sugarcreekstage3

              Draft Report
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Sugar Creek Watershed TMDL
Stage Three Report
June 2011
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT i
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Contents
Section 1 Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1.1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Overview............................................. 1-1
1.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed .............................. 1-2
1.3 Report Overview.............................................................................................. 1-6
Section 2 Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Location .................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Topography...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Soils.................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Soil Characteristics....................................... 2-3
2.5 Population ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.6 Climate and Streamflow .................................................................................. 2-4
2.6.1 Climate ................................................................................................ 2-4
2.6.2 Streamflow .......................................................................................... 2-4
Section 3 Public Participation and Involvement
3.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Public Participation and Involvement....................... 3-1
Section 4 Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
4.1 Illinois Water Quality Standards...................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Designated Uses............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 General Use ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Illinois Water Quality Standards...................................................................... 4-1
4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources .............................................................................. 4-3
Section 5 Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5.1 Water Quality Data .......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Stream Water Quality Data ................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1.1 Fecal Coliform................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1.2 pH..................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1.3 Manganese ....................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen............................................................ 5-3
5.1.2 Lake Water Quality Data..................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Point Sources ................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3 Nonpoint Sources............................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.1 Crop Information................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.2 Animal Operations .............................................................................. 5-6
5.3.3 Septic Systems..................................................................................... 5-7
5.3.4 Historic Mining Operations................................................................. 5-8
ii DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Sugar\Report\Sec 9 Sugar Creek.doc
5.4 Watershed Studies and Other Watershed Information..................................... 5-8
Section 6 Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
6.1 Simple and Detailed Approaches for Developing TMDLs.............................. 6-1
6.2 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Stream Segments in Sugar Creek
Watershed ........................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.1 Recommended Approach for Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for
Stream Segments ................................................................................. 6-1
6.2.2 Recommended Approach for pH TMDL in Sugar Creek Segment
OH-01.................................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.3 Recommended Approach for Fecal Coliform TMDLs for Stream
Segments ............................................................................................. 6-3
Section 7 Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
7.1 Methodology Overview ................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 QUAL2K Overview............................................................................ 7-1
7.1.2 Load-Duration Curve Overview.......................................................... 7-1
7.2 Methodology Development ............................................................................. 7-2
7.2.1 pH........................................................................................................ 7-2
7.2.2 QUAL2K Model Development ........................................................... 7-2
7.2.2.1 QUAL2K Inputs............................................................... 7-3
7.2.2.2 Lake Branch and Bull Branch Model .............................. 7-3
7.2.2.2.1 Stream Segmentation - Lake Branch/Bull
Branch Model ............................................... 7-4
7.2.2.2.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Lake
Branch/Bull Branch Model........................... 7-4
7.2.2.2.3 Headwater Conditions - Lake
Branch/Bull Branch Model........................... 7-4
7.2.2.2.4 Diffuse Flow - Lake Branch/Bull Branch
Model............................................................ 7-4
7.2.2.2.5 Climate - Lake Branch/Bull Branch
Model............................................................ 7-5
7.2.2.2.6 Point Sources - Lake Branch/Bull Branch
Model............................................................ 7-5
7.2.2.2.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Lake Branch/Bull
Branch Model ............................................... 7-5
7.2.2.3 Trenton Creek Q2K Model .............................................. 7-5
7.2.2.3.1 Stream Segmentation - Trenton Creek
Model............................................................ 7-6
7.2.2.3.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Trenton
Creek Model ................................................. 7-6
7.2.2.3.3 Diffuse Flow - Trenton Creek Model ........... 7-6
7.2.2.3.4 Headwater Conditions - Trenton Creek
Model............................................................ 7-6
7.2.2.3.5 Climate - Trenton Creek Model.................... 7-7
DRAFT iii
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
7.2.2.3.6 Point Sources - Trenton Creek Model .......... 7-7
7.2.2.3.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Trenton Creek
Model............................................................ 7-7
7.2.2.4 Grassy Branch Q2K Model.............................................. 7-7
7.2.2.4.1 Stream Segmentation - Grassy Branch
Model............................................................ 7-7
7.2.2.4.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Grassy
Branch Model ............................................... 7-8
7.2.2.4.3 Headwater Conditions - Grassy Branch
Model............................................................ 7-8
7.2.2.4.4 Diffuse Flow - Grassy Branch Model........... 7-8
7.2.2.4.5 Climate - Grassy Branch Model ................... 7-8
7.2.2.4.6 Point Sources - Grassy Branch Model.......... 7-8
7.2.2.4.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Grassy Branch
Model............................................................ 7-9
7.2.2.5 Upper Sugar Creek Q2K Model ...................................... 7-9
7.2.2.5.1 Stream Segmentation - Upper Sugar
Creek Model ................................................. 7-9
7.2.2.5.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Upper Sugar
Creek Model ................................................. 7-9
7.2.2.5.3 Headwater Conditions - Upper Sugar
Creek Model ............................................... 7-10
7.2.2.5.4 Diffuse Flow - Upper Sugar Creek Model . 7-10
7.2.2.5.5 Climate - Upper Sugar Creek Model .......... 7-10
7.2.2.5.6 Point Sources - Upper Sugar Creek
Model.......................................................... 7-10
7.2.2.5.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Upper Sugar
Creek Model ............................................... 7-10
7.2.2.6 Lower Sugar Creek Q2K Model .................................... 7-11
7.2.2.6.1 Stream Segmentation - Lower Sugar
Creek Model ............................................... 7-11
7.2.2.6.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Lower Sugar
Creek Model ............................................... 7-11
7.2.2.6.3 Headwater Conditions - Lower Sugar
Creek Model ............................................... 7-11
7.2.2.6.4 Diffuse Flow - Lower Sugar Creek ............ 7-12
7.2.2.6.5 Climate - Lower Sugar Creek Model.......... 7-12
7.2.2.6.6 Point Sources - Lower Sugar Creek
Model.......................................................... 7-12
7.2.2.6.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Lower Sugar
Creek Model ............................................... 7-13
7.2.3 Load Duration Curve Development .................................................. 7-13
7.2.3.1 Watershed Delineation and Flow Estimation ................ 7-13
7.2.3.2 Manganese: Lake Branch OHA-03 and Bull Branch
OHAA-07....................................................................... 7-15
iv DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Sugar\Report\Sec 9 Sugar Creek.doc
7.2.3.3 Fecal Coliform: Sugar Creek OH-01 ............................. 7-15
Section 8 Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Sugar Creek Watershed
8.1 TMDL Endpoints for the Sugar Creek Watershed .......................................... 8-1
8.2 Pollutant Source and Linkages......................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Allocation......................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.1 Fecal Coliform TMDL ........................................................................ 8-3
8.3.1.1 Loading Capacity............................................................. 8-3
8.3.1.2 Seasonal Variation ........................................................... 8-3
8.3.1.3 Margin of Safety .............................................................. 8-4
8.3.1.4 Waste Load Allocation .................................................... 8-4
8.3.1.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary............................ 8-5
8.3.2 Manganese TMDLs............................................................................. 8-6
8.3.2.1 Loading Capacities........................................................... 8-6
8.3.2.2 Seasonal Variations.......................................................... 8-6
8.3.2.3 Margins of Safety............................................................. 8-6
8.3.2.4 Waste Load Allocations................................................... 8-7
8.3.2.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries........................ 8-7
8.3.3 Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs ................................................................. 8-8
8.3.3.1 Loading Capacity............................................................. 8-9
Section 9 Implementation Plan for the Sugar Creek Watershed
9.1 Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for Manganese in
Lake Branch and Bull Branch.......................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1 Nonpoint Sources of Manganese......................................................... 9-2
9.2.1.1 Filter Strips....................................................................... 9-2
9.2.1.2 Sediment Control Basins.................................................. 9-3
9.2.1.3 Streambank Stabilization/Erosion Control ...................... 9-4
9.3 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for Fecal Coliform in
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01........................................................................... 9-5
9.3.1 Point Sources of Fecal Coliform......................................................... 9-5
9.3.1.1 NPDES Permitted Municipal Point Sources.................... 9-5
9.3.1.2 Stormwater Sources ......................................................... 9-6
9.3.2 Nonpoint Sources of Fecal Coliform................................................... 9-7
9.3.2.1 Filter Strips....................................................................... 9-7
9.3.2.2 Private Septic System Inspection and Maintenance
Program............................................................................ 9-7
9.3.2.3 Restrict Livestock Access to Sugar Creek and
Tributaries ........................................................................ 9-8
9.4 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for DO in the Sugar
Creek Watershed.............................................................................................. 9-8
9.4.1 Point Sources of Oxygen-Demanding Materials................................. 9-9
9.4.1.1 Municipal/Industrial Sources ........................................... 9-9
DRAFT v
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
9.4.2 Nonpoint Sources of Oxygen-Demanding Materials .......................... 9-9
9.4.2.1 Conservation Tillage Practices ...................................... 9-12
9.4.2.2 Filter Strips..................................................................... 9-12
9.4.2.3 Riparian Buffers............................................................. 9-13
9.4.2.4 Nutrient Management .................................................... 9-14
9.4.2.5 Reaeration ...................................................................... 9-15
9.4.2.6 Streambank Stabilization ............................................... 9-15
9.5 Reasonable Assurance ................................................................................... 9-16
9.5.1 Available Programs for Nonpoint Source Management ................... 9-16
9.5.1.1 Illinois Department of Agriculture and Illinois EPA
Nutrient Management Plan Project................................ 9-16
9.5.1.2 Conservation Reserve Program...................................... 9-16
9.5.1.3 Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants ............................. 9-17
9.5.1.4 Wetlands Reserve Program............................................ 9-18
9.5.1.5 Environmental Quality Incentive Program.................... 9-19
9.5.1.6 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program............................. 9-20
9.5.1.7 Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative .................. 9-21
9.5.1.8 Local Program Information............................................ 9-22
9.5.2 Cost Estimates of BMPs.................................................................... 9-22
9.5.2.1 Filter Strips and Riparian Buffers .................................. 9-22
9.5.2.2 Nutrient Management Plan - NRCS .............................. 9-23
9.5.2.3 Nutrient Management Plan - IDA and Illinois EPA...... 9-23
9.5.2.4 Conservation Tillage...................................................... 9-23
9.5.2.5 Septic System Maintenance ........................................... 9-23
9.5.2.6 Planning Level Cost Estimates for Implementation
Measures ........................................................................ 9-24
9.6 Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................. 9-24
9.7 Implementation Time Line ............................................................................ 9-25
Section 10 References
Appendices
Appendix A Land Use Categories
Appendix B SSURGO Soil Series
Appendix C Historic Water Quality data
Appendix D Drainage Area Ration Calculations
Appendix E Manganese Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix F Fecal Coliform Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix G QUAL2K Model Files
vi DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Sugar\Report\Sec 9 Sugar Creek.doc
DRAFT vii
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Figures
1-1 Sugar Creek Watershed.................................................................................... 1-7
2-1 Sugar Creek Watershed Elevation ................................................................... 2-7
2-2 Sugar Creek Watershed Land Use ................................................................... 2-9
2-3 Sugar Creek Watershed Soils......................................................................... 2-11
2-4 Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow in Sugar Crekk .................................. 2-13
5-1 Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Stations.............................................. 5-9
5-2 Fecal Coliform Data Sugar Creek Segment OH-01....................................... 5-11
5-3 pH Values Sugar Creek Segment OH-01....................................................... 5-13
