Middle Fork Saline River Watershed TMDL Stage One%3A Final Report

              Final Report
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed TMDL
Stage One
Final Report
June 2009
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
i
FINAL
Contents
Section 1 Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
1.1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Overview ............................................. 1-1
1.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ......... 1-2
1.3 Report Overview .............................................................................................. 1-4
Section 2 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2.1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Location ............................................... 2-1
2.2 Topography ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Soils.................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4.1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Soil Characteristics .................. 2-3
2.5 Population ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.6 Climate, Pan Evaporation, and Streamflow ..................................................... 2-4
2.6.1 Climate ................................................................................................ 2-4
2.6.2 Pan Evaporation .................................................................................. 2-4
2.6.3 Streamflow .......................................................................................... 2-5
Section 3 Public Participation and Involvement
3.1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Public Participation and Involvement .. 3-1
Section 4 Middle Fork Saline River 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 ...................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources .............................................................................. 4-3
Section 5 Middle Fork Saline River 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 Sulfates ............................................................................. 5-2
5.1.1.4 Metals ............................................................................... 5-3
5.1.2 Lake Water Quality Data ..................................................................... 5-4
5.1.2.1 Harrisburg Reservoir ........................................................ 5-4
5.1.2.1.1 Total Phosphorus .......................................... 5-5
5.2 Reservoir Characteristics ................................................................................. 5-6
5.2.1 Harrisburg Reservoir ........................................................................... 5-6
5.3 Point Sources ................................................................................................... 5-6
List of Figures
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads and
Implementation Plans for Target Watersheds Report #1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
ii
FINAL
5.4 Nonpoint Sources ............................................................................................. 5-6
5.4.1 Crop Information ................................................................................. 5-6
5.4.2 Animal Operations .............................................................................. 5-7
5.4.3 Septic Systems ..................................................................................... 5-8
5.5 Watershed Studies and Other Watershed Information ................................... 5-10
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 Middle Fork
Saline River Watershed .................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.1 Recommended Approach for Metals, Sulfates and Fecal Coliform
TMDLs for Stream Segments.............................................................. 6-1
6.2.2 Recommended Approach for pH TMDL in Harco Branch
Segment ATGM-01 ............................................................................. 6-2
6.3 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Harrisburg Reservoir ...................... 6-2
iii
FINAL
Figures
1-1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed .............................................................. 1-7
2-1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Elevation .............................................. 2-7
2-2 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Land Use .............................................. 2-9
2-3 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Soils ................................................... 2-11
2-4 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed USGS Gages ...................................... 2-13
5-1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Water Quality Stations ....................... 5-11
5-2 Fecal Coliform Data Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 .............................. 5-13
5-3 Sulfate Concentrations Impaired Stream Segments Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed ............................................................................................ 5-15
5-4 Total Manganese Concentrations Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 .......... 5-17
5-5 Silver Concentrations Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 ............................ 5-19
5-6 Total Phosphorus Concentrations at 1-foot Depth Harrisburg Reservoir ...... 5-21
5-7 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Point Sources ..................................... 5-23
List of Figures
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads and
Implementation Plans for Target Watersheds Report #1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
iv
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v
FINAL
Tables
1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed .................... 1-3
2-1 Land Cover and Land Use in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ............... 2-2
2-2 Average Monthly Climate Data in Harrisburg, IL ........................................... 2-4
2-3 Streamflow Gages in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ...................... 2-5
2-4 Permitted Facilities Which Discharge into the South Fork of the Saline
River Above Gage 03382100 .......................................................................... 2-6
4-1 Summary of Water Quality Standards for Potential Causes of Lake
Impairments in Harrisburg Reservoir .............................................................. 4-2
4-2 Summary of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Potential Causes of
Stream Impairments in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ......................... 4-2
4-3 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources in the Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed .............................................................................................. 4-3
5-1 Existing Fecal Coliform Data for Bankston Fork ............................................ 5-2
5-2 Existing pH Data for Harco Branch ................................................................. 5-2
5-3 Existing Sulfates Data for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Impaired Stream Segments .............................................................................. 5-3
5-4 Existing Metals Data for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Impaired
Stream Segments .............................................................................................. 5-4
5-5 Harrisburg Reservoir Data Inventory for Impairments .................................... 5-4
5-6 Harrisburg Lake Data Availability for Data Needs Analysis and Future
Modeling Efforts .............................................................................................. 5-5
5-7 Average Total Phosphorus Concentrations (mg/L) in Harrisburg
Reservoir at one-foot depth .............................................................................. 5-5
5-8 Average Depths (ft) for Harrisburg Reservoir Segment RAI .......................... 5-6
5-9 Permitted Facilities Discharging to or Upstream of Impaired Segments
in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed .................................................... 5-6
5-10 Tillage Practices in Franklin County ............................................................... 5-7
5-11 Tillage Practices in Hamilton County .............................................................. 5-7
5-12 Tillage Practices in Saline County ................................................................... 5-7
5-13 Tillage Practices in Williamson County .......................................................... 5-7
5-14 Franklin County Animal Population ................................................................ 5-8
5-15 Hamilton County Animal Population .............................................................. 5-8
5-16 Saline County Animal Population ................................................................... 5-8
5-17 Williamson County Animal Population ........................................................... 5-8
6-1 Stream Impairment Data Availability Middle Fork Saline River
Watershed ........................................................................................................ 6-2
List of Tables
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads and
Implementation Plans for Target Watersheds Report #1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
vi
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 1-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.doc
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline
River 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 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
1-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.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 Middle Fork Saline
River 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 Stage 1 TMDL development for the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed. Stages 2 and 3 will be conducted upon completion of Stage 1. Stage 2 is
optional as data collection may not be necessary if additional data are not required to
establish the TMDL.
