Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed data during development of the TMDL.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -22 - August 2, 2010
Figure 1-20. Relationship between flow and SSC using duration curve framework.
Figure 1-21. Relationship between flow and SSC using duration curve framework.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -23 - August 2, 2010
2. Water Quality Indicators and Potential Targets
This section of the document presents information on the water quality impairments within the
Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed and the associated water quality standards.
2.1 Water Quality Impairments
Several waters within the Illinois River project area have been placed on the State of Illinois
§303(d) list (Table 2-1), and require development of TMDLs. This integrated TMDL project is
intended to address documented water quality problems on middle segments of the Illinois River
in the Peoria area. Other §303(d) waters included on the 2008 list are: Kickapoo Creek (the 19
mile segment from its confluence at West Peoria continuing upstream); Big Bureau Creek (the
five mile segment from Princeton continuing downstream); West Bureau Creek (from its
confluence with Bureau Creek continuing 23 miles upstream); Farm Creek (the 19 mile segment
from its confluence at East Peoria continuing upstream); Depue Lake (in the Lake Depue State
Fish & Wildlife Area near the town of Depue); and Senachwine Lake (north of Henry).
Table 2-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) impaired waters.
Impaired Waters
Name Segment
ID
Miles /
Acres
Designated Uses Impairments
D-05 12
D-16 25
D-30 22
Primary contact
recreation Fecal coliform
Illinois River
D-30 22 Public water supply Manganese, total
dissolved solids
Kickapoo Creek DL-01 21
Big Bureau Creek DQ-03 5
West Bureau
Creek DQD-01 24
Primary contact
recreation Fecal coliform
Farm Creek DZZP-03 20 Aquatic life use
Alteration in streamside
vegetative cover,
chloride, pH, phosphorus,
total suspended solids
Depue Lake RDU 524
Senachwine Lake RDZX 3324
Aesthetic quality &
aquatic life
Aquatic algae, dissolved
oxygen, phosphorus,
sedimentation / siltation,
total suspended solids
The middle segments of the mainstem Illinois River in the Peoria area appear on the Illinois
§303(d) list for not supporting primary contact recreation due to elevated levels of fecal coliform
bacteria. Several tributaries including Big Bureau Creek, West Bureau Creek, and Kickapoo
Creek are listed for the same reason. One segment of the Illinois River (D-30) appears on the
§303(d) list for not supporting public water supply due to elevated levels of manganese and total
dissolved solids. Depue and Senachwine Lakes are on the §303(d) list for not supporting
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -24 - August 2, 2010
aesthetic quality and aquatic life uses due to aquatic algae, low dissolved oxygen levels,
sedimentation / siltation, as well as elevated levels of phosphorus and total suspended solids
(TSS). Farm Creek is listed as not supporting aquatic life use due to alteration in streamside
vegetative cover as well as elevated levels of chloride, pH, phosphorus, and TSS.
2.2 Applicable Standards
Water Quality Standards (WQS) are designed to protect beneficial uses. The authority to
designate beneficial uses and adopt WQS is granted through Title 35 of the Illinois
Administrative Code. Designated uses to be protected in surface waters of the state are defined
under Section 303, and WQS are designated under Section 302 (Water Quality Standards).
Designated uses and water quality criteria are discussed below.
2.2.1 Designated Uses
IEPA uses rules and regulations adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) to assess
the designated use support for Illinois waterbodies. The following are the use support
designations provided by the IPCB that apply to water bodies in the Illinois River (Peoria area)
watershed:
General Use Standards – These standards protect for aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural, primary
contact (where physical configuration of the waterbody permits it, any recreational or other water
use in which there is prolonged and intimate contact with the water involving considerable risk of
ingesting water in quantities sufficient to pose a significant health hazard, such as swimming and
water skiing), secondary contact (any recreational or other water use in which contact with the
water is either incidental or accidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable
quantities of water is minimal, such as fishing, commercial and recreational boating, and any
limited contact incident to shoreline activity), and most industrial uses. These standards are also
designed to ensure the aesthetic quality of the state's aquatic environment.
Public and food processing water supply standards – These standards are cumulative with the
general use standards and apply to waters of the state at any point at which water is withdrawn for
treatment and distribution as a potable supply to the public or for food processing.
2.2.2 Water Quality Criteria
Environmental regulations for the State of Illinois are contained within the Illinois Administrative
Code, Title 35. Specifically, Title 35, Part 302 contains water quality standards promulgated by
the Illinois Pollution Control Board. This section presents the standards applicable to
impairments within the study area. Water quality criteria to be used for TMDL development in
the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed are listed in Table 2-2.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -25 - August 2, 2010
Table 2-2. Summary of water quality standards for Illinois River (Peoria area).
Parameter Units General Use Water Quality
Standard
Public and Food
Processing Water
Supplies
Alteration in Stream-side
Vegetate Covers N/A No numeric standard No numeric standard
Aquatic Algae N/A No numeric standard No numeric standard
Chloride mg/L 500 250
Instantaneous minimum:
5.0 (March – July)
3.5 (August – February)
Daily minimum averaged over 7 days:
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 4.0 (August – February)
Daily mean averaged over 7 days:
6.0 (March - July)
5.5 (August – February)
No numeric standard
400 in <10% of samples 2
Fecal Coliform 1 #/100 mL
Geometric mean < 200 3
Geometric mean 3 <
2,000
Manganese μg/L 1,000 150
pH SU 6.5 minimum, 9.0 maximum No numeric standard
Phosphorus, Total μg/L 50 4 No numeric standard
Sedimentation / Siltation N/A No numeric standard No numeric standard
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L No numeric standard 500
Total Suspended Solids N/A No numeric standard No numeric standard
1 Fecal coliform standards are for the recreation season only (May through October)
2 Standard shall not be exceeded by more than 10% of the samples collected during a 30 day period
3 Geometric mean based on minimum of 5 samples taken over not more than a 30 day period
4 Standard only applies in lakes/reservoirs that are greater than 20 acres in surface area and in any stream
at the point where it enters such a lake / reservoir. There is no numeric standard for streams.
2.3 Potential Load Reduction Strategy Targets
As described below, potential Load Reduction Strategy (LRS) targets are defined for constituents
lacking numeric criteria (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3. Potential Load Reduction Strategies targets.
LRS Parameter Target Criteria
Nitrogen, Nitrate 1.798 mg/L
Phosphorus, Total 0.072 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids
28.7 mg/L (Zone 3)
59.3 mg/L (Zone 4)
50.4 mg/L (Zone 5)
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -26 - August 2, 2010
2.3.1 Nutrients
Nutrient targets are based on reference conditions for Ecoregion 54 from the USEPA document
entitled ”Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Information Supporting the
Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria, Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion
VI”. USEPA’s ecoregion criteria are intended to address cultural eutrophication. These values
were derived to represent conditions of surface waters that are minimally impacted by human
activities and protective of aquatic life and recreational uses (USEPA 2000).
Figure 2-1. Nutrient Ecoregions.
2.3.2 Total Suspended Solids, Sedimentation, and Siltation
Total suspended solids criteria are based on reference conditions from the USGS document
entitled ”Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in
the Great Lakes Region and Adjacent Areas”. The USGS and USEPA began a cooperative study
in which suspended solids data was collected and reference conditions were derived for zones in
the Great Lakes Region. Volumetric weighted (VW) TSS concentrations were chosen for LRS
targets. If one is interested in minimizing or controlling the anthropogenic effects on water
quality, the most important variable should be the volume weighted concentrations (USGS 2006).
Most of the watershed is Zone 4.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -27 - August 2, 2010
Figure 2-2. TSS concentration zones.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -28 - August 2, 2010
3. Data Summary
Routine water quality monitoring is a key part of the IEPA assessment program. The goals of
IEPA surface water monitoring programs are to identify causes of pollution (toxics, nutrients,
sedimentation) and sources (point or nonpoint) of surface water impairments, determine the
overall effectiveness of pollution control programs and identify long term resource quality trends.
IEPA has operated a widespread, active long-term monitoring network in Illinois since 1977,
known as the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN). The AWQMN is utilized
by the IEPA to provide baseline water quality information, to characterize and define trends in the
physical, chemical and biological conditions of the state’s waters, identify new or existing water
quality problems and to act as a triggering mechanism for special studies or other appropriate
actions.