5-4 Total Manganese Concentrations Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 and
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07 ................................................................... 5-15
5-5 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Sugar Creek Segment OH-01................. 5-17
5-6 Continuous DO Data OHA-03 (September 2008) ......................................... 5-19
5-7 Continuous DO Data OHA-04 (July 2008) ................................................... 5-21
5-8 Continuous DO Data OHA-04 (September 2008) ......................................... 5-23
5-9 Historic DO Concentrations Lake Branch ..................................................... 5-25
5-10 Historic DO Concentrations Additional Segments ........................................ 5-27
5-11 Sugar Creek Watershed Point Sources .......................................................... 5-29
5-12 Sugar Creek Watershed Mining Operations .................................................. 5-31
7-1 TMDL Watersheds and Sampling Locations................................................. 7-17
7-2 Lake Branch and Bull Branch QUAL2K Segmentation................................ 7-19
7-3 Trenton Creek QUAL2K Segmentation ........................................................ 7-21
7-4 Grassy Branch QUAL2K Segmentation........................................................ 7-23
7-5 Upper Sugar Creek QUAL2K Segmentation................................................. 7-25
7-6 Lower Sugar Creek QUAL2K Segmentation ................................................ 7-27
7-7 Load Duration Curve Watersheds and Sampling Locations.......................... 7-29
7-8 Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 Manganese Load Duration Curve............... 7-31
7-9 Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07 Manganese Load Duration Curve............. 7-33
7-10 Sugar Creek OH-01 Fecal Coliform Load Duration Curve........................... 7-35
viii DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Sugar\Report\Sec 9 Sugar Creek.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT ix
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Tables
1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed ......................................... 1-3
2-1 Land Cover and Land Use in Sugar Creek Watershed .................................... 2-2
2-2 Average Monthly Climate Data in Greenville, IL ........................................... 2-4
2-3 Streamflow Gages in the Sugar Creek Watershed........................................... 2-4
4-1 Summary of Water Quality Standards for Potential Sugar Creek
Watershed Causes of Stream Impairments ...................................................... 4-2
4-2 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources in the Sugar Creek Watershed ........ 4-3
5-1 Existing Fecal Coliform Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired
Stream Segments.............................................................................................. 5-2
5-2 Existing pH Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments..... 5-2
5-3 Existing Manganese Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream
Segments.......................................................................................................... 5-3
5-4 Existing Dissolved Oxygen Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired
Stream Segments.............................................................................................. 5-4
5-5 Permitted Facilities Discharging to or Upstream of Impaired Segments in
the Sugar Creek Watershed.............................................................................. 5-4
5-6 Tillage Practices in Bond County ................................................................... 5-5
5-7 Tillage Practices in Clinton County................................................................ 5-5
5-8 Tillage Practices in Madison County.............................................................. 5-5
5-9 Tillage Practices in St Clair County................................................................ 5-5
5-10 Bond County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)..................... 5-6
5-11 Clinton County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture) ................. 5-6
5-12 Madison County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture) ............... 5-6
5-13 St Clair County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture) ................. 5-7
6-1 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Impaired Stream Segments ................................. 6-1
7-1 Methodologies Used to Develop TMDLs in the Sugar Creek Watershed....... 7-1
7-2 Q2K Data Inputs .............................................................................................. 7-3
7-3 Point Source Discharges within the Lake Branch Watershed ......................... 7-5
7-4 Point Source Discharges within the OH-HL-D1 Watershed ......................... 7-10
7-5 Point Source Discharges within the Sugar Creek Watershed ........................ 7-13
8-1 TMDL Endpoints and Average Observed Concentrations for Impaired
Constituents in the Sugar Creek Watershed .................................................... 8-1
8-2 Example Source Area/Hydrologic Condition Considerations ......................... 8-2
8-3 Fecal Coliform Loading Capacity for Sugar Creek Segment OH-01.............. 8-3
8-4 WLAs for Permitted Discharges in the Sugar Creek OH-01 Watershed......... 8-5
8-5 Fecal Coliform TMDL for Sugar Creek Segment OH-01 ............................... 8-5
8-6 Manganese Loading Capacity for Impaired Segments in the Sugar Creek
Watershed ........................................................................................................ 8-6
8-7 Total Manganese TMDL for Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 ........................ 8-7
8-8 Total Manganese TMDL for Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07....................... 8-8
8-9 Summary of Dissolved Oxygen TMDL Modeling ........................................ 8-10
x DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Sugar\Report\Sec 9 Sugar Creek.doc
9-1 Filter Strip Flow Lengths Based on Land Slope.............................................. 9-3
9-2 Total Area and Area of Agricultural Land Within 234-foot Buffer by
Segment ........................................................................................................... 9-3
9-3 Point Source Discharges and Fecal Coliform Model Input Parameters in
the Sugar Creek Watershed.............................................................................. 9-6
9-4 Point Source Discharges and Oxygen Demanding Materials in the Sugar
Creek Watershed............................................................................................ 9-10
9-5 Local NRCS and FSA Contact Information .................................................. 9-22
9-6 Cost Estimate of Various BMP Measures ..................................................... 9-24
DRAFT xi
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Acronyms
°F degrees Fahrenheit
ALMP Ambient Lake Monitoring Program
BMP best management practice
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CBOD5 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
cfs cubic feet per second
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CWA Clean Water Act
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DMR Discharge Monitoring Reports
DO dissolved oxygen
DP dissolved phosphorus
ft foot
GIS geographic information system
GWLF generalized watershed loading function
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
ICLP Illinois Clean Lakes Program
IDA Illinois Department of Agriculture
IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources
ILLCP Illinois Interagency Landscape Classification Project
Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board
ISWS Illinois State Water Survey
LA load allocation
LC loading capacity
MBI Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
mg/L milligrams per liter
MOS margin of safety
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
PO4 phosphate
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database
xii DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Sugar\Report\Sec 9 Sugar Creek.doc
STATSGO State Soil Geographic
STORET Storage and Retrieval
TMDL total maximum daily load
TP total phosphorus
TSS total suspended solids
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WLA waste load allocation
DRAFT 1-1
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek
Watershed
1.1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Overview
A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.
TMDLs are a requirement of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). To meet
this requirement, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) must
identify water bodies not meeting water quality standards and then establish TMDLs
for restoration of water quality. Illinois EPA develops a list known as the “303(d) list”
of water bodies not meeting water quality standards every two years, and it is included
in the Integrated Water Quality Report. Water bodies on the 303(d) list are then
targeted for TMDL development. The Illinois EPA’s most recent Integrated Water
Quality Report was issued in March 2008. In accordance with USEPA’s guidance, the
report assigns all waters of the state to one of five categories. Category 5 includes
water bodies in which data have indicated that a TMDL is needed. Therefore, all
waters that appear on the 303(d) list are included in Category 5 of the Integrated Water
Quality Report and vice versa.
In general, a TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water quality impairments,
contributing sources, and pollutant reductions needed to attain water quality standards.
The TMDL specifies the amount of pollutant or other stressor that needs to be reduced
to meet water quality standards, allocates pollutant control or management
responsibilities among sources in a watershed, and provides a scientific and policy
basis for taking actions needed to restore a water body.
Water quality standards are laws or regulations that states authorize to enhance water
quality and protect public health and welfare. Water quality standards provide the
foundation for accomplishing two of the principal goals of the CWA. These goals are:
 Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters
 Where attainable, to achieve water quality that promotes protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the water
Water quality standards consist of three elements:
 The designated beneficial use or uses of a water body or segment of a water body
 The water quality criteria necessary to protect the use or uses of that particular water
body
 An antidegradation policy
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-2 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
Examples of designated uses are primary contact (swimming), protection of aquatic
life, and public and food processing water supply. Water quality criteria describe the
quality of water that will support a designated use. Water quality criteria can be
expressed as numeric limits or as a narrative statement. Antidegradation policies are
adopted so that water quality improvements are conserved, maintained, and protected.
1.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
The Illinois EPA has a three-stage approach to TMDL development. The stages are:
 Stage 1 – Watershed Characterization, Data Analysis, Methodology Selection
 Stage 2 – Data Collection (optional)
 Stage 3 – Model Calibration, TMDL Scenarios, Implementation Plan
This report addresses Stages 1 and 3 of the TMDL development for the Sugar Creek
watershed. Stage 2 involves optional data collection and was performed, to a limited
extent, by Illinois EPA in 2008. Additional data collected during Stage 2 is
incorporated in the Stage 3 portion of this report (Sections 7-9).
Following this process, the TMDL goals and objectives for the Sugar Creek watershed
include development of TMDLs for all impaired water bodies within the watershed,
describing all of the necessary elements of the TMDL, developing an implementation
plan for each TMDL, and gaining public acceptance of the process. Following are the
impaired water body segments in the Sugar Creek watershed for which a TMDL has
been developed:
 Sugar Creek (OH-01)
 Lake Branch (OHA-02)
 Lake Branch (OHA-03)
 Lake Branch (OHA-04)
 Lake Branch (OHA-05)
 Lake Branch (OHA-06)
 Bull Branch (OHAA-07)
 Grassy Branch (OHC)
 Trenton Creek (OHF-TR-A1)
 Trenton Creek (OHF-TR-C1)
 Sugar Creek (OH-HL-D1)
These impaired water body segments are shown on Figure 1-1. There are 11 impaired
water body segments within the Sugar Creek watershed. Table 1-1 lists the water body
segment, water body size, and potential causes of impairment for the water body.
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
DRAFT 1-3
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment Potential Sources
OH-01 Sugar Creek 21.44
miles
Aquatic Life
Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
pH Unknown
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Animal Feeding Operations
OH-01
Sugar Creek
21.44
miles
Aquatic Life
Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
pH Unknown
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Animal Feeding Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
Total Suspended Solids Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Animal Feeding Operations
Primary
Contact
Recreation
Fecal Coliform Unknown
OHA-02 Lake Branch 3.98
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Livestock,
Animal Feeding Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Livestock,
Animal Feeding Operations
Total Suspended Solids Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production, Livestock
OHA-03 Lake Branch 2.01
miles
Aquatic Life Manganese Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Crop Production, Livestock,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges
Phosphorus (Total) Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Animal Feedings Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations, Crop Production
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-4 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment Potential Sources
OHA-04 Lake Branch 1.93
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Livestock
Phosphorus(Total) Animal Feeing Operations,
Livestock, Crop Production,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations, Livestock,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges
OHA-05 Lake Branch 1.24
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen
Animal Feeding Operations,
Livestock
Phosphorus (Total) Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations, Crop Production
Sedimentation/Siltation Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations, Crop Production
Total Suspended Solids Livestock, Crop Production,
Animal Feeding Operations
OHA-06 Lake Branch 3.36
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen
Animal Feeding Operation
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations
Total Suspended Solids Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
OHAA-07 Bull Branch 3.74
miles
Aquatic Life Barium Unknown
Manganese Unknown
Nitrogen (Total) Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
Sedimentation/Siltation Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
Total Suspended Solids Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations
OHC Grassy
Branch
Aquatic
Life
7.63 miles Nitrogen (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Animal Feeding Operations
Dissolved Oxygen Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Animal feeding Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations
OHF-TR-A1
Trenton
Creek
1.21
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
DRAFT 1-5
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment Potential Sources
OHF-TR-C1
Trenton
Creek
.91 miles Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Animal Feeding Operations,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
OH-HL-D1 Sugar Creek 10.41
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production
* Bold Causes of Impairment do have numeric water quality standard and TMDLs will be developed. Italicized Causes of
Impairment do not have numeric water quality standard.
Illinois EPA is currently only developing TMDLs for parameters that have numeric
water quality standards, and therefore the remaining sections of this report will focus
on the pH, dissolved oxygen, total fecal coliform, and manganese impairments in the
Sugar Creek watershed. For potential causes that do not have numeric water quality
standards as noted in Table 1-1, TMDLs will not be developed at this time. However,
in the implementation plans completed during Stage 3 of the TMDL, some of these
potential causes may be addressed by implementation of controls for the pollutants
with water quality standards.
