303d-report

              IEPA/BOW/04-005
Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) List
Walnut Point Lake
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Water
Watershed Management Section
Planning Unit
www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
Bureau of Water
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, IL 62794--9276
November 2004
This page is left blank intentionally for double-sided printing.
This page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing.
i November 2004
Table of Contents
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1
A. Purpose................................................................................................................................................1
B. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) ..........................................................................................................1
1. Section 303(d) Requirements (1992) ...........................................................................................1
2. Background .................................................................................................................................1
3. Changes in the 303(d) Lists- 1992 to 2004 ..................................................................................2
II. SECTION 303(d) LIST DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................3
A. Brief Overview of 2004 Section 305(b) Assessment ...........................................................................3
B. Data and Documents Used in the Development of 2004 303(d) List...................................................3
1. Illinois EPA Data .........................................................................................................................3
2. Other Sources of Data ..................................................................................................................4
C. Identification of Water Bodies for the Illinois Section 303(d) List......................................................5
1. Identification of Water Quality Limited Waters (WQLWs) ........................................................5
2. Illinois Section 303(d) List...........................................................................................................5
D. Prioritization of the Illinois Section 303(d) List ..................................................................................6
1. Steps in the Prioritization Process................................................................................................6
2. Criteria for Higher Prioritization in Scheduling TMDL Development........................................7
3. Criteria for Lower Prioritization in Scheduling TMDL Development.........................................7
E. Removal of Previously Listed Waters From the Section 303(d) List Prior to TMDL Development...8
III. ILLINOIS’ 2004 SECTION 303(d) LIST............................................................................................10
IV. SCHEDULING OF TMDL DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................11
V. TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS......................................................18
A. TMDL Development Status ...............................................................................................................18
B. TMDL Implementation Status ...........................................................................................................19
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................................................................................22
VII. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................23
VIII. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................25
Appendix
A. Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) Listed Waters
B. Water Body Look-up Guide
C. Illinois 2002 Section 303(d) List Name Changes
D. Responsiveness Summary
ii November 2004
Tables
Table 1. River Miles and Lake Acres for 303(d) Lists ................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Previously Listed Waters, Now Assessed as Full Support ...............................................................8
Table 3. Inaccurately Listed Waters ................................................................................................................ 9
Table 4. Tentative Long-term TMDL Schedule........................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Two-Year Schedule for TMDL Development................................................................................ 13
Table 6. TMDL Status ................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 7. Illinois EPA Projects in TMDL Water Bodies ................................................................................ 20
Maps
Major Watersheds of Illinois ......................................................................................................................... 27
Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) Listed Waters ................................................................................................... 28
Basin 1. Great Lakes/ Calumet River Watershed ......................................................................................... 29
Basin 2a. Des Plaines River Watershed- Streams ......................................................................................... 30
Basin 2b. Des Plaines River Watershed- Lakes............................................................................................. 31
Basin 3. Upper Fox River Watershed........................................................................................................... 32
Basin 4. Lower Fox River Watershed .......................................................................................................... 33
Basin 5. Kishwaukee River Watershed ........................................................................................................ 34
Basin 6. Rock River Watershed.................................................................................................................... 35
Basin 7. Pecatonica River Watershed........................................................................................................... 36
Basin 8. Green River Watershed .................................................................................................................. 37
Basin 9. Mississippi North River Watershed................................................................................................ 38
Basin 10. Kankakee/ Iroquois River Watershed............................................................................................ 39
Basin 11. Upper Illinois/ Mazon River Watershed........................................................................................ 40
Basin 12. Vermilion (Illinois) River Watershed............................................................................................ 41
Basin 13. Middle Illinois River Watershed ................................................................................................... 42
Basin 14. Mackinaw River Watershed .......................................................................................................... 43
Basin 15. Spoon River Watershed................................................................................................................. 44
Basin 16. Mississippi Central River Watershed ............................................................................................ 45
Basin 17. La Moine River Watershed ........................................................................................................... 46
Basin 18. Lower Illinois/ Macoupin Creek Watershed ................................................................................. 47
Basin 19. Mississippi Central River Watershed ............................................................................................ 48
Basin 20. Lower Sangamon River Watershed............................................................................................... 49
Basin 21. Upper Sangamon River Watershed ............................................................................................... 50
Basin 22. Salt Creek of Sangamon River Watershed .................................................................................... 51
Basin 23. Upper Kaskaskia River Watershed................................................................................................ 52
Basin 24. Middle Kaskaskia River/ Shoal Creek Watershed......................................................................... 53
Basin 25. Lower Kaskaskia River Watershed ............................................................................................... 54
Basin 26a.Big Muddy River Watershed-Streams.......................................................................................... 55
Basin 26b.Big Muddy River Watershed-Lakes ............................................................................................. 56
Basin 27. Mississippi South Central River Watershed.................................................................................. 57
Basin 28. Mississippi South River Watershed............................................................................................... 58
Basin 29. Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed .......................................................................................... 59
Basin 30. Embarras/ Middle Wabash River Watershed ................................................................................ 60
Basin 31a.Little and Lower Wabash River/ Skillet Fork River Watershed- Streams.................................... 61
Basin 31b. Little and Lower Wabash River/ Skillet Fork River Watershed- Lakes...................................... 62
Basin 32. Saline River/ Bay Creek Watershed .............................................................................................. 63
Basin 33. Cache River Watershed ................................................................................................................. 64
1 November 2004
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this report is to:
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍆 Fulfill the requirements set forth in Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
Water Quality Planning and Management regulation at 40 CFR Part 130 for the year 2004.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍉 Inform the public and other stakeholders about the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
program/process.
This report is submitted to the U.S. EPA for review and approval of Illinois’ list of 303(d) waters. It
provides the states supporting documentation required by 40 CFR Part 130.7 and rationale in fulfilling
Section 303(d) requirements.
B. Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
1. Section 303(d) Requirements (1992)
Section 303(d) requires states, in part, to:
i) identify waters which will not attain applicable water quality standards with technology-based
controls alone (i.e., water quality limited). [40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(1)]
ii) identify waters for which controls on thermal discharges are not stringent enough to assure
protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife sufficient to achieve water quality standards. [40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(2)]
iii) establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of pollution
and the uses to be made of such waters. [40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(4)]
iv) target waters for development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that would be
initiated before the next biennial reporting period. [40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(4)]
2. Background
The Section 303(d) rules, as amended on July 13, 2000, were withdrawn by the U.S. EPA on April
17, 2003. However, the U.S. EPA had proposed another set of rules on January 10, 2003
commonly known as the Watershed Rule. Four U.S. Senators wrote a letter on November 11, 2003
to the U.S. EPA Administrator asking her to cease advancing the proposed Watershed Rule for
various reasons. As a result, the Watershed Rule was not advanced and the Illinois’ Section 303(d)
List for 2004 was prepared in accordance with 1992 regulations, and new guidance provided by
U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 2003).
U.S. EPA guidance of November 19, 2001 allowed for optional development of an Integrated
Report (IR) under Sections 305(b) and 303(d). Illinois EPA elected to prepare two separate reports
during 2004, one for Section 305(b) and another for Section 303(d). Illinois EPA is now in the
2 November 2004
process of converting its data to the new U.S. EPA Assessment Database (ADB II) and will be
preparing an IR in 2006.
3. Changes in the 303(d) Lists - 1992 to 2004
Illinois EPA created its first 303(d) List in 1992, which was based on the 16 screening categories
from the EPA 1992 listing guidance (U.S. EPA 1991). A similar methodology was used for the
1994 and 1996 lists. The 1998 listing criteria were based on the EPA 1998 listing guidance (U.S.
EPA 1997a) and included waters impaired by both point and nonpoint sources. On previous lists,
impaired waters were only listed if their sources were point sources. For this reason, and the fact
the 1998 list also included waters from all three previous lists, the 1998 list contained many more
waters. U.S. EPA eliminated the regulatory requirement for states to submit a section 303(d) list in
2000. The two criteria that make the 2002 list different from the 1998 list are: (i) it did not include
a full/threatened waters category, and (ii) the Agency identified impairment on the basis of
individual use assessment rather than the overall use assessment by summing all designated uses
for a specific water.