Additional uses of the data collected by the IEPA through the AWQMN program include the
review of existing water quality standards and establishment of water quality based effluent limits
for NPDES permits. The AWQMN is integrated with other Illinois EPA chemical and biological
stream monitoring programs which are more regionally based (specific watersheds or point
source receiving stream) and cover a shorter span of time (e.g. one year) to evaluate compliance
with water quality standards and determine designated use support. Information from this
program is compiled by IEPA into a biennial report required by the Federal Clean Water Act.
3.1 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
Within the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed, there are eight active stations that are part of
AWQMN (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1). Parameters sampled include field measurements (e.g.,
conductivity, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity) as well as those that require lab
analyses (e.g., bacteria, nutrients, TSS).
Table 3-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites.
Site ID USGS
Gage Water Body Location County Lat Long
D 05 05563800 Route 9 at Pekin Peoria 40.5730 89.6547
D 09 05558995 Route 17 at Lacon Marshall 41.0250 89.4172
D 16 05556200 Route 26 at Hennepin Putnam 41.2575 89.3469
D 30 05559900
Illinois River
Peoria PWS Intake Peoria 40.7250 89.5494
DL 01 05563525 Kickapoo Creek US 24 north of Bartonville Peoria 40.6550 89.6477
DQ 03 05556500 Big Bureau
Creek
Route 6 near west edge of
Princeton Bureau 41.3652 89.4986
DQD 01 05557000 West Bureau
Creek
US 6/34 at east edge of
Wyanet Bureau 41.3650 89.5688
DZZP03 05562010 Farm Creek
Camp Street north of East
Peoria, Gage #05562000
Main St.
Tazewell 40.6711 89.5800
A large amount of information exists that can be used to closely examine longitudinal, seasonal,
and year-to-year patterns. Examples are shown in Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-11. Improved
pattern analysis can help focus additional watershed characterization activities, prioritize source
assessment needs, and strengthen the TMDL linkage analysis. Longitudinal, seasonal, and year-to-
year profiles for all parameters can be developed that support efforts to assess important
patterns, identify critical conditions, and evaluate potential cause – effect relationships.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -29 - August 2, 2010
Figure 3-1. Location of Illinois River (Peoria area) AWQMN sites.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -30 - August 2, 2010
3.1.1 Bacteria
Fecal coliform is used as a water quality indicator for the possible risk associated with the
presence of bacteria. When elevated, harmful bacteria and viruses may be present. Potential
sources of bacteria include agricultural runoff, illicit sewage connections, domestic pet waste,
water fowl, and animal waste in storm sewer lines (e.g., rats and raccoons).
“Box and Whisker” plots provide one way to analyze the variability in bacteria data. The Box is
divided at the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the Whiskers extend from the
75th and 25th percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively. Figure 3-2 presents a Box and
Whisker plot presenting available bacteria data per drainage area of the tributaries and the
mainstem of the Illinois River. In general, concentrations with the tributaries were highly
variable and elevated in relation to concentrations found within the mainstem of the Illinois
River. This may represent seasonal runoff from agricultural areas. Within the Illinois River,
concentrations of fecal coliform indicate a declining trend to the Peoria Intake. Downstream of
Peoria, concentrations of fecal bacteria tend to be elevated relative to other points along the
Illinois River. Sources from Peoria, being an urbanized area, include storm water runoff,
combined sewer overflows, and point source discharges.
Figure 3-2. Longitudinal profile of fecal coliform for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -31 - August 2, 2010
3.1.2 Total Suspended Solids
Loading of total suspended solids (TSS) can increase the system’s turbidity and lead to
accelerated sedimentation. Primary sources of TSS are typically associated with runoff events
and include: construction sites, poorly stabilized slopes, erosion gullies, or bare farm fields. Due
to the association with runoff, TSS can be paired with other constituents for enhanced source
evaluation. For example, elevated nitrate levels that follow a similar trend as elevated TSS may
indicate a similar source such as a farm field.
“Box and Whisker” plots provide one way to analyze the variability between sites. The Box is
divided at the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the Whiskers extend from the
75th and 25th percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively. Figure 3-3 presents a Box and
Whisker plot presenting available bacteria data per drainage area of tributaries and the mainstem
of the Illinois River. In general, tributaries exhibited high variability while the Illinois River had
considerably less. Along the Illinois River, median concentrations of TSS corresponded to
increased drainage area, with increasing concentrations further downstream. Variability within
the tributaries may indicate seasonal differences associated with runoff events; duration curve
analysis would provide a method to test this hypothesis.
Figure 3-3. Longitudinal profile of total suspended solids for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
As indicated above (Figure 3-3), Big Bureau Creek exhibited extreme variability in TSS
concentrations. The relation of TSS concentrations to stream flow or rainfall was implicitly
stated. Duration curves provide an excellent way to test such trends and analyze the data in
relation to stream flow. Typically, high flows are associated with the wet season while dry
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -32 - August 2, 2010
weather typically creates lower flows. Data analyzed on Big Bureau Creek (Figure 3-4) shows
increasing TSS concentrations with increasing flows. Moreover, TSS concentrations during
runoff events are typically elevated and correlated with moist conditions and high flows. This
example indicates runoff events, rather than point sources, as a significant source of TSS.
Duration curve analysis has been (or will be) completed for each subwatershed unit; refer to the
watershed cluster discussions (Section 4.3) for trends within specific watersheds.
Figure 3-4. Water quality duration curve for TSS on Big Bureau Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -33 - August 2, 2010
3.1.3 Phosphorus
Elevated levels of phosphorus can lead to undesirable algal blooms, lowered oxygen levels, and
ultimately, decreased aquatic life habitat. Phosphorus can originate from both point and nonpoint
sources. Typical sources include: wastewater treatment facilities, lawn fertilizers, pet waste,
grass clippings, leaves, sediments, and phosphorus accumulated on impervious surfaces; all of
which can be transported to receiving waters either directly or during rain and snowmelt events.
“Box and Whisker” plots provide one way to analyze the variability between sites. The Box is
divided at the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the Whiskers extend from the
75th and 25th percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively. Figure 3-5 presents a Box and
Whisker plot presenting available bacteria data per drainage area of tributaries and the mainstem
of the Illinois River. In general, a wide range of concentrations were found within the tributaries;
less variability, but consistently higher median concentrations were found within the mainstem of
the Illinois River.
Figure 3-5. Longitudinal profile of total phosphorus for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Duration curves provide an excellent way to test such trends and analyze the data in relation to
stream flow. Typically, high flows are associated with the wet season while dry weather typically
creates lower flows. Data analyzed on Big Bureau Creek (Figure 3-6) shows increasing
phosphorus concentrations with decreasing flows. Additionally, the figure shows only a slight
relationship between phosphorus concentrations and runoff events; the majority of runoff events
correspond with near average concentrations of phosphorus. Figure 3-7 presents another way to
examine the seasonal trends of phosphorus within Big Bureau Creek. As evident, concentrations
are significantly elevated July through December. In general, this period corresponds to
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -34 - August 2, 2010
decreasing precipitation and runoff events. Due to the lack of relationship with rainfall, these
analyses indicate point sources as the most significant source of phosphorus in Big Bureau Creek.
The source assessment, as completed in Section 4.3.2, identifies eleven wastewater or sewage
treatment plants within the Big Bureau Creek subwatershed unit. The high concentration of
WWTPs further indicates a probability of point source pollution being the leading cause of
elevated phosphorus concentrations.
Figure 3-6. Water quality duration curve for phosphorus on Big Bureau Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -35 - August 2, 2010
Figure 3-7. Seasonal range of phosphorus on Big Bureau Creek.
3.1.4 Nitrate
Elevated levels of nitrate can lead to undesirable algal blooms, lowered oxygen levels, and
ultimately, decreased aquatic life habitat. Nitrate can originate from both point and nonpoint
sources. Typical sources include: wastewater treatment facilities, lawn fertilizers, pet waste,
grass clippings, leaves, sediments, and nitrate accumulated on impervious surfaces; all of which
can be transported to receiving waters either directly or during rain and snowmelt events.