The TMDL for the segments listed above will specify the following elements:
 Loading Capacity (LC) or the maximum amount of pollutant loading a water body
can receive without violating water quality standards
 Waste Load Allocation (WLA) or the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or
future point sources
 Load Allocation (LA) or the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or future
nonpoint sources and natural background
 Margin of Safety (MOS) or an accounting of uncertainty about the relationship
between pollutant loads and receiving water quality
These elements are combined into the following equation:
TMDL = LC = ΣWLA + ΣLA + MOS
The TMDL developed must also take into account the seasonal variability of pollutant
loads so that water quality standards are met during all seasons of the year. Also,
reasonable assurance that the TMDL will be achieved is described in the
implementation plan. The implementation plan for the Sugar Creek watershed
describes how water quality standards will be attained. This implementation plan
includes recommendations for implementing best management practices (BMPs), cost
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-6 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
estimates, institutional needs to implement BMPs and controls throughout the
watershed, and a timeframe for completion of implementation activities.
1.3 Report Overview
The remaining sections of this report contain:
 Section 2 Sugar Creek Watershed Characteristics provides a description of the
watershed's location, topography, geology, land use, soils, population, and
hydrology.
 Section 3 Public Participation and Involvement discusses public participation
activities that occurred throughout the TMDL development.
 Section 4 Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards defines the water
quality standards for the impaired water body.
 Section 5 Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization presents the available water
quality data needed to develop TMDLs, discusses the characteristics of the
impaired stream segments in the watershed, and also describes the point and non-point
sources with potential to contribute to the watershed load.
 Section 6 Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
makes recommendations for the models and analysis that are needed for TMDL
development and also suggests segments for Stage 2 data collection.
 Section 7 Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River
Watershed details the development of the TMDLs for each impaired stream
segment.
 Section 8 Total Maximum Daily Load for the Sugar Creek Watershed provides
the results of the TMDL analysis for each impaired stream segment.
 Section 9 Implementation Plan for the Sugar Creek Watershed makes
recommendations for implementation actions, point source controls, management
measures, and BMPs that can be used to address water quality issues in the
watershed.
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madison
Clinton
Figure 1-1
Sugar Creek Watershed
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
Municipalities
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
DRAFT
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-8 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 1 sugar_112410.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT 2-1
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Location
The Sugar Creek watershed (Figure 1-1) is located in southern Illinois, flows in a
southerly direction, and drains approximately 112,700 acres. Approximately
41,800 acres (37% of the total watershed) lie in southeastern Madison County, 66,000
acres (59% of the total watershed) lie in western Clinton County, 3,800 acres (3% of
the total watershed) lie in southwestern Bond County, and 1,100 acres (less than 1% of
the watershed) lie in northeastern St. Clair County.
2.2 Topography
Topography is an important factor in watershed management because stream types,
precipitation, and soil types can vary dramatically by elevation. National Elevation
Dataset (NED) coverages containing 30-meter grid resolution elevation data are
available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for each 1:24,000-topographic
quadrangle in the United States. Elevation data for the Sugar Creek watershed were
obtained by overlaying the NED grid onto the GIS-delineated watershed. Figure 2-1
shows the elevations found within the watershed.
Elevation in the Sugar Creek watershed ranges from 630 feet above sea level in the
northern portion of the watershed at the headwaters of Sugar Creek to 394 feet at its
most downstream point near Damiansville in the southern end of the watershed. The
absolute elevation change of Sugar Creek is 162 feet over the approximately 78-mile
stream length, which yields a stream gradient of approximately 2.1 feet per mile.
2.3 Land Use
Land use data for the Sugar Creek watershed were extracted from the Illinois Gap
Analysis Project (IL-GAP) Land Cover data layer. IL-GAP was started at the Illinois
Natural History Survey (INHS) in 1996, and the land cover layer was the first
component of the project. The IL-GAP Land Cover data layer is a product of the
Illinois Interagency Landscape Classification Project (IILCP), an initiative to produce
statewide land cover information on a recurring basis cooperatively managed by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS), the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDA), and the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The land cover data was generated using
30-meter grid resolution satellite imagery taken during 1999 and 2000. The IL-GAP
Land Cover data layer contains 23 land cover categories, including detailed
classification in the vegetated areas of Illinois. Appendix A contains a complete listing
of land cover categories. (Source: IDNR, INHS, IDA, USDA NASS's 1:100,000 Scale
Land Cover of Illinois 1999-2000, Raster Digital Data, Version 2.0, September 2003.)
The land use of the Sugar Creek watershed was determined by overlaying the IL-GAP
Land Cover data layer onto the GIS-delineated watershed. Table 2-1 contains the land
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-2 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
uses contributing to the Sugar Creek watershed, based on the IL-GAP land cover
categories and also includes the area of each land cover category and percentage of the
watershed area. Figure 2-2 illustrates the land uses of the watershed.
The land cover data reveal that approximately 95,037 acres, representing nearly
84 percent of the total watershed area, are devoted to agricultural activities. Corn and
soybean farming account for 31 percent and 25 percent of the watershed area,
respectively, winter wheat/soybeans account for 11 percent, and rural grassland
accounts for an additional 9 percent of the total area. Other land cover types each
represent 4 percent or less of the watershed area.
Table 2-1 Land Cover and Land Use in Sugar Creek Watershed
Land Cover Category
Area
(Acres) Percentage
Corn 34,976 31.0
Soybeans 28,123 25.0
Winter Wheat/Soybeans 12,236 10.9
Rural Grassland 10,458 9.3
Other Small Grains & Hay 4,848 4.3
Floodplain Forest 4,453 4.0
Upland Forest 3,869 3.4
Winter Wheat 3,757 3.3
Low/Medium Density 2,888 2.6
High Density 2,149 1.9
Partial Canopy/Savannah Upland 1,711 1.5
Urban Open Space 869 0.8
Other Agriculture 637 0.6
Surface Water 517 0.5
Seasonally/Temporarily Flooded 349 0.3
Deep Marsh 286 0.3
Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow 255 0.2
Barren & Exposed Land 202 0.2
Shallow Water 108 0.1
Total 112,691 100.0
2.4 Soils
Soils data are available through the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. For
SSURGO data, field mapping methods using national standards are used to construct
the soil maps. Mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360 making
SSURGO the most detailed level of soil mapping done by the NRCS.
Attributes of the spatial coverage can be linked to the SSURGO databases, which
provide information on various chemical and physical soil characteristics for each map
unit and soil series. Of particular interest for TMDL development are the hydrologic
soil groups as well as the K-factor of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. The following
sections describe and summarize the specified soil characteristics for the Sugar Creek
watershed.
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
DRAFT 2-3
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
2.4.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Soil Characteristics
Appendix B contains a table of the SSURGO soil series for the Sugar Creek watershed.
Various soil types exist in the watershed, but no single type covers more than 2 percent
of the watershed. The table also contains the area, dominant hydrologic soil group, and
k-factor range. Each of these characteristics is described in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
Figure 2-3 shows the hydrologic soils groups found within the Sugar Creek watershed.
Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups. They are grouped according to the infiltration of water
when the soils are thoroughly wet and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.
Hydrologic soil groups A, B, C, D, B/D, and C/D are found within the Sugar Creek
watershed. Groups B and C cover 27 and 38 percent of the watershed, respectively.
Group D and B/D cover 15 and 17 percent of the watershed, respectively. The other
groups cover small percentages of the watershed. Group B soils are defined as having
"moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly wet." These soils have a moderate
rate of water transmission. Group C soils are defined as having "moderately high
runoff potential when thoroughly wet." These soils have a low rate of water
transmission. Group D soils are defined as having "high runoff potential when
thoroughly wet." These soils have a very low or non-existent rate of water
transmission. Group B/D soils are "placed in group D based solely on the presence of a
water table within 24 inches of the surface," however these soils have a moderate rate
of water transmission (NRCS, 2007).
A commonly used soil attribute is the K-factor. The K-factor:
Indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water.
(The K-factor) is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet
and rill erosion. Losses are expressed in tons per acre per year. These
estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic
matter (up to 4 percent) and on soil structure and permeability. Values
of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. The higher the value, the more susceptible
the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water (NRCS 2005).
The distribution of K-factor values in the Sugar Creek watershed range from 0.15 to
0.43.
2.5 Population
The Census 2000 TIGER/Line data from the U.S. Census Bureau were retrieved.
Geographic shapefiles of census blocks were downloaded for Bond, Clinton, Madison
and St. Clair Counties. The census block shapefiles were clipped to each watershed so
that only block populations directly associated with the watershed would be counted.
City populations were taken from the U.S. Census Bureau. For municipalities located
along a watershed boarder, population was estimated based on the percentage of the
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-4 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
municipalities' area within the watershed boundary. Approximately 31,000 people
reside in the Sugar Creek watershed. The major municipalities in the watershed are
shown in Figure 1-1. The largest urban development in the watershed is the city of
Highland, which is located in the northwestern corner of the Sugar Creek watershed.
2.6 Climate and Streamflow
2.6.1 Climate
Southwestern Illinois has a temperate climate with hot summers and cold, snowy
winters. Monthly precipitation data from Greenville, Illinois (station id. 3693) in Bond
County were extracted from the NCDC database for the years of 1901 through 2006.
Temperature data were available from 1901 to 1959. The data station in Greenville,
Illinois was chosen to be representative of precipitation throughout the Sugar Creek
watershed.
Table 2-2 contains the average monthly precipitation along with average high and low
temperatures for the period of record. The average annual precipitation is
approximately 36.2 inches.
Table 2-2 Average Monthly Climate Data in Greenville, IL
Month
Total Precipitation
(inches)
Maximum Temperature
(degrees F)
Minimum Temperature
(degrees F)
January 1.6 40 22
February 1.5 42 24
March 2.6 54 33
April 3.8 66 44
May 3.8 75 53
June 4.3 83 62
July 4.3 88 66
August 3.8 83 62
September 3.3 77 55
October 2.7 66 44
November 2.4 54 34
December 2.1 42 25
Total 36.2 64 43
2.6.2 Streamflow
Analysis of the Sugar Creek watershed requires an understanding of flow throughout
the drainage area. One USGS gage within the watershed has historic data available
which is shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Streamflow Gages in the Sugar Creek Watershed
Gage
Number Name POR
05594090 Sugar Creek at Albers, Illinois 1972-1982
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
DRAFT 2-5
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
Because there are no gages within the watershed that have data available within the
past 20 years, flow data will be estimated and compared to historic values during Stage
3 using the drainage area ratio method, represented by the following equation.
where Qgaged = Streamflow of the gaged basin
Qungaged = Streamflow of the ungaged basin
Areagaged = Area of the gaged basin
Areaungaged = Area of the ungaged basin
The assumption behind the equation is that the flow per unit area is equivalent in
watersheds with similar characteristics. Therefore, the flow per unit area in the gaged
watershed multiplied by the area of the ungaged watershed estimates the flow for the
ungaged watershed.
USGS gage 05595200 (Richland Creek near Hecker, Illinois) was chosen as an
appropriate gage from which to estimate flows for all impaired stream segments in the
Sugar Creek watershed. The Richland Creek watershed is approximately 21 miles
southwest of the Sugar Creek watershed. The gage drains an area of 129 square miles,
which is the smallest and most similar watershed area of any of the USGS gages in the
region of the state to the impaired segment watershed areas. The contributing
watershed areas for stations OH-01, OHA-03, and OHAA-07 are 124.2 square miles,
14.9 square miles, and 2.9 square miles, respectively. GIS analysis shows that the
surrogate gage watershed has similar land use, soils, and topography as the Sugar
Creek watershed and also receives comparable precipitation throughout the year.