For the 2004 list, there are four changes that have been made to the 305(b) assessment
methodology that affect the 303(d) list. Listed below are brief descriptions of each change. For a
thorough description, please refer to the 2004 305(b) report.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍔 There is no longer a “Full/Threatened” use support category.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍔 The confidence level rating associated with the potential causes is no longer used.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍁 An improved fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Smogor 2004), in development for
several years was used, in part, for determining aquatic life use in streams assessed for the
2004 305(b) Report.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍉 In previous 305(b) reports, the assessment of public water supply (PWS) use was limited to
concentrations of nitrates and atrazine in raw water samples. For the 2004 305(b) report,
PWS assessments are consistent with 35 IL Adm. Code 302 and 611 standards for raw and
finished waters. PWS use support is determined through an assessment of the ambient
(raw) water and the level of treatment provided.
Table 1 includes the total number of river miles and lake acres for each of the 303(d) lists.
Table 1. River Miles and Lake Acres for 303(d) Lists
303(d) List River Miles Lake Acres
1992 273 0
1994 865 11,460
1996 600 27,818
1998 5,044 133,234
2002 7,219 127,675
2004 8,078 138,578
For the 2004 list, Illinois EPA has changed the watershed boundaries for the listing prioritization
(Section D). In the 2002 list, watershed boundaries were based on the USGS eight-digit hydrologic
units, which were subdivided into smaller-scale watersheds with the aid of U.S. EPA’s river Reach
File 3(RF3) coverage. For the 2004 list, the USGS ten-digit hydrologic units are used for the
watershed boundaries. This was done to enable more comprehensive use of data and decision
making in TMDL development. This may also allow for more rapid TMDL development as more
waters will be considered in any TMDL, at the same time.
3 November 2004
II. SECTION 303(d) LIST DEVELOPMENT
This section provides a brief overview of the 2004 Section 305(b) assessments, which forms the
primary basis for the development of the 2004 Section 303(d) List. Further, this section provides
information about the data and documents used in development of the Section 303(d) List; explains the
sequence of steps employed in the identification of water quality limited waters; the priority ranking of
water bodies; and removal of previously listed waters from the Section 303(d) List prior to TMDL
development.
A. Brief Overview of 2004 Section 305(b) Assessment
Illinois EPA has organized an assessment of water bodies (i.e., stream segments, inland lakes and Lake
Michigan), consistent with U.S. EPA requirements, under a generic set of five designated use
categories. These individual designated use categories are public water supply, aquatic life, primary
contact (swimming), secondary contact (recreation), and fish consumption. For each water body, and
for each designated use applicable to the water body, Illinois EPA’s assessment concludes one of three
possible “use-support” levels: fully supporting (Full), partially supporting (Partial), or not supporting
(Nonsupport). Full use support means that the water body attains the designated use. Partial use
support means that the water body attains the designated use at a reduced level. Nonsupport means that
the water body does not attain the designated use. All water bodies assessed as partial or nonsupport
attainment for any designated use are identified as “impaired.” For impaired water bodies, Illinois EPA
then identifies potential “causes” and “sources” of impairment of those designated uses.
B. Data and Documents Used in the Development of 2004 303(d) List
U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 130.7(b)(5) state “Each state shall assemble and evaluate all existing
and readily available water quality related data and information to develop the list required by
130.7(b)(1) [water quality limited waters for which technology based effluent limits are not sufficient
to achieve water quality standards] and 130.7(b)(2) [water quality limited waters for which controls on
thermal discharges are not sufficient to achieve water quality standards].” Several U.S. EPA references
and guidance documents (U.S. EPA 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998,
2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2003) regarding data use and assessment were used in developing the Section
303(d) list. Illinois EPA’s 2004 Section 305(b) Report along with external sources of data were used
for the 303(d) list.
1. Illinois EPA Data
The primary source of assessment information used in the development of the Section 303(d) List
is the state’s 2004 Section 305(b) Report. Water quality assessments in the Section 305(b) Report
are based on a combination of chemical (water, sediment and fish tissue), physical (habitat and
flow discharge), and biological (macroinvertebrate, macrophyte, algal and fish) data. Because
water-resource data take time to gather and process, the result is a two-year lag period. Therefore,
surface water assessments relevant to this 303(d) list are based primarily on data and information
collected through September 2002 in conjunction with various ongoing monitoring programs.
However, for some uses (i.e., fish consumption and public water supply) more recent data are used.
In the 305(b) report and 303(d) list, Illinois EPA uses the terms “monitored” or “M” and
“evaluated” or “E”. These terms apply only to assessments of primary and secondary contact uses
in lakes and to aquatic life use in lakes and streams. Illinois EPA considers monitored assessments
4 November 2004
more reliable than evaluated assessments. Monitored assessments are based on current site-specific
monitoring data believed to accurately portray existing water quality conditions. Assessments that
use biological, chemical, or physical data no more than five years old, in general, are included in
this category. Assessments for primary and secondary contact uses in streams and for fish
consumption and public water supply uses in both streams and lakes are considered to meet these
“monitored” conditions and thus accurately reflect existing water quality conditions. Evaluated
assessments are those for which the resource-quality determinations are based on data types other
than those used for monitored assessments. Other information includes: land-use information,
location of known point and nonpoint potential sources, monitoring data generally more than five
years old, volunteer data, or documented site-specific knowledge. Illinois EPA does not use
volunteer data for 303(d) listing purposes. Volunteer data are collected by citizens generally under
the Illinois EPA Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP). These volunteer data collections
lack sufficient reliability to be used, supported, and justified by Illinois EPA
monitoring/assessment and watershed-management professionals, in a binding, highly scrutinized,
regulatory-based 303(d)/TMDL Program. The purposes of the VLMP are to provide effective
public education in lake ecology and management, to facilitate local lake and watershed
management activities and collect baseline information for future use. A description of the different
types of Monitored and Evaluated data sets and their associated codes for streams, inland lakes, and
Lake Michigan can be found in the 2004 Section 305(b) Report. Data collected as part of Illinois
EPA’s monitoring programs are entered into STORET, BIOS and/or a state developed database. A
full and detailed description of the Illinois EPA’s monitoring programs from which data are
collected and for which they are subsequently used in the Section 303(d) List can be found in the
Agency’s publications “Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 1996—2000” (IEPA 1996) and “Water
Quality Monitoring Strategy 2002—2006” (IEPA 2002b). A brief description can also be found in
the Section 305(b) Reports.
2. Other Sources of Data
Data collected from sources other than Illinois EPA monitoring programs are considered in the
assessment process. Illinois EPA considers water quality related data collected by a variety of
federal, state and local organizations in Illinois. To assure the quality of these external data sets, the
Bureau of Water required non-Illinois EPA providers of environmental data to submit quality
assurance project plans (QAPPs) or other evidence of quality collection and analytical methods for
Agency approval. A QAPP describes the activities of an environmental data operations project
involved with the acquisition of environmental information, whether generated from direct
measurements activities, collected from other sources, or compiled from computerized databases
and information systems. The benefits of a QAPP are to communicate, to all parties, the
specifications for implementation of the project design and to ensure that the quality objectives are
achieved for the project. So far, Illinois EPA has entered into formal QAPP agreements with six
entities. These entities are: the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Fox
River Wastewater Reclamation District, Strand Associates, Wheaton Sanitary District, U. S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and Sinissippi Coalition for Restoring the Environment (SCORE).
Two provide ambient data and the others are TMDL case-specific. In all cases, the QAPP initiating
entity and the Agency sign a formal QAPP and the data generated are to be provided to Illinois
EPA by a certain date in a usable, specified format. In signing the QAPP, the parties collecting the
data are advised that Illinois EPA can audit their data collection programs.