Following this process, the TMDL goals and objectives for the Middle Fork Saline
River watershed will include developing 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 Middle Fork Saline watershed
for which TMDLs will be developed:
  Bankston Fork (ATGC-01)
  Bankston Fork (ATGC-02)
  Bankston Fork (ATGC-11)
  Brushy Creek (ATGH-09)
  Brushy Creek (ATGH-10)
  Harco Branch (ATGM-01)
  Harrisburg Reservoir (RAI)
These impaired water body segments are shown on Figure 1-1. There are seven
impaired water body segments within the Middle Fork Saline River 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 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
FINAL 1-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water
Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment* Potential Sources
ATGC-01 Bankston
Fork
4.32 miles Aquatic Life Manganese, Silver,
Sulfates
Impacts from
Abandoned Mine
Lands, Acid Mine
Drainage, Surface
Mining
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Acid Mine Drainage,
Impacts from
Abandoned Mine
Lands, Surface Mining,
Crop Production
Primary
Contact
Recreation
Fecal Coliform Unknown
ATGC-02 Bankston
Fork
4.7 miles Aquatic Life Manganese, Silver,
Sulfates
Surface Mining, Acid
Mine Drainage, Impacts
from Abandoned Mine
Lands
ATGC-11 Bankston
Fork
8.49 miles Aquatic Life Manganese, Sulfates Surface Mining
ATGH-09 Brushy
Creek
1.44 miles Aquatic Life Manganese, Sulfates Surface Mining, Acid
Mine Drainage, Mine
Tailings
ATGH-10 Brushy
Creek
3.5 miles Aquatic Life Silver, Sulfates Surface Mining
ATGM-01 Harco Br. 3.09 miles Aquatic Life Copper, Manganese,
Nickel, pH, Silver,
Sulfates, Zinc
Acid Mine Drainage,
Surface Mining
RAI Harrisburg
Reservoir
208.9
acres
Aesthetic
Quality
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Runoff
from
Forest/Grassland/Parkla
nd, Urban Runoff/Storm
Sewers
Total Suspended Solids Runoff from
Forest/Grassland/Parkla
nd, Littoral/shore Area
Modifications
* 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, manganese, silver, copper, nickel,
sulfates, zinc, and total phosphorus (numeric standard) impairments in the Middle Fork
Saline River 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.
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
1-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.doc
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 =  WLA +  LA + 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 will be described in the
implementation plan. The implementation plan for the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed will describe how water quality standards will be attained. This
implementation plan will include recommendations for implementing best
management practices (BMPs), cost 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 Middle Fork Saline River 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 will occur throughout the TMDL development.
  Section 4 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Water Quality Standards
defines the water quality standards for the impaired water bodies.
  Section 5 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization presents the
available water quality data needed to develop TMDLs, discusses the characteristics
of the impaired reservoirs in the watershed, and also describes the point and non-point
sources with potential to contribute to the watershed load.
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
FINAL 1-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.doc
  Section 6 Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
makes recommendations for the models and analysis that will be needed for TMDL
development and also suggests segments for Stage 2 data collection.
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
1-6 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Middle Fork Saline River
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATGC-02
Bankston Fork
ATGC- 0 1
Brushy Creek
45
Eldorado
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H- 0 9 , AT GH- 1 0
Figure 1-1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
0 2 4 8 Miles DRAFT
Legend
Municipalities
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Saline_2008ws_Project
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
1-8 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 1 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 2-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Description
2.1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Location
The Middle Fork Saline River watershed (Figure 1-1) is located in southern Illinois,
flows in a southeasterly direction, and drains approximately 160,562 acres.
Approximately 119,182 acres lie in Saline County, 28,929 acres lie in eastern
Williamson County, 7,586 acres lie in southeastern corner of Franklin County,
3,567 acres lie in southwestern corner of Hamilton County, and 1,298 acres lie in the
southeastern corner of Gallatin 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 Middle Fork Saline River
watershed was obtained by overlaying the NED grid onto the GIS-delineated
watershed. Figure 2-1 shows the elevations found within the watershed.
Elevation in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed ranges from 1,068 feet above sea
level near the headwaters of Brushy Creek in the western part of the watershed to
275 feet at its most downstream point in the southeastern part of the watershed near the
Middle Fork of the Saline River.
2.3 Land Use
Land use data for the Middle Fork Saline River 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.)
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
The land use of the Middle Fork Saline River watershed was determined by overlaying
the IL-GAP Land Cover data layer onto the GIS-delineated watershed. Table 2-1
contains the land uses contributing to the Middle Fork Saline River 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 113,364 acres, representing about
71 percent of the total watershed area, are devoted to agricultural activities. Soybean
and corn farming account for about 22 percent and 19 percent of the watershed area,
respectively, and rural grassland accounts for about 25 percent. Upland accounts for
about 10 percent, and floodplain forest accounts for about 8 percent. Other land cover
types each represent less than three percent of the watershed area.
Table 2-1 Land Cover and Land Use in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Land Cover Category Area (Acres) Percentage
Rural Grassland 40,574 25.3
Soybeans 35,507 22.1
Corn 29,954 18.7
Upland 16,415 10.2
Floodplain Forest 13,201 8.2
Low/Medium Density 3,959 2.5
Surface Water 3,399 2.1
Urban Open Space 3,388 2.1
Winter Wheat 2,709 1.7
Winter Wheat/Soybeans 2,402 1.5
Partial Canopy/Savannah Upland 1,664 1.0
High Density 1,287 0.8
Other Small Grains & Hay 1,221 0.8
Coniferous 1,123 0.7
Other Agriculture 996 0.6
Barren & Exposed Land 834 0.5
Shallow Water 670 0.4
Swamp 480 0.3
Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow 406 0.3
Deep Marsh 328 0.2
Seasonally/Temporarily Flooded 42 <0.1
Total 160,562 100
2.4 Soils
Two types of soil data are available for use within the state of Illinois through the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). General soils data and map unit
delineations for the entire state are provided as part of the State Soil Geographic
(STATSGO) database. Soil maps for the database are produced by generalizing
detailed soil survey data. The mapping scale for STATSGO is 1:250,000. More
detailed soils data and spatial coverages are available through the Soil Survey
Geographic (SSURGO) database for a limited number of counties. 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.