Figure 2-4 shows estimated flows in Sugar Creek. Flows are highest in the basin mid-spring
and lowest during mid-fall.
ungaged
gaged
ungaged
gaged Q
Area
Area
Q =  


 


Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-6 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madison
Clinton
Figure 2-1
Sugar Creek Watershed
Elevation
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Elevation (feet)
394 - 411
412 - 424
425 - 435
436 - 446
447 - 458
459 - 470
471 - 483
484 - 494
495 - 505
506 - 515
516 - 526
527 - 537
538 - 550
551 - 571
572 - 630
DRAFT
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-8 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madis on
Clinton
Figure 2-2
Sugar Creek Watershed
Land Use
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Land Cover
Corn
Soybeans
Winter Wheat
Other Small Grains & Hay
Winter Wheat/Soybeans
Other Agriculture
Rural Grassland
Upland
Partial Canopy/Savannah Upland
High Density
Low/Medium Density
Urban Open Space
Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow
Deep Marsh
Seasonally/Temporarily Flooded
Floodplain Forest
Shallow Water
Barren & Exposed Land
Surface Water
DRAFT
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-10 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madis on
Clinton
Figure 2-3
Sugar Creek Watershed
Soils
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Hydrologic Soil Group
A
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Gravel, Urban Land, Other
Water
DRAFT
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-12 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
A
T:\Stage1Data\USGS Gage Stations\Sugar_Gage_Data.xls
Figure 2-4:
Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow
in Sugar Creek
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month
Flow (cfs)
Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-14 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 2 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT 3-1
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 3 sugar_112910.doc
Section 3
Public Participation and Involvement
3.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Public Participation and
Involvement
Public knowledge, acceptance, and follow through are necessary to implement a plan
to meet recommended TMDLs. It is important to involve the public as early in the
process as possible to achieve maximum cooperation and counter concerns as to the
purpose of the process and the regulatory authority to implement any
recommendations.
Illinois EPA, along with CDM, has held one public meeting and will hold one more
public meeting within the watershed throughout the course of the TMDL development.
Following the completion of Stage 1 of the TMDL process, a public meeting was held
in Highland, Illinois on May 13, 2009. No public response comments were submitted
to Illinois EPA as a result of this meeting. A similar meeting will be held following
completion of the draft Stage 3 report. This section will be updated after the
Stage 3 public meetings occur.
Section 3
Public Participation and Involvement
3-2 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 3 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT 4-1
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 4 sugar_112910.doc
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality
Standards
4.1 Illinois Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards are developed and enforced by the state to protect the
"designated uses" of the state's waterways. In the state of Illinois, setting the water
quality standards is the responsibility of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB).
Illinois is required to update water quality standards every three years in accordance
with the CWA. The standards requiring modifications are identified and prioritized by
Illinois EPA, in conjunction with USEPA. New standards are then developed or
revised during the three-year period.
Illinois EPA is also responsible for developing scientifically based water quality
criteria and proposing them to the IPCB for adoption into state rules and regulations.
The Illinois water quality standards are established in the Illinois Administrative Rules
Title 35, Environmental Protection; Subtitle C, Water Pollution; Chapter I, Pollution
Control Board; Part 302, Water Quality Standards.
4.2 Designated Uses
The waters of Illinois are classified by designated uses, which include: General Use,
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies, Lake Michigan, and Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use (Illinois EPA 2008). The General Use designated use
is applicable to the Sugar Creek watershed.
4.2.1 General Use
The General Use classification is defined by IPCB as standards that "will protect the
state's water for aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural use, secondary contact use and most
industrial uses and ensure the aesthetic quality of the state's aquatic environment."
Primary contact uses are protected for all General Use waters whose physical
configuration permits such use.
4.3 Illinois Water Quality Standards
To make 303(d) listing determinations for aquatic life uses, Illinois EPA first collects
biological data and if this data suggests that an impairment to aquatic life exists, a
comparison of available water quality data with water quality standards will then
occur. Table 4-1 presents the water quality standards of the potential causes of
impairment the stream segments in the Sugar Creek watershed. Only constituents with
numeric water quality standards will have TMDLs developed at this time.
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
4-2 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 4 sugar_112910.doc
Table 4-1 Summary of Water Quality Standards for Potential Sugar Creek Watershed Causes of
Stream Impairments
Parameter Units General Use Water Quality Standard
Regulatory
Reference
Manganese (total) μg/L 1000 302.208(g)
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L March through July
≥5.0 minimum & ≥6.0 7-day daily
mean averaged over 7 days;
August through February
≥3.5 minimum, ≥4.0 7-day minimum
averaged over 7 days & ≥5.5 30-day
daily mean
302.206(b)
Total Fecal Coliform Count/100
mL
May through October
200(1), 400(2)
302.209
pH 6.5-9 302.204
μg/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
(1) Geometric mean based on a minimum of five samples taken over not more than a 30-day period.
(2) Standard shall not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected during any 30-
day period.
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
DRAFT 4-3
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 4 sugar_112910.doc
4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources
In order to properly address the conditions within the Sugar Creek watershed, potential
pollution sources must be investigated for the pollutants where TMDLs will be
developed. The following is a summary of the potential sources associated with the
listed potential causes for the 303(d) listed segments in this watershed. They are
summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources in the Sugar Creek Watershed
Segment ID Segment Name
Potential Causes of
Impairment
Potential Sources (as identified by
the 2006 303(d) list)
OH-01 Sugar Creek Dissolved Oxygen, pH,
Phosphorus(Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids,
Fecal Coliform
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Municipal
Point Source Discharges, Animal
Feeding Operations, Unknown, Crop
Production
OHA-02 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus(Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Livestock, Animal feeding Operations,
Crop Production
OHA-03 Lake Branch Manganese, Dissolved
Oxygen, Phosphorus
(Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation
Municipal Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Animal
Feeding Operations, Crop Production,
Livestock
OHA-04 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation
Animal Feeding Operations, Municipal
Point Source Discharges, Livestock,
Crop Production
OHA-05 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Animal Feeding Operations, Livestock,
Crop Production
OHA-06 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Total Suspended Solids
Animal Feedings Operations, Crop
Production
OHAA-07 Bull Branch Barium, Manganese,
Nitrogen (Total),
Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Unknown, Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
OHC Grassy Branch Nitrogen (Total),
Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation
Crop Production, Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding Operations
OHF-TR-A1 Trenton Creek Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations
OHF-TR-C1 Trenton Creek Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total)
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Municipal
Point Source Discharges
OH-HL-D1 Sugar Creek Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total)
Unknown, Crop Production
*Bold Potential Causes of Impairment have numeric water quality standard and TMDLs will be developed.
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
4-4 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 4 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5-1
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
Data were collected and reviewed from many sources in order to further characterize
the Sugar Creek watershed. Data have been collected in regards to water quality,
reservoirs, and both point and nonpoint sources. This information is presented and
discussed in further detail in the remainder of this section.
5.1 Water Quality Data
There are 17 historic water quality stations within the Sugar Creek watershed that were
used for this report. Figure 5-1 shows the water quality data stations within the
watershed that contain data relevant to the impaired segments.
The impaired water body segments in the Sugar Creek watershed were presented in
Section 1. Refer to Table 1-1 for impairment information specific to each segment. The
following sections address both stream and lake impairments. Data are summarized by
impairment and discussed in relation to the relevant Illinois numeric water quality
standard. Data analysis is focused on all available data collected since 1990. The
information presented in this section is a combination of USEPA Storage and Retrieval
(STORET) database and Illinois EPA database data. STORET data are available for
stations sampled prior to January 1, 1999 while Illinois EPA data are available for
stations sampled after that date. IEPA collected additional data for various causes of
impairment on some segments in 2008 and 2009 which has been incorporated into this
report. The following sections will first discuss Sugar Creek watershed stream data
followed by Sugar Creek watershed lake data.
5.1.1 Stream Water Quality Data
The Sugar Creek watershed has 11 impaired stream segments within its drainage area
that are addressed in this report. There is one active water quality station on each of the
following impaired stream segments: OH-01, OHA-04, OHA-05, OHA-06, OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1, OH-HL-D1. There are two water quality stations on segments OHA-
02 and OHAA-07. In addition, there are three water quality monitoring stations
associated with a Facility Related Stream Survey (FRSS) on Grassy Branch segment
OHC and two water quality monitoring stations associated with a FRSS on Sugar
Creek on each of the Lake Branch segments OHA-03 and OHA-04. All historic water
quality data are available in Appendix C.
5.1.1.1 Fecal Coliform
Sugar Creek segment OH-01 is listed as impaired by total fecal coliform. Table 5-1
summarizes available historic fecal coliform data on the segment. The general use
water quality standard for fecal coliform states that the standard of 200 per 100 mL is
not to be exceeded by the geometric mean of at least five samples, nor can 10 percent
of the samples collected exceed 400 per 100 mL in protected waters, except as
provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.209(b). Samples must be collected within a 30-day
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-2
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
period during the months of May through October). There are no instances since 1990
where at least five samples have been collected during a 30-day period. The summary
of data presented in Table 5-1 reflects single samples compared to the standards during
the appropriate months. Figure 5-2 shows the total fecal coliform samples collected
over time at Sugar Creek segment OH-01.
Table 5-1 Existing Fecal Coliform Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location and
Parameter
Period of Record
and Number of
Data Points
Geometric
mean of all
samples Maximum Minimum
Number
of
samples
> 200 (1)
Number
of
samples
> 400 (1)
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01; Sample Location OH-01
Total Fecal Coliform
(cfu/100 mL)
1990-2005; 61 789 77,000 10 56 43
(1) Samples collected during the months of May through October
5.1.1.2 pH
Sugar Creek segment OH-01 is listed for impairment caused by pH. A sample is
considered a violation if it falls below 6.5 or above 9.0 standard units at any time. A
total of 141 samples have been collected since 1990 from the impaired segment. As
shown in Table 5-3, three of the samples collected at OH-01during this time period
were in violation of the standard. Figure 5-3 shows the pH samples collected over time
at segment OH-01.
Table 5-2 Existing pH Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location and
Parameter
Illinois WQ
Standard
Period of
Record and
Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number
of
Violations
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01; Sample Location OH-01
pH 6.5-9.0 1990-2005;141 7.38 8.6 6.3 3
5.1.1.3 Manganese
Lake Branch segment OHA-03 and Bull Branch segment OHAA-07 are listed for
impairment caused by manganese. The applicable water quality standard is a
maximum total manganese concentration of 1,000 μg/L for general use and indigenous
aquatic life standards. Table 5-3 summarizes the available historic manganese data
since 1990 for the impaired stream segments. This table includes data collected by
IEPA in 2008. The table also shows the number of violations for each segment. Total
manganese samples collected over time for the impaired segments OHA-03 and
OHAA-07 are shown in Figure 5-4.
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-3
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
Table 5-3 Existing Manganese Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample
Location and
Parameter
Aquatic
Life WQ
Standard
(μg/L)
Period of
Record and
Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number of
Violations
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03; Sample Locations OHA-03, OHA-AV-A1, OHA-AV-C1, OHA-AV-
C3, and OHA-AV-D1
Manganese
(total)
1000 1991-2008;
11
399.03 1600 83 1
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07; Sample Location OHAA-07
Manganese
(total)
1000 1991-2008;
10
345.8 1006 83 1
5.1.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen
All of the impaired stream segments in the Sugar Creek watershed are listed as
impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). While there is a large number of available DO
data points for Sugar Creek segment OH-01 (147) and Lake Branch segments OHA-03
(341) and OHA-04 (677), only one data point was available for each of the segments
on Trenton Creek (OHF-TR-A1 and OHF-TR-C1) and at Sugar Creek segment OH-HL-
D1. Likewise, only 3 to 6 data points were available for each of the remaining
impaired segments in this watershed. The available data for each stream segment are
summarized in Table 5-4. A sample was considered a violation if it was below
5.0 mg/L during the months of March through July and 3.5 mg/L during the months of
August through February.