In November 2003, Illinois EPA held a 305(b) public meeting and at this meeting the use of non-agency
data was discussed. At the same time, the Agency solicited data from the QAPP entities via
a letter, requesting surface water quality monitoring data.
5 November 2004
C. Identification of Water Bodies for the Illinois Section 303(d) List
This section identifies water quality limited waters (WQLWs) and specifies the criteria used in
determining which waters will be placed on the Illinois Section 303(d) List.
1. Identification of Water Quality Limited Waters (WQLWs)
The WQLWs consist of partial and nonsupport waters from the 2004 Section 305(b) Report. These
include waters with site-specific sport fish consumption advisories. Waters on previous Section
303(d) lists are also included unless they are identified as full support in the 305(b) report. The
guidance documents cited in the reference section of this report were used for listing waters on the
2004 Section 303(d) List. A further description of the WQLWs is given below.
Waters for which any designated use is identified as partial or nonsupport in the 2004 Section
305(b) Report based on chemical, biological and/or physical data. This includes waters in which
site-specific sport fish consumption advisories are currently in effect based on contaminants that
have been identified in fish tissue. In the most recent studies of fish tissue in Illinois waters,
contaminants include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlordane and methyl mercury. (In
accordance with federal guidance (U.S. EPA 2000b), only waters identified with site specific
information regarding fish tissue contamination are placed on the 2004 303(d) List. Refer to
Section II (C) (2)).
Illinois has a statewide general fish consumption advisory for methyl mercury as of April 1, 2002.
The primary source of methyl mercury in most waters of the United States is strongly suspected to
be deposition from air pollution sources. These sources may occur outside the state and national
boundaries. Therefore, assessment and control of mercury contamination may require interstate
and international measures, which are beyond the scope of state environmental agencies. U.S. EPA
is currently conducting several studies of the mercury problem. U.S. EPA has recommended that,
at the state level, TMDLs for low-level mercury contamination be given a low priority for the time
being.
2. Illinois Section 303(d) List
This section explains the criteria used to determine which WQLWs were placed on the Section
303(d) List for TMDL development. Any WQLW meeting the requirements of (i) or (ii)
(described below) were placed on the Illinois Section 303(d) List. The criteria for placement are as
follows:
(i) A WQLW previously listed on an approved Section 303(d) List. However, some water bodies
that were on previous Illinois Section 303(d) Lists have not been included in the 2004 list.
Those water bodies and the criteria used to delist them are discussed in Section II (E); or
(ii) A WQLW assessed as partial or nonsupport for aquatic life, primary contact, secondary
contact, public water supply, and/or indigenous aquatic life designated uses in the 2004 Section
305(b) Report by using monitored chemical, biological and/or physical data (these waters
include waters assessed for site-specific sport fish tissue contamination). Indigenous aquatic
life designated use applies to a limited set of waters, constituting about 80 miles of canals and
rivers plus Lake Calumet in northeastern Illinois. This designated use is intended to protect
waters not suited for general use activities but nonetheless suited for secondary contact uses
and capable of supporting indigenous aquatic life.
6 November 2004
Certain waters that meet the above criteria will not be placed on the Illinois Section 303(d) List.
They include waters for which a TMDL has been completed or waters that meet the delisting
criteria in Section II (E) (i.e., waters that currently meet water quality standards or were previously
listed in error).
D. Prioritization of the Illinois Section 303(d) List
U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 130.7(b)(4) require establishing a priority ranking of the 303(d)
listed waters for the development of TMDLs that accounts for the severity of pollution and the
designated uses. For the purposes of the Illinois Section 303(d) List, the prioritization process was
done on a watershed basis instead of on individual water bodies. Illinois EPA watershed boundaries
are based on the USGS ten-digit hydrologic units. Developing prioritization at this watershed scale
provides Illinois with the ability to address watershed issues at a manageable level and document
improvements to a watershed’s health.
1. Steps in the Prioritization Process
The Illinois Section 303(d) List was prioritized based on the steps listed below:
Step 1- The first step in the prioritization process is based on use designations, establishing a High,
Medium and Low Priority for specific uses.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍈 High Priority – watersheds containing one or more water bodies that are less than full
support for public water supply use.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍍 Medium Priority – watersheds containing one or more water bodies that are less than full
support for aquatic life use, fishing use, or primary contact (swimming) use.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍌 Low Priority – watersheds containing one or more water bodies that are less than full
support for secondary contact (recreation) use.
Step 2 - The second step in the prioritization process is based on the overall severity of pollution.
For the purposes of this process, “severity of pollution” is determined by summing the number of
potential causes (i.e., 1220—dissolved oxygen) of impairment to a water body segment. The
watersheds with more potential causes of impairments were identified and listed as higher priority
than those listed with less causes within each of the priority groups identified in Step 1.
EXAMPLE: Watershed “A” has three water body segments with a total of 15 causes identified.
Watershed “B” has four water body segments with a total of 10 potential causes identified. Both
water bodies were assessed for public water supply use. Therefore, Watershed “A” (public water
supply use with 15 potential causes) will be ranked above Watershed “B” (public water supply use
with 10 potential causes) for TMDL development within the High Priority Category identified in
Step 1.
7 November 2004
2. Criteria for Higher Prioritization in Scheduling TMDL Development
Once the waters have been prioritized as specified above for the 303(d) list, Illinois EPA may also
give consideration to the following criteria to indicate a higher priority within each priority
category (High, Medium and Low) when scheduling TMDL development. Those waters meeting
the criteria may be selected for TMDL development over those that do not meet the criteria,
regardless of priority ranking on the list.
i) A water body’s potential for improvement: Best professional judgment for identifying
potential improvement will be based, in part, upon the capacity of the data to pinpoint the
potential cause-source relationship, and the availability and likelihood of successfully
implementing regulatory and voluntary programs to achieve water quality improvement.
ii) The degree of public support and source water protection (surface water) for water body
improvement: Expressions of public support for an impaired watershed may include but are
not limited to: active publicly supported watershed planning groups, ongoing public water
quality monitoring programs and other similar efforts.
3. Criteria for Lower Prioritization in Scheduling TMDL Development
Along with the above factors, Illinois EPA may use the following criteria to indicate a lower
priority within each priority category (High, Medium and Low) when scheduling TMDL
development. Although these lower priority waters may not be scheduled for TMDL development
at this time or may not be appropriate candidates for TMDLs in the future, the Illinois EPA will
continue ongoing efforts, and support new approaches that will result in these waters meeting full
support and being removed from the Section 303(d) list. In that regard, each of the following
criteria contains a brief explanation of the actions that the Illinois EPA may take to improve or
enhance the status of those waters. Those waters meeting the criteria below may be passed over on
the list regardless of priority ranking.
i) 303(d) listed waters that are interstate waters—e.g., Mississippi River, Ohio River, Lake
Michigan and others. In these waters, the Illinois EPA will continue to work closely with other
states and U.S. EPA in addressing issues related to Section 303(d) requirements. U.S. EPA is
expected to take a lead role in coordinating the state efforts.
ii) 303(d) listed waters where the potential causes of impairment are “pollutants” for which there
are no numeric water quality standards in Illinois—e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus in streams, and
others. Pending development of appropriate numeric water quality standards as may be
proposed by the Agency or others and adopted by the Pollution Control Board, Illinois EPA
will continue to work with watershed planning groups and others to identify causes and treat
potential sources of impairment.
iii) 303(d) listed waters where potential causes of impairment of a water body is “pollution”—e.g.,
habitat alterations, dams, and others. The Illinois EPA will continue to work with watershed
planning groups and others to identify causes and treat potential sources of impairment.
iv) 303(d) listed waters with legacy issues—e.g., mining, and in-place contaminated sediments.