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
FINAL 2-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
At this time, SSURGO data is available for all the counties within the Middle Fork
Saline River. 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 Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
2.4.1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Soil Characteristics
Appendix B contains a table of the SSURGO soil series for the Middle Fork Saline
River 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 Middle Fork Saline
River 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 B, C, D, B/D, and C/D are found within the
Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The majority of the watershed falls into group C.
Group C soils are defined as having "moderately high runoff potential when
thoroughly wet." These soils have a low 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 Middle Fork Saline River watershed range
from 0.17 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 Franklin, Hamilton,
Saline, and Williamson 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 municipalities' area within the watershed boundary.
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
Approximately 19,450 people reside in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The
major municipalities in the watershed are shown in Figure 1-1. The largest urban
development in the watershed is the city of Harrisburg, which is located approximately
in the center of the Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
2.6 Climate, Pan Evaporation, and Streamflow
2.6.1 Climate
Southern Illinois has a temperate climate with hot summers and cold, snowy winters.
Monthly precipitation data from Harrisburg, Illinois (station id. 3879) in Saline County
were extracted from the NCDC database for the years of 1901 through 2006. The data
station in Harrisburg, Illinois was chosen to be representative of precipitation
throughout the Middle Fork Saline River 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 38.4 inches.
Table 2-2 Average Monthly Climate Data in Harrisburg, IL
Month
Total Precipitation
(inches)
Maximum Temperature
(degrees F)
Minimum Temperature
(degrees F)
January 2.4 43 24
February 2.1 47 27
March 3.5 58 36
April 3.8 68 45
May 4.2 76 53
June 4.1 86 63
July 3.3 89 65
August 3.3 90 65
September 3.2 82 57
October 3.0 72 46
November 3.1 57 36
December 2.4 45 27
Total 38.4 68 45
2.6.2 Pan Evaporation
Through the ISWS website, pan evaporation data are available from nine locations
across Illinois (ISWS 2007). The Dixon Springs station was chosen to be
representative of pan evaporation conditions for Harrisburg Lake. The Dixon Springs
station is located approximately 30 miles south of the Harrisburg Lake. The station
was chosen for its proximity to the 303(d)-listed water bodies and stream segments in
southern Illinois and the completeness of the dataset compared to other stations. The
average monthly pan evaporation at the Dixon Springs station for the years 1983 to
2002 yields an average annual pan evaporation of 48.1 inches. Actual evaporation is
typically less than pan evaporation, so the average annual pan evaporation was
multiplied by 0.75 to calculate an average annual evaporation of 36.1 inches (ISWS
2007).
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
FINAL 2-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
2.6.3 Streamflow
Analysis of the Middle Fork Saline River watershed requires an understanding of flow
throughout the drainage area. Three USGS gages within the watershed have historic
data available, which are summarized with respective information in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Streamflow Gages in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Gage
Number Name POR
03382160 Bankston Fork near Crab Orchard, IL 1978-1980
03382170 Brushy Creek near Harco, IL 1922-1932
03382200 Middle Fork Saline River Near Harrisburg, IL 1966-1982
Since there are no gages within the watershed that have data for the past 20 years,
stage data were estimated 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 03382100 (South Fork Saline River near Carrier Mills, Illinois) was
chosen as an appropriate gage from which to estimate flow in the Middle Fork Saline
River watershed. The surrogate gage is located on the South Fork of the Saline River
and is approximately 9 miles southwest of the city of Harrisburg, Illinois, and 15 miles
southeast of Marion, Illinois. The contributing watershed is a smaller watershed with a
smaller drainage area. Gage 03382100 captures flow from a drainage area of
147 square miles in rural area south of the Middle Fork Saline River watershed. Due to
the close proximity and similar land uses, it is assumed that the surrogate gage and
contributing area receive comparable precipitation throughout the year to the Middle
Fork Saline River watershed. The Middle Fork Saline River watershed is 248 square
miles large.
ungaged
gaged
ungaged
gaged Q
Area
Area
Q      
 
 
   
 
 
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-6 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
Data were downloaded through the USGS for the South Fork of the Saline River gage
for the available period of record (1965-2008) and adjusted to account for point source
influence in the watershed upstream of the gaging station. There are six permitted
facilities upstream of the USGS gage on the South Fork of the Saline River. Table 2-4
shows the permitted facilities upstream of the USGS gages on the Middle Fork of the
Saline River. The Middle Fork of the Saline River receives a cumulative discharge of
79 mgd before gage 03382100.
Table 2-4 Permitted Facilities Which Discharge into the South Fork of the Saline River Above
Gage 03382100
NPDES Permit
Number Facility Name
Permitted
Discharge (mgd)
ILG580053 Lake of Egypt Sewer District Sanitary Treatment Plant
(STP)
0.065
ILG580082 Stonefort STP 0.047
ILG580116 Goreville STP 0.060
ILG580125 Creal Springs STP 0.224
IL0004316 Southern Illinois Power-Marion County 78.550
IL0076261 Lake of Egypt Water District Water Treatment Plant
(WTP)
0.065
Total 6 79.011
This cumulative flow was subtracted from the USGS gage flows to account for flows
associated with precipitation and overland runoff only. Once these flows were
determined, they were multiplied by the area ratio to estimate flows within the Middle
Fork Saline River watershed. Using the drainage area ratio method and data from gage
03382100, the average monthly flows in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed was
calculated. The average monthly flows in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed
range from 46 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 446 cfs with a mean flow of 228 cfs (see
Figure 2-4). Further efforts to quantify watershed contributions will be performed
during Stage 3 of TMDL development.