“Box and Whisker” plots provide one way to analyze the variability in data. The Box is divided at
the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the Whiskers extend from the 75th and 25th
percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively. Figure 3-8 presents a Box and Whisker plot
presenting available bacteria data per drainage area of tributaries and the mainstem of the Illinois
River. In general, nitrate concentrations within the tributaries had considerable variability, and in
some cases, the highest median concentrations. The mainstem of the Illinois had relatively
decreased variability and a consistent range in concentrations with increasing drainage area.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -36 - August 2, 2010
Figure 3-8. Longitudinal profile of NO2+NO3 for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Duration curves provide an excellent way to test such trends and analyze the data in relation to
stream flow. Typically, high flows are associated with the wet season while dry weather typically
creates lower flows. Data analyzed on Big Bureau Creek (Figure 3-9) shows increasing nitrate
concentrations with increasing flows. The strong relationship between concentrations and flow
indicates runoff events and nonpoint sources as a significant source. Figure 3-10 presents another
way to examine the seasonal trends of nitrate within West Bureau Creek. From this evaluation, it
is evident that there is little variation within early season concentrations relative to the substantial
range of concentrations shown from July through December. Elevated median concentrations
occurring during spring and early summer correspond to land use activities such as fertilizer
application on lawns and farm fields. Such trends also indicate nonpoint source pollution as a
significant source of nitrate.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -37 - August 2, 2010
Figure 3-9. Duration curve for nitrate concentration on Big Bureau Creek.
Figure 3-10. Seasonal analysis of nitrate concentrations on West Bureau Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -38 - August 2, 2010
3.1.5 Other Parameters
Conductivity can be a good indicator of water quality, in particular the concentration of ions
within the water column. “Box and Whisker” plots provide one way to analyze the variability
between sites. The Box is divided at the median, and expands to the 75th and 25th percentile; the
Whiskers extend from the 75th and 25th percentile to the 90th and 10th percentile respectively.
presents a Box and Whisker plot presenting available bacteria data per drainage area of tributaries
and the mainstem of the Illinois River. Figure 3-11 presents conductivity data within the
tributaries and mainstem of the Illinois River. In general, a wide range of concentrations were
found in both the tributaries and mainstem of the Illinois River, with the highest median
concentrations found in Farm Creek and Kickapoo Creek.
Figure 3-11. Longitudinal profile of conductivity for the Illinois River (Peoria area).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -39 - August 2, 2010
3.2 IEPA Special Study
In 2009, IEPA initiated additional monitoring data for fecal coliform, TSS, total phosphorus, and
nitrate at eleven sites including the mainstem Illinois River, Big Bureau Creek, West Bureau
Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek East, Senachwine Creek, Farm Creek, and Kickapoo Creek.
This information will be evaluated and incorporated into Stage 3 of the TMDL process.
3.3 USGS Synoptic Survey
The USGS monitored the mainstem Illinois River and tributaries for fecal coliform and E. coli
bacteria from October 2007 to September 2008. Monthly samples were collected on the
mainstem at Hennepin and downstream of Peoria. Random samples were taken throughout the
watershed. Table 3-2 summarizes the number of samples and geometric mean of all samples at
each location. For a comparison of fecal coliform and E. coli, Figure 3-12 contains data at
pertinent locations for the day of October 10, 2007. This is the only day in which samples were
obtained for all locations. Tributaries are on the left and the mainstem locations are on the right
side of the figure.
Table 3-2. USGS bacteria study sampling summary.
USGS
Site USGS Site Description Sample
#
Geo
Mean
05556500 Big Bureau Creek at Princeton 11 410
05558000 Big Bureau Creek at Bureau 1 200
05558295 SANDY CREEK AT HENRY 1 400
05558500 CROW CREEK (WEST) NEAR HENRY 1 6
05558990 THENIUS CREEK AT SPARLAND 1 216
05559590 CROW CREEK NEAR CHILLICOTHE 1 146
05559700 SENACHWINE CREEK AT CHILLICOTHE 9 168
05559770 RICHLAND CREEK BL DRY CREEK NR CHILLICOTHE 1 987
05559800 PARTRIDGE CREEK NEAR METAMORA 4 573
05559820 PARTRIDGE CREEK TRIBUTARY NEAR METAMORA 3 608
05559830 PARTRIDGE CREEK NEAR SPRING BAY 1 34
05559840 BLALOCK CREEK NEAR SPRING BAY 1 640
05559890 TENMILE CREEK AT TRAILPARK GARDENS 1 6
05560500 FARM CREEK AT FARMDALE 10 357
05561800 FARM CREEK AT RT 150 AT EAST PEORIA 1 800
05562000 FARM CREEK AT EAST PEORIA 1 83
05562010 FARM CR AT CAMP ST BRIDGE AT EAST PEORIA 1 140
05563525 KICKAPOO CREEK AT BARTONVILLE 2 336
05556200 ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENNEPIN 35 59
05558300 ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENRY 3 59
05558995 ILLINOIS RIVER AT LACON 3 37
05559600 ILLINOIS RIVER AT CHILLICOTHE 4 47
05559850 ILLINOIS RIVER AT SOUTH ROME 2 41
05559900 ILLINOIS RIVER AT WATER COMPANY AT PEORIA 3 9
05560000 ILLINOIS RIVER AT PEORIA 6 72
05562100 ILLINOIS RIVER AT FRANKLIN ST BRIDGE AT PEORIA 4 79
05562200 ILLINOIS RIVER BELOW PEORIA LAKE AT PEORIA 34 72
05563590 ILLINOIS R AB PEORIA LOCK AND DAM NR CREVE COEUR 1 520
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -40 - August 2, 2010
Figure 3-12. USGS bacteria data on 10/10/2007.
Figure 3-13. Illinois River bacteria data at Hennepin.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -41 - August 2, 2010
Figure 3-14. Illinois River bacteria downstream of Peoria.
3.4 Peoria CSO Study
The City of Peoria, as part of their Long Term Control Plan requirements, has submitted a
monitoring plan to characterize the CSO and stormwater discharges. They have proposed 23 sites
for monitoring at times of CSO and non CSO events. As part of the regular operations, the City
monitors specific locations throughout Peoria and that data has been provided and will be used
for input model data. Model parameters will be specified in Stage 3 of the TMDL process.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -42 - August 2, 2010
4. Source Assessment
Source assessments are an important component of water quality management plans and TMDL
development. These analyses are generally used to evaluate the type, magnitude, timing, and
location of pollutant loading to a waterbody (USEPA, 1999). Source assessment methods vary
widely with respect to their applicability, ease of use, and acceptability. The purpose of this
section of the document is to identify possible sources within the Illinois River (Peoria area)
watershed.
Pollutants of concern in the source assessment include bacteria, phosphorus, total suspended
solids, sedimentation / siltation, dissolved oxygen, chloride, manganese, and total dissolved
solids. These pollutants can originate from an array of sources including point source discharges
(e.g., industrial pipes) and surface runoff, particularly storm water. This section provides a
summary of potential sources that contribute listed pollutants to the Illinois River (Peoria area)
watershed.
Approximately 68 percent of the watershed is devoted to agricultural activities. Wetlands and
upland forest occupy approximately 17 percent of the watershed area. Other land cover
categories, including urban, represent the remaining 11 percent. There are point source
discharges (e.g., municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plants, urban storm water, livestock
facilities) in this watershed. Potential nonpoint sources include agriculture, pasture management,
and crop-related sources, land disposal of human / animal waste, on-site wastewater systems,
bank or shoreline modification / destabilization, habitat modification, urban runoff / stormwater
and waterfowl.
Historic development revolving around the growth and urbanization of the greater Peoria area has
created a wide array of potential sources that could deliver contaminants to the Illinois River. For
example, one dominant source of pollutants to the Illinois River is associated with storm water.
The high percentage of impervious surface in the urbanized portion of the watershed has resulted
in a network of drainage systems. Storm water is efficiently conveyed to the Illinois River
(Peoria area) through numerous storm water outfalls. The increased storm water volumes also
enter the combined sewer system, causing occasional discharge of untreated domestic wastewater
to the Illinois River through CSOs. In addition, pollutants associated with runoff from
agricultural areas have the potential to be carried to the Illinois River and its tributaries during
rain and snowmelt events.
4.1 Watershed Clusters
To facilitate the source assessment, the Illinois River (Peoria area) drainage has been partitioned
into watershed clusters. The use of watershed clusters creates an opportunity to relate source
information to water quality monitoring results. The use of watershed clusters not only enhances
the source assessment by grouping information; it sets the stage for the TMDL linkage analysis.