The Illinois EPA will continue to work with watershed planning groups and others to identify
causes and treat potential sources of impairment.
v) 303(d) listed waters with impairment by naturally occurring background levels: The Illinois
EPA will continue to work with watershed planning groups and others to identify causes and
8 November 2004
treat potential sources of impairment.
vi) 303(d) listed waters with unknown causes of impairment. In these cases, depending upon
available resources, additional data collection and/or site specific analysis will be instituted to
determine the accuracy of the assessment.
vii) 303(d) listed waters for which only “Evaluated” assessments are available. In these cases,
depending upon available resources, additional data collection and/or site-specific analysis will
be instituted to determine the accuracy of the assessment.
E. Removal of Previously Listed Waters From the Section 303(d) List Prior to TMDL Development
U.S. EPA guidance for the 1994 303(d) List (U.S. EPA 1993a) describes two instances when a
previously listed water body may be removed from a state’s Section 303(d) list prior to TMDL
development:
i) if such water body is meeting all applicable water quality standards (including numeric and
narrative criteria, antidegradation and designated uses) or is expected to meet the standards in a
reasonable timeframe (e.g., two years or next listing cycle) as a result of implementation of required
pollutant controls; or
ii) if, upon examination, the original basis for listing is determined to be inaccurate.
All waters on Illinois’ approved Section 303(d) lists from 2002 are included on the 2004 Section 303(d)
List except the water bodies under the criteria cited above. Note that the approved 2002 Section 303(d)
List contains all impaired segments from the 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998 lists. Illinois EPA delists
water bodies only if it is full support for all the designated uses. Impaired water bodies may have
causes change with a new assessment.
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍃 Criterion One—Water bodies on the 2002 Section 303(d) List for which new data and information
indicate that the applicable water quality standards for potential causes of previous impairment are
being met. These water bodies are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Previously Listed Waters, Now Assessed as Full Support
WSID Water Body
Segment
New Segment
(if changed)
Segment Name Year 303(d)
Listed
ILADD01 ADD 02 Dutchman Cr. 1998
ILATH02 ATH 11 E. Fk. Saline R. 1992
ILBE07 BE 07 Embarras R. 1998
ILBE09 BEL 01 BEL 03, BEL 01 Hurricane Cr. 2002
ILBEJ01 BEJ 01 BEJ 03 Muddy Cr. 2002
ILBEN01 TBE 05 BEN 02 Kickapoo Cr. 2002
ILBN01 BN 01 Brouillette Cr. 2002
ILBO07 BO 04 Little Vermilion R. 2002
ILBO07 BO 05 Little Vermilion R. 2002
ILBPJG01 BPJG01 Upper Salt Fork 2002
ILCDF02 CDF 02 Racoon Cr. 2002
ILDF04 DF 05 Indian Cr. 1998
ILDJ09 DJ 09 Spoon R. 1998
9 November 2004
WSID Water Body
Segment
New Segment
(if changed)
Segment Name Year 303(d)
Listed
ILGBL10 GBL 02 E. Br. DuPage R. 1992
ILJR02 JRA 02 E. Fk. Wood R. 1994
ILND04 ND 10 Crab Orchard Cr. 1998
ILOD08 ODM Wendell Br. 1998
ILOD07 OD 07 ODF-OF-C1, OD 07 Silver Cr. 1994
ILODL02 ODL 10, ODL
02
ODL 02 E. Fk. Silver Cr. 2002
ILOG02 OG 02 Elkhorn Cr. 2002
ILOIB01 OIB 02 Beaver Cr. 2002
ILOJB01 OJB 02 OJB 04 Lost Cr. 2002
ILON01 ON 01 Hickory Cr. 1998
ILOO01 OO 01 Ramsey Cr. 2002
ILOPC01 OPC 01 Wolf Cr. 2002
ILOQ01 OQ 01 Beck Cr. 2002
ILPQEA01 PQEA01 Mokeler Cr. 1994
ILPWH01 PWH 02 Sumner Cr. 2002
ILRAF RAF Glen O. Jones 1996
ILRBW RBW Mill Creek Pond 1998
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍃 Criterion Two—Water bodies on the 2002 Section 303(d) List for which the original basis for
listing was determined to be inaccurate. These water bodies are presented in Tables 3.
Table 3. Inaccurately Listed Waters
WSID Segment Segment
Name
Year
303(d)
Listed
Reason for Delisting
ILAR01 AS Cane Cr. 2002 This was mistakenly assessed in 2002 as it was considered a part of the Ohio
River, which had fish consumption advisories. Since then it has been
determined that this water body is not part of the Ohio River and is unassessed.
ILATG03 ATG 04 M. Fk.
Saline R.
1998 In 1998, this water body was mistakenly assessed to be impaired for Aquatic
Life Use based on 1993 intensive basin survey data. In 2002, the data from the
1993 intensive basin survey were reevaluated and it was determined to be full
support for Aquatic Life Use.
ILATHC01 ATHC01 Battle
Ford Cr.
1998 In 1998, this water body was mistakenly assessed to be impaired for Aquatic
Life Use based on 1993 intensive basin survey data. In 2002, the data from the
1993 intensive basin survey were reevaluated and it was determined to be full
support for Aquatic Life Use.
ILNDC01 NDC 02 Drury Cr. 1998 In 1998, this water body was mistakenly assessed to be impaired for Aquatic
Life Use based on 1993 intensive basin survey data. In 2002, the data from the
1993 intensive basin survey were reevaluated and it was determined to be full
support for Aquatic Life Use.
ILNE04 NEF White Oak
Cr.
1998 In 1998, this water body was mistakenly assessed to be impaired for Aquatic
Life Use based on 1993 intensive basin survey data. In 2002, the data from the
1993 intensive basin survey were reevaluated and it was determined to be full
support for Aquatic Life Use.
ILNE05 NEA 02 Sixmile
Cr.
1998 In 1998, this water body was mistakenly assessed to be impaired for Aquatic
Life Use based on 1993 intensive basin survey data. In 2002, the data from the
1993 intensive basin survey were reevaluated and it was determined to be full
support for Aquatic Life Use.
10 November 2004
303(d) Listing Flow Chart
2004 305(b) Assessment
Database
Is the water body a
WQLW?
Does the water body
have a completed
TMDL?
Was the water body
placed on the 303(d) List
with inaccurate
information?
Is the water body
assessment “monitored”?
(refer to Section II (B) (1))
2004 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters
Full support
Work on
implementation/
monitoring plan
Delist
Needs additional
data to complete
assessment
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
III. ILLINOIS’ 2004 SECTION 303(d) LIST
The Illinois Section 303(d) List for 2004 is presented in Appendix A. The 2004 Section 303(d) List
consists of 8,078 stream miles, 138,578 inland lake acres and the Illinois portion of Lake Michigan.
Out of a total of 430 watersheds, 327 are on the List and are comprised of 945 individual water
segments/bodies. Out of those, 663 are stream segments and 282 are lakes. As required by U.S. EPA
guidance, the 2004 Section 303(d) List contains the following information from the state ADB System:
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍗 Water body I.D. number
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍒 Reach number
11 November 2004
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍓 Stream/Lake name
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍓 Size (stream miles, lake acres)
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍁 Assessment level
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍄 Designated and Impaired Uses
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍐 Potential Causes and Sources of Impairment
The Section 303(d) list has been geographical referenced to the Medium Resolution version of the
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) identified by U.S. EPA as the Reach Address Database (RAD).
The RAD is a 1:100,000 scale computerized streams database that identifies 98,857 miles of permanent
and intermittent streams in Illinois. In addition, approximately 85% of the lakes are indexed to the
RAD while the remainder are not present in the RAD and have been identified by latitude and
longitude.
An overall map of the 33 major watershed basins in Illinois is on page 27. Section 303(d) waters listed
in Appendix A are depicted statewide on page 28. Pages 29 through 64 contain individual maps of the
33 major watershed basins. Appendix B contains a Water Body Look-Up Guide in which waters are
listed alphabetically by water body name.
IV. SCHEDULING OF TMDL DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with U.S. EPA regulations under 40 CFR Part 130.7(b), “the priority ranking shall
specifically include the identification of waters targeted for TMDL development in the next two years.”