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATGC-02
Bankston Fork
ATGC- 0 1
Brushy Creek
45
Eldorado
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H- 0 9 , AT GH- 1 0
Middle Fork Saline River
Figure 2-1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Elevation
0 2 4 8 Miles DRAFT
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Elevation (feet)
275 - 333
334 - 357
358 - 380
381 - 403
404 - 427
428 - 451
452 - 476
477 - 504
505 - 534
535 - 567
568 - 604
605 - 646
647 - 695
696 - 761
762 - 1,069
Legend
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-8 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATGC-02
Bankston Fork
ATGC- 0 1
Brushy Creek
45
Eldorado
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H- 0 9 , AT GH- 1 0
Middle Fork Saline River
Figure 2-2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Land Use
0 2 4 8 Miles DRAFT
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed 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
Coniferous
High Density
Low/Medium Density
Urban Open Space
Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow
Deep Marsh
Seasonally/Temporarily Flooded
Floodplain Forest
Swamp
Shallow Water
Surface Water
Barren & Exposed Land
Legend
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-10 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATGC-02
Bankston Fork
ATGC- 0 1
Brushy Creek
45
Eldorado
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H- 0 9 , AT GH- 1 0
Middle Fork Saline River
Figure 2-3
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Soils
0 2 4 8 Miles DRAFT
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Hydrologic Soil Group
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Dumps, Slurry, Other
Water
Legend
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-12 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 
T:\Stage1Data\USGS Gage Stations\Saline_Gage_Data.xls
Figure 2-4:
Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow
in Middle Fork Saline River
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month
Flow (cfs)
Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow
Section 2
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Description
2-14 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 2 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 3-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 3 saline.doc
Section 3
Public Participation and Involvement
3.1 Middle Fork Saline River 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, will hold two public meetings within the watershed
throughout the course of the TMDL development. This section will be updated as
public meetings occur.
Section 3
Public Participation and Involvement
3-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 3 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 4-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 4 saline .doc
Section 4
Middle Fork Saline River 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 2005). The designated uses applicable
to the Middle Fork Saline River watershed are the General Use.
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.
Section 4
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Water Quality Standards
4-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 4 saline .doc
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. For public and food processing water supply waters, Illinois EPA compares
available data with water quality standards to make impairment determinations.
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 present the numeric water quality standards of the potential causes
of impairment for both lakes and streams in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
Only constituents with numeric water quality standards will have TMDLs developed at
this time.
Table 4-1 Summary of Water Quality Standards for Potential Causes of Lake Impairments in
Harrisburg Reservoir
Parameter Units
General Use Water Quality
Standard Regulatory Reference
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.05(1) 302.205
mg/L = milligrams per liter
(1) Standard applies in particular to inland lakes and reservoirs (greater than 20 acres) and in any
stream at the point where it enters any such lake or reservoir.
Table 4-2 Summary of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Potential Causes of Stream
Impairments in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Parameter Units
General Use Water Quality
Standard Regulatory Reference
Manganese (total) μg/L 1000 302.208(g)
Total Fecal Coliform Count/
100
mL
May through October 200(1),
400(2)
302.209
pH s.u. 6.5-9 302.204
Silver μg/L 5 302.208(g)
Sulfates mg/L 500 302.208(g)
Nickel (dissolved) μg/L Acute standard(3) = 302.208(e)
(exp[0.5173+0.8460 x ln(H)]) x
0.998*
Chronic standard(4) =
(exp[-2.286+0.8460 x ln(H)]) x
0.997*
Copper (dissolved) μg/L Acute standard(3) = 302.208(e)
(exp[-1.464+0.9422 x ln(H)]) x
0.960*
Chronic standard(4) =
(exp[-1.465+0.8545 x ln(H)]) x
0.960*
Section 4
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Water Quality Standards
FINAL 4-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 4 saline .doc
Table 4-2 Summary of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Potential Causes of Stream
Impairments in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed (cont.)
Zinc (dissolved) μg/L Acute standard(3) = 302.208(e)
(exp[0.9035+0.8473 x ln(H)]) x
0.978*
Chronic standard(4) =
(exp[-0.8165+0.8473 x ln(H)]) x
0.986*
μg/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
* = conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals
(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.
(3) Not to be exceeded except as provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(d).
(4) Not to be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples collected over
any period of at least four days except as provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208(d). The samples
used to demonstrate attainment or lack of attainment with a chronic standard must be collected
in a manner that assures an average representative of the sampling period. To calculate
attainment status of chronic metals standards, the concentration of the metal in each sample is
divided by the calculated water quality standard for the sample to determine a quotient. The
water quality standard is attained if the mean of the sample quotients is less than or equal to one
for the duration of the averaging period.
4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources
In order to properly address the conditions within the Middle Fork Saline River
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.
Table 4-3 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Segment ID Segment Name
Potential Causes of
Impairment
Potential Sources (as identified by
the 2006 303(d) list)
ATGC-01 Bankston Fork Manganese, Silver,
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Sulfates, Total
Suspended Solids,
Fecal Coliform
Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands,
Acid Mine Drainage, Surface Mining,
Unknown, Crop Production
ATGC-02 Bankston Fork Manganese, Silver,
Sulfates
Surface Mining, Acid Mine Drainage,
Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands
ATGC-11 Bankston Fork Manganese, Sulfates Surface Mining
ATGH-09 Brushy Creek Manganese, Sulfates Surface Mining, Acid Mine Drainage,
Mine Tailings
ATGH-10 Brushy Creek Silver, Sulfates Surface Mining
ATGM-01 Harco Branch Copper, Manganese,
Nickel, pH, Silver,
Sulfates, Zinc
Acid Mine Drainage, Surface Mining
RAI Harrisburg
Reservoir
Phosphorus (Total),
Total Suspended Solids
Crop Production, Runoff from
Forest/Grassland/Parkland, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers, Littoral/shore
Area Modifications
*Bold Potential Causes of Impairment have numeric water quality standard and TMDLs will be developed.
Section 4
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Water Quality Standards
4-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 4 saline .doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 5-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Characterization
Data were collected and reviewed from many sources in order to further characterize
the Middle Fork Saline River 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 10 historic water quality stations within the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed, including 3 stations found on Harrisburg Reservoir 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 Middle Fork Saline River 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
(electronic and hard copy) are available for stations sampled after that date. The
following sections will first discuss Middle Fork Saline River watershed stream data
followed by Middle Fork Saline River watershed lake data.
5.1.1 Stream Water Quality Data
The Middle Fork Saline River watershed has 7 impaired stream segments within its
drainage area that are addressed in this report. There is one active water quality station
on each of the 7 impaired segments (see Figure 5-1). The data summarized in this
section include water quality data for impaired constituents as well as parameters that
could be useful in future modeling and analysis efforts. All historic water quality data
are available in Appendix C.