Watershed clusters and the analysis of individual subwatersheds can help connect potential cause
information to documented effects on a reach-by-reach basis. The ability to summarize
information at different spatial scales strengthens the overall TMDL development process and
will also enable more effective targeting of implementation efforts.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -43 - August 2, 2010
Watershed cluster boundaries were delineated in a way that aligns with USGS ten-digit
hydrological unit code (HUC) codes. The 10-digit HUC codes reflect hydrologic watersheds and
subwatersheds in the area. Seven watershed clusters were identified, these include: Illinois River
Mainstem, Big Bureau Creek, Sandy Creek, Crow Creek/Snag Creek, Senachwine Creek, Farm
Creek, and Kickapoo Creek. Specific details of each are identified in Table 4-1, while
subwatershed boundaries are shown in Figure 4-1. The sections that follow first describe point
sources in the Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed. The source assessment concludes with a
summary of basic characteristics for each watershed cluster. This includes size, source areas
located within the subwatershed, and land use / land cover.
Table 4-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters.
Watershed Cluster 10-digit HUC Area
ID 10-Digit HUC Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
07130001 08 Allforks Creek - Illinois River 113,642 177.6
07130001 09 Senachwine Lake - Illinois R. 92,024 143.8
07130001 11 Scholes Branch - Crow Creek 51,638 80.7
07130001 13 Sawyer Slough - Illinois River 62,543 97.7
07130001 17 Partridge Creek - Illinois River 94,396 147.5
07130003 03 Lamarsh Creek-Illinois River 83,782 130.9
Illinois River
Mainstem
Total Subwatershed Area 498,025 778.2
07130001 04 West Bureau Creek 56,187 87.8
07130001 05 Pike Creek-Big Bureau Creek 129,676 202.6
07130001 06 East Bureau Creek 71,483 111.7
07130001 07 Big Bureau Creek 63,942 99.9
Big Bureau Creek
Total Subwatershed Area 321,288 502.0
Sandy Creek 07130001 10 Sandy Creek 94,454 147.6
07130001 12 Crow Creek 82,508 128.9
Crow Creek / 07130001 15 Snag Creek 52,990 82.8
Snag Creek
Total Subwatershed 229,952 359
Senachwine Creek 07130001 14 Senachwine Creek 58,136 90.8
Farm Creek 07130001 16 Farm Creek 39,423 61.6
07130003 01 Headwaters Kickapoo Creek 76,296 119.2
Kickapoo Creek 07130003 02 Outlet Kickapoo Creek 119,939 187.4
Total Subwatershed Area 196,235 306.6
TOTAL 1,343,059 2,098.5
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -44 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-1. Illinois River (Peoria area) watershed clusters.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -45 - August 2, 2010
4.2 Overview of Sources
Pollutants of concern evaluated within this source assessment include fecal coliform, manganese,
total dissolved solids, chloride, pH, phosphorus, total suspended solids, algae, oxygen and
sediment. These pollutants can originate from an array of sources including point and nonpoint
sources. Point sources typically discharge at a specific location from pipes, outfalls, and
conveyance channels. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources that have multiple routes of entry
into surface waters, particularly overland runoff. This section provides a summary of potential
point and nonpoint sources that contribute listed pollutants to the impaired waterbodies.
4.2.1 Point Sources
Point source pollution is defined by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §502(14) as: any
discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal
feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be
discharged. This term does not include agriculture storm water discharges and return flow from
irrigated agriculture.
Point sources can include facilities such as municipal wastewater treatment plants, industrial
facilities or municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Additionally, overland runoff
collected and conveyed through MS4 systems is considered a point source. Under the CWA all
point sources are regulated under the Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. MS4 and NPDES permit holders within the project area are discussed below.
NPDES Facilities
A municipality, industry, or operation must apply for an NPDES permit if an activity at that
facility discharges wastewater to surface water. Examples of NPDES facilities include:
municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plants, metal finishers, refineries, and confined
animal feed operations. The list and locations of all current NPDES permitted facilities within
the Illinois River (Peoria area) are provided within each watershed cluster summary discussion
(Section 4.3).
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
Storm water runoff may be a significant source of pollutants to the Illinois River. Under the
NPDES program, municipalities serving populations over 100,000 people are considered Phase I
MS4 communities. Within the project area, there are no Phase I communities. Municipalities
serving populations under 100,000 people are considered Phase II communities. Within Illinois,
Phase II communities are allowed to operate under the statewide General Storm Water Permit
(ILR40) which first requires dischargers to file a Notice of Intent (NOI), acknowledging that
discharges shall not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
To assure pollution is controlled to the maximum extent practical (MEP) communities operating
under the General Permit are required to implement six control measures including public
education, public involvement, illicit discharge and detection programs, control of construction
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -46 - August 2, 2010
site runoff, post construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment,
and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. Communities operating
under the State General Permit (ILR40) within the project area are identified in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. MS4 permits in the Illinois River (Peoria area) project watershed.
Permit ID Operator Name County
IRL400287 Village of Bartonville Peoria
IRL400073 Kickapoo Township Peoria
IRL400078 Limestone Township Peoria
IRL400085 Medina Township Peoria
IRL400424 City of Peoria Peoria
IRL400267 Peoria County Peoria
IRL400392 Village of Morton Tazewell
IRL400683 Cincinnati Township Tazewell
IRL400331 City of East Peoria Tazewell
IRL400403 City of North Pekin Tazewell
IRL400423 City of Pekin Tazewell
IRL400515 Village of South Pekin Tazewell
IRL400271 Tazewell County Tazewell
IRL400665 Washington Township Tazewell
Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewer systems are designed to collect and carry storm water runoff as well as domestic
and industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Under dry weather conditions, this system efficiently
conveys flow to the wastewater treatment facility. However, under heavy rains, the system can
be stressed beyond its capacity. When this occurs, combined sewer systems are designed to
overflow and discharge excess wastewater to nearby surface waters. For this reason, combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) are a major water quality concern (EPA, 2010). To regulate such
sources of pollution, combined sewer systems are regulated under the NPDES program.
Combined systems within the project area are identified in Table 4-3 and shown in Figure 4-2.
Table 4-3. Combined sewer systems within the project area.
Watershed Cluster Permit
Number
Combined Sewer System
Operator
IL0037800 Peoria
IL0021491 Ladd
IL0022331 Granville
IL0029424 LaSalle
IL0030660 Peru
IL0031216 Spring Valley
IL0021792 Wenona
IL0024996 Oglesby
Illinois River Mainstem
IL0034495 Pekin
Big Bureau Creek IL0033120 Bureau Junction
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -47 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-2. Location of CSOsand SSOs in Illinois River (Peoria area) project area.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -48 - August 2, 2010
4.2.2 Nonpoint Sources
The term nonpoint source pollution is defined to mean any source of pollution that does not met
the legal definition of point sources. Nonpoint source pollution typically results from overland
storm water runoff that is diffuse in origin. It should be noted that storm water collected and
conveyed through conveyance systems such as an MS4 system are considered a controllable point
source. Sources of nonpoint pollution within the project area include:
• Agriculture;
• Open Recreation; and
• Open Space.
With agricultural practices such as crop cultivation and pasture/hay covering an estimated 68
percent of the project area, nonpoint source pollution may contribute a significant amount of the
total pollutant load.
4.3 Watershed Cluster Summary
To facilitate the source assessment, the Illinois River (Peoria area) drainage has been partitioned
into watershed clusters. The use of watershed clusters creates an opportunity to relate source
information to water quality monitoring results. The use of watershed clusters not only enhances
the source assessment by aggregating information; it sets the stage for the TMDL linkage
analysis. Watershed clusters can help connect potential cause information to documented effects
on a reach-by-reach basis. The ability to summarize information at different spatial scales
strengthens the overall TMDL development process and will also enable more effective targeting
of implementation efforts.
Watershed clusters used for the source assessment are presented in Section 4.1. Watershed
clusters are organized by the 10- and 12-digit USGS hydrological unit code (HUC). There are a
total of 17 10-digit HUCs and 59 12-digit HUCs tributary to the Illinois River (Peoria area).
These HUCs have been grouped into seven watershed clusters. The sections that follow include a
description of each subwatershed unit and include: characterization information, size, land use /
land cover and point/nonpoint source areas located within each subwatershed unit.
4.3.1 Illinois River Mainstem
The Illinois River mainstem watershed cluster includes the drainages immediately adjacent to the
Illinois River from the “Big Bend” area to just south of Peoria,. In total, the drainage is 782
square miles and consists of twenty-one 12-digit HUCs. Table 4-4 details area per 12-digit HUC
associated with the Illinois River mainstem unit.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Illinois River mainstem subwatershed include: Bureau,
LaSalle, Marshall, Woodford, Peoria, Putnam and Tazewell. This particular watershed cluster is
largely agricultural and contains relatively little developed land within its drainage area (Figure
4-4). Predominating land use includes cultivated crops (55 percent), deciduous forests (17
percent), open water (8 percent), and development including low, medium, and high (6 percent).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -49 - August 2, 2010
Along the Illinois River, seven locks and dams still exist, creating a system of navigational pools
(USGS, 2007a). The Illinois River mainstem subwatershed unit is contained between two lock
and dam systems (Starved Rock and La Grange); a third lock and dam system (Peoria) is located
within the subwatershed unit near Peoria. The Peoria Lock and Dam create a chain of lakes, or
large navigational pools, including: Senachwine Lake, Goose Lake, Upper Peoria Lake, and
Peoria Lake. As depicted in Figure 4-3, which shows a view of the Illinois River above the lake
system, the river dramatically widens as it flows into the lakes. As the river widens, the flows
tends to slow which allows sediment to accumulate on the river’s bottom and sand bars
throughout the stretch. The average depth of Peoria Lake has decreased from eight feet to two
feet from 1903 to current time, causing the need for constant dredging to maintain water habitat
needed for many fish species (TRRPC, 2004).
Table 4-4. Illinois River Mainstem 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
01 Cedar Creek 17,947 28.0
02 Spring Creek 31,755 49.6
07130001 08 03 Negro Creek 19,419 30.3
04 Depue Lake - Illinois River 44,522 69.6
01 Coffee Creek - Illinois River 22,459 35.1
02 Clear Creek 23,055 36.0
07130001 09 03 Lake Thunderbird - Senachwine Lake 24,899 38.9
04 Senachwine Lake - Illinois River 24,040 37.6
07130001 11 01 Scholes Branch - Crow Creek 28,637 44.7 02 Town of Whitefield - Crow Creek 23,001 35.9
07130001 13 01 Thenius Creek - Illinois River 30,468 47.6 02 Strawn Creek - Illinois River 32,075 50.1
01 Partridge Creek 17,380 27.2
02 Blalock Creek-Illinois River 14,726 23.0
03 Blue Creek-Illinois River 23,575 36.8
04 Funks Run-Illinois River 17,803 27.8
07130001 17
05 Tenmile Creek-Illinois River 20,912 32.7
01 Lick Creek 12,336 19.3
02 Lost Creek 16,208 25.3
07130003 03 03 Lamarsh Creek 26,403 41.3
04 Pekin Lake - Illinois River 28,834 45.1
Total 500,454 782
Storm water runoff may be a significant source of pollutants to the Illinois River. Cities with
populations under 100,000 people are required to file a Notice of Intent and comply with six
storm water control measures in accordance to the State General Storm Water Permit (ILR40).
Jurisdictions operating under the General Permit within this subwatershed unit include: the City
of Peoria, County of Peoria, and Tazewell County.
In addition to storm water sources, total of 75 NPDES facilities are permitted within the Illinois
River mainstem subwatershed unit, this includes five wastewater treatment plants, eleven sewage
treatment plants and two CSOs. Locations of NPDES within the subwatershed unit are identified
in Figure 4-4 and listed in Table 4-5.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -50 - August 2, 2010
To evaluate the extensive stretch of the Illinois River, longitudinal trends were evaluated
throughout the reach. As presented in Section 3.1, TSS concentrations typically increased from
Marseilles to Pekin (Figure 3-3). Analysis of fecal coliform longitudinal trends identified
decreasing fecal coliform concentrations from Marseilles to the Peoria Intake, located just north
of Peoria (Figure 3-2). Following the Peoria Intake, Pekin shows evidence of considerably
elevated coliform concentrations; this pattern suggests significant source loading between the
Peoria Intake and Pekin.
Figure 4-3. View of Illinois River in the lakes area.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -51 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-4. Illinois River mainstem watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -52 - August 2, 2010
Table 4-5. NPDES facilities within the Illinois River mainstem watershed cluster.
Watershed
Cluster
10-digit HUC
ID Permit ID NPDES Facility Name
ILG580008 Cedar Point STP
IL0021491 Ladd STP
IL0031216 Spring Valley STP
ILG580130 Dalzell STP
IL0051705 Cherry WTP
ILG640144 Seatonville WTP
IL0001554 Dynegy Midwest Gen -- Hennepin
IL0001724 AMERICAN NICKELOID CO-PERU
IL0001783 CF INDUSTRIES - PERU
IL0002631 ISG HENNEPIN INC.
IL0022331 GRANVILLE STP
IL0023523 DEPUE STP
IL0025313 HENNEPIN PWD STP
IL0029424 LASALLE WWTP
IL0030660 PERU STP #1
IL0031216 SPRING VALLEY STP
IL0052183 NEW JERSEY ZINC COMPANY, INC.
IL0075507 PERU STP #2
07130001 08
IL0076848 MARK WTP
IL0021792 WENONA STP
07130001 09 IL0024996 OGLESBY STP
ILG640187 MAGNOLIA WTP
07130001 11 IL0064319 BRADFORD PIG PALACE IL0070424 J&D RENTALS AND SALES
ILG580226 SPARLAND STP
07130001 13 IL0029378 LACON WWTP
IL0068047 HOPEWELL WTP
IL0021539 METAMORA NORTH STP
IL0053864 LAKE WILDWIND MHP-METAMORA
IL0060461 OAK RIDGE SD STP
IL0077224 METAMORA PWS
IL0023159 CHILLICOTHE SD STP
IL0001414 CATERPILLAR INC-MOSSVILLE
IL0042234 PINEWOOD MHP
IL0059391 CEDAR BLUFF UTILITIES, INC STP
IL0065072 MEDINA UTILITIES INC-EAST STP
IL0028916 GERMANTOWN HILLS STP #1
IL0059030 MOUNT ALVERNO NOVITIATE-E PEOR
IL0071358 TRICO, INC., MILL POINT MHP
ILG840039 SENECA PETROLEUM-POWLEY SAND
IL0001961 IL AMERICAN WATER-PEORIA MN
IL0002011 IL AMERICAN WATER-PEORIA SAN
IL0024163 CATERPILLAR INC.- PEORIA
IL0025615 PMP FERMENTATION PRODUCTS, INC
IL0026972 GRANDVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK
IL0037800 PEORIA CSOS
IL0046213 EAST PEORIA STP #3
IL0077321 CATERPILLAR TRAILS PWD WTP
Illinois River
Mainstem
07130001 17
ILG580262 GERMANTOWN HILLS WWTP #2
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -53 - August 2, 2010
ILG551081 PEKIN COUNTRY CLUB
IL0072451 ILLINOIS&MIDLAND RAILROAD
ILG580252 SOUTH PEKIN STP
IL0044636 HOLLIS CONSLDTD GRD SCH STP
IL0055816 LIMESTONE WALTERS SCHOOL STP
IL0074560 COYOTE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSN
IL0001830 CATERPILLAR INC.-MAPLETON
IL0001953 AVENTINE RENEWABLE ENERGY
IL0001970 AMEREN ENERGY RESOURCES-EDWARD
IL0002232 MIDWEST GENERATION-POWERTON
IL0002291 CATERPILLAR INC.-EAST PEORIA
IL0002526 KEYSTONE STEEL AND WIRE
IL0002909 MGP INGREDIENTS OF ILLINOIS
IL0021237 CREVE COEUR WWTP
IL0021288 PEORIA SD STP
IL0023728 DEGUSSA/GOLDSCHMIDT CHEMICAL
IL0027910 CARMI WWTP
IL0028576 EAST PEORIA STP #1
IL0034495 PEKIN STP #1
IL0037729 PEKIN PAPERBOARD
IL0037800 PEORIA CSOS
IL0061930 ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND-PEORIA
IL0063827 EXCEL FOUNDRY & MACHINE, INC.
IL0067563 AMOCO OIL-PEORIA TERMINAL
IL0070122 AIR LIQUIDE INDUSTRIAL US LP
07130003 03
IL0073270 CONAGRA INTERNATIONAL-N PEKIN
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -54 - August 2, 2010
Within the Illinois River mainstem subwatershed unit, two watershed plans have been developed
for smaller, 12-digit subwatersheds. These include watershed plans for Partridge Creek and
Tenmile Creek. Each is discussed below.
Partridge Creek
Partridge Creek originates north of the Village of Metamora and flows northwest for
approximately 12 miles to Upper Peoria Lake. Including all tributaries that drain to Partridge
Creek, the system is composed of 73.5 miles and drains approximately 18,000 acres of land
(TCRPC, January 2004b). The Partridge Creek watershed is dominated by row crops with
urbanization concentrated around Village of Metamora (2009 estimated census population 3,437).
Partridge Creek has been classified for overall and aquatic life use. Potential sources of impacts
to designated uses include agriculture, hydromodification, municipal point sources, resource
extraction and urban runoff/storm sewers (TCRPC, January 2004b).
Tenmile Creek
The Tenmile Creek watershed covers approximately 11,027 acres and flows ten miles
northwest from Washington Township to Peoria Lake (TCRPC, January 2004c). Predominating
land use includes deciduous forests and cultivated crops, urban development surrounds
Germantown Hills. The 2004 Tenmile Watershed Restoration Plan identified the lack of storm
water management as the primary cause of water quality degradation in the watershed (TCRPC,
January 2004c). Additionally, specific concerns associated with storm water were identified by
the Watershed Restoration Plan. These concerns include: increased volumes of storm water flows
generated from human alterations; soil erosion and soil washed from the watershed to Peoria
Lake; and, a lack of stable stream channels contributing to downstream sedimentation, loss of
aquatic life and property damage (TCRPC, January 2004c). Tenmile Creek has been classified
for overall and aquatic life use; however, concerns to designated uses include agriculture,
hydromodification, municipal point sources, resource extraction and urban runoff/storm sewers
(TCRPC, January 2004c).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -55 - August 2, 2010
4.3.2 Big Bureau Creek
The Big Bureau Creek subwatershed unit covers approximately 320,000 acres in the northwest
region of the project area. The drainage can be further delineated into thirteen 12-digit HUCs;
Table 4-6 details area per 12-digit HUC associated with the Big Bureau Creek subwatershed unit.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Big Bureau Creek subwatershed unit include: Bureau,
LaSalle and Lee. Figure 4-5 delineates the subwatershed boundaries and land use. This particular
subwatershed unit is predominately agricultural and contains relatively little developed land
within its drainage area. Predominating land use includes cultivated crops (80 percent) and
deciduous forests (9 percent).
Table 4-6. Big Bureau Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
07130001 04 01 Lime Creek 17,180 26.8 02 West Bureau Creek 39,007 60.9
01 Pike Creek 20,649 32.3
02 Town of Sublette - Big Bureau Creek 41,006 64.1
03 Masters Fork 35,335 55.2
04 Town of Greenoak - Big Bureau Creek 10,195 15.9
07130001 05
05 Epperson Run - Big Bureau Creek 22,491 35.1
01 Town of Arlington - Brush Creek 24,522 38.3
07130001 06 02 Town of Malden - East Big Bureau Creek 25,799 40.3
03 Brush Creek - East Big Bureau Creek 21,162 33.1
01 Pond Creek - Big Bureau Creek 25,382 39.7
07130001 07 02 Rocky Run - Big Bureau Creek 17,487 27.3
03 Old Channel - Big Bureau Creek 21,074 32.9
Total 321,074 502
A total of 16 NPDES facilities are permitted within the Big Bureau Creek subwatershed unit, this
includes eleven sewage treatment plants. Locations of NPDES within the subwatershed unit are
identified in Figure 4-5 and listed in Table 4-7. Additionally, the impact of I-80 and I-39 and
potential contribution of roadway pollutants (i.e. metals, salts, sediment) will be evaluated within
the Linkage Analysis.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -56 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-5. Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -57 - August 2, 2010
Table 4-7. NPDES facilities within the Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster.
Watershed
Cluster
10-digit HUC
ID Permit ID NPDES Facility Name
07130001 04 IL0065056 Central Limestone Co - Morris ILG580190 Ohio STP
ILG580127 LAMOILLE STP
IL0073652 SUBLETTE WTP
IL0020575 PRINCETON STP
IL0065757 PRINCETON WTP
07130001 05
ILG551015 MAPLE ACRES MHP
07130001 06 IL0024791 MALDEN STP IL0063363 DOVER WTP
IL0049522 BEECHER STP
IL0067024 PRAIRIE VIEW NURSING HOME STP
ILG580245 WYANET STP
IL0025160 TISKILWA STP
IL0033120 BUREAU JUNCTION STP
IL0042625 LAKE ARISPIE WATER CO STP
Big Bureau
Creek
07130001 07
IL0049522 BEECHER STP
Due to the dominance of crop land, this watershed provides a typical example of water quality
that can occur in heavily agriculture areas. Specifically, some of the most significant channel
erosion in the state occurs in this watershed and research has shown annually, nearly 1.2 million
tons of soil becomes detach and 15 % of that load leaves the watershed and washes downstream
(TWI, 2009). Sediment load washing from the Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster has led to
infill and sedimentation Goose Pond. This adds to the sediment load to the Illinois River. To
mitigate such consequences, The Wetlands Initiative was awarded an EPA grant in 2008 to
analyze the market feasibility of grade control land and wetland restoration.
Containing the only active tributary flow gage within the project area, the Big Bureau Creek
subwatershed provides insight to the remainder of the tributary subwatersheds. As summarized in
Section 3.1, water quality data is also available for this watershed cluster. Evaluation of the
available water data indicates the potential of both point and nonpoint source pollution.
Indicating nonpoint source runoff (or point source pollution discharged from MS4 systems), the
load duration analysis of TSS (Figure 4-6) shows a direct relationship between TSS and flow; as
flow increases, so does TSS. This relationship indicates high flow, runoff events as the primary
cause of elevated TSS loading.
In contrast to high flow, elevated concentrations observed during low flow conditions typically
indicate point source pollution. This is due to the fact that high flows are associated with the
runoff events that deliver pollutants to the waterbody while lower flows occur during dry
weather. Data analyzed on Big Bureau Creek (Figure 4-7) shows increasing phosphorus
concentrations with decreasing flows. Additionally, the figure shows only a slight relationship
between phosphorus concentrations and runoff events; the majority of runoff events correspond
with near average concentrations of phosphorus. These results indicate point source pollution,
rather than nonpoint source or storm water runoff, as the primary source of phosphorus. This
suggestion is further warranted as Table 4-7 identifies eleven wastewater or sewage treatment
plants within the Big Bureau Creek watershed cluster. Such plants are potentially a significant
source of phosphorus to Big Bureau Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -58 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-6. Big Bureau Creek duration curve analysis of TSS.
Figure 4-7. Big Bureau Creek duration analysis of phosphorus.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -59 - August 2, 2010
Additional sampling has been completed on West Bureau Creek, a tributary of Big Bureau Creek.
In general, fecal coliform patterns show seasonality with concentrations related to wet weather;
the highest concentrations tend to occur during the months of greatest precipitation (Figure 4-8).
Nitrate patterns reveal consistently high concentrations during spring months (Figure 4-9). Such
trends may correspond to land use activities such as the application of fertilizers.
Figure 4-8. Seasonal analysis of fecal coliform levels within West Bureau Creek.
Figure 4-9. Seasonal analysis of nitrate levels within West Bureau Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -60 - August 2, 2010
4.3.3 Sandy Creek
Located in the northeast region of the project area, the Sandy Creek subwatershed unit has a total,
drainage of 143.7 square miles and can be further delineated into four 12-digit HUCs. Table 4-8
details area per 12-digit HUC associated with the Sandy Creek subwatershed unit.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Sandy Creek subwatershed unit include: LaSalle, Marshall,
and Putnam. This particular watershed cluster is largely agricultural and contains very little
developed land within its drainage area (Figure 4-10). Predominating land use includes
cultivated crops (81 percent of total subwatershed area) and deciduous forests (8 percent of total
subwatershed area). The largest area of development within the Sandy Creek subwatershed unit
is centered around Wenona.
Table 4-8. Sandy Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
01 Headwaters Sandy Creek 24,222 37.8
02 Little Sandy Creek 21,248 33.2
07130001 10 03 Judd Creek - Sandy Creek 22,010 34.4
04 Shaw Creek - Sandy Creek 24,543 38.3
Total 92,023 144
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -61 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-10. Sandy Creek watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -62 - August 2, 2010
Storm water runoff may be a significant source of pollutants to Sandy Creek. Under the NPDES
program, municipalities serving populations over 100,000 people are considered Phase I MS4
communities. There are no Phase I communities within the Sandy Creek subwatershed unit.
Cities with populations under 100,000 people are required to file a Notice of Intent and comply
with six storm water control measures in accordance to the State General Storm Water Permit
(ILR40). There are no jurisdictions operating under the State General Storm Water Permit within
the subwatershed unit.
In addition to storm water, a total of four NPDES facilities are permitted within the Sandy Creek
subwatershed unit, this includes a single sewage treatment plant. Locations of NPDES within the
subwatershed unit are identified in Figure 4-10 and listed in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. NPDES facilities within the Sandy Creek watershed cluster.
Watershed
Cluster
10-digit HUC
ID Permit ID NPDES Facility Name
IL0026573 PUTNAM COUNTY JUNIOR HS
IL0001392 NOVEON INC-HENRY
Sandy Creek 07130001 10 IL0002518 UNITED SUPPLIERS-HENRY
IL0070548 HENRY STP
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -63 - August 2, 2010
4.3.4 Crow Creek / Snag Creek
Located in east of Peoria County, the Crow Creek/Snag Creek subwatershed unit has a total,
drainage of 212 square miles and can be further delineated into seven 12-digit HUCs. Table 4-10
details area per 12-digit HUC associated with the Crow Creek/Snag Creek subwatershed unit.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Crow Creek/Snag Creek subwatershed unit include:
Marshall and Woodford. This particular subwatershed unit is largely agricultural and contains
very little developed land within its drainage area (Figure 4-11). Predominating land use
includes cultivated crops (77 percent of total subwatershed area), deciduous forests (10 percent of
total subwatershed area) and pasture/hay (five percent). With an estimated 2009 population of
1,249 and 1,111, the largest areas of development within the Crow Creek/Snag Creek
subwatershed unit are centered around Toluca and Washburn respectively.
Table 4-10. Crow Creek / Snag Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
01 South Branch Crow Creek 22,865 35.7
02 Hallenback Creek - South Branch Crow
Creek 20,019 31.3
03 North Branch Crow Creek 19,600 30.6
07130001 12
04 Bell Plain-Crow Creek 20,025 31.3
01 Snag Creek 18,806 29.4
07130001 15 02 Coon Creek-Richland Creek 20,142 31.5
03 Richland Creek 14,043 21.9
Total 135,500 212
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -64 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-11. Crow Creek / Snag Creek watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -65 - August 2, 2010
A total of four NPDES facilities are permitted in the Crow Creek/Snag Creek subwatershed unit,
this includes two sewage treatment plants. Locations of NPDES within the watershed cluster are
identified in Figure 4-11 and listed in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11. NPDES facilities within the Crow Creek / Snag Creek watershed cluster.
Watershed
Cluster
10-digit HUC
ID Permit ID NPDES Facility Name
07130001 12 IL0021695 TOLUCA STP IL0035807 LAROSE WTP
IL0039411 WASHBURN STP
Crow Creek /
Snag Creek 07130001 15 IL0053066 CAMP MANITOUMI-LOW POINT
4.3.5 Senachwine Creek
The Senachwine Creek subwatershed unit has a total, drainage of 90.9 square miles and can be
further delineated into three 12-digit HUCs. Table 4-12 details area per 12-digit HUC associated
with the Senachwine Creek subwatershed unit.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Senachwine Creek subwatershed unit include: Marshall,
Woodford and Peoria. This particular subwatershed unit is largely agricultural and contains
relatively little developed land within its drainage area (Figure 4-12). Predominating land use
includes cultivated crops (70 percent) and deciduous forests (19 percent). With an estimated
2009 population of 6,004, the largest area of development within the Senachwine Creek
subwatershed unit is centered around Chillicothe.
Table 4-12. Senachwine Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
01 Saratoga Church - Senachwine Creek 16,875 26.4
07130001 14 02 Little Senachwine Creek - Senachwine Creek 20,141 31.5
03 Gilfillan Creek - Senachwine Creek 21,120 33.0
Total 58,136 89.9
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -66 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-12. Senachwine Creek watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -67 - August 2, 2010
4.3.6 Farm Creek
Located east of Peoria, the Farm Creek subwatershed unit has a total, drainage of 62 square miles
and can be further delineated into two 12-digit HUCs. Table 4-13 details area per 12-digit HUC
associated with the Farm Creek subwatershed unit.
Figure 4-13. View of Farm Creek.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Farm Creek subwatershed unit include: Washington,
Tazewell, East Peoria, and Morton. Agriculture drainage has had, and continues to have, a
considerable effect upon the watershed hydrology. It should be noted that from 1987-1997, the
amount of cropland acres decreased by six percent while the amount of irrigated acreage
increased by 44 percent (TCRP, 2001). Currently, this particular subwatershed unit has a mix of
land use (Figure 4-14); predominating land use includes cultivated crops (38 percent), deciduous
forests (21 percent), developed land including low, medium and high intensity (22 percent), and
pasture/hay (five percent). The largest area of development is surrounds East Peoria.
Table 4-13. Farm Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
07130001 16 01 Ackerman Creek-Farm Creek 24,971 39.0 02 Coal Creek-Farm Creek 14,452 22.6
Total 39,423 62
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -68 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-14. Farm Creek watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -69 - August 2, 2010
Storm water runoff may be a significant source of pollutants to the Farm Creek subwatershed
unit. Cities with populations under 100,000 people are required to file a Notice of Intent and
comply with six storm water control measures in accordance to the State General Storm Water
Permit (ILR40). Jurisdictions operating under the State General Storm Water Permit within the
subwatershed unit include: Tazewell County, City of East Peoria, and Village of Morton.
In addition to storm water point sources, a total of ten NPDES facilities are permitted within the
Farm Creek subwatershed unit, this includes seven sewage treatment plants. Locations of
NPDES within the subwatershed unit are identified in Figure 4-14 and listed in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14. NPDES facilities within the Farm Creek watershed cluster.
Watershed
Cluster
10-digit HUC
ID Permit ID NPDES Facility Name
IL0022152 OAKLANE ACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
IL0024881 WASHINGTON STP #1
IL0030007 MORTON STP #3
IL0042412 WASHINGTON STP #2
IL0047384 SUNDALE HILLS STP
IL0047406 WASHINGTON ESTATES INC STP
IL0074632 V-MIX CONCRETE INC
IL0028576 EAST PEORIA STP #1
IL0047384 SUNDALE HILLS STP
Farm Creek 07130001 16
ILG551039 SUNDALE SEWER CORP-HIGHLAND
The 2001 Farm Creek Watershed Management Plan presented macroinvertebrate sampling
completed within the watershed. At the time of sampling, the majority of organisms collected (95
percent) were from the order Diptera (TCRP, 2001). Diptera is a generally tolerant fly larva and
their presence indicates poor water quality. Although overall diversity was low, it can be noted
that certain stream segments contained intolerant to moderately tolerant species. Additionally, a
higher degree of diversity was associated with the presence of less tolerant species (TCRP, 2001).
Results from an erosion study completed by the USDA and NRCS were also presented within the
2001 Farm Creek Watershed Management Plan. In total, the study found that an estimated
203,650 tons of sediment are eroded within the watershed annually; of this, it was found that
33,600 tons were washed from the Farm Creek watershed to the Illinois River (TCRP, 2001).