In addition, U.S. EPA guidance requests states to submit a long-term schedule (8-13 years) in which
TMDLs will be developed for all listed waters.
In Illinois, development of TMDLs will be conducted on a watershed basis meaning that impaired
waters upstream of a particular segment will have all TMDLs conducted at the same time. Illinois has
provided a general schedule to develop TMDLs for all waters on the 2004 Section 303(d) List
(Appendix A). The long term TMDL schedule (Table 4) indicates the number of watersheds for which
TMDL efforts will be initiated over the next 14 years. Table 5 consists of the 22 watersheds for which
TMDLs will be completed in two years. The TMDL development schedule provided here replaces all
schedules previously submitted by the Illinois EPA to U.S. EPA. The schedule will be reviewed and
updated in the future, as needed, to ensure timely development of TMDLs, given available resources.
The Illinois EPA’s long-term schedule for TMDL development for all waters on the 2004 Section
303(d) List, projected over a 14 year period, is consistent with other Illinois EPA program cycles which
are typically five years, including statewide monitoring programs such as the rotational intensive river
basin surveys and issuance of NPDES permits. The long-term TMDL development schedule will be
reviewed and revised, as needed, in conjunction with future Section 303(d) lists submitted to U.S. EPA.
12 November 2004
Table 4. Tentative Long-term TMDL Schedule
Year Number of Watersheds
Scheduled for TMDLs
2003 - 2004 22
2004 - 2005 25
2005 - 2006 25
2006 - 2007 27
2007 - 2008 27
2008 - 2009 27
2009 - 2010 27
2010 - 2011 22
2011 - 2012 22
2012 - 2013 22
2013 - 2014 22
2014 - 2015 22
2015 - 2016 22
2016 - 2017 15
13 November 2004
Table 5. Two-Year Schedule for TMDL Development
Hydrologic
Unit Code
2002 303(d)
Watershed ID
Segment ID Segment Name Miles/
Acres
Designated Uses Potential Causes Potential Sources
0713001201 ILDA04 RDG CARLINVILLE 168 1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P,
44-P, 50-P
595, 910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8700, 8960, 9000
ILDA04 RDH BEAVER DAM 56.5 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-X
910, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 8960
ILDA04 SDT GILLESPIE OLD 71 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-P
595, 910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8960, 9000
ILDA04 SDU GILLESPIE
NEW
207 1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-F
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8700, 8960
ILDA04 DA 04* Macoupin Cr. 19.73 20-P, 21-F, 42-N 595, 1100, 1220, 1710, 9910 1000, 5000, 7000, 9000
ILDA04 DA 05 Macoupin Cr. 43.89 20-P, 21-F 595, 925, 1220, 1500, 9910 200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 5000,
7000, 7400, 7550
ILDA04 DAZN Briar Cr. 3.97 20-P 1220, 1610, 9910 200, 7000, 7100, 7550, 7600
0512011105 ILBM02 RBL PARIS TWIN
EAST
162.8 1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-F
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 7550, 7700, 8700, 8930, 8960
ILBM02 RBX PARIS TWIN
WEST
56.7 1-X, 20-P, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-F
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 7550, 7700, 8930, 8960
ILBM02 BM 02 Sugar Cr. 12.87 20-F, 42-N(1) 1710 9000
ILBM02 BM C2 Sugar Cr. 2.95 20-P 900, 1100, 1220, 1500 200, 7000, 7400
0713000405 ILDK17 SDA EVERGREEN 700 1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-F,
44-P, 50-F
910, 2100 1000, 1050, 1100, 8700, 8960
0714020205 ILSOF SOF Kinmundy New 107 1-F, 20-F, 42-F, 44-F,
50-P
595 9000
ILSOI SOI PATOKA OLD 6 1-X, 20-X, 21-X, 42-X,
44-X, 50-P
595 9000
ILSOB SOB FARINA 4 1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-F,
44-P, 50-P
500, 530, 595, 900, 910 8951, 9000
ILROZY ROZY KINMUNDY 20 1-X, 20-X, 21-F, 42-X,
44-X, 50-P
595 9000
ILSOJ SOJ PATOKA NEW 6 1-X, 20-X, 21-X, 42-X,
44 X 50 P
595 9000
14 November 2004
Hydrologic
Unit Code
2002 303(d)
Watershed ID
Segment ID Segment Name Miles/
Acres
Designated Uses Potential Causes Potential Sources
44-X, 50-P
ILSOG SOG Kinmundy
Borrow Pit
5 1-F, 20-F, 42-F, 44-F,
50-P
595 9000
ILOK01 OK 01 E. Fk. Kaskaskia
R.
17.13 20-P, 42-P 1220, 1710, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 9000
ILOKA01 OKA 02 N. Fk. Kaskaskia
R.
15.31 20-P, 50-P 594, 595, 1000, 1220, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 5000, 9000
ILOKA01 OKA 01 N. Fk. Kaskaskia
R.
10.25 20-P, 21-F, 42-F, 50-P 594, 595, 1000, 1220, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 5000, 9000
0512011205 ILBEZX01 RBP OAKLAND 23.4 1-P, 20-P, 21-F, 42-N,
44-N, 50-P
595, 910, 1100, 2100, 2210,
9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8960, 9000
ILBEZX01 RBK WALNUT
POINT
58.7 1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P,
44-P, 50-X
900, 910, 930, 1100, 1220,
2100, 2200, 2210
1000, 1050, 1100, 8500, 8960
ILBE14 BE 14* Embarras R. 5.56 20-P, 21-X, 42-N 925, 1000, 1100, 1220, 1710,
2100, 9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 1600, 9000
0714020404 ILODL02 ROZA HIGHLAND
SILVER
550 1-P, 20-P, 21-P, 42-P,
44-N, 50-P
595, 910, 1100, 1220, 2100,
2210, 9312, 9318, 9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 1350, 1400,
8500, 9000
0512010906 ILBPJ03 RBO HOMER 80.8 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-X
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8960
ILBPJ03 BPJ 03 Salt Fk.
Vermilion R.
9.97 20-P, 21-X, 50-P 594, 925, 930, 1730, 2100,
9910
200, 1000, 9000
ILBPJ03 BPJ 09* Salt Fk.
Vermilion R.
13.62 20-P, 21-X 610, 925, 1000, 1730, 2100,
9910
200, 1000
ILBPJ03 BPJ 10 Salt Fk.
Vermilion R.
13.6 20-P, 50-P 610, 925, 930, 1000, 1730,
2100, 9910
200, 1000, 9000
ILBPJ03 BPJ 08 Salt Fk.
Vermilion R.
3.17 20-P, 50-P 594, 610, 925, 930, 1000, 1730,
2100, 9910
200, 1000, 9000
ILBPJ03 BPJ 12 Salt Fk.
Vermilion R.
3.07 20-P, 21-X 610, 925, 1000, 1730, 2100,
9910
200, 1000
0512010904 ILBPJ03 BPJ 09 Salt Fk.
Vermilion R.
13.62 20-P, 21-X 610, 925, 1000, 1730, 2100,
9910
200, 1000
ILBPJD02 BPJD02 Spoon Br. 13.71 20-P 1220, 1610 1000, 7000
15 November 2004
Hydrologic
Unit Code
2002 303(d)
Watershed ID
Segment ID Segment Name Miles/
Acres
Designated Uses Potential Causes Potential Sources
0512010903 ILBPJC06 BPJC08 Saline Br. 15.52 20-P 925, 1220, 1610 1000, 7000
ILBPJC06 BPJC06 Saline Br. 10.26 20-P 593, 610, 925, 1610, 1730,
2100, 9322, 9326, 9339, 9910
200, 1000, 7000, 7100, 8500,
9000
0713001104 ILDD04 SDL MAUVAISSE
TERRE
172 1-P, 20-P, 21-F, 42-N,
44-N, 50-P
595, 910, 930, 2100, 2210,
9910
7550, 7700, 8700, 8960, 9000
ILDD04 DDC N. Fk. Mauvaise
Terre C
14.03 20-P 595, 925, 1220, 2100 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 9000
ILDD04 DD 04 Mauvaise Terre
R.
36.55 20-F, 21-F, 42-N 1710 9000
0512010813 ILBO07 RBS GEORGETOWN 46.1 1-X, 20-F, 21-X, 42-N,
44-P, 50-X
910, 1620, 2100, 2210, 9910 100, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550,
7700, 8960
0512010814 ILBO07 BO 07 Little Vermilion
R.
5.11 20-F, 42-N 1710 9000
0512011404 ILC19 C 19* Little Wabash R. 35.89 20-P, 21-F, 42-P, 50-P 595, 1000, 1100, 1220, 1510,
1710, 2100, 3100, 9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7300,
9000
ILC21 C 21 Little Wabash R. 31.11 20-F, 21-F, 42-F, 50-P 595 9000
ILRCU RCU Clay City SCR 6 1-P, 20-F, 42-N, 44-P,
50-P
595, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 9000
0512011401 ILRCF RCF MATTOON
765 1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-F 910, 2100, 2210, 9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8700, 8960
ILRCG RCG
PARADISE
(COLES)
176 1-P, 20-P, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-F
900, 910, 925, 1000, 1100,
2210
200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000,
7400, 8960
ILRCE RCE SARA
765 1-F, 20-F, 21-X, 42-F,
44-P, 50-P 595, 910, 2100, 2210 9000
ILCSB07 CSB 08 E. Br. Green Cr. 5.63 20-P 595, 1220, 9910 1000, 1100, 1600
ILC21 C 21* Little Wabash R. 31.11 20-F, 21-F, 42-F, 50-P 595 9000
ILCSB07 CSB 07 E. Br. Green Cr. 3.23 20-P 1100, 1220, 2100, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 1600
0512011402 ILCP01 CP-EF-C2 Salt Cr. 2.33 20-P 925, 1220, 9910 200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 4000
ILCP01 CP 04 Salt Cr. 1.88 20-P, 21-F 1100, 2100, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100
16 November 2004
Hydrologic
Unit Code
2002 303(d)
Watershed ID
Segment ID Segment Name Miles/
Acres
Designated Uses Potential Causes Potential Sources
ILCP01 CP-EF-C4 Salt Cr. 1.76 20-P 925, 9910 200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 4000
ILCPD01 CPD 03 Second Salt Cr. 1.38 20-P 597, 1100, 1220, 2100, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 1600, 9000
ILCPD01 CPD 01 Second Salt Cr. 2.67 20-P 1100, 1220, 2100, 9910 1000, 1350, 1400, 1600
ILCP01 CP-TU-C3 Salt Cr. 0.81 20-P 595, 9910 200, 1000, 1050, 1100
ILCPD01 CPD 04 Second Salt Cr. 2.91 20-N 1100, 1220, 2100, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 1600
ILCPC01 CPC-TU-C1 First Salt Cr. 1.44 20-P 595, 1220, 9910 200, 1000, 1050, 1100
0512011403 ILCOC09 COC 10 Dieterich Cr. 8.2 20-P 595, 595, 597, 1100, 2100,
9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 9000
0713001202 ILDAG01 SDZF HETTICK 110 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-X
900, 910, 1220, 2210 1000, 7000, 7400, 8960
ILDAG01 RDF OTTER 765 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-P
595, 2210 200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000,
7400, 7550, 7700, 7900, 9000
ILDAG01 RDZP PALMYRA-MODESTO
35 1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P,
44-P, 50-P
595, 1000, 1220, 2210 200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000,
7400, 8700, 8960, 9000
ILDAG01 DAG 02 Hodges Cr. 10.69 20-P 1220 9000
0714020302 ILOIL01 ROL GLENN
SHOALS
1350 1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-F
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8700, 8960
ILOIL01 ROT HILLSBORO
OLD
108.7 1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P,
44-P, 50-P
595, 910, 2100, 2210, 9910 8700, 8960, 9000
0512010909 ILBPG09 RBD VERMILION 608 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-P
900, 925, 930, 1100, 1220,
2100, 2210
1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7400,
7550, 7700, 8700, 8960, 9000
ILBPGD01 BPGD Hoopeston Br. 4.72 20-P 925, 1220, 9910 100, 200, 400, 7000
ILBPG10 BPG 10 N. Fk. Vermilion
R.
24.25 20-P, 21-X 925, 1610 200, 1000, 7000
ILBPG09 BPG 09 N. Fk. Vermilion
R.
5.91 20-F, 42-N 1710 9000
ILBPG09 BPG 05 N. Fk. Vermilion
R.
9.81 20-F, 50-P 930 9000
0512011506 ILRCT RCT WAYNE CITY
SCR
8 1-P, 20-F, 42-P, 44-P,
50-P
595, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 9000
17 November 2004
Hydrologic
Unit Code
2002 303(d)
Watershed ID
Segment ID Segment Name Miles/
Acres
Designated Uses Potential Causes Potential Sources
ILCA03 CA 03 Skillet Fk. 7.18 20-P, 21-P, 42-N 595, 1000, 1100, 1220, 1610,
1710, 2100, 3100, 9410, 9910
1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7100,
9000
ILCA03 CA 05 Skillet Fk. 10.96 20-P, 21-P, 42-F, 50-P 595, 1000, 1100, 1220, 1610,
2100, 3100, 9410
1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7100,
9000
0512011502 ILRCD RCD STEPHEN A.
FORABES
525 1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,
44-P, 50-X
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,
8700, 8960
ILRBF RBF SAM DALE 194 1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-N,
44-P, 50-X
910, 2100, 2210, 9910 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700
ILCA06 CA 06 Skillet Fk. 16.63 20-P, 21-P, 42-F 595, 1000, 1100, 1220, 2100,
3100, 9410
1000, 1050, 1100, 9000
ILCAW01 CAW 04 Dums Cr. 25.38 20-P 1220 1000, 1350, 1400, 1600
ILCA06 CA 09 Skillet Fk. 19.77 20-P, 21-P 1220, 9410 9000
ILCAR01 CAR 01 Brush Cr. 21.27 20-P 595, 1220 1000, 1600, 9000
0512011503 ILCAN01 CAN 01 Horse Cr. 28.21 20-P, 21-F 595, 1220 1000, 1600, 9000
Note: Although all causes for which impairment has been identified are shown in this table, TMDLs are currently done only for
causes for which a numeric water quality standard exists.
18 November 2004
V. TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
Individual contractors that have been selected through a competitive bidding process develop the
TMDLs. Illinois EPA personnel manage the contracts. There are three stages in the TMDL development
process.
Stage 1- Watershed Characterization, Data Analysis and Methodology Selection
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍄 Description of the watershed
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍃 Collection/analysis of available data
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍉 ID methodologies, procedures and models
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍉 Identifies if additional data is needed
Stage 2- Data Collection (optional stage)*
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍅 Evaluate Stage 1 and collect additional data as needed
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍔 The Agency or a contractor will collect data
Stage 3- Model calibration, TMDL Scenarios, Implementation Plan
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍄 Develop TMDLs with data from stages 1 and 2
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍄 Develop and evaluate several scenarios
􀁸􇠀􀀃􀍄 Develop an implementation plan
* Stage 2 was added in the 2003 round of TMDLs. If Stage 1 identifies data as
lacking, additional data may be collected for a more accurate TMDL.
A. TMDL Development Status
The following table includes the 17 watersheds with completed TMDLs and their approval dates.
Table 6. TMDL Status
TMDL U.S. EPA Approval Date
Altamont New Reservoir September 2004
Beaucoup Creek June 2004
Big Muddy River September 2004
Bonnie Creek June 2004
Casey Fork September 2004
Cedar Creek August 2002
Charleston Side Channel Reservoir September 2002
Dutchman Creek September 2004
East Branch DuPage River September 2004
East Fork Kaskaskia River August 2002
Fox River September 2004
Governor Bond Lake October 2002
Little Muddy River June 2004
Rayse Creek September 2002
Salt Creek September 2004
Vandalia Lake September 2004
West Branch DuPage River September 2004
Table 5 includes the TMDL watersheds in progress. It is anticipated that TMDL development for each
watershed will be completed approximately two years from the initiation date. Stage 1 is scheduled to
take a maximum of nine months. Stage 2 is optional and the time frame will depend on the type and
19 November 2004
quantity of additional data required. Stage 3 has a maximum time frame of 18 months. To date,
contractors are doing all TMDL development work for Illinois EPA.
B. TMDL Implementation Status
The Illinois EPA views TMDLs as a tool for developing water quality based solutions that are
incorporated into an overall watershed management approach. The TMDL establishes the link between
water quality standards attainment and water quality based control actions. For these control actions to
be successful, they must be developed in conjunction with local involvement, which incorporate
regulatory, voluntary and incentive-based approaches with existing applicable laws and programs. The
four programs that have provided funds for implementation of TMDL watersheds are: the Illinois
Nonpoint Source Management Program, the Illinois Clean Lakes Program (ICLP), the Priority Lake and
Watershed Implementation Program (PLWIP), and the Conservation Practices Program (CPP).
The Illinois EPA administers the Illinois Nonpoint Source Management Program, the ICLP and the
PLWIP. The Illinois Nonpoint Source Management Program was developed to meet the requirements of
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 319 projects can include educational programs and
nonpoint source pollution control projects such as Best Management Practices (BMPs). The ICLP is a
financial assistance grant program that supports lake owners’ interest and commitment to long-term,
comprehensive lake management and ultimately results in improved water quality and enhanced lake
use. The PLWIP supports lake protection/restoration activities at “priority” lakes where causes and
sources of problems are apparent, project sites are highly accessible, project size is relatively small, and
local entities are in a position to quickly implement needed treatments. Table 7 includes past and present
projects in TMDL watersheds funded under these programs.
Beginning in July of 2002, the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDoA) began shifting a portion of its
Conservation Practices Program (CPP) funds to Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) to more
directly address water quality concerns within TMDL watersheds. This program gives incentive
payments to landowners/operators within that watershed to promote the use of management practices
that reduce/control the movement of pollutants causing the water quality impairment.
20 November 2004
Table 7. Illinois EPA Projects in TMDL Water Bodies
Water Body County IEPA
Program
Fund-ing
Y
Local Partner/ Sponsor Project Description
Altamont
Reservoir
Effingham PLWIP 2001 City of Altamont Shoreline erosion control
319 2003 City of Charleston Sedimentation basin
PLWIP 2002 City of Charleston Streambank stabilization-rip rap
ICLP 1998 City of Charleston Shoreline erosion control
Charleston Side
Channel
Reservoir
Coles
319 1993 City of Charleston CSCR streambank and shoreline protection
319 2003 Hobson Cr. Community
Council
Unnamed trib to E. Br. DuPage streambank
stabilization phase II
319 2003 Village of Westmont Muddy Waters pond (trib. of E. Br. DuPage)
restoration- shoreline stabilization and wetland/prairie
restoration
319 2002 Hobson Creek Community
Council
Unnamed trib to E. Br. DuPage streambank
stabilization and riparian buffer phase I
319 2002 Morton Arboretum Morton Arbitorium parking lot runoff control
319 2001 Village of Woodridge Prentiss Creek (trib of E. Br. DuPage) streambank
stabilization
319 2000 Village of Glendale Heights Armitage Creek (trib of E. Br. DuPage) streambank
stabilization
319 1999 The Conservation Foundation E. Br. DuPage River WRAS implementation phase I-urban
stormwater, hydrologic modification &
Info/Education
319 1998 The Conservation Foundation Streambank stabilization
319 1998 Morton Arboretum Willoway Brook (trib. of E. Br. DuPage) streambank
stabilization project phase II
319 1998 Lisle Park District Old Tavern Park shoreline stabilization
319 1997 Morton Arboretum Willoway Brook (trib of E. Br. DuPage) streambank
stabilization project phase I
319 1997 The Conservation Foundation Four Lakes Village streambank stabilization
DuPage
319 1990 DuPage County Dept of
Environmental Concerns
Streambank/ shoreline stabilization
E. Branch
DuPage River
Will, DuPage 319 2003 Downers Grove Park District Lyman Woods streambank, streambed and gully
stabilization
Evergreen Lake McLean PLWIP 2004 City of Bloomington Shoreline stabilization
Georgetown Lake Vermilion 319 2000 AISWCD Nutrient management plan implementation for
nitrogen
PLWIP 2003 City of Hillsboro Shoreline stabilization
319 2002 Shoreline stabilization
ICLP 2001 City of Hillsboro Shoreline erosion control
Glen Shoals Lake Montgomery
319 1997 Montgomery County SWCD Shoreline stabilization
PLWIP 2004 City of Greenville shoreline stabilization- rip rap project
319 2003 City of Greenville Governor Bond Lake stormwater basin #4
Governor Bond
Lake
Bond
319 2001 City of Greenville Governor Bond Lake TMDL implementation plan
execution phase I- stormwater wetlands (3)
Hillsboro Lake Montgomery 319 2003 City of Hillsboro Stormwater wetland to reduce runoff
ICLP 2004 Consumers Ill. Water Co. Phase II- shoreline stabilization (tied to 2003 319
Project)
319 2003 Consumers Ill. Water Co. Shoreline stabilization
319 2003 Vermilion SWCD Sedimentation basin, riparian restoration and filter
strip project
Lake Vermilion Vermilion
319 2000 AISWCD Nutrient management plan implementation for
Nitrogen
21 November 2004
Water Body County IEPA
Program
Fund-ing
Yr
Local Partner/ Sponsor Project Description
Little Vermilion
River
LaSalle 319 1999 LaSalle County SWCD Little Vermilion WRAS development
Macoupin Creek Macoupin 319 1999 Macoupin County SWCD Macoupin Creek WRAS development
Mauvaisse Terre
Creek
Morgan 319 1994 Youth Attention Center Education and debris removal
Jasper, Clark 319 2002 North Fork Conserv. District Watershed project phase III
319 2000 North Fork Conserv. District Watershed project phase II
N. Fork
Embarras River
Edgar, Coles,
Cumberland,
Jasper, Clark,
Crawford
319 1996 North Fork Conservancy
District
Watershed project phase I- sediment and nutrient
reduction project
N. Fork 319 2003 Vermilion County SWCD N. Fork Vermilion project phase II
Vermilion River
Vermilion
319 1997 Vermilion County SWCD N. Fork Vermilion project phase I- BMP construction
to reduce siltation and nutrient transport
Olney East Fork Richland ICLP 1999 City of Olney Shoreline erosion control
319 2002 Otter Lake Water Commission Otter in-lake sediment control project (tied to the
1999 Phase II project)
ICLP 1999 Otter Lake Water Commission Phase II- shoreline stabilization and in-lake
sedimentation basin
PLWIP 1998 ADGPTV Water Commission Shoreline erosion control
Otter lake Macoupin
319 1994 Macoupin County SWCD Water and sediment control structures and restored
wetlands
Palmyra-Modesto 319 1994 Macoupin County SWCD Water and sediment control structures
Lake
Macoupin
PLWIP 1998 Palmyra-Modesto Water
Commission
Shoreline erosion control
319 2000 AISWCD Nutrient management plan implementation for
Nitrogen
ICLP 1997 Phase II- watershed BMPs, sediment removal,
shoreline stabilization
319 1993 Edgar County SWCD Paris Twin Lakes restoration and management
Paris Twin Lakes Edgar
319 1993 City of Paris Paris restoration/protection 314/319 project
Rayse Creek Jefferson 319 2003 SIUC- School of Forestry Watershed plan from the TMDL
319 2003 Village of Elk Grove Village Streambank stabilization
319 2003 City of Worthlake Addison Cr.(trib to Salt Cr.) streambank stabilization
and wetland restoration
319 2003 Village of Villa Park Villa Park Lake urban BMP construction
319 2002 Conservation Design Forum Green roof system to reduce urban runoff to Salt Cr.