A majority of the DO data points now available for Lake Branch segments OHA-03
and OHA-04 were collected during week-long continuous DO monitoring events
conducted by IEPA in 2008. IEPA installed continuous DO monitors at these stations
to record in-stream DO concentrations at 30-minute intervals for periods of
approximately 7 days. A continuous DO monitors was installed at station OHA-03 for
1 week beginning September 8, 2008. Continuous DO monitors were also installed at
station OHA-04 for 1 week beginning July 22, 2008 and again for 1 week beginning
September 8, 2008. The data points associated with these continuous DO
measurements were utilized in model development and are included in Table 5-4.
Instantaneous DO values for all samples collected from Sugar Creek segment OH-01
are shown in Figure 5-5. The week-long, continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring data
collected at OHA-03 and OHA-04 are shown in Figures 5-6 through 5-8. Figure 5-9
shows the additional historical instantaneous DO values for the impaired Lake Branch
stream segments OHA-03 and OHA-04 as well as all instantaneous DO data for Lake
Branch segments OHA-02, OHA-05, and OHA-06. Figure 5-10 shows the
instantaneous DO values for the remaining impaired stream segments in the Sugar
Creek Watershed (OHAA-07, OHC, OHF-TR-A1, and OHF-TR-C1).
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-4
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
Table 5-4 Existing Dissolved Oxygen Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location
and Parameter
WQ
Standard
(mg/L)
Period of Record
and Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number of
Violations
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01; Sample Location OH-01
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1990-2005; 147 6.88 16 0.9 44
Lake Branch Segment OHA-02; Sample Locations OHA-01, OHA-02
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1991; 6 3.27 6.9 0.8 4
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03; Sample Locations OHA-03, OHA-AV-C3, and OHA-AV-D1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1991-2008; 341 3.71 7.3 0.6 303
Lake Branch Segment OHA-04; Sample Location OHA-04, OHA-AV-A1, OHA-AV-C1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1991, 2008; 677 2.66 7.2 0.03 500
Lake Branch Segment OHA-05; Sample Location OHA-05
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1991; 3 4.03 8.4 0.4 2
Lake Branch Segment OHA-06; Sample Location OHA-06
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1991; 3 5.3 8.5 0.7 1
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07; Sample Locations OHAA-07, OHAA-08
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1991; 6 3.08 7.5 0.2 4
Grassy Branch Segment OHC; Sample Locations OHC-AL-C2, OHC-AL-C3, OHC-AL-D1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1994; 3 3.77 4.5 2.6 3
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-A1; Sample Location OHF-TR-A1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1998; 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 1
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-C1; Sample Location OHF-TR-C1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 1998; 1 3.7 3.7 3.7 1
Sugar Creek Segment OH-HL-D1; Sample Location OH-HL-D1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1), 3.5(2) 2002; 1 3.1 3.1 3.1 1
(1) Instantaneous Minimum March –July
(2) Instantaneous Minimum August - February
5.1.2 Lake Water Quality Data
There are no impaired lakes within the Sugar Creek watershed.
5.2 Point Sources
There are 14 active point sources
located within the Sugar Creek
watershed that discharge to or
upstream of impaired segments.
Table 5-5 contains permit information
for these point sources while
Figure 5-11 shows the locations of
outfalls for each facility. Permit limits
and discharge monitoring reports were
analyzed and further detailed during
Stage 3 TMDL development.
Underground mining operations exist
in the Sugar Creek watershed. There
are no NPDES-permitted discharges from any of the mining operations in the
watershed. However, mining operations may have potential to contribute to
impairments through overland runoff.
Table 5-5 Permitted Facilities Discharging to or
Upstream of Impaired Segments in the Sugar
Creek Watershed
Facility ID Facility Name
ILG551011 Wesclin High School Dist 3
ILG551027 IL DOT 1-70 Rest Area
ILG580002 Saint Rose SD STP
ILG580017 Albers STP
ILG580137 Pierron West STP
ILG640060 Aviston WTP
ILG640083 Saint Rose Public Water District
IL0020001 Aviston STP
IL0026701 Trenton STP
IL0029173 Highland STP
IL0032603 New Baden STP
IL0048691 Monterey Coal – Monterey Mine #2
IL0063762 Damiansville STP
IL0075388 Castle Ridge Estates Subdivision
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-5
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
5.3 Nonpoint Sources
There are many potential nonpoint sources of pollutant loading to the impaired
segments in the Sugar Creek watershed. This section will discuss site-specific cropping
practices, animal operations, and area septic systems. Data were collected through
communication with the local NRCS, Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD),
public health departments, and county tax department officials.
5.3.1 Crop Information
The majority of the land found within the Sugar Creek watershed is devoted to crops.
Corn and soybean farming account for approximately 31 percent and 25 percent of the
watershed respectively. Tillage practices can be categorized as conventional till,
reduced till, mulch-till, and no-till. The percentage of each tillage practice for corn,
soybeans, and small grains by county are generated by the Illinois Department of
Agriculture from County Transect Surveys. The most recent survey was conducted in
2006. Data specific to the Sugar Creek watershed were not available; however, Bond,
Clinton, Madison and St Clair County practices were available and are shown in the
following tables.
Table 5-6 Tillage Practices in Bond County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 99% 55% 45%
Reduced - Till 0% 5% 0%
Mulch - Till 0% 0% 0%
No - Till 1% 40% 55%
Table 5-7 Tillage Practices in Clinton County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 67% 29% 15%
Reduced - Till 5% 5% 0%
Mulch - Till 19% 26% 62%
No - Till 9% 40% 23%
Table 5-8 Tillage Practices in Madison County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 66% 12% 0%
Reduced - Till 21% 41% 5%
Mulch - Till 3% 15% 77%
No - Till 10% 32% 18%
Table 5-9 Tillage Practices in St Clair County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 97% 29% 89%
Reduced - Till 1% 23% 7%
Mulch - Till 1% 7% 2%
No - Till 1% 41% 2%
Estimates on tile drainage were provided by the Madison, Clinton, and Bond County
NRCS offices. It is estimated that in Madison County, within the Sugar Creek
watershed, approximately 50% of the farms are drained by field tiles. Madison County
NRCS officials state that the amount of tiling on these farms is minimal and the
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-6
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
majority of fields are not extensively tiled. In Clinton County, NRCS officials
provided that approximately 5 to 10% of farms are drained by field tiles. Bond County
NRCS officials state that soils within the Bond County portion of Sugar Creek
watershed are gently sloping. Due to this slope, farms drain adequately without the use
of field tiles. As a result, there is only minimal tiling within this portion of the
watershed. Information on tile drainage was not available from St. Clair County, which
represents a very small portion of the watershed. More detailed site-specific data will
be incorporated if it becomes available.
5.3.2 Animal Operations
Animal populations are available from the National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Data specific to Sugar Creek watershed were not available; however, the Bond,
Clinton, Madison, and St Clair County animal populations were reviewed and are
presented in the following tables.
Table 5-10 Bond County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 10,413 11,378 9%
Beef 2,885 2,930 2%
Dairy 2,534 3,284 30%
Hogs and Pigs 18,334 10,810 -41%
Poultry 668 597 -11%
Sheep and Lambs 409 521 27%
Horses and Ponies NA 294 NA
Table 5-11 Clinton County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 37,735 36,849 -2%
Beef 5,095 2,242 -56%
Dairy 14,830 15,080 2%
Hogs and Pigs 93,190 177,880 91%
Poultry 552,992 514,945 -7%
Sheep and Lambs 473 430 -9%
Horses and Ponies NA 402 NA
Table 5-12 Madison County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 17,690 15,809 -11%
Beef 5,890 5,931 1%
Dairy 1,683 1,774 5%
Hogs and Pigs 46,331 29,844 -36%
Poultry 1,517 NA NA
Sheep and Lambs 1,047 1,013 -3%
Horses and Ponies NA 1,226 NA
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-7
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
Table 5-13 St Clair County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 8,362 6,985 -16%
Beef 1,888 1,656 -12%
Dairy 1,096 1,039 -5%
Hogs and Pigs 39,433 30,188 -23%
Poultry 1,426 790 -45%
Sheep and Lambs 449 374 -17%
Horses and Ponies NA 879 NA
Communications with local NRCS officials have provided more watershed-specific
animal information. Madison County NRCS officials stated that due to major
urbanization within the county during the past ten years, the number of animal
operations has declined considerably. They estimate that a few small operations exist
within the watershed, but no issues have been reported with any of the operations,
leading officials to believe that they are not contributing to water body use impairment.
Clinton County NRCS officials estimate that 100 animal operations exist within the
Clinton County portion of the Sugar Creek watershed. Bond County NRCS officials
provided that there are 8 animal feeding operations within their county in the
watershed. Of these 8, a few are thought to be dairy concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) and the remaining operations are grazing animal operations. None
of the NRCS offices had detailed information regarding the number of animals on each
farm. Information on animal operations was not available from other county offices in
the watershed.
5.3.3 Septic Systems
Many households in rural areas of Illinois that are not connected to municipal sewers
make use of onsite sewage disposal systems, or septic systems. There are many types
of septic systems, but the most common septic system is composed of a septic tank
draining to a septic field, where nutrient removal occurs. However, the degree of
nutrient removal is limited by soils and system upkeep and maintenance.
Across the U.S., failing or leaking septic systems have been found to contribute to
fecal coliform pollution, although animal waste, urban runoff and permitted point
sources can also contribute to the impairment. Information on septic systems within the
Sugar Creek watershed was obtained specifically for the areas surrounding and
upstream of Sugar Creek segment OH-01, where the water body use is impaired for
fecal coliform. Information on sewered and septic municipalities was obtained from
the Clinton County Health Department. Health department officials provided that the
cities of Damiansville, Albers, Trenton, Breese, Germantown, and Aviston are all
served by city sewers within the city limits. Each of these towns is located near the
impaired segment or near tributaries leading to the impaired segment. Health officials
also provided that land beyond the city limits of these towns is generally used for
agricultural purposes; however, the towns of Aviston and Trenton are expanding
quickly and several subdivisions have been developed beyond the city limits. Health
department officials provided that these subdivisions would be served by private septic
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-8
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
systems, as would any other homes located outside of city limits. According to health
department officials, there have been no complaints received regarding failing septic
systems in this area. The Clinton County Tax Assessor was able to provide estimates
on the number of homes in the areas of concern. According to the office of the
assessor, there are approximately 1,500 homes located outside city limits in the Clinton
County portion of Sugar Creek watershed. The condition of the septic systems serving
these homes is unknown.
5.3.4 Historic Mining Operations
Overland runoff from current and former mining operations can contribute to pollutant
loads in the waterways. Runoff from surface mines and from mine spoils and waste
can contain elevated concentrations of metals and runoff waters may have low pH
levels which can further facilitate the suspension of dissolved metals into the water
column.
Data from the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) indicate that there are a number
of underground mines in the Sugar Creek watershed, as shown in Figure 5-12. The
underground mining operations that exist in the watershed are targeting the Herrin coal
seams. None of the underground mining operations in the watershed have NPDES
permitted outfalls and potential impacts are limited to non-point sources. Additional
information on the mining operations within the Sugar Creek River Watershed and
throughout Illinois can be found at the ISGS Coal Section website at:
http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/maps-data-pub/coal-maps/coalshapefiles.shtml.
5.4 Watershed Studies and Other Watershed Information
The extent of previous planning efforts within the Sugar Creek watershed is not
known. No additional information became available through public meetings within
the watershed community.