5.1.1.1 Fecal Coliform
Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01 is listed for impairment caused 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
cfu per 100 mL not be exceeded by the geometric mean of at least five samples, nor
can 10 percent of the samples collected exceed 400 cfu per 100 mL in protected
waters, except as provided in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.209(b). Samples must be collected
over a 30-day period or less 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
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
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 segment ATGC-01.
Table 5-1 Existing Fecal Coliform Data for Bankston Fork
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)
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01; Sample Location ATGC-01
Total Fecal Coliform
(cfu/100 mL)
1990-2005; 64 172.2 28000 3 26 18
(1) Samples collected during the months of May through October
5.1.1.2 pH
Harco Branch segment ATGM-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 3 samples have been collected since 1990 from the impaired segment. As
shown, all 3 of the samples collected at ATGM-01 during this time period were in
violation of the standard.
Table 5-2 Existing pH Data for Harco Branch
Sample Location Sample Date Result (s.u.)
ATGM01 6/17/1993 2.34
ATGM01 9/28/1993 2.50
ATGM01 12/13/1993 3.08
5.1.1.3 Sulfates
Harco Branch segment ATGM-01, Bankston Fork segments ATGC-01, ATGC-02,
ATGC-11, and Brushy Creek segments ATGH-09 and ATGH-10 are listed for
impairment of the aquatic life use by sulfates. A sample is considered a violation if it is
above 500 mg/L except for waters in which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section
302.102 of the Illinois water quality standards. Table 5-3 summarizes the results of the
131 samples collected from impaired stream segments in this watershed between
January 25, 1990 and December 6, 2005. Figure 5-3 shows the sulfate sample results
graphically.
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
Table 5-3 Existing Sulfates Data for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location and
Parameter
Illinois WQ
Standard (mg/L)
Period of
Record and
Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number
of
Violations
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01; Sample Location ATGM-01
Sulfates 500 1993; 3 1220 1580 1034 3
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01; Sample Location ATGC-01
Sulfates 500 1990-2005; 116 1287 3040 12 100
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02; Sample Location ATGC-02
Sulfates 500 1993; 3 1874 2070 1710 3
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11; Sample Location ATGC-11
Sulfates 500 1993; 3 1576 2542 27 2
Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-09; Sample Location ATGH-09
Sulfates 500 1993; 3 1828 3220 953 3
Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-10; Sample Location ATGH-10
Sulfates 500 1993; 3 557 770 260 2
5.1.1.4 Metals
The following segments are listed for aquatic life use impairments caused by metals:
  Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01: Manganese and Silver
  Bankston Fork segment ATGC-02: Manganese and Silver
  Bankston Fork segment ATGC-11: Manganese
  Harco Branch segment ATGM-01: Copper, Manganese, Nickel, Silver and Zinc
  Brushy Creek segment ATGH-09: Manganese
  Brushy Creek segment ATGH-10: Silver
Table 5-4 contains a summary of metal data collected on impaired segments. The
standards for copper, nickel and zinc are dependent on hardness. Hardness data have
been collected in conjunction with these parameters. The number of violations
presented in Table 5-4 for these hardness-dependent parameters represent violations of
the general use chronic standard. Figure 5-4 shows manganese concentration overtime
on Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01. Figure 5-5 shows silver concentrations overtime
on the same stream segment. Charts were not developed for the other impaired stream
segments in this watershed due to low data availability. All water quality data are
available for review in Appendix C.
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
Table 5-4 Existing Metals Data for Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location
and Parameter
Illinois WQ
Standard
(μg/L)
Period of
Record and
Number of
Data Points
Mean Maximum Minimum Number
of
Violations
Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01; Sample Location ATGC-01
Manganese (total) 1000 1990-2005;
137
9766.7 12000 7700 3
Silver (total) 5 1990-2005;
137
3.62 17 0 13
Bankston Fork segment ATGC-02; Sample Location ATGC-02
Manganese (total) 1000 1993; 3 940 2100 160 1
Silver (total) 5 1993; 3 7.33 13 3 2
Bankston Fork segment ATGC-11; Sample Location ATGC-11
Manganese (total) 1000 1993; 3 1660 2300 880 2
Harco Branch segment ATGM-01; Sample Location ATGM-01
Copper (dissolved) hardness
dependent
1993; 3 132 190 46 2 (1)
Manganese (total) 1000 1993; 3 9766.7 12000 7700 3
Nickel (dissolved) hardness
dependent
1993; 3 413.3 440 390 3(1)
Silver (total) 5 1993; 3 7.33 10 3 2
Zinc (dissolved) hardness
dependent
1993; 3 7300.0 7400 7200 3(1)
Brushy Creek segment ATGH-09; Sample Location ATGH-09
Manganese (total) 1000 1993; 3 850 1500 340 1
Brushy Creek segment ATGH-10; Sample Location ATGH-10
Silver (total) 5 1993; 3 7.00 14 3 2
(1) Both the chronic and acute standards were exceeded
5.1.2 Lake Water Quality Data
The Middle Fork Saline River watershed has one impaired lake within its drainage area
that is addressed in this report. The data summarized in this section include water
quality data for the impaired constituents as well as parameters that could be useful in
future modeling and analysis efforts. All historic water quality data are available in
Appendix C.
5.1.2.1 Harrisburg Reservoir
Harrisburg Reservoir is listed for impairment caused by total phosphorous. There are
three active stations on Harrisburg Reservoir (see Figure 5-1). An inventory of all
available data associated with the impairment at all depths is presented in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5 Harrisburg Reservoir Data Inventory for Impairments
Harrisburg Reservoir Segment RAI; Sample Locations RAI-1, RAI-2, and RAI-3
RAI-1 Period of Record Number of Samples
Dissolved Phosphorus 1995 21
Total Phosphorus 1993-1995 24
RAI-2
Dissolved Phosphorus 1995 10
Total Phosphorus 1995 10
RAI-3
Dissolved Phosphorus 1995 10
Total Phosphorus 1995 11
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
Table 5-6 contains information on data availability for other parameters that may be
useful in data needs analysis and future modeling efforts for phosphorus and nitrogen
as nitrate. The inventory presented in Table 5-6 represents data collected at varying
depths.