319 2002 Addison Creek Conservation
District
Addison Creek (trib to Salt Cr.) streambank
stablilization
319 2001 City of Wood Dale Salt Creek streambank stabilization project phase III
319 2001 NIPC Salt Creek TMDL implementation plan execution
phase I
319 2000 City of Wood Dale Salt Creek streambank stabilization project phase II
319 1999 City of Rolling Meadows Salt Creek Streambank stabilization – Rolling
Meadows
319 1994 City of Wood Dale Salt Creek streambank stabilization project phase I
Salt Creek DuPage
and/or Cook
319 1993 Village of Palatine Palatine streambank stabilization project
Vandalia Lake Fayette 319 2002 Fayette County SWCD Vandalia Lake water quality information and
education
22 November 2004
Water Body County IEPA
Program
Fund-ing
Yr
Local Partner/ Sponsor Project Description
319 2003 Forest Preserve District of
DuPage County
Spring brook Creek (trib of W. Branch)- recreate river
meander, wetland and floodplain
319 2000 The Conservation Foundation Streambank stabilization phase II
319 1998 The Conservation Foundation Streambank stabilization
319 1996 Forest Preserve District of
DuPage County
Streambank stabilization
319 1997 DuPage County Dept of
Environmental Concerns
Spring Brook (trib of W. Branch DuPage)
streambank/shoreline protection
W. Branch
DuPage River
DuPage
319 1990 DuPage County Dept of
Environmental Concerns
Stormwater management assistance program-streambank/
shoreline stabilization
* 319 Projects funded prior to 2003 are described in the March 2003 State of Illinois Section 319 Biannual
Report at http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/watershed/reports/biannual-319/.
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Illinois EPA has a comprehensive approach offering opportunities to stakeholders to participate,
review and comment throughout the TMDL development process. For watersheds in which the
development of TMDLs is currently underway, the Illinois EPA holds three public meetings.
All public meetings are held at a location within the effected watershed to enable greater local
participation. Illinois EPA and its contractor typically provide an update of the progress made to-date.
The final public meeting held within the watershed, is on the draft TMDL report. The
public/stakeholders have an opportunity to comment 30 days prior to the meeting date, during the
meeting and generally 30 days after the meeting. In addition, where applicable, the report is distributed
to the Illinois Department of Agriculture, the USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service and other
state and federal partners prior to release to the public for technical review and input.
A TMDL stakeholders group of 30 to 40 members has been assembled. The group consists of
representatives from environmental groups, point source dischargers, Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group, U.S. EPA, nonpoint sources including agricultural and commodity associations, and other
organizations. Initial meetings of this group were held on February 5, 2002 and May 7, 2002 in
Springfield, Illinois. The Illinois TMDL Stakeholders Workgroup will continue to meet from time to
time, serving as a sounding board and review panel for development of various program elements.
In August 2003, the Science Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed and it met for the first time to
discuss TMDL development. This committee is made up of staff from the Illinois Department of
Agriculture, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,
University of Illinois Extension, Illinois State Water Survey, and an environmental group. The purpose
of this committee is to provide technical advice and scientific analysis of issues related to TMDL
development in Illinois. It is anticipated that the SAC will review, comment upon and discuss TMDL
interim reports throughout the TMDL development process.
For more information on the Illinois EPA TMDL Program, please visit our website at
http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/.
23 November 2004
VII. REFERENCES
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 130. Water Quality Planning and Management, July 1996.
Illinois EPA. 1996. Surface Water Monitoring Strategy, 1996-2000. IEPA/BOW/96-062. Bureau of Water,
Division of Water Pollution Control: Springfield, IL.
Illinois EPA. 2002a. Illinois 2002 Section 303(d) List. IEPA/BOW/03-016. Bureau of Water, Watershed
Management Section: Springfield, IL
Illinois EPA. 2002b. Water Monitoring Strategy 2002-2006. IEPA/BOW/02-005. Bureau of Water,
Division of Water Pollution Control: Springfield, IL
Illinois EPA. 2004. Illinois Water Quality Report 2004. IEPA/BOW/04-006. Bureau of Water, Division of
Water Pollution Control: Springfield, IL.
Smogor, R., et al. 2004 (in preparation). Development and Use of Fish-Based Indexes of Biotic Integrity for
Illinois Streams. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, Division of Water
Pollution Control. Springfield, Illinois.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Water-Quality Based Decisions; the TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001.
Office of Water: Washington DC.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Supplemental Guidance of Section 303(d) Implementation. Memorandum by Geoffrey H.
Grubbs, August 1992.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Supplemental Guidance of Section 303(d) Implementation. Memorandum by Geoffrey
H. Grubbs, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, August 13, 1992.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Guidance for 1994 Section 303(d) Lists. Memorandum by Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, November 26, 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. TMDL Coordinates Guidance for 1994 Section 303(d) Lists. Memorandum by Mimi
Dannel, Watershed Management Section, December 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Draft TMDL Program Implementation Strategy, November 18, 1996.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. National Clarifying Guidance for 1998 State and Territory Clean Water Act Section
303(d) Listing Decisions. Memorandum by Robert H. Wayland III, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, August 17, 1997.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. New Policies for Establishing and Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
Memorandum by Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, August 8, 1997.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Report of the FACA Committee on the TMDL program. EPA 100-R-98-006. Office of the
Administrator: Washington DC.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. EPA Review of 2000 Section 303(d) Lists. Memorandum by Robert H. Wayland III,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, April 28, 2000.
24 November 2004
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Guidance: Use of Fish and Shellfish Advisories and Classifications in 303(d) and 305(b)
Listing Decisions. Memorandum by Geoffrey H. Grubbs and Robert H. Wayland III, October 24, 2000.
U.S. EPA. 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidelines.
Memorandum by Robert H. Wayland III, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, November 19,
2001.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act; TMDL-01-03. Memorandum by Diane Vegas, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, July 21, 2003.
Water Pollution Control Federation. The Clean Water Act of 1987.
25 November 2004
VIII. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADB Assessment Data Base
Background Levels
Confidence Level
Levels representing the chemical, physical, and biological conditions that
would result from natural geomorphological processes such as weathering or
dissolution.
An estimate of the relative reliability of the Illinois EPA’s identification of
potential causes based on the amount and type of data available for the
assessment, and the guideline used to assess the data (e.g., Illinois water
quality standards, sediment classifications, state-wide statistical values {85th
percentile}). (Used in the 2002 List)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations (U.S. EPA)
CWA Clean Water Act
Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Interstate Water Water bodies sharing boundaries with more than one state.
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC National Research Council
Perched Lake Lakes privately owned and hydrologically separated
Pollutant Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage
sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. (See
CWA section 502(6)).
Pollution The man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical,
biological, and radiological integrity of water (See CWA section 502(19)).
RF 3 EPA Reach File Version 3
Section 303(d) Section of the federal Clean Water Act
Section 305(b) Section of the federal Clean Water Act
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load. A written, quantitative plan and analysis for
attaining and maintaining water quality standards in all seasons for a specific
water body and pollutant.
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
26 November 2004
Water Quality
Standards
Provisions of state or federal law which consist of a designated use or uses
for the waters of the U.S. and water quality criteria for such waters based
upon such uses. Water quality standards are to protect the public health or
welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the CWA.
WQLW Water Quality Limited Water is defined in 40 CFR 130.2(j) as “water quality
limited segment,” as “Any segment where it is known that water quality
does not meet applicable water quality standards, and/or is not expected to
meet applicable water quality standards, even after the application of the
technology-based effluent limitations required by sections 301(b) and 306 of
the [Clean Water] Act.”