Analysis of the seasonal trends within the Farm Creek subwatershed unit reveals the potential for
both nonpoint and point source pollution. Concentrations of fecal coliform (Figure 4-15) peak
during the wet season and decrease during the dry months (October-March). Such trends indicate
runoff from nonpoint sources or MS4 systems as a potentially significant source of pollution. In
contrast, concentrations of phosphorus (Figure 4-16) are elevated during dry months (October-
March) when compared to the summer months. Elevated concentrations that occur during low
flow conditions indicate a likelihood of point source pollution. This implication is warranted as
seven of the ten NPDES permitted facilities are sewage treatment plants.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -70 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-15. Seasonal fecal coliform patterns in Farm Creek.
Figure 4-16. Phosphorus patterns in Farm Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -71 - August 2, 2010
Within the Farm Creek subwatershed unit, a watershed restoration plan has been developed for
Ackerman Creek, a smaller 12-digit subwatershed. This watershed plan is discussed below.
Ackerman Creek
The Ackerman Creek watershed covers approximately 7,408 acres southeast of Peoria (TCRPC,
2004a). Predominating land use includes deciduous forests and cultivated crops, deciduous
forests, and development including low, medium and high intensity. The 2004 Ackerman Creek
Watershed Restoration Plan identified development, specifically, development along the ridges
and bluffs, as a primary cause of erosion, gullying, sedimentation and reduced water quality
(TCRPC, 2004a). Erosion concerns were also identified in farm fields, construction sites and
bluffs. In total, it is estimated that the Ackerman Creek watershed contributes 16,000 tons of
sediment to Farm Creek (TCRPC, 2004a). Ultimately this sediment load may wash to the Illinois
and Mississippi Rivers. Ackerman Creek has been classified for overall, swimming, and aquatic
life use; however, concerns to designated uses across Illinois include agriculture,
hydromodification, municipal point sources, resource extraction and urban runoff/storm sewers
(IEPA, 2002 as in TCRPC, 2004a).
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -72 - August 2, 2010
4.3.7 Kickapoo Creek
Located in Peoria County, the Kickapoo Creek subwatershed unit has a total, drainage of 307
square miles and can be further delineated into nine 12-digit HUCs. Table 4-15 details area per
12-digit HUC associated with the Kickapoo Creek subwatershed unit.
Figure 4-17. View of Kickapoo Creek.
Counties with jurisdiction within the Kickapoo Creek subwatershed unit include: Peoria, Knox,
and Fulton. This particular subwatershed unit has a mix of land use (Figure 4-18); predominating
land use includes: cultivated crops (44 percent); deciduous forests (24 percent); developed land
including low; medium and high intensity (13 percent); pasture/hay (eight percent); and
developed open space (six percent). Development within the Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster
surrounds Peoria.
Table 4-15. Kickapoo Creek 12-digit HUC subwatersheds.
10-digit HUC 12-digit Area
HUC 12-Digit Watershed Name (acres) (sq. mi.)
01 Kickapoo Creek 32,035 50.1
07130003 01 02 Jubilee Creek 22,378 35.0
03 Hickory Run 21,884 34.2
01 Walnut Creek 16,418 25.7
02 West Fork Kickapoo Creek 20,137 31.5
03 Clark Branch 19,814 31.0
04 Nixon Run - Kickapoo Creek 25,273 39.5
05 Big Hollow Creek - Kickapoo Creek 20,786 32.5
07130003 02
06 Dry Run - Kickapoo Creek 17,511 27.4
Total 196,236 307
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -73 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-18. Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster land use.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -74 - August 2, 2010
Storm water runoff may be a significant source of pollutants to the Illinois River. Cities with
populations under 100,000 people are required to file a Notice of Intent and comply with six
storm water control measures in accordance to the State General Storm Water Permit.
Jurisdictions operating under the State General Storm Water Permit (ILR40) within the
subwatershed unit include: the City and County of Peoria and the City of East Peoria.
A total of 11 NPDES facilities are permitted within the Kickapoo Creek subwatershed unit, this
includes seven sewage treatment plants. NPDES facilities within the subwatershed unit are listed
in Table 4-16 and delineated in Figure 4-18.
Table 4-16. NPDES facilities within the Kickapoo Creek watershed cluster.
Watershed
Cluster
10-digit HUC
ID Permit ID NPDES Facility Name
IL0023809 WILDER WAITE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ILG580099 DUNLAP STP
07130003 01 IL0054674 HPA-JUBILEE COLLEGE HISTORIC
IL0066486 IL DNR-JUBILEE COLLEGE ST PK
ILG580050 BRIMFIELD SD STP
ILG582012 ELMWOOD STP
IL0029343 KEWANEE STP
ILG582022 HANNA CITY SD STP
IL0053813 NORWOOD SCHOOL DIST #63 STP
IL0002526 KEYSTONE STEEL AND WIRE
Kickapoo
Creek
07130003 02
IL0021288 PEORIA SD STP
Analysis of the seasonal trends within the Kickapoo Creek subwatershed unit reveals pollution
predominately associated with runoff events. For example, concentrations of fecal coliform
(Figure 4-19) peak during the wet season, and decrease slightly during dry months (October-
March). Additionally, concentrations of nitrate (Figure 4-20) tend to be elevated during early
spring. This corresponds to a time period when crop fields are typically bare and have limited
protection against runoff events. Increased variability in nitrate concentrations occurs during late
fall; presumably, this is related to the longer periods of dry weather (and lower concentrations)
with intermittent runoff events washing elevated concentrations into the Creek.
Although this evaluation indicates runoff as the dominating source of fecal coliform and nitrate,
additional point sources (specifically the seven STPs) cannot be ruled out as a potential source.
Further evaluation will include load duration analysis.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -75 - August 2, 2010
Figure 4-19. Seasonal analysis of fecal coliform within Kickapoo creek.
Figure 4-20. Seasonal analysis of nitrate within Kickapoo Creek.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -76 - August 2, 2010
5. Next Steps
Preparation of the Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment report is the first step in the
TMDL development process. Planned activities for completing the Illinois River (Peoria area)
watershed TMDL include:
• Linkage analysis
• TMDL document
• Implementation plan
The basic objective of linkage analysis is to understand the cause-and-effect relationships
governing water quality, such that management alternatives can be explored that will bring water
quality back into compliance with water quality standards. A number of studies have been
conducted and reports prepared that provide valuable water quality-related information for
Illinois River (Peoria area). The TMDL linkage analysis will take advantage of past and on-going
work. Opportunities presented by these efforts include identifying meaningful assessment points,
suggesting methods to address ungaged areas, continuing to build in the watershed cluster
analytical framework, and highlighting potential critical conditions. Linkages for chemical data
will be examined using the available monitoring data combined with the rainfall-runoff model
and a duration curve framework.
The primary objective of TMDL development is to identify targets needed to bring listed waters
into compliance with water quality standards and to allocate loads to sources. This involves
establishing loading capacities for each pollutant that meet applicable water quality standards,
evaluating options that reduce source loads to those loading capacities, identifying a “margin of
safety”, and developing allocations. The TMDL document will describe the magnitude of each
source, its geographic location, and the sensitivity of the receiving water to changes in source
loading in order to support the selection of feasible allocations. The TMDL document must also
describe the importance of seasonality and critical conditions.
The implementation plan is a critical part of efforts to achieve water quality standards. It will
describe the steps necessary to implement the controls identified during TMDL development.
Although most of the TMDL report is tailored to meet EPA regulatory requirements (i.e.,
inclusion of allocations, margin of safety, expression of daily loads), the implementation plan
provides guidance to stakeholders who are responsible for “on-the-ground” activities. As such,
implementation plans are usually written to clearly explain the problem, the changes that are
needed, and a process for moving forward.
Illinois River (Peoria Area) TMDL Watershed Characterization & Source Assessment
DRAFT -77 - August 2, 2010
6. References
Alabaster, J.S., and R. Lloyd. 1982. Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish. Second
Edition. Butterworth Scientific. 361 pp. London.
(IRBR) IL River Basin Restoration Comprehensive Plan w/ Integrated Environmental
Assessment (Ex. Summary)
Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability. Illinois State Water Survey. University of IL at
Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from:
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/data/climatedb/choose.asp?stn=116711
Robertson, D.M., D.A. Saad, and D.M. Heisey. 2006. Present and Reference Concentrations
and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes Region and Adjacent
Areas. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5066. 35 pp.
Madison, WI.
Sparks, R.E., P.B. Bayley, S.L. Kohler, L.L Osborne. 2006. Disturbance and recovery of large
floodplain rivers.