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03 Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
§¨¦70
tu50
Trenton
Aviston
§¨¦64
¬«161
tu40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
¬«160
Madison
Clinton
OHA-05
OHF-TR-A1
OHC-AL-D1
OHC-AL-C2
OHA-04
OHAA-07
OHA-02
OHA-AV-C3
1-4
OH-01
OH-02
OHA-06
OHA-01
OHA-07
OHAA-08
OH-HL-D1
OHF-TR-C1
OHC-AL-C3
Figure 5-1
Sugar Creek Watershed
Water Quality Stations
−
Legend
") Water Quality Stations
Municipalities
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
DRAFT
ID Water Quality Station
1 OHA-03
2 OHA-AV-A1
3 OHA-AV-C1
4 OHA-AV-D1
0 2 4 8 Miles
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-10
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1000
10000
100000
/100ml)
OH-01
Standard (200 cfu/100ml))
Standard (400 cfu/100ml)
DRAFT
Figure 5-2:
Fecal Coliform Data
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
1
10
100
6/5/1990
12/5/1990
6/5/1991
12/5/1991
6/5/1992
12/5/1992
6/5/1993
12/5/1993
6/5/1994
12/5/1994
6/5/1995
12/5/1995
6/5/1996
12/5/1996
6/5/1997
12/5/1997
6/5/1998
12/5/1998
6/5/1999
12/5/1999
6/5/2000
12/5/2000
6/5/2001
12/5/2001
6/5/2002
12/5/2002
6/5/2003
12/5/2003
6/5/2004
12/5/2004
6/5/2005
Count (CFU/
Collection Date
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-12
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
d Units)
OH-01
Standard Minimum Value (6.5)
Standard Maximum Value (9.0)
DRAFT
Figure 5-3:
pH Vales
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
1/9/1990
7/9/1990
1/9/1991
7/9/1991
1/9/1992
7/9/1992
1/9/1993
7/9/1993
1/9/1994
7/9/1994
1/9/1995
7/9/1995
1/9/1996
7/9/1996
1/9/1997
7/9/1997
1/9/1998
7/9/1998
1/9/1999
7/9/1999
1/9/2000
7/9/2000
1/9/2001
7/9/2001
1/9/2002
7/9/2002
1/9/2003
7/9/2003
1/9/2004
7/9/2004
1/9/2005
7/9/2005
pH (Standard
Collection Date
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-14
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Total Manganese (μg/L)
Sample Date
OHA-03
OHAA-07
WQ Standard (1,000 μg/L)
Figure 5-4
Manganese Concentrations
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 and
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-16
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10
12
14
16
18
n (mg/L)
OH-01
WQ Standard
DRAFT
Figure 5-5:
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
0
2
4
6
8
1/9/1990
7/9/1990
1/9/1991
7/9/1991
1/9/1992
7/9/1992
1/9/1993
7/9/1993
1/9/1994
7/9/1994
1/9/1995
7/9/1995
1/9/1996
7/9/1996
1/9/1997
7/9/1997
1/9/1998
7/9/1998
1/9/1999
7/9/1999
1/9/2000
7/9/2000
1/9/2001
7/9/2001
1/9/2002
7/9/2002
1/9/2003
7/9/2003
1/9/2004
7/9/2004
1/9/2005
7/9/2005
Concentratio
Collection Date
WQ Standard
5.0 mg/L or 3.5 mg/L
Insantaneous Minimum
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-18
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
09/08/08 09/09/08 09/10/08 09/11/08 09/12/08 09/13/08 09/14/08 09/15/08 09/16/08
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L)
Date/Time
OHA-03 Value
WQ Standard
(August - February)
Figure 5-6
Continuous Dissolved Oxygen Data
OHA-03 (September 2008)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-20
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
07/22/08 07/23/08 07/24/08 07/25/08 07/26/08 07/27/08 07/28/08 07/29/08 07/30/08
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L)
Date/Time
OHA-04 Value
WQ Standard
(March - July)
Figure 5-7
Continuous Dissolved Oxygen Data
OHA-04 (July 2008)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-22
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
09/08/08 09/09/08 09/10/08 09/11/08 09/12/08 09/13/08 09/14/08 09/15/08 09/16/08
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L)
Date/Time
OHA-04 Value
WQ Standard
(August - February)
Figure 5-8
Continuous Dissolved Oxygen Data
OHA-04 (September 2008)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-24
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L)
Sample Date
OHA-02 OHA-03 OHA-04 OHA-05 OHA-06
Figure 5-9
Historic Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Lake Branch
5.0 mg/L Instantaneous Minimum
Standard (March- July)
3.5 mg/L Instantaneous Minimum
Standard (August- February)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-26
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
04/15/91 09/18/91 10/28/91 04/15/91 09/18/91 10/28/91 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/94 07/28/98 07/28/98 09/26/02
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L)
Date Collected
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-C1
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Figure 5-10
Historic Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Additional Impaired Segments
5.0 mg/L Instantaneous Minimum
Standard (March- July)
3.5 mg/L Instantaneous Minimum
Standard (August- February)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-28
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madison
Clinton
Pierron
West
STP
Trenton
STP Aviston
WTP
Wesclin High School
District 3
Aviston
STP
St. Rose
Public Water
District
Damiansville
STP
Albers
STP
Monterey
Coal -
Monterey
Mine #2
IL DOT-I-70
Rest Area
Castle Ridge
Estates Subdivision
Home Nursery
Apartment
Complex
Figure 5-11
Sugar Creek Watershed
Point Sources
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
Point Sources
Municipalities
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
DRAFT
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-30
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
Sugar Creek
Pocahontas
Grantfork
Br
Pie
Highland
OH-HL-D1
Damiansville
Albers
Germantown
Trenton
Aviston
Brees
Sugar Cr
Grassy Branch
SugarCr
Bull Branch
Lake Branch
LakeBranch
Trent on Creek
Figure 5-12
Sugar Creek Watershed
Mining Operations
0 1 2 4 Miles
-
Legend
# NPDES Dischage Locations
303d Listed Segments
Streams
Municipality
Sugar Creek Watershed
Mining Operations
Surface - Inactive
Surface - Active
Underground - Inactive
Underground - Active
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-32
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 5 sugar_112910.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT 6-1
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 6 sugar_113010.doc
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and
Identification of Data Needs
Illinois EPA is currently developing TMDLs for pollutants that have numeric water
quality standards. Of the pollutants causing impairment to stream segments in the
Sugar Creek watershed; manganese, pH, DO, and total fecal coliform are all of the
parameters with numeric water quality standards. Refer to Table 1-1 for a full list of
potential causes of impairment. Illinois EPA believes that addressing the parameters
with numeric standards should lead to an overall improvement in water quality due to
the interrelated nature of the other listed pollutants. Recommended technical
approaches for developing TMDLs for streams and lakes are presented in this section.
Additional data needs are also discussed.
6.1 Simple and Detailed Approaches for Developing TMDLs
The range of analyses used for developing TMDLs varies from simple to complex.
Examples of a simple approach include mass-balance, load-duration, and simple
watershed and receiving water models. Detailed approaches incorporate the use of
complex watershed and receiving water models. Simple approaches typically require
less data than detailed approaches and therefore these are the analyses recommended
for the Sugar Creek watershed except for stream segments where there are major point
sources whose NDPES permit may be affected by the TMDL's WLA. Establishing a
link between pollutant loads and resulting water quality is one of the most important
steps in developing a TMDL. As discussed above, this link can be established through
a variety of techniques. The objective of the remainder of this section is to recommend
approaches for establishing these links for the constituents of concern in the Sugar
Creek watershed.
6.2 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Stream Segments
in Sugar Creek Watershed
6.2.1 Recommended
Approach for DO
TMDLs for Stream
Segments
Table 6-1 contains
information on the
stream segments within
the Sugar Creek
watershed that are
303(d) listed for
impairment caused by
low DO.
Table 6-1 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Impaired Stream Segments
Segment Data
Count
Period Of
Record
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01 147 1990-2005
Lake Branch Segment OHA-02 8 1991
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 341 1991-2008
Lake Branch Segment OHA-04 677 1991-2008
Lake Branch Segment OHA-05 3 1991
Lake Branch Segment OHA-06 3 1991
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07 6 1991
Grassy Branch Segment OHC 3 1994
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-A1 1 1998
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-C1 1 1998
Sugar Creek Segment OH-HL-D1 1 2002
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
6-2 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 6 sugar_113010.doc
The data for these segments do suggest impairment of the DO standard. However,
spatial data are limited and therefore, additional data collection was recommended to
support model development. Specific data requirements include a synoptic (snapshot in
time) water quality survey of each reach with careful attention to the location of the
point source dischargers. The survey data requirements included measurements of
flow, hydraulics, DO, temperature, nutrients, and CBOD. Illinois EPA collected some
additional data on stream segments OHA-03 and OHA-04 in the Sugar Creek
watershed in 2008. The collected data was used to support the model development and
parameterization and contributed confidence to the TMDL conclusions for those
stream segments with additional data sets..
This newly collected data was used to support the development and parameterization
of the QUAL2K model. QUAL2K is an updated spreadsheet-based version of the well-known
and USEPA-supported QUAL2E model. The model simulates DO dynamics as
a function of nitrogenous and carbonaceous oxygen demand, atmospheric reaeration,
SOD, and phytoplankton photosynthesis and respiration. The model also simulates the
fate and transport of nutrients and BOD and the presence and abundance of
phytoplankton (as chlorophyll-a). Stream hydrodynamics and temperature are
important controlling parameters in the model. The model is suited to steady-state
simulations and is believed to be sufficient for developing DO TMDLs for these
streams.
6.2.2 Recommended Approach for pH TMDL in Sugar Creek
Segment OH-01
Segment OH-01 of Sugar Creek is listed for pH impairments. Segment OH-01 had
only three violations of the pH standard out of 141 samples. Potential approaches to
developing the pH TMDL for this segment include a spreadsheet approach that would
take into account natural conditions in the watershed such as soil buffering capacity. A
more detailed procedure to develop the pH TMDL would be based on an analytical
procedure developed by the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
(2001). The procedure calculates a maximum allowable hydrogen ion loading in the
water column to maintain pH standards. It is assumed that adequate data is available to
develop a pH TMDL and further data collection is not needed. Due to the limited
nature of the pH dataset, the limited number of reported violations for pH, and the fact
that pH is a measure of acidity and/or alkalinity in the stream and not associated with a
pollutant load but rather the amount of H+ ion in the solution a TMDL was not
calculated for pH. However, it is anticipated that pH issues will be addressed by
implementing load reduction strategies for the TMDL pollutants associated with the
segment, as outlined in Section 9 of this document.
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
DRAFT 6-3
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 6 sugar_113010.doc
6.2.3 Recommended Approach for Fecal Coliform and Manganese
TMDLs
Segment OH-01 of Sugar Creek is listed as impaired by total fecal coliform. Lake
Branch segment OHA-03 and Bull Branch segment OHAA-07 are listed for
impairment caused by manganese. The recommended approach for developing
TMDLs for these segments and parameters was the load-duration curve method. The
load-duration methodology uses the cumulative frequency distribution of streamflow
and pollutant concentration data to estimate the allowable loads for a waterbody. In
July and September of 2008, IEPA collected additional samples for manganese at
stations OHA-03 and OHAA-07. This data was incorporated into the load duration
models for manganese at these segments. No additional fecal coliform data was
collected by IEPA at segment OH-01.
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
6-4 DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\DRAFT_FINAL_FOR_USEPA\SUGAR\TEXT\Sec 6 sugar_113010.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT 7-1
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
Schematic 1
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar
Creek Watershed
7.1 Methodology Overview
Table 7-1 contains information on the methodologies selected and used to develop
TMDLs for impaired segments within the Sugar Creek watershed.
Table 7-1 Methodologies Used to Develop TMDLs in the Sugar Creek Watershed
Segment Name/ID Causes of Impairment Methodology
Sugar Creek - OH-01 Fecal Coliform Load Duration Curve
Sugar Creek - OH-01 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Sugar Creek - OH-HL-D1 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Lake Branch - OHA-02 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Lake Branch - OHA-03 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Lake Branch - OHA-03 Manganese Load Duration Curve
Lake Branch - OHA-04 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Lake Branch - OHA-05 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Lake Branch - OHA-06 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Bull Branch - OHAA-07 Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Bull Branch - OHAA-07 Manganese Load Duration Curve
Grassy Branch - OHC Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Trenton Creek - (OHC-TR-A1) Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
Trenton Creek - (OHC-TR-C1) Dissolved Oxygen Qual2K
7.1.1 QUAL2K Overview
The QUAL2K model was used to develop
the dissolved oxygen (DO) TMDL for
each of the impaired segments in the
Sugar Creek watershed (OH-01, OH-HL-D1,
OHA-02, OHA-03, OHA-04, OHA-
05, OHA-06, OHAA-07, OHC, OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1). QUAL2K is a stream
water quality model that is one-dimensional
and applicable to well-mixed
streams. The model assumes steady state
hydraulics and allows for point source
inputs, diffuse loading and tributary flows. Historic water quality data, observed
hydraulic information, and point source discharge data were coupled with model
defaults to predict the resulting instream DO concentrations (see Schematic 1).
7.1.2 Load-Duration Curve Overview
Loading capacity analyses were performed for each of the stream segments in this
watershed impaired by manganese or fecal coliform bacteria (OHA-03, OHAA-07, and
OH-01). A load-duration curve is a graphical representation of the maximum load of a
pollutant that a stream segment can assimilate over a range of flow scenarios while still
meeting the instream water quality standard. The load-duration curve approach utilizes
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
7-2 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
Schematic 2
historic flow data and observed water quality data to
provide useful information regarding the magnitude
and frequency of exceedences as well as the flow
scenarios when exceedences occur most often (see
Schematic 2). In the Sugar Creek watershed, load
duration curves were constructed for manganese and
fecal coliform.
7.2 Methodology Development
The following sections further discuss and describe
the methodologies utilized to examine pH, fecal
coliform, manganese, and dissolved oxygen levels
in the impaired waterbodies in the Sugar Creek
watershed.
7.2.1 pH
Sugar Creek segment OH-01 is listed for impairment caused by pH. pH is a measure of
acidity and/or alkalinity in the stream and not associated with a pollutant load but
rather the amount of H+ ion in the solution. Changes in pH can impact the
concentrations of certain metal ions found in the water by altering the solubility of
those metals in water. Acidic waters (pH<7.0) are associated with increased capacity to
contain dissolved metals and therefore, pH levels and metal concentrations in waters
are often closely interrelated. It is anticipated that pH issues will be addressed by
implementing load reduction strategies for the TMDL pollutants associated with the
segment, as outlined in Section 9 of this document. In addition, the evidence for
impairment by pH at Sugar Creek segment OH-01 is minimal with only 1 violation
(pH =6.3) reported on January 8, 1997. More recent data has not shown any violations
of the pH standard on this segment. Therefore, a specific TMDL calculation for pH on
Sugar Creek segment OH-01 will not be developed at this time.
7.2.2 QUAL2K Model Development
QUAL2K (Q2K) is a river and stream water quality model that is intended to represent
a modernized version of the QUAL2E (Q2E) model (Brown and Barnwell 1987). The
original Q2E model is well-known and USEPA-supported. The modernized version
has been updated to use Microsoft Excel as the user interface and has expanded the
options for stream segmentation as well as a number of other model inputs. Q2K
simulates DO dynamics as a function of nitrogenous and carbonaceous oxygen
demand, atmospheric reaeration, sediment oxygen demand (SOD), and plant
photosynthesis and respiration. The model also simulates the fate and transport of
nutrients and biological oxygen demand (BOD) and the growth and abundance of
floating (phytoplankton) and attached (periphyton) algae (as chlorophyll-a). Stream
hydrodynamics and temperature are important controlling parameters in the model.
Headwater, point source, and non-point source loadings and flows are explicitly input
by the user. The model simulates steady-state diurnal cycles. Model parameter default
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
DRAFT 7-3
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
values are provided in the model based on past studies and are recommended in the
absence of site-specific information.
Several separate Q2K models were developed for the DO impaired segments in the
Sugar Creek watershed. Lake Branch segments OHA-02, OHA-03, OHA-04, OHA-05,
OHA-06 and Bull Branch segment OHAA-07 are contiguous segments with synoptic
datasets and where therefore combined into a single QUAL2K model. Likewise,
Trenton Creek segments OHF-TR-A1 and OHF-TR-C1 are contiguous segments with
synoptic datasets and were both included in the same QUAL2K model setup. The
remaining segments (OHC, OH-01, OH-HL-D1) did not include contiguous stream
segments and therefore, each segment required an individual Q2K model. A total of
five separate Q2K models were developed for the impaired segments in the Sugar
Creek watershed.
Because Q2K models simulate steady-state diurnal cycles the TMDL endpoints used
for TMDL analysis at each segment were the 7-day average daily minimum water
quality standards of 6.0 mg/L (March-July) and 4.0 mg/L (August-February). The use
of these standards as a TMDL endpoint, as opposed to the 5.0 mg/L (March-July) and
3.5 mg/L (August-February) instantaneous minimum standards also serves as a
conservative measure adding to the implicit margin of safety (MOS) included in the
final TMDL calculations for each impaired segment (see further discussion in
Section 8).
7.2.2.1 QUAL2K Inputs
Table 7-2 contains the categories of data required for the Q2K models along with the
sources of data used to analyze each of the impaired stream segments in the Sugar
Creek watershed.
Table 7-2 Q2K Data Inputs
Input Category Data Source
Stream Segmentation GIS data
Hydraulic characteristics Aerial photographs; GIS; Illinois EPA field data
Headwater conditions Historic water quality data collected by Illinois EPA
Meteorological conditions National Climatic Data Center
Point Source contributions Illinois EPA, EPA ICIS
Empirical data amassed during Stage 1 of TMDL development were used to build the
Q2K models. In addition to the Stage 1 data, aerial photographs, GIS data and stream
cross-section and flow measurements from additional Illinois EPA field data collected
in 2008 were used for the Q2K models, where available.
7.2.2.2 Lake Branch and Bull Branch Model
Bull Branch (OHAA-07) is a tributary to Lake Branch (OHA-02, OHA-03, OHA-04,
OHA-05 and OHA-06) and the impaired segments of each stream are contiguous. The
Lake and Bull Branch segments also shared a synoptic dataset, wherein all segments
where sampled on the same day (September 18, 1991) during a time of year where low
flow and low DO conditions are likely to occur. Therefore, a single Q2K model was
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
7-4 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
developed to encompass all of the impaired segments of Lake Branch and included
Bull Branch as a primary tributary in the system.
7.2.2.2.1 Stream Segmentation - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
The Q2K model represents a river as a series of reaches. Each reach shares constant
channel geometry and hydraulic characteristics. Lake Branch was divided into six
reaches and Bull Branch was added as a tributary consisting of two reaches. The
modeled Lake Branch segment extended from Illinois EPA sampling station OHA-06
(approximately 16 km upstream of confluence) to the confluence of Lake Branch with
Sugar Creek. The modeled segment of Bull Branch extended from sampling station
OHAA-08 (approximately 6 km upstream of Lake Branch) to the confluence of Bull
Branch and Lake Branch. Figure 7-2 shows the stream segmentation used for the Lake
Branch/Bull Branch Q2K model.
7.2.2.2.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
The majority of stream hydraulics were specified in the model based on an Illinois
EPA field survey conducted during Stage 2 sampling conducted in September 2008
under low-flow conditions. Three wetted cross-sections were surveyed by measuring
depths, velocities, and widths at multiple points across a transect. The three cross
section measurements were conducted at Illinois EPA stations OHA-03, OHA-04, and
OHAA-07 (Figure 7-2). Appendix E contains the cross section measurement data
supplied by Illinois EPA.
7.2.2.2.3 Headwater Conditions - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
The model was set up with two headwaters; Lake Branch station OHA-06 and Bull
Branch station OHAA-08. The headwater flow and concentrations are user-specified in
the model and represent the system's upstream boundary condition. Measured
concentration data at stations OHA-06 and OHAA-08 on September 18, 1991 were
used for the modeled headwater segment. These historic water quality data were used
because they were collected during the only large-scale synoptic sampling event on
Lake Branch and Bull Branch in the past 20 years and provide an accurate
representation of the headwater conditions for each stream at the time of sampling.
The stream flow at the headwaters was estimated for the synoptic sampling data using
the area ratio method described in Section 2.6 of this report. Headwater stream flows
during the synoptic sampling date were estimated to be 0.409 cubic feet per second
(cfs) at OHA-06 and 0.204 cfs at station OHAA-08. These flow rates are representative
of the low flow conditions present at the time of synoptic sampling and were entered
into the Q2K model.
7.2.2.2.4 Diffuse Flow - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
Diffuse flow gains were assumed in the system based on surrogate flow gage
calculations. The following USGS flow gage was used for these calculations: USGS
05595200 RICHLAND CREEK NEAR HECKER, IL. This gage is regional with
watershed landuse and land cover characteristics similar to that of the Sugar Creek
watershed. As with the headwater flow calculations, area-weighting calculations were
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
DRAFT 7-5
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
used to estimate flow gains, exclusive of point sources, through the system. These
flows were included in the model as diffuse inputs to the system.
7.2.2.2.5 Climate - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
Q2K requires inputs for climate. Temperature and wind speed data for the synoptic
sampling date were obtained from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC). Data
from the nearest available weather station (Scott Air Force Base near Belleville,
Illinois) were used for the model.
7.2.2.2.6 Point Sources - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
A total of 4 NPDES permitted point sources discharge within the Lake Branch
watershed. Q2K allows user input of point source locations, flow and water quality
data. Permit records were reviewed and permitted discharge data were used for model
input. Table 7-3 contains information for each facility while the locations of each
facility are shown in Figure 7-2. Flow information was available for each discharger;
however, permit limit concentration data are available only for parameters that are
sampled per permit requirements.
Table 7-3 Point Source Discharges within the Lake Branch Watershed
Facility Name Permit Number
Permitted Facility
Flows
Segment
Number
Saint Rose SD STP ILG580002 0.039 mgd 1
St. Rose Public Water District ILG640083 No Discharge 5
Aviston WTP ILG640060 No Discharge 6
Aviston STP IL0020001 0.167 mgd 6
7.2.2.2.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Lake Branch/Bull Branch Model
Sufficient water quality data were available to perform a rudimentary calibration of
model kinetic and transport rates. A synoptic data set, spatially distributed data
obtained on the same day, were available for a low flow period (September, 1991).This
data set was used to calibrate key model kinetic parameters and reach hydraulics. All
model kinetic parameters were maintained within the model-recommended ranges
during this process (Appendix G). Due to a lack of representative reach hydraulic
(cross-section) data for the sampling period, hydraulic parameters (mean velocities and
depths) were also treated as calibration parameters. These parameters were varied from
the initial values described above in order to achieve the reaeration rates implied by the
data and ultimately replicate measured dissolved oxygen profiles. Finally, diffuse flow
input concentrations of nutrients and CBOD, as implied by the synoptic data set, were
set as part of the calibration process. Final measured versus modeled calibration
profiles and simulated reaeration rates are provided in Appendix G.
7.2.2.3 Trenton Creek Q2K Model
Trenton Creek has two contiguous segments that are impaired by DO; OHF-TR-A1
and OHF-TR-C1. These segments were sampled by Illinois EPA during a Facility
Related Stream Study (FRSS) of the Trenton Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and
therefore, shared a synoptic dataset. Both segments where sampled on the same day
(July 29, 1998) during a time of year where low flow and low DO conditions are likely
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
7-6 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
to occur. Therefore, a single Q2K model was developed to encompass both of the
impaired segments of Trenton Creek.
7.2.2.3.1 Stream Segmentation - Trenton Creek Model
The Q2K model represents a river as a series of reaches. Each reach shares constant
channel geometry and hydraulic characteristics. In this model, Trenton Creek was
divided into 4 reaches. The modeled Trenton Creek segment extended from the upper
most point in segment OHF-TR-A1 (approximately 6 km upstream of confluence with
Sugar Creek) the lower extent of segment OHF-TR-C3 (approximately 0.5 km
upstream of confluence with Sugar Creek). Figure 7-3 shows the stream segmentation
used for the Trenton Creek Q2K model.
7.2.2.3.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Trenton Creek Model
No hydraulic data were available for the modeled portion of Trenton Creek. Manning’s
Equation was used to set initial hydraulic parameters for this segment based on
estimated channel width from aerial photographs, channel slope from the National
Elevation Dataset (NED), and an estimated Manning’s roughness coefficient.
7.2.2.3.3 Diffuse Flow - Trenton Creek Model
Diffuse flow gains were assumed in the system based on surrogate flow gage
calculations. The following USGS flow gage was used for these calculations: USGS
05595200 RICHLAND CREEK NEAR HECKER, IL. This gage is regional with
watershed landuse and land cover characteristics similar to that of the Sugar Creek
watershed. As with the headwater flow calculations, area-weighting calculations were
used to estimate flow gains, exclusive of point sources, through the system. These
flows were included in the model as diffuse inputs to the system.
7.2.2.3.4 Headwater Conditions - Trenton Creek Model
The model was set up with a single headwater at the upper most extent of the impaired
segment OHF-TR-A1. The headwater flow and concentrations are user-specified in the
model and represent the system's upstream boundary condition. Measured
concentration data were not specifically available for the modeled headwater segment.
However, historical water quality data collected at sampling site OHA-06 (the
headwater station for Lake Branch, approximately 7.5 miles away) were available and
were used as a surrogate headwater concentration data set. Only water quality data
collected in the months of July, August, September, and October were used for this
model. Due to the relative proximity of the surrogate headwater location, along with
the similar land use and flow regime characteristics in both headwaters, it was assumed
that data collected at the sampling location were representative of conditions at the
headwaters.
The stream flow at the headwaters was estimated for the synoptic sampling date using
the area ratio method described in Section 2.6 of this report. Headwater stream flow
during the synoptic sampling date was estimated to be 0.06 cfs. This flow rate is
deemed representative of the low flow conditions present at the time of synoptic
sampling were entered into the Q2K model.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
DRAFT 7-7
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
7.2.2.3.5 Climate - Trenton Creek Model
Q2K requires inputs for climate. Temperature and wind speed data for the synoptic
sampling date were obtained from the NCDC. Data from the nearest available weather
station (Scott Air Force Base near Belleville, Illinois) were used for the model.
7.2.2.3.6 Point Sources - Trenton Creek Model
Trenton STP (permit number IL0026701) is the only NPDES permitted point source
discharges within the Trenton Creek watershed. Permit records were reviewed and
permitted discharge data were used for model input. The location of the Trenton STP
facility is shown in Figure 7-3. The facility has a permitted flow of 0.5 mgd, which
enters Trenton Creek at reach 3 of the Q2K model. Permit limit concentration data
were available only for parameters that are sampled per permit requirements.
7.2.2.3.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Trenton Creek Model
Sufficient water quality data were available to perform a rudimentary calibration of
model kinetic and transport rates. A synoptic data set, spatially distributed data
obtained on the same day, were available for a low flow period (July, 1998).This data
set was used to calibrate key model kinetic parameters and reach hydraulics. All model
kinetic parameters were maintained within model recommended ranges during this
process (Appendix G). Due to a lack of representative reach hydraulic (cross-section)
data for the sampling period, hydraulic parameters (mean velocities and depths) were
also treated as calibration parameters. These parameters were varied from the initial
values described above in order to achieve the reaeration rates implied by the data and
ultimately replicate measured dissolved oxygen profiles. Finally, diffuse flow input
concentrations of nutrients and CBOD, as implied by the synoptic data set, were set as
part of the calibration process. Final measured vs. modeled calibration profiles, and
simulated reaeration rates, are provided in Appendix G.
7.2.2.4 Grassy Branch Q2K Model
Grassy Branch consists of a single segment (OHC) which is impaired for dissolved
oxygen. This segment was sampled by Illinois EPA during a Facility Related Stream
Study (FRSS) of the Albers STP and a synoptic dataset consisting of five sampling
locations on the OHC segment was available. All 5 stations were sampled on the same
day (July 28, 1994) during a time of year where low flow and low DO conditions are
likely to occur. This FRSS data was used to setup and calibrate the Q2K model for
Grassy Branch.
7.2.2.4.1 Stream Segmentation - Grassy Branch Model
The Q2K model represents a river as a series of reaches. Each reach shares constant
channel geometry and hydraulic characteristics. In this model, Grassy Branch was
divided into four reaches, as shown in Figure 7-4. The modeled portion of Grassy
Branch extends from upstream end of the impaired OHC segment (approximately
12.5 km upstream of confluence) to the confluence of Grassy Branch with Sugar
Creek.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
7-8 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
7.2.2.4.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Grassy Branch Model
No hydraulic data were available for Grassy Branch. Manning’s Equation was used to
set initial hydraulic parameters for this segment based on estimated channel width
from aerial photographs, channel slope from the National Elevation Dataset, and an
estimated Manning’s roughness coefficient.
7.2.2.4.3 Headwater Conditions - Grassy Branch Model
The model was set up with a single headwater at the upper most extent of the impaired
segment OHC. The headwater flow and concentrations are user-specified in the model
and represent the system's upstream boundary condition. Measured concentration data
were not specifically available for the modeled headwater segment. However, historic
water quality data collected at sampling site OHC-AL-A1 (Grassy Branch upstream of
Albers STP) were available and were used as a surrogate headwater concentration data
set. Only water quality data collected in the months of July, August, September, and
October were used for this model.
The stream flow at the headwaters was estimated for the synoptic sampling date using
the area ratio method described in Section 2.6 of this report. Headwater stream flow
during the synoptic sampling date was estimated to be 0.14 cfs. This flow rate is
representative of the low flow conditions present at the time of synoptic sampling were
entered into the Q2K model.
7.2.2.4.4 Diffuse Flow - Grassy Branch Model
Diffuse flow gains were assumed in the system based on surrogate flow gage
calculations. The following USGS flow gage was used for these calculations: USGS
05595200 RICHLAND CREEK NEAR HECKER, IL. This gage is regional with
watershed land-use and land cover characteristics similar to that of the Sugar Creek
watershed. As with the headwater flow calculations, area-weighting calculations were
used to estimate flow gains, exclusive of point sources, through the system. These flow
were included in the model as diffuse inputs to the system.
7.2.2.4.5 Climate- Grassy Branch Model
Q2K requires inputs for climate. Temperature and wind speed data for the synoptic
sampling date were obtained from the NCDC. Data from the nearest available weather
station (Scott Air Force Base near Belleville, Illinois) were used for the model.
7.2.2.4.6 Point Sources - Grassy Branch Model
Albers STP (permit number ILG580017) and Monterey Coal Company Mine #2
(permit number IL0048691) are the only NPDES permitted point sources within the
Trenton Creek watershed. Permit records were reviewed and permitted discharge data
were used for model input. Albers STP has an average discharge of 0.0907 mgd and
Monterey Coal Company is a stormwater discharge permit with a 0 mgd average
discharge. Figure 7-4 shows the locations of the NPDES discharges. Permit limit
concentration data were available only for parameters that are sampled per permit
requirements.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
DRAFT 7-9
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
7.2.2.4.7 QUAL2K Calibration - Grassy Branch Model
Sufficient water quality data were available to perform a rudimentary calibration of
model kinetic and transport rates. A synoptic data set, spatially distributed data
obtained on the same day, were available for a low flow period (July, 1994).This data
set was used to calibrate key model kinetic parameters and reach hydraulics. All model
kinetic parameters were maintained within model recommended ranges during this
process (Appendix G). Calibrated kinetic parameters are in close agreement with those
calibrated for other reaches in this watershed (described above). Due to a lack of
representative reach hydraulic (cross-section) data for the sampling period, hydraulic
parameters (mean velocities and depths) were also treated as calibration parameters.
These parameters were varied from the initial values described above in order to
achieve the reaeration rates implied by the data and ultimately replicate measured
dissolved oxygen profiles. Finally, diffuse flow input concentrations of nutrients and
CBOD, as implied by the synoptic data set, were set as part of the calibration process.
Final measured vs. modeled calibration profiles, and simulated reaeration rates, are
provided in Appendix G.
7.2.2.5 Upper Sugar Creek Q2K Model
The main stem of Sugar Creek has two impaired segments (OH-HL-D1 and OH-01)
that are impaired for dissolved oxygen; however, these segments are not contiguous
and did not have a synoptic dataset. Therefore, two separate Q2K models were
developed for the main stem of Sugar Creek termed “Upper Sugar Creek” and “Lower
Sugar Creek” for the purposes of this report. Upper Sugar Creek segment OH-HL-D1has
a very limited data set that consists of a single sample collected as part of a
Facility Related Stream Study (FRSS) of the Highland STP. The station was sampled
on September 26, 2002; a time of year where low flow and low DO conditions are
likely to occur.
7.2.2.5.1 Stream Segmentation - Upper Sugar Creek Model
The Q2K model represents a river as a series of reaches. Each reach shares constant
channel geometry and hydraulic characteristics. In this model, segment OH-HL-D1
was divided into 3 reaches. The modeled segment of Upper Sugar Creek extends from
the downstream extent of segment OH-HL-D1 at the confluence with Sewer Creek to
the upstream extent of segment OH-HL-D1, approximately 16.8 km upstream of the
confluence with Sewer Creek. Figure 7-5 shows the stream segmentation used for the
OH-HL-D1 model.
7.2.2.5.2 Hydraulic Characteristics - Upper Sugar Creek Model
The majority of stream hydraulics were initially specified in the model based on an
Illinois EPA field survey conducted in September 2002 under low-flow conditions.
One wetted cross-section was surveyed by measuring depths, velocities, and widths at
multiple points across the transect. The cross section measurements were conducted at
Illinois EPA stations OH-HL-D1 (Figure 7-5). Appendix E contains the cross section
measurement data supplied by Illinois EPA.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Sugar Creek Watershed
7-10 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\Illinois EPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Sugar Creek River.doc
7.2.2.5.3 Headwater Conditions - Upper Sugar Creek Model
The model was set up with a single headwater at the upper most extent of the impaired
segment OH-HL-D1. The headwater flow and concentrations are user-specified in the
model and represent the system's upstream boundary condition. Measured
concentration data were not specifically available for the modeled headwater segment.
However, historical water quality data collected at sampling site OHA-06 (the
headwater station for Lake Branch, approximately 12 miles away) were available and
were used as a surrogate headwater concentration data set. Only water quality data
collected in the months of July, August, September, and October were used for this
model. Due to the relative proximity of the surrogate headwater location, along with
the similar land use and flow regime characteristics in both headwaters, it was assumed
that data collected at the sampling location were representative of conditions at the
headwaters.
The stream flow at the headwaters was estimated for the sampling date using the area
ratio method described in Section 2.6 of this report. Headwater stream flow during the
synoptic sampling date was estimated to be 0.0004 cfs based on the measured flow rate
of 0.301 cfs at station OH-HL-D1. This flow rate is essentially zero flow and is
expected to be representative of the low flow conditions present at the time of synoptic
sampling were entered into the Q2K model.
7.2.2.5.4 Diffuse Flow - Upper Sugar Creek Model
No significant diffuse flow gains were assumed in this short reach model.
7.2.2.5.5 Climate - Upper Sugar Creek Model
Q2K requires inputs for climate. Temperature and wind speed data for the synoptic
sampling date were obtained from the NCDC. Data from the nearest available weather
station (Scott Air Force Base near Belleville, Illinois) were used for the model.
7.2.2.5.6 Point Sources - Upper Sugar Creek Model
A total of 2 NPDES permitted point sources discharge within the OH-HL-D1
watershed. Q2K allows user input of point source locations, flow and water quality
data. Pe