Table 5-6 Harrisburg Lake Data Availability for Data Needs Analysis and Future Modeling Efforts
Harrisburg Lake Segment RAI; Sample Locations RAI-1, RAI-2, and RAI-3
RAI-1 Period of Record Number of Samples
Chlorophyll-a Corrected 2002 5
Chlorophyll-a Uncorrected 2002 6
Dissolved Oxygen 1995 92
Water Temperature 1995 92
Depth 2002 17
RAI-2
Chlorophyll-a Corrected 2002 5
Chlorophyll-a Uncorrected 2002 5
Dissolved Oxygen 1995 41
Water Temperature 1995 41
Depth 2002 10
RAI-3
Chlorophyll-a Corrected 2002 5
Chlorophyll-a Uncorrected 2002 5
Dissolved Oxygen 1995 27
Water Temperature 1995 26
Depth 2002 12
5.1.2.1.1 Total Phosphorus
The water quality standard for total phosphorus is a concentration less than or equal to
0.05 mg/L. Compliance with the total phosphorus standard is assessed using samples
collected at a one-foot depth from the lake surface. The average total phosphorus
concentrations at a one-foot depth for each year of available data at each monitoring
site in Harrisburg Reservoir are presented in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7 Average Total Phosphorus Concentrations (mg/L) in Harrisburg Reservoir at one-foot depth
Year
RAI-1 RAI-2 RAI-3 Lake Average
Data Count;
Number of
Violations Average
Data Count;
Number of
Violations Average
Data Count;
Number of
Violations Average
Data Count;
Number of
Violations Average
1993 1; 0 0.014 0; NA NA 0; NA NA 1; 0 0.014
1995 6; 5 0.076 5; 4 0.085 5; 5 0.088 6; 5 0.076
2002 1; 1 0.078 1; 1 0.089 1; 1 0.110 1; 1 0.078
As shown in the table, the majority of samples from 1993-2002 exceeded the total
phosphorous water quality standard of 0.05 mg/L. Figure 5-6 shows the total
phosphorous concentrations in Harrisburg Reservoir.
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-6 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
5.2 Reservoir Characteristics
5.2.1 Harrisburg Reservoir
Harrisburg Reservoir is located approximately one mile east of Galatia and has a
surface area of 209 acres. The lake has a maximum depth of 30 feet and an average
depth of 10 feet. Depth values were available with associated water quality sampling
and average depths by year are presented below.
Table 5-8 Average Depths (ft) for Harrisburg Reservoir Segment RAI (Illinois EPA 2002 and
USEPA 2002a)
Year RAI-1 RAI-2 RAI-3
1993 27
1995 26 16 8
2002 24 14 7
Average 26 15 7.5
5.3 Point Sources
There are two active point sources
located within the Middle Fork Saline
River watershed that discharge to or
upstream of impaired segments.
Table 5-9 contains permit information
for these point sources while Figure 5-7 shows the locations of outfalls for each
facility. Permit limits and discharge monitoring reports will be analyzed and further
detailed during Stage 3 TMDL development.
Historic mining likely took place within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed,
however, the mining records for historic mines were not available at the time of Stage
1 TMDL development. Historic mining information will be reviewed and incorporated
where appropriate during the final stages of TMDL development in this watershed.
5.4 Nonpoint Sources
There are many potential nonpoint sources of pollutant loading to the impaired
segments in the Middle Fork Saline River 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.
5.4.1 Crop Information
The significant portion of the land found within the Middle Fork Saline River
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 Middle Fork Saline River
Table 5-9 Permitted Facilities Discharging to or
Upstream of Impaired Segments in the Middle
Fork Saline River Watershed
Facility ID Facility Name
IL0059749 Liberty Coal - LLC - Liberty Mine
IL0060402 Liberty Coal - LLC - Liberty Mine
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-7
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
watershed were not available; however, Franklin, Hamilton, Saline, and Williamson
county practices were available and are shown in the following tables.
Table 5-10 Tillage Practices in Franklin County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 79% 25% 17%
Reduced - Till 1% 2% 54%
Mulch - Till 4% 9% 8%
No - Till 17% 64% 21%
Table 5-11 Tillage Practices in Hamilton County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 37% 21% 4%
Reduced - Till 12% 9% 19%
Mulch - Till 0% 6% 28%
No - Till 51% 64% 49%
Table 5-12 Tillage Practices in Saline County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 45% 15% 0%
Reduced - Till 12% 15% 0%
Mulch - Till 4% 4% 0%
No - Till 39% 66% 100%
Table 5-13 Tillage Practices in Williamson County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 10% 26% 0%
Reduced - Till 35% 12% 100%
Mulch - Till 12% 12% 0%
No - Till 43% 50% 0%
Estimates on tile drainage were provided by the Williamson and Saline county NRCS
offices. According to NRCS officials in Williamson County, land in the Middle Fork
Saline River watershed consists mainly of rolling hills. As a result, little farming is
done in this portion of the watershed and less than 5 percent of farms use field tiles. In
Saline County, the topography is more suitable for farming; however, much of the land
is unusable due to oil brine damage. On existing farms, field tiles are used on
approximately 40 percent of the fields. Information on tile drainage was not available
from other county offices in the watershed. More detailed site-specific data will be
incorporated if it becomes available. Without more precise local information, soils data
may be reviewed for information on hydrologic soil group in order to provide a basis
for tile drain estimates.
5.4.2 Animal Operations
Animal populations are available from the national Agricultural Statistics Service.
Data specific to the Middle Fork Saline River watershed were not available; however,
the Franklin, Hamilton, Saline, and Williamson County animal populations were
reviewed and are presented in the following tables.
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-8 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
Table 5-14 Franklin County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 8,052 7,746 -4%
Beef 3,112 3,135 1%
Dairy 623 599 -4%
Hogs and Pigs 18,007 30,011 67%
Poultry 672 422 -37%
Sheep and Lambs 149 67 -55%
Horses and Ponies NA 634 NA
Table 5-15 Hamilton County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 4,077 4,320 6%
Beef NA NA NA
Dairy NA NA NA
Hogs and Pigs 12,777 24,167 89%
Poultry 86 129 50%
Sheep and Lambs NA 207 NA
Horses and Ponies NA 443 NA
Table 5-16 Saline County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 6,783 6,667 -2%
Beef 3,391 3,442 2%
Dairy 130 108 -17%
Hogs and Pigs 29,516 19,520 -34%
Poultry NA NA NA
Sheep and Lambs NA NA NA
Horses and Ponies NA 557 NA
Table 5-17 Williamson County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 9,362 9,774 4%
Beef 4,836 5,104 6%
Dairy 58 14 -76%
Hogs and Pigs 6,475 8,221 27%
Poultry 567 298 -47%
Sheep and Lambs 103 111 8%
Horses and Ponies NA 814 NA
Communications with local NRCS officials have provided more watershed-specific
animal information. Williamson County NRCS officials stated that a few small cattle
operations exist within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed, but there are no hog
operations within the watershed. Saline County reported a few small cattle operations
as well, and a few chicken and hog CAFOs, but no definite numbers of operations
were available. Information on animal operations was not available from other county
offices in the watershed. Any additional site-specific information that becomes
available will be incorporated into the final TMDL.
5.4.3 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
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-9
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
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., septic systems have been found to be a significant source of
phosphorous pollution. Failing or leaking septic systems contribute to fecal coliform
pollution, although animal waste, urban runoff and permitted point sources can also
contribute. Information on septic systems within the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed was obtained, specifically for the areas surrounding Bangston Fork segment
ATGC-01, which is impaired for fecal coliform and Harrisburg Reservoir, which is
impaired for total phosphorus. The information on the extent of sewered and
nonsewered municipalities was obtained from Egyptian Health Department, which
serves Saline County. Health department officials stated that Harrisburg, Eldorado,
Galatia, Raleigh, and Carriers Mills are served by city sewer systems. There is also a
small town northeast of Harrisburg called Muddy that is sewered. Any homes beyond
the limits of these cities and towns are served by septic systems. Health department
officials stated, however, that there are very few houses outside of the city limits of
each of these towns.
According to county plat maps, there are no homes located along Bangston Fork
segment ATGC-01. Maps of this area show plats of 100 acres and larger, which are
most likely used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Land to the west of Harrisburg
is primarily composed of the "Tuttle Bottoms" land. This area is bottomland with some
agriculture and large amounts of mining. Health department officials estimated that
there are no more than ten homes in this area, all of which would be served by septic
systems. Although the conditions of these septic systems are unknown, officials state
that any problems with a septic system would be reported to their department and
would be inspected and immediately brought to code.
Health department officials stated that Saline County is the largest coal producing
county in Illinois, and the majority of water body impairments in this region are likely
the result of mining practices (refer to Section 5.3 for a brief discussion of mining in
the watershed). One health department official stated that there are large populations of
geese along segment ATGC-01 of Bangston Fork and suggested that geese feces could
be contributing to the fecal coliform impairment.
Saline County Health Department officials were also able to provide information on
the area surrounding Harrisburg Reservoir. As mentioned previously, the nearby towns
of Galatia and Raleigh are both served by sewer systems. The municipality
surrounding the reservoir, however, is served by septic systems. Health department
officials stated that the houses surrounding the lake are primarily vacation homes and
cabins occupied only during the summer months of the year. The department has
received a few calls in the past dealing with failing septic systems in this area, but each
of these systems was inspected and brought back to code.
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-10 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
5.5 Watershed Studies and Other Watershed Information
The extent of previous planning efforts within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed
is unknown. It is assumed that this information will become available through public
meetings within the watershed community. In the event that other watershed-specific
information becomes available, it will be reviewed and all applicable data will be
incorporated during Stages 2 and 3 of TMDL development.
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Middle Fork Saline River
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATGC-02
Bankston Fork
ATGC- 0 1
Brushy Creek
45
Eldorado
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H -09, ATGH-10
ATGC-13
ATGC-14
ATGC-02
ATGC-17
ATGH-09
ATGH-99 ATGH-10
ATGH-06
ATGH-98
ATGH-07
ATGH-08
RAI-1
RAI-6 RAI-3
RAI-2
RAI-5
ATGM-01
ATGC-01
ATGC-19
ATGC-18
ATGC-16
ATGC-15
ATGC-11 ATGC-12
Figure 5-1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Water Quality Stations
0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles DRAFT
Water Quality Stations
Municipalities
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Legend
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-12 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1000
10000
100000
00ml
ATGC-01
Standard (200 cfu per 100ml)
Standard (400 cfu per 100ml)
DRAFT
Figure 5-2:
Fecal Coliform Data
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
1
10
100
5/14/1990
11/14/1990
5/14/1991
11/14/1991
5/14/1992
11/14/1992
5/14/1993
11/14/1993
5/14/1994
11/14/1994
5/14/1995
11/14/1995
5/14/1996
11/14/1996
5/14/1997
11/14/1997
5/14/1998
11/14/1998
5/14/1999
11/14/1999
5/14/2000
11/14/2000
5/14/2001
11/14/2001
5/14/2002
11/14/2002
5/14/2003
11/14/2003
5/14/2004
11/14/2004
5/14/2005
CFU per 1
Sample Date
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-14 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2000
2500
3000
3500
n (mg/L)
ATGC-01
ATGC-02
ATGC-11
ATGH-09
ATGH-10
ATGM-01
Standard (500 mg/L)
DRAFT
Figure 5-3:
Sulfate Concentrations
Impaired Stream Segments
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
0
500
1000
1500
1/25/1990
7/25/1990
1/25/1991
7/25/1991
1/25/1992
7/25/1992
1/25/1993
7/25/1993
1/25/1994
7/25/1994
1/25/1995
7/25/1995
1/25/1996
7/25/1996
1/25/1997
7/25/1997
1/25/1998
7/25/1998
1/25/1999
7/25/1999
1/25/2000
7/25/2000
1/25/2001
7/25/2001
1/25/2002
7/25/2002
1/25/2003
7/25/2003
1/25/2004
7/25/2004
1/25/2005
7/25/2005
Concentratio
Sample Date
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-16 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1500
2000
2500
on (μg/L)
ATGC-01
Manganese Standard (1000 μg/L)
*Two data outliers exist and 
are not shown on this figure:
9/16/93   21,000 ug/L
7/26/01   26,000 ug/L
DRAFT
Figure 5-4:
Total Manganese Concentrations
Bankston Fork Segment ATCG-01
0
500
1000
1/25/1990
7/25/1990
1/25/1991
7/25/1991
1/25/1992
7/25/1992
1/25/1993
7/25/1993
1/25/1994
7/25/1994
1/25/1995
7/25/1995
1/25/1996
7/25/1996
1/25/1997
7/25/1997
1/25/1998
7/25/1998
1/25/1999
7/25/1999
1/25/2000
7/25/2000
1/25/2001
7/25/2001
1/25/2002
7/25/2002
1/25/2003
7/25/2003
1/25/2004
7/25/2004
1/25/2005
7/25/2005
Concentratio
Sample Date
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-18 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10
12
14
16
18
on (μg/L)
ATGC-01
Silver Standard (5 μg/L)
DRAFT
Figure 5-5:
Silver Concentrations
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
0
2
4
6
8
1/25/1990
7/25/1990
1/25/1991
7/25/1991
1/25/1992
7/25/1992
1/25/1993
7/25/1993
1/25/1994
7/25/1994
1/25/1995
7/25/1995
1/25/1996
7/25/1996
1/25/1997
7/25/1997
1/25/1998
7/25/1998
1/25/1999
7/25/1999
1/25/2000
7/25/2000
1/25/2001
7/25/2001
1/25/2002
7/25/2002
1/25/2003
7/25/2003
1/25/2004
7/25/2004
1/25/2005
7/25/2005
Concentratio
Sample Date
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-20 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
ration (mg/L)
RAI-1
RAI-2
RAI-3
DRAFT
Figure 5-6:
Total Phosphorus Concentrations
at 1-foot Depth
Harrisburg Reservoir
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
7/13/93 4/24/95 6/8/95 7/6/95 8/9/95 8/10/95 10/10/95 4/3/02
Concent
Sample Date
Standard (0.05mg/L)
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-22 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Middle Fork Saline River
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATG C-02
Bankston Fork
ATG C-01
Brushy Creek
45
El dora do
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H- 0 9 , AT G H- 1 0
Brushy Creek
Coal Company
Delta Mine
Holding Company
Brushy Creek
Coal Company
Figure 5-7
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Point Sources
0 2 4 8 Miles DRAFT
Legend
Point Sources
Municipalities
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Saline_2008ws_Project
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Section 5
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed Characterization
5-24 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 5 saline.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 6-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 6 saline.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
Middle Fork Saline River watershed; manganese, silver, sulfates, fecal coliform,
copper, nickel, pH and zinc are all of the parameters with numeric water quality
standards. For the impaired reservoir in the watershed, total phosphorus is the only
parameter 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 Middle Fork Saline River watershed. 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 Middle Fork Saline
RIiver watershed.
6.2 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Stream Segments
in Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
6.2.1 Recommended Approach for Metals, Sulfates and Fecal
Coliform TMDLs for Stream Segments
Table 6-1 contains information regarding the pollutant and available data for the
impaired stream segments in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
6-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 6 saline.doc
Table 6-1: Stream Impairment Data Availability Middle Fork Saline River
Watershed
Stream
Name
Segment
ID
Cause of
Impairment
Data
Count
Period of
Record
Bankston
Fork
ATGC-01 Fecal Coliform 64 1990-2005
Sulfates 116 1990-2005
Manganese 137 1990-2005
Silver 137 1990-2005
ATGC-02 Sulfates 3 1993
Manganese 3 1993
Silver 3 1993
ATGC-11 Sulfates 3 1993
Manganese 3 1993
Harco Branch ATGM-01 Sulfates 3 1993
Copper 3 1993
Manganese 3 1993
Nickel 3 1993
Silver 3 1993
Zinc 3 1993
Brushy Creek ATGH-09 Sulfates 3 1993
Manganese 3 1993
ATGH-10 Sulfates 3 1993
Silver 3 1993
The recommended approach for developing TMDLs for these segments and
parameters is 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. Further data collection is suggested for
all segments except Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01. The remaining segments have
only 3 available samples from 1993 and TMDL development would be better
accomplished with the availability of recently collected data.
6.2.2 Recommended Approach for pH TMDL in Harco Branch
Segment ATGM-01
Segment ATGM-01 of Harco Branch is listed for pH impairments. The segment had
only three samples available for review and each violated the pH standard by falling
below 6.5. The available samples were from 1993 meaning no data are available within
the last 15 years. It is recommended that a data-logger be used to collect at least a
week’s worth of current data. Potential approaches to developing the pH TMDL for
this segment include a spreadsheet approach that would take into account natural
conditions in the watershed. 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.
6.3 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Harrisburg
Reservoir
Harrisburg Reservoir is listed for impairment caused by total phosphorus. The
BATHTUB model is recommended for TMDL development. The BATHTUB model
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
FINAL 6-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Saline\Final_Text\Sec 6 saline.doc
performs steady-state water and nutrient balance calculations in a spatially segmented
hydraulic network that account for advective and diffusive transport, and nutrient
sedimentation. The model relies on empirical relationships to predict lake trophic
conditions and subsequent DO conditions as functions of total phosphorus and nitrogen
loads, residence time, and mean depth (USEPA 1997). Oxygen conditions in the model
are simulated as meta and hypolimnetic depletion rates, rather than explicit
concentrations. Watershed loadings to the lakes will be estimated using event mean
concentration data, precipitation data and estimated flows within the watershed and
therefore, no additional data collection is required.
APPENDICES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
CONTACT ILLINOIS EPA AT (217) 782-3362
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK