122011-iwq-report-surface-water-303-list

              0
ILLINOIS INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY REPORT
AND SECTION 303(d) LIST - 2010
Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
Water Resource Assessment Information
and Listing of Impaired Waters
Volume I: Surface Water
December 2011
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Water i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
PART A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 6
A-1. Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................ 6
A-2. Major Changes from Previous Reports ........................................................................ 8
A-3. Primary Data Sources, Data Quality and Time Periods Covered .............................. 9
Data Used for this Assessment Cycle ..................................................................................9
Solicitation of Information .................................................................................................10
Quality Assurance Issues ...................................................................................................12
PART B. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 13
B-1. Total Surface Waters .................................................................................................... 13
B-2. Surface Water Pollution Control Program ................................................................ 15
Illinois Surface-Water Quality Standards ..........................................................................15
Narrative Standards and Antidegradation Regulations ......................................................26
Derived Water Quality Criteria ..........................................................................................26
Proposed Revisions to the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards ...26
Water Pollution Control Program for Surface Waters .......................................................27
Point Source Pollution Control ....................................................................................28
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control .............................................................................28
303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Program ..............................................................29
Watershed Management Program ................................................................................29
B-3. Cost/Benefit Assessment ................................................................................................30
Cost of Pollution Control Water Protection Activities ......................................................30
General Surface Water Improvements ...............................................................................31
PART C. SURFACE-WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ............32
C-1. Monitoring Program .....................................................................................................32
Streams ...............................................................................................................................32
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network..............................................................32
Pesticide Monitoring Subnetwork................................................................................32
Facility-Related Stream Surveys..................................................................................33
Intensive Basin Surveys ...............................................................................................33
Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program .......................................................................33
Inland Lakes .......................................................................................................................36 ii
Ambient Lake Monitoring Program .............................................................................36
Clean Lakes Program Intensives ..................................................................................36
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program ...........................................................................37
Lake Michigan ...................................................................................................................38
C-2. Assessment Methodology ..............................................................................................38
Water Body Segments........................................................................................................38
Levels of Use Attainment ..................................................................................................39
Aquatic Life – Streams ......................................................................................................39
Aquatic Life – Inland Lakes ..............................................................................................53
Aquatic Life – Lake Michigan ...........................................................................................61
Indigenous Aquatic Life ....................................................................................................66
Fish Consumption – Streams, Inland Lakes and Lake Michigan ......................................70
Primary Contact – Streams and Inland Lakes ....................................................................75
Primary Contact – Lake Michigan .....................................................................................77
Secondary Contact – Streams, Inland Lakes and Lake Michigan .....................................79
Public and Food Processing Water Supply – Streams, Inland Lakes
and Lake Michigan ......................................................................................................79
Aesthetic Quality – Inland Lakes .......................................................................................84
Assessment Type and Confidence .....................................................................................88
Identifying Potential Sources of Impairment for All Uses and Water Body Types ..........90
C-3. Assessment Results ........................................................................................................93
Five-Part Categorization of Surface Waters ......................................................................93
Section 303(d) List .............................................................................................................94
Prioritization of the Illinois Section 303(d) List ................................................................94
Scheduling of TMDL Development ..................................................................................97
Removal of Previously Listed Waters From the Section 303(d) List ................................98
TMDL Development and Implementation Status ............................................................100
Statewide Summary of Designated Use Support .............................................................102
Streams .......................................................................................................................102
Inland Lakes ...............................................................................................................105
Lake Michigan ...........................................................................................................110
C-4. Wetlands Program .......................................................................................................112
C-5. Trends Analysis for Surface Waters ..........................................................................118
Illinois Streams Trends Assessment ................................................................................118
Illinois Lakes Trends Assessment ....................................................................................120
C-6. Public Health Issues .....................................................................................................122
PART D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................124
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................125
iii
VOLUME I APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A – Illinois’ 2010 303(d) List and TMDL Information
Appendix A-1: Illinois’ 2010 303(d) List and Prioritization
Appendix A-2: Illinois’ 2010 303(d) List, Sorted Alphabetically by Water Body Name.
Appendix A-3: Illinois’ Two-Year Schedule for TMDL Development, 2010 – 2012
Appendix A-4: Segments/Causes removed from Illinois’ 2008 Section 303(d) List
**Appendix A-5: 2010 303(d) Listed Waters in Major Illinois Watersheds
Appendix A-6: Status of TMDL Development in Illinois
Appendix A-7: Illinois EPA Projects in TMDL Watersheds
APPENDIX B – Water Body-Specific Assessment Information for Illinois, 2010
Appendix B-1: Figure 1. Illinois EPA Basins
Appendix B-2: Specific Assessment Information for Streams, 2010
Appendix B-3: Specific Assessment Information for Inland Lakes, 2010
Appendix B-4: Specific Assessment Information for Lake Michigan Open Waters, 2010
Appendix B-5: Specific Assessment Information for Lake Michigan Beaches, 2010
Appendix B-6: Specific Assessment Information for Lake Michigan Bays and Harbors, 2010.
APPENDIX C – Statewide Resource-Quality Summary for Significant Publicly-Owned Lakes
APPENDIX D – Changes in Assessment Unit IDs between 2008 and 2010
APPENDIX E – Responsiveness Summary
**Appendix A-5 was not available at the time of submission.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This 2010 Integrated Report continues the reporting format first adopted in the 2006 reporting cycle. However, for the 2010 cycle the Integrated Report is being divided into two volumes: Volume I covering surface water and Volume II covering groundwater. Prior to 2006, assessment information was reported separately in the Illinois Water Quality [Section 305(b)] Report and Illinois Section 303(d) List. The Integrated Report format is based on federal guidance for meeting the requirements of Sections 305(b), 303(d) and 314 of the Clean Water Act.
The basic purpose of this report (Volume I) is to provide information to the federal government and the citizens of Illinois on the condition of surface water in the state. This information is provided in detail in the appendices and is summarized in Section C-3.
Streams
For the 2010 cycle, Illinois EPA upgraded the basis for measuring stream miles in the state. Formerly, Illinois used the medium resolution National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (1:100,000 scale) for this purpose. However, for 2010, this was upgraded to the high resolution NHD (1:24,000 scale). This resulted in a significant increase in the total stream miles considered in this report (from 71,394 to 119,244 stream miles) due to the inclusion of many small first and second order streams found in the high resolution NHD which are not included in the medium resolution NHD. This also reduced the overall percent of Illinois waters considered assessed. In addition, the length of each stream segment was recalculated using this more accurate basis resulting in a change of length for most segments. Unfortunately, this affects the comparison of the 2010 assessment results with results from previous years. The reader should be aware that differences between the percent of assessed stream miles in 2010 compared to percentages from previous years, may be partially an artifact of this change in methods.
For 2010, 17,010 stream miles, or 14.3 percent of the total 119,244 stream miles in Illinois have been assessed for attainment of at least one designated use. Overall, the percent of stream miles assessed has remained relatively consistent over the last 5 cycles – about 13 to 14 percent.
The degree of support (attainment) of a designated use in a particular stream segment is determined by an analysis of various types of information, including biological, physicochemical, physical habitat, and toxicity data. When sufficient data are available, each applicable designated use in each segment is assessed as Fully Supporting (good), Not Supporting (fair), or Not Supporting (poor). Waters in which at least one applicable use is not fully supported are called ―impaired.‖ For Illinois streams, the major potential causes of impairment, based on number of miles affected, are fecal coliform bacteria impairing swimming (primary contact) use, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue impairing fish consumption use, and low dissolved oxygen, high nutrients, excessive siltation, physical-habitat alterations, and high suspended solids which impair aquatic life use (Table C-31). The major potential sources of impairment are atmospheric deposition of toxics, agriculture, hydromodification, municipal point sources, urban runoff/storm sewers, surface mining, and impacts from hydrostructure flow regulation/modification (Table C-32). 2
The percent of stream miles rated Fully Supporting (good) for aquatic life use increased slightly to 63.2 percent in 2010, compared to 61.0 percent in the 2008 reporting cycle. The percent of stream miles assessed as good, fair and poor for each use for 2008 and 2010 are shown below. Slight differences in assessment numbers may be attributable to random change or differences in how and where aquatic life use assessments were performed between the 2008 and 2010. For example, given that many aquatic life use assessments in streams are updated on a five-year cycle, it is possible that statewide comparisons at any shorter time period (e.g., between each consecutive reporting cycle) actually reflect the regional subset of waters most recently updated rather than a statewide pattern. Also, it is possible that improvements in assessment information, methods or stream mile calculations contribute to year-to-year differences.
Percent of Illinois Stream Miles Assessed as Good, Fair and Poor in 2010 and 2008
Designated Use
Miles Assessed
Percent Assessed
Percent Fully Supporting (Good) (2)
Percent Not Supporting (Fair) (2)
Percent Not Supporting (Poor) (2)
Percent Not Assessed
Year:
2010
2010
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
Aquatic Life
16,753
14.1
63.2
61.1
30.6
34.8
6.2
4.1
85.9
78.5
Fish Consumption
3,930
3.3
0.0
0.0
92.1
91.9
7.9
8.1
96.7
94.6
Indigenous Aquatic Life
93
100.0
36.4
38.2
57.5
55.1
6.1
6.7
0.0
0.0
Primary Contact
4,009
3.4
18.6
18.9
34.3
36.2
47.1
44.9
96.6
94.5
Public and Food Processing Water Supply
1,157
100.0
9.5
9.0
90.5
91.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Secondary Contact(1)
733
0.6
100.0
100.0
--
--
99.4
99.0
Aesthetic Quality(1)
--
--
--
---
--
--
100.0
100.0
Note: Numbers and percentages may not add up due to slight rounding errors.
1. Assessment guidelines are not yet fully developed; see section C-2 Assessment Methodology.
2. Percentages of Good, Fair and Poor indicate the percent of miles assessed.
2.By definition, Secondary Contact Use is "Fully Supporting" in all waters in which Primary Contact Use is "Fully Supporting.
Inland Lakes
For this 2010 report, a total of 148,014 lake acres were assessed for at least one designated use. This represents 46.5 percent of total lake and pond acreage (318,477) in the state. Overall, the percent of lake acres assessed has remained relatively consistent over the last 5 cycles – about 46 to 49 percent.
As with streams, each lake is assessed as Fully Supporting (good), Not Supporting (fair), or Not Supporting (poor), for each applicable designated use. Of the 142,571 lake acres assessed for aquatic life use in 2010, 91.3 percent were rated as Fully Supporting as compared to 69.4 percent Fully Supporting in 2008 and 53.6 percent Fully Supporting in the 2006 reporting cycle. This increase in the percent of fully supported lake acres may be due in part to a change in the assessment status of a relatively few large lakes from not assessed to fully supporting. The 3
percent of lakes (acres and numbers) assessed as good, fair and poor for each use are shown below.
Percent of Illinois Lakes Assessed as Good, Fair and Poor in 2010
Designated Use
Acres Assessed
Percent of Statewide Acres Assessed
Percent of Assessed Acres as Fully Supporting (Good)
Percent of Assessed Acres as Not Supporting (Fair)
Percent of Assessed Acres as Not Supporting (Poor)
Percent of Statewide Acres Not Assessed
Percent of Statewide Acres as Insufficient Information
Year:
2010
2010
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
Aesthetic Quality
142,553
45.0
9.8
6.8
82.6
66.9
7.6
26.3
52.4
52.5
2.6
2.7
Aquatic Life
142,571
45.0
91.3
69.4
8.7
30.6
0.0
0.00
52.4
52.5
2.6
2.7
Fish Consumption
92,280
29.0
7.4
7.9
92.0
92.1
0.6
0.0
71.0
72.7
0.0
0.0
Indigenous Aquatic Life
1,600
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Primary Contact
1,814
0.6
60.2
60.2
39.8
39.8
0.0
0.0
99.4
99.4
0.0
0.0
Public and Food Processing Water Supply
75,655
99.7
20.5
6.3
79.3
93.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
Secondary Contact
1,092
0.3
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.7
99.7
0.0
0.0
Designated Use
Number
of Lakes Assessed
Percent of Statewide Lakes Assessed(1)
Percent of Assessed Lakes Fully Supporting (Good)
Percent of Assessed Lakes Not Supporting (Fair)
Percent of Assessed Lakes Not Supporting (Poor)
Percent of Statewide Lakes Not Assessed
Percent of Statewide Lakes as Insufficient Information
Year:
2010
2010
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
2010
2008
Aesthetic Quality
352
0.4
13.4
13.3
74.7
72.5
11.9
14.2
99.6
99.5
0.1
0.1
Aquatic Life
353
0.4
90.4
89.0
9.3
10.7
0.3
0.3
99.6
99.5
0.1
0.1
Fish Consumption
124
0.1
1.6
2.1
96.8
96.8
1.6
1.1
99.9
99.9
0.0
0.0
Indigenous Aquatic Life
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Primary Contact
15
0.02
46.7
46.7
53.3
53.3
0.0
0.0
99.98
99.98
0.0
0.0
Public and Food Processing Water Supply
74
93.7
24.3
23.7
75.7
76.3
0.0
0.0
6.3
5.0
0.0
0.0
Secondary Contact(2)
7
0.01
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.99
99.99
0.0
0.0
Note: Numbers and percentages may not add up due to slight rounding errors.
1. Statewide, in the time period covered by this summary, Illinois had 91,456 lakes and ponds designated for general uses, one lake designated for Indigenous Aquatic Life Use, and 79 lakes designated for Public and Food Processing Water Supply Use.
2. By definition, Secondary Contact Use is "Fully Supporting" in all waters in which Primary Contact Use is "Fully Supporting."
The major potential causes of impairment based on number of lake acres affected are total suspended solids, phosphorus (total) and aquatic algae, impairing aquatic life and aesthetic quality uses, and, mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue impairing fish consumption use (Table C-34). The major potential sources of impairment are crop production (crop land or dry land), atmospheric deposition of toxics, littoral/shore area modifications (nonriverine), other recreational pollution sources, runoff from forest/grassland/parkland, contaminated sediments, urban runoff/storm sewers, municipal point source discharges, and on-site treatment systems (septic systems and similar decencentralized systems)(Table C-35). 4
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan is monitored annually through a cooperative agreement between the city of Chicago Department of Water and Illinois EPA Bureau of Water. The State of Illinois has jurisdiction over approximately 1,526 square miles of open water and 63 shoreline miles of Lake Michigan bordering Cook and Lake counties in the northeastern corner of the state. At least one use was assessed in 151 square miles of Lake Michigan.
Assessments of aquatic life use were unchanged from the 2008 reporting cycle. About ten percent of the total Lake Michigan waters in Illinois were assessed, and all were rated as Fully Supporting for the following uses: aquatic life use, primary contact (swimming) use, secondary contact use, and public and food processing water supply use. However, fish consumption use in the Illinois portion of Lake Michigan is assessed as Not Supporting (Poor) due to contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury. In addition, all Lake Michigan beaches in Illinois were assessed as Not Supporting (poor) for primary contact use due to bacterial contamination from Escherichia coli bacteria. The individual use-support summary for all Lake Michigan-basin waters is shown below.
Statewide Individual Use-Support Summary for Lake Michigan-Basin Waters
Lake Michigan Bays and Harbors; Units: Square Miles
Designated Use
Total Size
Total Assessed
Size Fully Supporting
(Good)
Size Not Supporting
(Fair)
Size Not Supporting
(Poor)
Size Not Assessed
Size
%
Aesthetic Quality(1)
2.5
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
Aquatic Life
2.5
2.46
98.3
2.40
0
0.06
0.05
Fish Consumption
2.5
2.46
98.3
0
0
2.46
0.05
Primary Contact
2.5
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
Secondary Contact(1)
2.5
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
Lake Michigan Open Water; Units: Square Miles
Designated Use
Total Size
Total Assessed
Size Fully Supporting
(Good)
Size Not Supporting
(Fair)
Size Not Supporting
(Poor)
Size Not Assessed
Size
%
Aesthetic Quality(1)
1,526
0
0.0
0
0
0
1,526
Aquatic Life
1,526
151
9.9
151
0
0
1,375
Fish Consumption
1,526
151
9.9
0.0
0
151
1,375
Primary Contact
1,526
151
9.9
151
0
0
1,375
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
151
151
100
151
0
0
0
Secondary Contact(1)
1,526
151(2)
9.9 (2)
151(2)
0(2)
0(2)
1,375
5
Lake Michigan Shoreline; Units: Miles
Designated Use
Total Size
Total Assessed
Size Fully Supporting
(Good)
Size Not Supporting
(Fair)
Size Not Supporting
(Poor)
Size Not Assessed
Size
%
Aesthetic Quality(1)
63
0
0.0
0
0
0
63
Aquatic Life
63
0
0.0
0
0
0
63
Fish Consumption
63
63
100
0
0
63
0
Primary Contact
63
63
100
0
0
63
0
Secondary Contact(1)
63
0
0.0
0
0
0
63
1. Assessment guidelines are not yet fully developed; see section C-2 Assessment Methodology.
2. By definition, Secondary Contact Use is "Fully Supporting" in all waters in which Primary Contact Use is "Fully Supporting"; otherwise, assessment guidelines are not yet developed for determining the level of use attainment.
6
PART A: INTRODUCTION
A-1. Reporting Requirements
The 2010 Integrated Report is based on guidance from USEPA which is intended to satisfy the requirements of sections 305(b), 303(d) and 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and subsequent amendments (hereafter, collectively called the ―Clean Water Act‖ or ―CWA‖) in a single combined report. For this reporting cycle the Integrated Report is being divided into two volumes: Volume I covering surface water and Volume II covering groundwater.
According to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, each state, territory, tribe, and interstate commission (hereafter collectively called ―state‖) must submit to USEPA ―a report which shall include—
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year,…
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.‖
Illinois reports the resource quality of its waters in terms of the degree to which the beneficial uses1 of those waters are attained and the reasons (causes and sources) beneficial uses may not be attained. In addition, states are required to provide an assessment of the water quality of all publicly owned lakes, including the status and trends of such water quality as specified in Section 314(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
1 Beneficial uses, also called designated uses, are discussed in more detail in Section B-2 Water Pollution Control Program, Illinois Surface Water Quality Standards. 7
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and corresponding regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, require states to
• Identify water quality-limited waters where effluent limitations and other pollution control requirements are not sufficient to implement any water quality standard,
• Identify pollutants causing or expected to cause water quality standards violations in those waters,
• Establish a priority ranking for the development of Total Maximum Daily Load2 (TMDL) calculations including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years, and,
• Establish TMDLs for all pollutants preventing or expected to prevent the attainment of water quality standards.
This list of water quality limited waters is often called the 303(d) List.
The Integrated Report process has two major phases corresponding to the requirements noted above. In the first phase use attainment assessments are conducted for all waters and all designated uses for which data are available to make assessments. As part of that process all potential causes (both ―pollutant‖ and ―nonpollutant‖ causes) and sources of impairment are identified. These assessment results, which include all use attainment assessments and all potential causes and sources of use impairment for all assessed waters, are shown in Appendix B. The next phase involves categorizing waters based on whether any uses are impaired, whether pollutant or nonpollutant causes are identified and whether or not a TMDL is required. A subset of all assessed waters and causes of impairment is identified as the 303(d) List (Appendix A). It includes only those waters which have uses that are impaired by pollutants and which require a TMDL. Each entry on the 303(d) List is a unique combination of a water body segment (also known as an assessment unit3) and pollutant cause of impairment that requires a separate loading calculation. Also, as part of this second phase, each segment-pollutant combination on the 303(d) List is prioritized for TMDL development and a two-year schedule for TMDL development is created. TMDLs are only conducted for causes of impairment which are classified as pollutants such as metals or pesticides. Nonpollutant causes of impairment such as habitat degradation are not a component of Illinois’ 303(d) List submission.
The distinction between pollutant and nonpollutant is critical in this process. Section 502(6) of the Clean Water Act, defines a pollutant as “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.” In general, pollutants are substances, chemicals, materials or wastes and their components that are discharged into the water. Pollution, as defined by the Clean Water Act Section 502(19), is „„the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of a water body.‟‟ This is a broad term that encompasses many types of changes to a water body, including
2 Total Maximum Daily Load calculations determine the amount of a pollutant a water body can assimilate without exceeding the state’s water quality standards or impairing the water body’s designated uses.
3 A lake, a stream segment, or an open-water area, harbor or shoreline segment of Lake Michigan for which a use attainment assessment is made. 8
alterations that do not result from the introduction of a specific pollutant or the presence of pollutants at a level that causes impairment. In other words, all waters impaired by human intervention suffer from some form of pollution. In some cases, the pollution is caused by the presence of a pollutant, and a TMDL is required. For assessment purposes, Illinois EPA classifies almost all causes of impairment as pollutants. The classification of each cause of impairment is shown in the guidelines for identifying potential causes of impairment related to each use (Tables C-5, C-8, C-10 and C-12). Some nonpollutant causes such as (excessive) aquatic algae or (low) dissolved oxygen may in turn be caused by pollutants. Whenever nonpollutant causes are identified we attempt to determine if pollutants are ultimately responsible for the impairment, and what those pollutants are.
While pollutant causes of impairment are addressed by the Agency’s TMDL program, nonpollutant causes are addressed by other agency programs such as 319 grants for nonpoint source pollution control activities and other grant programs.
To the extent possible, this 2010 Illinois Integrated Report is based on USEPA’s Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act issued July 29, 2005 and additional guidance contained in USEPA memorandums from the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds regarding Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions.
Illinois EPA submitted its 2008 Integrated Report to USEPA for approval on June 30, 2008. On October 22, 2008 USEPA issued a decision partially disapproving Illinois’ Section 303(d) List which was contained in the 2008 Integrated Report. Illinois EPA objected to the partial disapproval and sent a letter to USEPA on February 11, 2009 explaining in detail the reasons for those objections. USEPA responded to the arguments outlined in Illinois EPA’s letter, however, several issues remain unresolved.
The three main unresolved issues are: 1) Illinois’ removal of total nitrogen from its 303(d) List as a cause of aquatic life use impairment; 2) a change in one of the guidelines Illinois uses to identify sedimentation/siltation as a cause of aquatic life use impairment which resulted in the removal of some listings of sedimentation/siltation; and, 3) the reclassification of dissolved oxygen as a nonpollutant cause of impairment and the subsequent removal of this cause from Illinois’ 303 (d) List. Illinois EPA’s 2008 Integrated Report, USEPA’s decision document and Illinois EPA’s detailed comments and legal analysis regarding USEPA’s partial disapproval of the 2008 303(d) list and proposal to list additional waters are available on the Agency’s website at http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303d-list.html.
A-2. Major Changes from the 2008 Report Methodology and Format
1. As stated above, the 2010 Integrated Report was divided into two volumes: Volume I covering surface water and Volume II covering groundwater. This was done to accommodate the increased size of the integrated report, which has been greatly expanded to include more water quality information. This two volume format also improves the 9
organizational structure of the report and makes it easier for the reader to find the specific information that may be of concern.
2. Illinois EPA uses the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as the basis for mapping streams in the state. For the 2010 cycle, we upgraded the base layer used for this purpose from the medium resolution NHD (1:100,000 scale) to the high resolution NHD (1:24,000 scale). This resulted in a significant increase in the total stream miles considered in this report due to the inclusion of many small first and second order streams found in the high resolution NHD which are not included in the medium resolution NHD. This also reduced the overall percent of Illinois waters considered assessed. In addition, the length of each stream segment was recalculated using this more accurate basis resulting in a change of length for most stream segments.
In all other aspects Illinois EPA is using the same methodology in 2010 as in 2008 with no significant changes.
A-3. Primary Data Sources, Data Quality and Time Periods Covered
Data Used for This Assessment Cycle
In general, data that became readily available since the 2008 Integrated Report were considered, and we updated relevant assessments as appropriate. Because water-resource data take time to gather and process, each assessment cycle reflects up to a two-year data lag. Surface water assessments in this 2010 report are based primarily on biological, water, sediment, physical habitat, and fish-tissue information collected through 2008 from various monitoring programs (Illinois EPA 2007). These programs include: the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network, Intensive Basin Surveys, Facility-Related Stream Surveys, the Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, the Ambient Lake Monitoring Program, the Illinois Clean Lakes Monitoring Program, the Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, the Lake Michigan Monitoring Program, TMDL monitoring and other outside sources. Use attainment was updated for all surface waters where sufficient new information became available since the last report (i.e., 2008 report, based mostly on data through September 2005). Other assessments in the 2008 report were updated using the most recent data available and applying the most recent applicable standards and use attainment methodologies. In addition, assessments were updated when errors were discovered in previous assessments. Older assessments are based on the most recent data available, which, in some cases, may be over 15 years old. Although the Intensive Basin Monitoring program generally revisits each major basin in the state on a five year basis, limited state resources make it impossible to monitor all water bodies in each basin every five years.
In 2010, stream assessments of aquatic life use, which rely primarily on data from Intensive Basin Surveys, were updated for stream segments in these basins: Calumet River, Lake Michigan tributaries, Kishwaukee River, Chicago/Little Calumet rivers, Middle and Lower Wabash River tributaries, Embarras River, Skillet Fork, Little Vermillion River (Wabash basin), Vermillion River (Wabash basin), Middle and Lower Illinois River, Macoupin Creek, Pecatonica River, Sugar River, Upper and Lower Fox River, Little Wabash River, Shoal Creek, Kaskaskia 10
River, La Moine River, Rock River, Des Plaines River, Big Muddy River, Upper and Lower Sangamon River, South Fork Sangamon River, and Salt Creek. These basins were sampled in 2006, 2007 or 2008. In a few cases, where other data were available for waters outside these basins, we used that data to update assessments as well. Water chemistry data from the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network from 2004 through 2008 were also used in some of those assessments. Some assessments of aquatic life use in streams were updated based on Facility-Related Stream Survey data from 2006, 2007 and 2008.
All use attainment assessments on Lake Michigan were updated with Lake Michigan Monitoring Program data from 2005 through 2007.
Assessments of indigenous aquatic life use in streams were not updated in this cycle because proposed comprehensive changes to the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards (see Section B-2) have not yet been approved by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Indigenous aquatic life use was not updated this cycle for Lake Calumet because no new data were available.
Assessments of primary contact use and secondary contact use in streams were updated with Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network data from 2004 through 2008. Because there were no new fecal coliform samples collected in lakes since the last report, no new assessments of primary contact use or secondary contact use were made for inland lakes.
Assessments of fish consumption use were generally updated with Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program data from 2007 and 2008. In some cases older data may also have been used.
Aquatic life use and aesthetic quality use in lakes were updated with Ambient Lake Monitoring Program and Illinois Clean Lakes Monitoring Program data from 2006 through 2008.
Public and food processing water supply use in streams was updated from a variety of data sources covering a period of 2001 through 2008. The same is true for inland lakes except that some updates may involve data as old as 1999.
Non-agency data sources such as the Lake County Health Department, the City of Chicago, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, the U.S. Geological Survey, TMDL contractors and others were also used for the assessment of various uses and water bodies.
Solicitation of Information
For assessing Illinois surface waters, Illinois EPA routinely considers data from three outside
sources, including: 1. biological data (from streams) collected by the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources as part of the Cooperative Intensive Basin Survey program described in
Section C-1; 2. physicochemical water data provided by the city of Chicago for Lake Michigan
(data from the city of Chicago were not received for this cycle); and,
3. physicochemical water data provided by the Lake County Public Health Department (Inland
Lake data). We also retrieve data from the United States Geological Survey’s Long Term 11
Resource Monitoring Program (http://www.umesc.usgs.gov) that focuses on the Upper
Mississippi River and from the Survey’s National Stream Water Quality Network monitoring program (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov) for use in assessments.
In August, 2009, Illinois EPA updated the ―Guidance for Submittal of Surface Water Data For Consideration in Preparing the 2010 Integrated Report on Illinois Water Quality, including the List of Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Waters‖ and associated data-solicitation information on the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency website (www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality/guidance.html). The guidance describes the required format for data packages and associated quality assurance documentation and provides instructions on how and when (by October 15, 2009) to submit data for consideration for assessments in this report. Postcards requesting water quality monitoring data with reference to the submittal guidance on the web site were sent to over 400 individuals and organizations representing watershed groups, wastewater facilities, environmental consultants, universities, environmental groups, governmental organizations, participants on various Illinois EPA workgroups, and people who commented on previous 303(d) Lists.
Data sets and other information were received from nine external organizations by October 15, 2009: the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the Conservation Foundation, the Illinois Natural History Survey, the Rock River Water Reclamation District, the United States Environmental Protection (USEPA) Agency Region 5, the North Shore Sanitary District, the Alliance for the Great Lakes, the Lake County Health Department, the Fox Metro Water Reclamation District, and the Fox River Study Group. None of the above organizations submitted data in the requested format and in many cases additional data/information was needed. Subsequent follow up with several of these organizations resulted in revised data formats and/or additional information. Because of the length in time between the original data submittals, the re-submittals and the deadline for completion of assessments some of this data was not used.
Information and data that met Illinois EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control requirements were evaluated and considered for assessments in this report. Information or data sets submitted by the following organizations were not used in this report.
Alliance for the Great Lakes: Data and anecdotal information for Lake Michigan beaches collected by volunteers using field bacteria screening kits and litmus paper. This information has limited value for assessing primary contact use for 303(d)/TMDL purposes, especially since all public beaches along the Illinois Lake Michigan shore are monitored daily by local health departments using Standard Methods. This information can be found on U. S. EPA webpage BEACON (Beach Advisory and Closing On-line Notification). Illinois Natural History Survey: Information submitted consisted of a list of reports. No data was submitted. Fox River Metro: Original data was not submitted in the requested format. Revised format was submitted but there was insufficient time to review and use this data. Conservation Foundation/DuPage River-Salt Creek Workgroup/Midwest Biodiversity Institute (The Conservation Foundation is a member of the DuPage River-Salt Creek 12
Workgroup. The Dupage River-Salt Creek Workgroup is the owner of the data and the Midwest Biodiversity Institute is the contractor.): This data was not submitted on time and was not in the requested format. A review of biological and habitat data revealed some inconsistencies and possible problems. Revised data/information was not received in time to include all of the data in the assessment process.
On October 15, 2009, USEPA Region 5 submitted a document to Illinois EPA titled ―Evaluation of Illinois EPA’s removal of nitrogen as a cause of impairment for waters listed as impaired under CWA 303(d).‖ The cover letter indicated that this technical memorandum was being submitted ―so that Illinois can consider this information in compiling its 2010 list.‖ Unlike other information submitted to the Agency during the submission period, the technical memorandum and attachment did not contain any new raw data from Illinois waters that had not been previously submitted and evaluated for inclusion in this Integrated Report.
The submission by Region 5 provided comments on the Agency’s assessment methodology and also provided information and data from other states and published studies that might prove useful in development of statewide nitrogen water quality standards. The Agency declines to use its Integrated Report methodology as a means to implement a new statewide water quality standard for total nitrogen which has not been established by State or federal law. Only the Pollution Control Board and U.S. EPA have authority to set statewide water quality standards in Illinois.
As Illinois EPA made a determination not to make any additional changes to its assessment methodology in the 2010 cycle until the 2008 303(d) list has been finalized, the Agency did not make the revisions suggested by USEPA or any other revisions to the methodology. Illinois EPA’s detailed comments and legal analysis regarding USEPA’s partial disapproval of the 2008 303(d) list and proposal to list additional waters (dated February 11, 2009) are available on the Agency’s website at http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303d-list.html.
Quality Assurance Issues
Results of ammonia analysis performed by the Illinois EPA Champaign laboratory from 01/01/1997 through 06/30/2006 were not used because the results failed to meet quality control criteria or failed to meet data quality objectives.
13
PART B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
B-1. Total Surface Waters
Illinois EPA uses the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as the basis for mapping streams in the state. For the 2010 cycle, we upgraded the base layer used for this purpose from the medium resolution NHD (1:100,000 scale) to the high resolution NHD (1:24,000 scale). This resulted in a significant increase in the total stream miles considered in this report (from 71,394 to 119,244 stream miles) due to the inclusion of many small first and second order streams found in the high resolution NHD which are not included in the medium resolution NHD.
Illinois has abundant water resources (Table B-1). The U. S. Geological Survey’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD 1:24,000 scale) shows approximately 119,244 miles of streams within the state's borders, including major rivers such as the Big Muddy, Cache, Des Plaines, Embarras, Fox, Illinois, Kankakee, Kaskaskia, Little Wabash, Rock, Sangamon, and Vermilion rivers. In addition, the NHD shows 911 miles of large rivers forming the state’s western (Mississippi River), eastern (in part, Wabash River), and southern (Ohio River) borders. Throughout this document, streams and rivers are collectively referred to as streams.
More than 91,400 inland lakes and ponds exist in Illinois, 3,256 of which have a surface area of six acres or more (Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 1999). About three-fourths of Illinois’ inland lakes are man-made, including dammed stream and side-channel impoundments, strip-mine lakes, borrow pits, and other excavated lakes. Natural lakes include glacial lakes in the northeastern counties, sinkhole ponds in the southwest, and oxbow and backwater lakes along major rivers.
Illinois is bordered by one of the Great Lakes, Lake Michigan. The state has jurisdiction over approximately 1,526 square miles of open water and 63 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline, bordering Cook and Lake counties in the northeastern corner of the state. Lake Michigan is the third largest of the Great Lakes and is the largest body of fresh water located entirely within the boundaries of the United States. With the exception of the polar ice caps, the Great Lakes form the largest freshwater system on earth.
14
Table B-1. Illinois Atlas.
Topic
Value
Scale
Source
State Population in year 2000
12,419,293
US Census Bureau
State Surface Area (sq. mi.)
56,250
Major Watersheds
33
USGS
Total Stream Miles
119,244
1:100,000
NHD
Interior Stream Miles
118,333
1:24,000
NHD
Perennial Streams
25,019
1:24,000
NHD
Intermittent Streams
78,245
1:24,000
NHD
Ditches and Canals
3676
1:24,000
NHD
Other
11,393
1:24,000
NHD
Border Stream Miles
911
1:24,000
NHD
Mississippi River
582
1:24,000
NHD
Ohio River
131
1:24,000
NHD
Wabash River
198
1:24,000
NHD
Inland Lakes and Ponds
91,456
(1)
(1)
Total Acreage
318,477
(1)
(1)
Total Inland Lakes (6 acres and more)
3,256
(1)
(1)
Total Inland Lake Acreage (6 acres and more)
253,224
(1)
(1)
Publicly-Owned Inland Lakes
1,279
(1)
(1)
Publicly-Owned Lake Acreage
154,333
(1)
(1)
Inland Lakes over 5,000 Acres
4
(1)
(1)
Acreage of Inland Lakes over 5,000 Acres
61,545
(1)
(1)
Lake Michigan
(1)
(1)
Illinois Shoreline Miles
63
(1)
(1)
Illinois Square Miles
1,526
(1)
(1)
Total Shallow Water Wetlands Acreage
720,000
(1)
(1)
NHD = National Hydrography Dataset
1. 1999 Inventory of Illinois Surface Water Resources, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fisheries, April 2000
15
B-2. Surface Water Pollution Control Program
Illinois Surface Water Quality Standards4
Water pollution control programs are designed to protect the beneficial uses of the water resources of the state. Each state has the responsibility to set water quality standards that protect these beneficial uses, also called ―designated uses.‖ Illinois waters are designated for various uses including aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural use, primary contact (e.g., swimming, water skiing), secondary contact (e.g., boating, fishing), industrial use, drinking water, food-processing water supply and aesthetic quality. Illinois’ water quality standards provide the basis for assessing whether the beneficial uses of the state’s waters are being attained.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board is responsible for setting water quality standards to protect designated uses. The Illinois EPA is responsible for developing scientifically based water quality standards and proposing them to the Illinois Pollution Control Board for adoption into state rules and regulations. The federal Clean Water Act requires the states to review and update water quality standards every three years. Illinois EPA, in conjunction with USEPA, identifies and prioritizes those standards to be developed or revised during this three-year period.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board has established four primary sets (or categories) of narrative and numeric water quality standards for surface waters (Tables B-2 through B-4). Each set of standards is intended to help protect various designated uses established for each category (Table B-5).
General Use Standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart B) - These standards apply to almost all waters of the state and are intended to protect aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural, primary contact, secondary contact, and most industrial uses. Primary contact use is defined as ―any recreational or other water use in which there is prolonged and intimate contact with the water [where the physical configuration of the water body permits it] involving considerable risk of ingesting water in quantities sufficient to pose a significant health hazard, such as swimming and water skiing‖ (35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.355). Secondary contact is ―any recreational or other water use in which contact with the water is either incidental or accidental and in which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is minimal, such as fishing, commercial and recreational boating, and any limited contact incident to shoreline activity‖ (35 Ill. Adm. Code 301. 380). These General Use standards are also designed to ensure the aesthetic quality of the state's aquatic environment and to protect human health from disease or other harmful effects that could occur from ingesting aquatic organisms taken from surface waters of the state. Tables B-2 and B-3 summarize General Use standards.
Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 302, Subpart C) - These standards protect surface waters of the state for human
4 Illinois’ Groundwater Quality Standards are discussed in Volume II. 16
consumption or for processing of food products intended for human consumption. These standards apply at any point at which water is withdrawn for treatment and distribution as a potable water supply or for food processing. See Table B-2 for these standards.
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302, Subpart D) - These standards are intended to protect limited uses of those waters not suited for general use activities but are nonetheless suited for secondary contact uses and capable of supporting indigenous aquatic life limited only by the physical configuration of the body of water, characteristics, and origin of the water and the presence of contaminants in amounts that do not exceed these water quality standards. Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life standards apply only to waters in which the General Use standards and the Public and Food Processing Water Supply standards do not apply: about 86 miles of canals, channels and modified streams and Lake Calumet (Figure B-1), in northeastern Illinois (35 Ill. Adm. Code 303.441). These include:
a) The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal;
b) The Calumet-Sag Channel;
c) The Little Calumet River from its junction with the Grand Calumet River to the Calumet-Sag Channel;
d) The Grand Calumet River;
e) The Calumet River, except the 6.8 mile segment extending from the O'Brien Locks and Dam to Lake Michigan;
f) Lake Calumet;
g) The South Branch of the Chicago River;
h) The North Branch of the Chicago River from its confluence with the North Shore Channel to its confluence with the South Branch;
i) The Des Plaines River from its confluence with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to the Interstate 55 bridge; and
j) The North Shore Channel, excluding the segment extending from the North Side Sewage Treatment Works to Lake Michigan.
See Table B-2 for these standards.
Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality Standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302, Subpart E) - These standards protect the beneficial uses of the open waters, the harbors and waters within breakwaters, and the waters within Illinois jurisdiction tributary to Lake Michigan, except for the Chicago River, North Shore Channel, and Calumet River. See Table B-4 for these standards. 17
Figure B-1. Waters in which “Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards” apply.
18
Table B-2. Illinois Surface Water Quality Standards(1).
PARAMETER
UNITS
GENERAL USE
PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY
SECONDARY CONTACT AND INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE
pH
SU
6.5 minimum
9.0 maximum
---
6.0 minimum
9.0 maximum
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
For most waters(2):
March-July > 5.0 min. &
> 6.0 7-day mean(2)
Aug.-Feb > 3.5 min,
> 4.0 7-day mean(2), &
> 5.5 30-day mean(2).
For waters with enhanced protection (2):
March-July > 5.0 min &
> 6.25 7-day mean(2)
Aug.-Feb > 4.0 min,
> 4.5 7-day mean(2), &
> 6.0 30-day mean.(2)
---
4.0 minimum (3)
Arsenic
μg/L
(4)
50
1000
Barium
μg/L
5000
1000
5000
Boron
μg/L
1000
---
---
Cadmium
μg/L
(4)
10
150
Chloride
mg/L
500
250
---
Chromium (Total)
μg/L
---
50
---
Chromium (Trivalent)
μg/L
(4)
---
1000
Chromium (Hexavalent)
μg/L
(4)
---
300
Copper
μg/L
(4)
---
1000
Cyanide
mg/L
(4)
---
0.1
Fluoride
mg/L
1.4
---
15.0
Iron (Total)
μg/L
---
---
2000
Iron (Dissolved)
μg/L
1000
300
500
Lead (Total)
μg/L
---
50
100
Lead (dissolved)
μg/L
(4)
---
---
Manganese
μg/L
1000
150
1000
Mercury
μg/L
(4)
---
0.5
Nickel
μg/L
(4)
---
1000
Phenols
μg/L
100
1.0
300
Selenium
μg/L
1000
10
1000
Silver
μg/L
5.0
---
100
Sulfate
mg/L
2000(5)
250
---
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
---
500
1500
Total Residual Chlorine
μg/L
(4)
---
---
Zinc
μg/L
(4)
---
1000
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
May-Oct.
count/100 ml
200(6), 400(7)
2000(6)
---
Nov.-April
count/100 ml
---
2000(6)
--- 19
PARAMETER
UNITS
GENERAL USE
PUBLIC AND FOOD PROCESSING WATER SUPPLY
SECONDARY CONTACT AND INDIGENOUS AQUATIC LIFE
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
mg/L
15(4)
---
---
Un-ionized Ammonia Nitrogen
mg/L
---
---
0.1
Nitrate Nitrogen
mg/L
---
10
---
Oil and Grease
mg/L
---
0.1
15.0
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
0.05 (8)
---
---
Temperature
○C
2.8○ maximum rise in water temperature(9)
37.8○ max.& shall not exceed 34○more than 5% of time
Aldrin
μg/L
---
1
---
Dieldrin
μg/L
---
1
---
Endrin
μg/L
---
0.2
---
Total DDT
μg/L
---
50
---
Total Chlordane
μg/L
---
3
---
Methoxychlor
μg/L
---
100
---
Toxaphene
μg/L
---
5
---
Heptachlor
μg/L
---
0.1
---
Heptachlor epoxide
μg/L
---
0.1
---
Lindane
μg/L
---
4
---
Parathion
μg/L
---
100
---
2,4-D
μg/L
---
100
---
Silvex
μg/L
---
10
---
Benzene
μg/L
(4)
---
---
Ethylbenzene
μg/L
(4)
---
---
Toluene
μg/L
(4)
---
---
Xylene(s) (total)
μg/L
(4)
---
---
mg/L = milligrams per liter μg/L = micrograms per liter (---) Means no numeric standard specified.
1. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.
2. Applies to the dissolved oxygen concentration in the main body of all streams, in the water above the thermocline of thermally stratified lakes and reservoirs, and in the entire water column of unstratified lakes and reservoirs. Additional dissolved oxygen criteria are found in 35 Ill Adm. Code 302.206, including the list of waters with enhanced dissolved oxygen protection (Appendix D) and methods for assessing attainment of dissolved oxygen minimum and mean values.
3. Excluding the Calumet-Sag Channel, which shall not be less than 3.0 mg/L at any time.
4. Acute and Chronic Standards (see Table B-3).
5. At any point where water is withdrawn or accessed for purposes of livestock watering, the average of sulfate concentrations must not exceed 2,000 mg/L when measured at a representative frequency over a 30 day period, otherwise the sulfate standard is based on hardness and chloride values as explained in the table below:
Hardness (mg/L)
And/Or
Chloride (mg/L)
Sulfate Standard
> 100 but < 500
and
> 25 but < 500
C = [1276.7 + 5.508 (hardness) – 1.457 (chloride) ] * 0.65
> 100 but < 500
and
> 5 but < 25
C = [-57.478 + 5.79 (hardness) + 54.163 (chloride) ] * 0.65
< 100
or
<5
The sulfate standard is 500 mg/L
>500
and
> 5 and < 500
The sulfate standard is 2000 mg/L
Where, C = sulfate concentration 20
6. Geometric mean based on a minimum of 5 samples taken over not more than a 30-day period.
7. Not to be exceeded by more than 10% of samples in any 30-day period.
8. Standard applies in any reservoir or lake >20 surface acres and in streams at the point of entry into these lakes or reservoirs.
9. In addition, the water temperature at representative locations in the main river shall not exceed maximum limits in the following table during more than one percent of the hours in the 12-month period ending with any month. Moreover, at no time shall the water temperature at such locations exceed the maximum limits in the following table by more than 1.7o C (3o F).
Month
o C
o F
Month
o C
o F
JAN.
16
60
JUL.
32
90
FEB.
16
60
AUG.
32
90
MAR.
16
60
SEPT.
32
90
APR.
32
90
OCT.
32
90
MAY
32
90
NOV.
32
90
JUNE
32
90
DEC.
16
60 21
Table B-3. Illinois Acute and Chronic General Use Water Quality Standards(1).
Constituent Acute Standard(2) Chronic Standard(3), (7)
Arsenic (trivalent,
dissolved) (μg/L)
360 X 1.0*=360 190 X 1.0*=190
Cadmium
(dissolved) (μg/L)
exp[A+Bln(H)] X {1.138672-
[(lnH) X (0.041838)]}*, where
A=-2.918 and B=1.128
exp[A+Bln(H)] X {1.101672-
[(lnH) X (0.041838)]}*, where A=-3.490 and
B=0.7852
Chromium (hexavalent,
total) (μg/L)
16 11
Chromium (trivalent,
dissolved) (μg/L)
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.316*,
where A=3.688 and
B=0.8190
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.860*,
where A=1.561 and B=0.8190
Copper
(dissolved) (μg/L)
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.960*,
where A=-1.464 and
B=0.9422
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.960*.
where A=-1.465 and
B=0.8545
Cyanide(4) (μg/L) 22 5.2
Lead
(dissolved) (μg/L)
exp[A+Bln(H)] X {1.46203-
[(lnH) X (0.145712)]}*,
where A=-1.301 and B=1.273
exp[A+Bln(H)] X {1.46203-
[(lnH) X (0.145712)]}*,
where A=-2.863 and B=1.273
Mercury(5) (dissolved)
(μg/L)
2.6 X 0.85*=2.2 1.3 X 0.85*=1.1
Nickel (dissolved)
(μg/L)
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.998*,
where A=0.5173 and
B=0.8460
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.997*,
where A=-2.286 and
B=0.8460
Total Residual
Chlorine (μg/L)
19 11
Zinc (dissolved) (μg/L)
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.978*,
where A=0.9035 and
B=0.8473
Exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.986*,
where A=-0.8165 and
B=0.8473
Benzene(6) (μg/L) 4200 860
Ethylbenzene (μg/L) 150 14
Toluene (μg/L) 2000 600
Xylene(s) (μg/L) 920 360
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
(Early Life Stage Present
Period: March through
October8) (mg/L)
0.411 + 58.4 .
1 + 107.204-pH 1 + 10pH-7.204
When water temperature <14.51○C
2.85
1 10
2.487
1 10
0.0577
7.688 pH pH 7.688
When water temperature >14.51○C
0.028*(25 T)
7.688 pH pH 7.688 1.45*10
1 10
2.487
1 10
0.0577
Where T = Water Temperature, degrees Celsius
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
(Early Life Stage Absent
Period: November through
February8) (mg/L)
0.411 . + 58.4 .
1 + 107.204-pH 1 + 10pH-7.204
When water temperature <7○C
0.504
7.688 pH pH 7.688 1.45*10
1 10
2.487
1 10
0.0577
When water temperature >7○C
0.028(25 T)
7.688 pH pH 7.688 1.45*10
1 10
2.487
1 10
0.0577
Where T = Water Temperature, degrees Celsius
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Total ammonia nitrogen must in
no case exceed 15 mg/L
The subchronic standard = 2.5 times the chronic
standard.
22
Footnotes for Table B-3
Where: Exp(x) = base of natural logarithms raised to x power and
ln(H) = natural logarithm of hardness of the receiving water in mg/L
* = conversion factor multiplier for dissolved metals
1. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.
2. Not to be exceeded except where a zone of initial dilution is granted.
3. Except for Total Ammonia Nitrogen, not to be exceeded by the average of at least four consecutive samples collected over any period of at least four days except where a mixing zone is granted.
4. STORET No. 718. Available cyanide is determined using USEPA Method OIA 1677.
5. Human health standard is 0.012 μg/L. The human health standard must be met on an annual average basis, 35 Ill Adm. Code 302.208 c, f.
6. Human health standard is 310 μg/L. The human health standard must be met on an annual average basis, 35 Ill Adm. Code 302.208 c, f.
7. For Total Ammonia Nitrogen, the 30-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg/L) must not exceed the chronic standard (CS) by an average of at least four samples collected at weekly intervals or at other sampling intervals that statistically represent a 30-day sampling period. The 4-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg/L) must not exceed the subchronic standard by averaging daily sample results collected over a period of four consecutive days within the 30-day averaging period.
8. The Early Life Stage Present period occurs from March through October. In addition, during any other period when early life stages are present, and where the water quality standard does not provide adequate protection for these organisms, the water body must meet the Early Life Stage Present water quality standard. All other periods are subject to the Early Life Stage Absent period.
23
Table B-4. Lake Michigan Basin Water Quality Standards.
Aquatic Life Use (1)
Human Health Standard (5)
Water Quality or HHS(6) Standard for “Open Waters” only(6)
Water Quality Standard for other uses(7)
Parameter
Unit
AS (2)
CS (3)
Other (4)
Wildlife Standard (8)
Arsenic
(trivalent, dissolved)
μg/L
340
148
NA(9)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Arsenic (total)
μg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0
NA
NA
Cadmium
(dissolved)
μg/L
exp[A+Bln(H)]X{1.138672–[(lnH)X0.041838)]}, where A = -3.6867
B = 1.128
exp[A+Bln(H)]X{1.138672–[(lnH)X0.041838)]}, where
A = -2.715
B = 0.7852
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chromium
(hexavalent, total)
μg/L
16
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chromium
(trivalent, dissolved)
μg/L
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.316, where
A = 3.7256
B = 0.819
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.860, where
A = 0.6848
B = 0.819
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Copper (dissolved)
μg/L
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.960, where
A = -1.700
B = 0.9422
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.960, where
A = -1.702
B = 0.8545
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cyanide
(weak acid dissociable)
μg/L
22
5.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lead (dissolved)
μg/L
exp[A+Bln(H)] X {1.46203-[(lnH)0.145712)]}, where
A = -1.055
B = 1.273
exp[A+Bln(H)] X {1.46203-[(lnH)0.145712)]}, where
A = -4.003
B = 1.273
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lead (total)
μg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0
NA
NA
Nickel (dissolved)
μg/L
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.998, where
A = 2.255
B = 0.846
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.997, where
A = 0.0584
B = 0.846
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Selenium (dissolved)
μg/L
NA
5.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Selenium (total)
μg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.0
NA
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
μg/l
19
11
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zinc (dissolved)
μg/L
exp[A+Bln(H)] X 0.978, where
A = 0.884
B = 0.8473
exp[A+B ln(H)] X 0.986, where
A = 0.884
B = 0.8473
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Benzene
μg/L
3900
800
NA
310
HHS: 12.0
NA
NA
Chlorobenzene
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
3.2
HHS: 0.470
NA
NA
2,4 – Dinitrophenol
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
2.8
HHS: 0.0550
NA
NA
Endrin
μg/L
0.086
0.036
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hexachloroethane
μg/L
NA
NA
NA
6.7
HHS: 5.30
NA
NA
Methylene Chloride
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
2.6
HHS: 0.0470
NA
NA
Parathion
μg/L
0.065
0.013
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pentachlorophenol
μg/L
exp B([pH] + A), where
A = -4.869
B = 1.005
exp B([pH] + A), where
A = -5.134
B = 1.005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Ethylbenzene
μg/L
150
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Toluene
mg/L
2000
610
NA
51.0
HHS: 5.60
NA
NA 24
Aquatic Life Use (1)
Human Health Standard (5)
Water Quality or HHS(6) Standard for “Open Waters” only(6)
Water Quality Standard for other uses(7)
Parameter
Unit
AS (2)
CS (3)
Other (4)
Wildlife Standard (8)
Xylene(s) (total)
μg/l
1200
490
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trichloroethylene
μg/L
NA
NA
NA
370
HHS: 29.0
NA
NA
Barium (total)
mg/L
NA
NA
5.0
NA
1.0
NA
NA
Boron (total)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
NA
Chloride
mg/L
NA
NA
500
NA
12.0
NA
NA
Fluoride
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4
NA
Iron (dissolved)
mg/L
NA
NA
1.0
NA
0.30
NA
NA
Manganese (total)
mg/L
NA
NA
1.0
NA
0.15
NA
NA
Phenols
μg/l
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
100
NA
Sulfate
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.0
500
NA
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
NA
NA
1000
NA
180.0
NA
NA
Nitrate-Nitrogen
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.0
NA
NA
Phosphorus
μg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
NA
NA
Lindane
μg/L
0.95
NA
NA
0.5
HHS: 0.47
NA
NA
Un-ionized ammonia:
April-October
mg/L
0.33 (10)
0.057 (10)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
November-March
mg/L
0.14 (10)
0.025 (10)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Ammonia-Nitrogen
mg/L
NA
NA
15
NA
0.02
NA
NA
Fecal coliform bacteria
#/100 ml
NA
NA
NA
NA
20(11)
200/400(12)
NA
pH minimum
SU
NA
NA
6.5
NA
7.0
NA
NA
pH maximum
SU
NA
NA
9.0
NA
9.0
NA
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
NA
NA
– (13)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mercury (total)
ng/L
1700
910
NA
3.1
NA
NA
1.3
Chlordane
ng/L
NA
NA
NA
0.25
NA
NA
NA
DDT and metabolites
pg/L
NA
NA
NA
150
NA
NA
11.0
Dieldrin
ng/L
240
56
NA
0.0065
NA
NA
NA
Hexachlorobenzene
ng/L
NA
NA
NA
0.45
NA
NA
NA
PCBs (class)
pg/L
NA
NA
NA
26
NA
NA
120
2,3,7,8-TCDD
fg/L
NA
NA
NA
8.6
NA
NA
3.1
Toxaphene
pg/L
NA
NA
NA
68
NA
NA
NA
2,4-Dimethylphenol
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
8.7
HHS: 0.450
NA
NA
Oil (hexane solubles or equivalent)
mg/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
NA
NA
Temperature
(Refer to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.506, 302.507, 302.508, 302.509)
Where:
mg/L = milligrams per liter (10-3 grams per liter) NA = Criterion currently not available or not applicable
μg/L = micrograms per liter (10-6 grams per liter) Exp (x) = base of natural logarithms raised to the x-power
ng/L = nanograms per liter (10-9 grams per liter) ln(H) = natural logarithm of Hardness
pg/L = picograms per liter (10-12 grams per liter) fg/L – femtograms per liter (10-15 grams per liter) 25
Footnotes for Table B-4
1 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302
2 Acute standard – not to be exceeded at any time (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.504 a, e). These criteria apply in all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin.
3 Chronic standard – not to be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples over a period of at least four days (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.504 a, e). These criteria apply in all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin.
4 Other water quality standards applicable to aquatic life use (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.502, 302.503, 302.504 b). These criteria apply in all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin unless an open waters water quality standard is specified. In these cases, the criterion in the aquatic life use column applies to all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin other than the open waters.
5 Human health standard – not to be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples over a period of at least four days (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.504 a, d, e). For each parameter, the criterion applies in all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin unless an open waters human health standard is specified. In these cases, the standard in the ―Human Health Standards‖ column applies to all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin other than the open waters.
6 Water quality standards or human health standards, specified as ―HHS,‖ apply only in the open waters of the Lake Michigan Basin (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.504 c, d; 302.502; 302.503; 302.505; 302.535 ).
7 Water quality standards applicable to uses other than aquatic life use. These do not include Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards applicable at some locations in the waters of the Lake Michigan Basin; for these standards see Table B-2.
8 Wildlife standard – not to be exceeded by the arithmetic average of at least four consecutive samples over a period of at least four days (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.504 e). These criteria apply in all waters of the Lake Michigan Basin.
9 ―NA‖ means that a numeric criterion currently is not available, but may be derived in the future as per 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.540.
10 Acute standard and chronic standard for un-ionized ammonia computed as per 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.535 c.
11 Based on a minimum of five samples taken over not more than a 30-day period.
12 For Lake Michigan-basin waters other than open waters, fecal coliform bacteria must not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10% of the samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 per 100 ml, based on a minimum of five samples taken over not more than a 30-day period.
13 Dissolved oxygen must not be less than 90% of saturation, except due to natural causes, in the open waters of the Lake Michigan Basin (as defined at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.501). The other waters of the Lake Michigan Basin (i.e., tributaries, harbors and areas within breakwaters of Lake Michigan) must not be less than 6.0 mg/L during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period, nor less than 5.0 mg/L at any time.
Table B-5. Illinois Designated Uses and Applicable Water Quality Standards.
Illinois EPA Designated Uses Assessed in 2010
Illinois Waters in which the Designated Use and Standards Apply(1)
Applicable Illinois Water Quality Standards
Aquatic Life
Streams, Inland Lakes
General Use Standards
Lake Michigan-basin waters
Lake Michigan Basin Standards
Aesthetic Quality
Streams, Inland Lakes
General Use Standards
Lake Michigan-basin waters
Lake Michigan Basin Standards
Indigenous Aquatic Life
Specific Chicago Area Waters (Figure B-1)
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards
Primary Contact (Swimming)
Streams, Inland Lakes
General Use Standards
Lake Michigan-basin waters
Lake Michigan Basin Standards
Secondary Contact
Streams, Inland Lakes
General Use Standards
Lake Michigan-basin waters
Lake Michigan Basin Standards
Specific Chicago Area Waters (Figure B-1)
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards
Public and Food Processing Water Supply
Streams, Inland Lakes, Lake Michigan-basin waters
Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards
Fish Consumption
Streams, Inland Lakes
General Use Standards
(Human Health)
Lake Michigan-basin waters
Lake Michigan Basin Standards (Human Health)
Specific Chicago Area Waters (Figure B-1)
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards
1. As defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.201 and 303.
26
Narrative Standards and Antidegradation Regulations
Water quality standards generally consist of three components: designated uses, a set of numeric and narrative criteria to protect those uses, and an antidegradation statement. In Illinois, the antidegradation statement (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105) is separate and covers all designated uses. This component of Illinois’ water quality standards describes regulations which protect ―existing uses of all waters of the State of Illinois, maintain the quality of waters with quality that is better than water quality standards, and prevent unnecessary deterioration of waters of the State.‖
While the majority of Illinois’ water quality standards are in the form of numeric criteria as shown in Tables B-2, B-3, and B-4, several aspects of the standards have narrative elements. The standard for water temperature in both the General Use Standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.211) and the Lake Michigan Basin Standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.507) has a narrative element which prohibits ―abnormal temperature changes that may affect aquatic life‖ and any disruptions in the ―normal daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations that existed before the addition of heat.‖ Narrative language in the General Use and Lake Michigan Basin standards (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.210, 302.540) also protects waters from any toxic substances ―harmful to human health, or to animal, plant or aquatic life.‖ In addition, the Public and Food Processing Water Supply Standards also contain narrative elements (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.303, 302.305) that prohibit concentrations of contaminants hazardous to human health in waters used for human consumption. Furthermore, ―Offensive Conditions‖ such as ―sludge or bottom deposits, floating debris, visible oil, odor, plant or algal growth, color or turbidity of other than natural origin‖ are prohibited in all waters of the state (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.203, 302.403, 302.515).
Derived Water Quality Criteria
The narrative standards in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code, Section 302.210 and in Subpart F for General Use Waters and at 302.540 and elsewhere in Subpart E allow the Illinois EPA to derive numeric water quality criteria values for any substance that does not already have a numeric standard in the Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations. These criteria serve to protect aquatic life, human health or wildlife, although wildlife based criteria have not yet been derived. Illinois EPA derived criteria can be found at following the web site: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/water-quality-standards/water-quality-criteria.html.
Proposed Revisions to the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards
These standards currently apply to portions of the Chicago, Calumet and Lower Des Plaines River drainages which were altered, in various stages during the mid 1800s into the mid 1900s, to promote commercial navigation and to eliminate untreated sewage from flowing into Lake Michigan. These waters were greatly impacted by hydromodification, alteration in flow, and storm water and waste water discharges from the urban development of the Chicago metropolitan area. At the time of standards development it was believed these waters could not meet the interim goal of the Clean Water Act. The Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards were intended to provide some level of protection for these highly modified waters which were not suited for General Use activities.
27
Since the implementation of the standards in the 1970s water quality improved and questions arose as to the potential of these waters and what level of protection they should receive. Two separate Use Attainability Analyses (UAA) were conducted; one on the lower Des Plaines River (AquaNova International, Ltd. and Hey & Associates, Inc., 2003), and one on the Chicago Area Waterway System (Camp, Dresser and McKee, 2007). The main purpose of the UAAs was to determine if the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use waters could meet the aquatic life and recreational goals of the Clean Water Act or, if these goals could not be met, what beneficial uses could be attained in those waters.
Illinois EPA used the two UAAs to form a single rulemaking proposal and on October 26, 2007 filed a rulemaking notice with the Illinois Pollution Control Board. The result is an exhaustive and detailed rulemaking proposal which includes changes in definitions, use designations and the subdivision of the segments of the UAA waters into the new Use Designation Categories. The proposal also includes changes to Part 302, Subparts A and D which replace the existing narrative and numerical water quality standards necessary to protect the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Uses with new standards designed to protect newly defined uses. Finally, changes are proposed to Part 304 that address effluent limitations for bacteria discharges. The complete proposal can be found on the Illinois Pollution Control Board website at http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-59147/.
Water Pollution Control Programs for Surface Water
The Illinois Environmental Protection Act of 1970 established a statewide program for environmental protection and assigned authority to implement purposes of the Act to three entities. The Illinois Pollution Control Board was assigned the responsibility of establishing the basic regulations and standards necessary for the preservation of the environment. The Act also created and established the Illinois EPA as the principal state agency for implementation of environmental programs. This includes activities such as monitoring, watershed planning, permitting, financial assistance administration, compliance assurance, and program management conducted to prevent, control and abate water pollution in Illinois. The Illinois EPA is responsible for the maintenance and updating of the state Water Quality Management Plan that identifies the state’s goals and objectives pertaining to water quality activities.
The Act further established the Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality as the research and education arm of the state’s environmental protection apparatus. These responsibilities were subsequently assumed by the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources that, in July 1995, became part of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
Water resource management activities involving interstate waters are also coordinated with various interstate committees and commissions. The Illinois EPA participates in water-resource management activities of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, International Joint Commission of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Council of Great Lakes Governors, and other interstate committees and commissions.
28
Point Source Pollution Control
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Common point source discharges include wastewater treatment facilities serving municipalities, industries, residential developments, retail and commercial complexes, schools, mobile home parks, military installations, state parks, resorts/campgrounds, prisons, and individual residences. Other wastewater point source discharges can come from municipal combined sewer overflows (CSOs), concentrated animal feeding operations, mines, groundwater remediation projects, and water treatment plants.
The most significant contaminants of concern from domestic point sources (non-industrial) and CSOs include nutrients, deoxygenating wastes and dissolved solids. Bacterial contamination can also be a concern from CSOs. Contaminants from industrial dischargers vary by source.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established by the Clean Water Act in 1972 and has been administered by the Illinois EPA since 1973. The program requires permits for the discharge of treated municipal effluent, treated industrial effluent, storm water and other dischargers. The permits establish the conditions under which the discharge may occur and establish monitoring and reporting requirements.
In all areas except pretreatment, the state of Illinois has been delegated NPDES permitting authority pursuant to Sections 402 and 303(e) of the CWA, and has the responsibility for issuance, reissuance, modification and enforcement of NPDES Permits. The procedures for the issuance of permits are established by a memorandum of agreement with the USEPA, the regulations under 40 Code of Federal Regulations 122, 123, 124 and 125, and the Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Environmental Protection. The priorities for permit issuance are established based on the economic needs of the state, guidance from USEPA, and the needs of the Illinois EPA in implementing the construction grants/loans program.
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 established the NPDES storm water program.
Municipalities located in urban areas as defined by the Census Bureau are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges from their municipal separate storm sewer systems. Construction sites that disturb one acre or more are required to have coverage under the NPDES general permit for storm water discharges from construction site activities.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Precipitation moving over and through the ground picks up pollutants from farms, cities, mined lands, and other landscapes and carries these pollutants into rivers, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater. This is type of pollution is called nonpoint source pollution (NPS), and major sources in Illinois include agriculture, construction erosion, urban runoff, hydrologic modifications, and resource extraction activities. Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act, the Illinois EPA receives federal funds to implement nonpoint source pollution control projects in cooperation with local units of government and other organizations. The program emphasizes funding for implementing corrective and preventative best management practices (BMPs) on a 29
watershed scale; demonstration of new and innovative BMPs on a nonwatershed scale; and the development of information/education NPS pollution control programs.
303(d)/Total Maximum Daily Load Program
As stated earlier, section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards. States are required to submit a prioritized list of impaired waters, known as the 303(d) List, to the USEPA for review and approval (Appendix A).
The CWA also requires that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for each pollutant of an impaired water body. The establishment of a TMDL sets the pollutant reduction goal necessary to improve impaired waters. It determines the load (i.e., quantity) of any given pollutant that can be allowed in a particular water body. A TMDL must consider all potential sources of pollutants, whether point or nonpoint. It also takes into account a margin of safety, which reflects scientific uncertainty, as well as the effects of seasonal variation.
After the reduced pollutant loads have been determined, an implementation plan is developed for the watershed spelling out the actions necessary to achieve the goals. The plan specifies limits for point source discharges and recommends best management practices for nonpoint sources. It also estimates associated costs and lays out a schedule for implementation. Commitment to the implementation plan by the citizens who live and work in the watershed is essential to success in reducing the pollutant loads and improving water quality. The status of all TMDLs in the state is discussed in Section C-3.
Watershed Management Program
The Illinois EPA Bureau of Water implements a Watershed Management Program to protect and restore natural resources. This initiative incorporates common sense approaches that emphasize involvement from citizens and the regulated community. In recent years, there has been an increased awareness among natural resource managers regarding the interdependence of natural systems. As a result, a more comprehensive approach to natural resource management has emerged, using watersheds as the basic management unit. Water quality standards define the water quality goals for all water bodies in a watershed and are the driving force behind this initiative. The Watershed Management Program looks holistically at the range of problems that affect a given watershed, taking into account that most watersheds are not experiencing a single problem, but are faced with an array of interrelated concerns.
The objective of the Watershed Management Program is to develop an integrated, holistic process to effectively and efficiently protect, enhance and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of our water resources within a defined hydrologic area. This comprehensive approach focuses on the total spectrum of water resource issues, including the following:
1. Integration of water pollution control and drinking-water issues. The environmental goals of this program were chosen to reflect statewide progress in areas of water quality, safety of drinking water provided to Illinois citizens, and overall reduction in water related pollutant 30
loading. The interrelationship of water pollution control and drinking water provides an opportunity to address requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act in a holistic manner.
2. Integration of regulatory and nonregulatory programs. Regulatory programs are currently in place to deal with point sources of pollution. These regulatory programs have been very effective in improving water quality conditions nation wide. However, to address the challenges we now face in controlling nonpoint sources of pollution, the key to success lies in a combination of voluntary approaches (regarding issues for which we currently have no regulatory authority), while maintaining strong and effective regulatory controls through both compliance assistance and enforcement when necessary.
3. Addressing surface and groundwater-resource issues. Where surface and groundwater issues are linked within a watershed, program approaches compliment the resolution of both concerns in a manner that improves or protects both resources. This is accomplished through such activities as targeting of noncompliance discharges within a watershed, and expansion of wellhead and recharge zone protection areas.
B-3. Cost/Benefit Assessment
Section 305(b) requires the state to report on the economic and social costs and benefits necessary to achieve Clean Water Act objectives. Information on costs associated with water quality improvements is complex, and not readily available for developing a complete cost/benefit assessment. The individual program costs of pollution control activities in Illinois, the general surface water quality improvements made, and the average groundwater protection program costs follow.
Cost of Pollution Control and Water Protection Activities
The Illinois EPA Bureau of Water distributed a total of $121.0 million in loans during 2008 for construction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities. Other Water Pollution Control program and Groundwater/Source Water Protection costs for Bureau of Water activities conducted in 2008 are summarized in Table B-6.
Table B-6. Water Pollution Control Program Costs for the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency’s Bureau of Water, 2008.
Activity
Total
Monitoring
$5,277,300
Planning
$1,517,400
Point Source Control Programs
$14,011,000
Nonpoint Source Control Programs
$9,469,000
Groundwater/Source-Water Protection
$2,102,400
Total
$32,377,100 31
General Surface Water Quality Improvements
Economic benefits of water quality improvements, while difficult to quantify, include increased opportunities for water-based recreational activities, enhanced commercial and sport fisheries, recovery of damaged aquatic environments, and reduced costs of water treatment to various municipal and industrial users. While assessment methods have improved over time making comparisons with previous years’ assessments difficult to interpret, the summary of attainment of aquatic life use in streams and inland lakes indicates improvement in these waters. The number of assessed stream miles reported in good condition has improved from 34.7 percent in 1972 to 63.2 percent in 2010, while during that same period, the miles reported in poor condition declined from 11.3 percent to 6.2 percent. The lake acreage assessed in good condition for aquatic life use has also improved from 17.8 percent in 1972 to 91.3 percent in 2010. During the same time period, the lake acreage assessed in poor condition has declined from 27.8% in 1972 to 0.0 percent in 2010.
32
PART C: SURFACE WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
C-1. Monitoring Program
Illinois EPA’s ―Surface Water Monitoring Strategy‖ (Illinois EPA 2007) provides a detailed discussion of all agency monitoring programs. Field, laboratory, and data-management procedures are explained in the Illinois EPA Bureau of Water’s ―Quality Assurance Project Plan‖ (Illinois EPA 1994). Specific programs that contribute data to the assessment process are briefly described below.
Streams
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
The Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN) consists of 146 fixed stations. At each station water samples are collected once every six-weeks and analyzed for a minimum of 55 universal parameters including field pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, and total and dissolved metals. Additional parameters specific to the station, watershed, or subnetwork within the ambient network are also analyzed.
Pesticide Monitoring Subnetwork
The Illinois EPA has been routinely monitoring pesticides in water column samples at a subset of 30 ambient stations since October 1985. Analytes include common herbicides and insecticides currently in use. In addition the samples are also analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT, along with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The program has under gone a number of modifications over the years.
Sampling frequency was reduced from the initial five times per year to three times year in 1991. The new sampling was based on one pre-application sample, typically in March, and two post-application samples during mid-April through July. In 1996, site selection for pesticide monitoring at ambient stations was modified to correspond with other monitoring programs based on a 5-year basin rotation. In 2002, six of the original pesticide monitoring stations were re-established with a sampling frequency of 9 times per year. The remaining 24 stations continued to be allocated within the 5-year basin rotation at three times per year.
In 2006, the total number of sites was reduced to 20 and reflected a new emphasis on monitoring pesticides at ambient stations near public water supply intakes along with continued monitoring at some of the original stations for long term trends. Sampling frequency reflected the routine ambient schedule, typically nine times per year. Currently those sites include: Lusk Creek (AK-02), Salt Fork Vermilion River (BPJ-03), Skillet Fork (CA-05), Illinois River (D-23 and D-30), Vermilion River (DS-06), Sangamon River (E-06 and E-18), Kankakee River (F-16), Des 33
Plaines River (G-15), Bear Creek (KI-02), Mississippi River (I-05, J-98, K-17, K-22, M-02), Kaskaskia River (O-07, O-08, O-30) and Shoal Creek (OI-08).
Facility-Related Stream Surveys
Illinois EPA conducts Facility-Related Stream Surveys that collect macroinvertebrate, water chemistry, stream flow, and habitat data upstream and incrementally downstream of discharges from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Information is used to evaluate water quality impacts and the need for additional wastewater treatment controls. Data are also used to characterize the existing and potential resource quality of the receiving stream, to determine biological impacts on the receiving stream, and to support the Bureau of Water’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting activities.
Intensive Basin Surveys
Illinois EPA conducts Intensive Basin Surveys in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. These surveys are a major source of information for assessments of aquatic life use. Sampling is organized by drainage basin on a five-year schedule (Figure C-1): in any single year, a subset of basins is sampled so that statewide coverage is achieved once every five years. Sampling locations are selected based on where data are currently lacking or historical data needs updating. Water chemistry and biological information (fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages) plus qualitative and quantitative instream-habitat information (including stream discharge) are collected to characterize stream segments, to identify resource conditions, and to assess attainment of aquatic life use. Samples of fish tissue (see below) and sediment are also collected to screen for the accumulation of toxic substances.
Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program
The Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (FCMP) is responsible for determining the levels of contaminants in Illinois sport fish and issuing consumption advisories for species found to be contaminated above specified levels. The FCMP operates under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), last renewed in 1989, that spells out many details of the responsibilities of the participating agencies (Depts. of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Nuclear Safety, Public Health and Environmental Protection Agency). However, certain procedures and criteria for the determination and issuance of consumption advisories are now outdated or not specified in the MOA, leaving these elements to the discretion of the agencies. To address this, the FCMP now closely follows the procedures recommended in the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory (Anderson et al. 1993), and has adopted as policy over the years certain other procedures that replace outdated procedures in the MOA, or are not specifically addressed by the MOA for the determination of advisories. Key elements of the procedures and policies for issuing the advisories include:
The MOA lays out various tasks for the member agencies that allow the FCMP to collect, process, analyze, and preserve for possible future analysis sufficient numbers and sizes of 34
sport fish samples from across the state to evaluate levels of contaminants in most bodies of water accessible to anglers. The goal of the FCMP is to sample most accessible waters every five to ten years, except for waters already under an advisory. In these cases, more frequent sampling is used to assess whether changes in the advisory are needed.
The MOA specifies the collection of filet and whole fish samples from a network of 73 permanent stations for annual or biennial monitoring of trends in contaminant levels over time, plus additional samples from across the state to evaluate important sport-fishing waters. However, the funding source for trend-monitoring has since been lost, and the existing funding at this time is dedicated to the analysis of filet samples for advisory purposes. Therefore, since 1993 only filet samples are analyzed and the permanent monitoring stations are sampled at the same frequency as similar stations across the state.
The MOA specifies collection of a core set of samples from each body of water to be evaluated. These samples are to be composites of filets from three to five fish of similar size, and are to include two different sizes of bottom feeders (preferably carp), one sample of an omnivorous species (preferably channel catfish), and one sample of a predatory species (preferably largemouth or smallmouth bass). These samples are analyzed for a suite of 14 bioaccumulative organic chemicals and mercury. If a sample is found to contain one or more of the analytes above a criterion, the FCMP has adopted a policy of requiring a second set of samples from the water, which should include two bottom feeders, two omnivores, two predators, and one or more additional species of local importance to confirm the original findings and provide sufficient data for the issuance of advisories if needed.
The Protocol stresses the benefits of fish consumption. Language relaying this message is included with all consumption advisories issued.
35
6
31
30
18
11
9
2
24
5
26
8
4
10
20
22
15
32
16
13
7
25
19
23
29
21
1
17
12
3
27
14
33
28
Ye a r s
2 0 0 2/2007
2 0 0 3/2008
2 0 0 4/2009
2 0 0 5/2010
2 0 0 6/2011
1 Great Lakes/Calumet River Basin
2 Des Plaines River Basin
3 Upper Fox River Basin
4 Lower Fox River Basin
5 Kishwaukee River Basin
6 Rock River Basin
7 Pecatonica River Basin
8 Green River Basin
9 Mississippi River North Basin
10 Kankakee/Iroquois River Basin
11 Upper Illinois/Mazon River Basin
12 Vermilion (Illinois) River Basin
13 Middle Illinois River Basin
14 Mackinaw River Basin
15 Spoon River Basin
16 Mississippi River North Central Basin
17 La Moine River Basin
18 Lower Illinois/Macoupin River Basin
19 Mississippi River Central Basin
20 Lower Sangamon River Basin
21 Upper Sangamon River Basin
22 Salt Creek-Sangamon River Basin
23 Upper Kaskaskia River Basin
24 Shoal Creek/Middle Kaskaskia River Basin
25 Lower Kaskaskia River Basin
26 Big Muddy River Basin
27 Mississippi River South Central Basin
28 Mississippi River South Basin
29 Vermilion (Wabash) River Basin
30 Embarras/Middle Wabash River Basin
31 Little Wabash/Skillet Fork River Basin
32 Saline River/Bay Creek Basin
33 Cache River Basin
Figure C-1. IEPA/IDNR Intensive Basin Schedule, 2002-2011.
36
Inland Lakes
The Illinois EPA conducts and supports several inland-lake-monitoring programs. Collectively, chemical, physical or biological data have been collected from nearly 2,000 lake stations since 1977. Lake monitoring programs are described briefly below.
Ambient Lake Monitoring Program
Illinois EPA conducts an Ambient Lake Monitoring Program (ALMP) at approximately 50 inland lakes annually. Lakes are selected on a rotating basis so that all significant publicly-owned lakes are monitored at least once every five years. Furthermore, approximately one-half of the 50 inland lakes sampled each year are monitored on a three-year rotating schedule to enhance Illinois EPA’s ability to assess lake trends. There are 78 inland lakes included in this trends monitoring program. These lakes are known as the Ambient ―Core‖ Lakes. Data collected through the ALMP are primarily used for assessment of aquatic life, aesthetic quality, and public and food processing water supply uses and to identify potential causes of use impairment. However, data are also used to encourage development of management plans and to evaluate the effectiveness of programs implemented.
The Ambient Lake Monitoring Program involves the collection of physical data (e.g. temperature/dissolved oxygen profiles, Secchi Disk transparency, and water color), water and sediment chemical data, and field observations, including weather conditions and the presence of algae and macrophytes. Lakes in the ALMP are sampled five times during the year: once during the spring runoff and turnover period (April or May), three times during the summer (June, July, and August), and once during fall turnover (October). Data are routinely collected from three distinct lake sites, with water samples collected from one foot below the surface at all sites, and two feet above the bottom (and at intake depth for lakes with a public water supply intake) at the deepest site. Chemical analyses include: total ammonia, nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, total and dissolved phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total and volatile suspended solids. Integrated water samples are also collected for analysis of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll c, and pheophytin. Additional parameters specific to public and food processing water supply use are also analyzed.
Clean Lakes Program Intensives
The Illinois Clean Lakes Program is a two-part program consisting of Phase 1 diagnostic-feasibility studies and Phase 2 implementation projects. Intensive lake-specific monitoring is conducted under both phases of the Illinois Clean Lakes Program and includes water sampling twice per month from April-October and monthly from November-March for a one-year period. Water quality samples are collected from one foot below the surface, intake-depth (for lakes with a public water supply intake), and two feet above the bottom at the deepest site. Surface samples (one foot below the surface) are also typically collected at two other lake sites. Physical (dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and Secchi transparency depth), chemical (alkalinity, total ammonia, nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, total and dissolved phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total and volatile suspended solids), and biological (phytoplankton, fish, macrophytes) information is collected. In addition, for Phase 1 studies only, flow and chemical data are 37
collected at major inflows and outflows for development of hydrologic, nutrient and sediment budgets. Additional Phase I activities include: bathymetric mapping; sedimentation surveys, fish contaminant monitoring conducted pursuant to the Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program; and analysis of sediment samples.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program
The Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP) has been administered by the Illinois EPA since 1981 and relies on the time and talents of citizen volunteers. The VLMP is an educational program for Illinois citizens to learn about lake ecosystems, as well as a cost-effective method of gathering fundamental information about inland lakes.
The VLMP Basic Program includes training volunteers to measure water clarity (transparency) using a Secchi disk. Secchi-transparency measurements are useful for tracking changes in lake water transparency within a single year and for tracking trends over many years. Monitoring is conducted twice a month from May-October, typically at three sites per lake. The basic program also emphasizes education and monitoring of aquatic invasive species. Aquatic invasive species, also known as exotic species, include zebra mussels, eurasian water-milfoil, bighead and silver carp, rusty crayfish, and others. The main focus of this program is to establish a network of individuals at the local level that can assist Illinois EPA in their effort to control the spread of exotic species. Volunteers are educated on how to identify exotic species through the use of Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant ―Watch ID Cards,‖ signs, and other educational materials. With their help, Illinois EPA can be notified of new infestations shortly after they are discovered.
The VLMP Advanced Program includes Basic Program monitoring plus the collection of water samples from one foot below the water’s surface at one to three lake sites. Water samples are shipped to an accredited laboratory for analysis of the following parameters: total ammonia, nitrate-nitrite nitrogen, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total and volatile suspended solids. Integrated water samples are also collected for analysis of chlorophyll pigments. These samples are collected at a depth equal to twice the Secchi transparency depth, then filtered and sent to a laboratory for analysis of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll c and pheophytin. Chlorophyll a, Secchi transparency depth, and total phosphorus data are used to calculate the lake’s trophic state index which is used for determining the lake’s resource quality.
The primary purpose of the VLMP is to promote education on lake issues and evaluate lake resource quality as good, fair and poor. While the VLMP is conducted according to an approved QAPP and does meet the QA/QC requirements for these purposes, the data do not have the degree of reliability that Illinois EPA deems necessary for placing a water on the 303(d) List. Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program data are considered insufficient for making use-support determinations and 303(d) listings.
38
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan water quality is monitored through a cooperative agreement between Illinois EPA and the city of Chicago (updated August 1, 2001). The Lake Michigan Monitoring Program is conducted by the city of Chicago's Water Quality Surveillance Section and consists of 77 sites assessed in five monitoring surveys: 14 on the Lake Michigan Open Water Survey, eight on the North Shore Survey, 10 on the South Shore Survey, 23 on the Jardine Water Purification Plant Radial Lake Survey, and 22 on the South Water Purification Plant Radial Lake Survey. Water surveys are conducted from January through December each year providing there are no weather-related problems. The city’s Water Purification Division Laboratory performs general water chemistry analyses with additional analyses performed by Illinois EPA laboratories.
Chemical and fecal coliform bacteria data are collected to characterize overall water quality conditions and evaluate designated uses. Fish contaminant sampling is conducted in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to screen for the accumulation of toxic substances. The fish contaminant data provide essential information to the general public relative to contaminant concentrations in fish tissue, species affected, and risks associated with fish consumption. Fecal coliform and Escherichia coli bacteria data provide the basis for protecting primary contact use (swimming). Chemical parameters, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury and others are used to assess aquatic life use.
C-2. Assessment Methodology
This section explains how Illinois EPA uses various criteria (including, but not limited to, Illinois water quality standards) to assess the level of support (attainment) of each applicable designated use in the waters of the state. Designated uses assessed in Illinois waters include aquatic life, indigenous aquatic life, fish consumption, primary contact, secondary contact, public and food processing water supply and aesthetic quality. Assessments of designated uses are based on water-body-specific monitoring data believed to accurately represent existing resource conditions. The methodology for the assessment of use attainment and causes of impairment is explained below for each use and each water body type. At the end of Section C-2, we explain guidelines for identifying potential sources of impairment.
Water Body Segments
Illinois EPA uses the National Hydrography Dataset (1:24,000 scale) as the basis for mapping and calculating the length of streams. Mapping and area calculations of inland lakes and Lake Michigan are based on Illinois data (see Table B-1). While assessments of designated uses are based on data from individual monitoring stations, the data are extrapolated to represent larger water body segments (i.e., a stream segment, an inland lake, an open water area in Lake Michigan), also called assessment units. Assessment units delineated for aquatic life use are typically used as the basis for all other assessed uses.
For streams, monitoring data are extrapolated to linear segments depending on the size of the 39
stream (USEPA, 1997). Assessments of aquatic life use typically apply approximately 10 miles upstream and downstream from the sampling site for wadable streams, about 25 miles upstream and downstream for unwadable streams (i.e., generally 7th order, 3.5 ft. average depth and fish sampled with an electrofishing boat) and approximately 50 miles upstream and downstream for large rivers, i.e., Illinois and Wabash rivers. However, the final extent of any particular segment is determined by considering significant influences such as point or nonpoint source inputs; changes in watershed characteristics such as land use; changes in riparian vegetation, stream banks, slope or channel morphology; stream confluence or diversions; or hydrologic modifications such as channelization or dams. This process can result in segments that are either longer or shorter than the general numeric guidelines above. On the Mississippi River, the segments mostly reflect a September 2003 interstate memorandum of understanding between five states (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin) designed to improve the assessment process on the Mississippi River (UMRBA 2003). http://www.umrba.org/wq.htm). On the Ohio River, segmentation is based on Ohio River Sanitation Commission assessments.
In the case of lakes, monitoring data are typically used to assign an assessment to the entire lake acreage as a single assessment unit.
Assessments of fish consumption use are generally extrapolated to include the entire named water body.
Changes to some 2008 assessment units were made and some new assessment units were added for the 2010 cycle. These are described in Appendix D.
Levels of Use Attainment
The Illinois EPA determines the resource quality of each assessment unit by determining the level of support (i.e., attainment) of each applicable designated use. For each assessment unit and for each designated use applicable to that assessment unit, an Illinois EPA assessment concludes one of two possible use-support levels: ―Fully Supporting‖ or ―Not Supporting.‖ Fully Supporting means that the designated use is attained; Not Supporting means the use is not attained. To facilitate communicating these results, Illinois EPA also refers to Fully Supporting status (for a use) as Good resource quality; Not Supporting status is called Fair or Poor resource quality, depending on the degree to which the use is not attained. Uses determined to be Not Supporting are called ―impaired,‖ and waters that have at least one use assessed as Not Supporting are also called impaired. For each impaired use in each assessment unit, Illinois EPA attempts to identify potential causes and sources of the impairment as explained below.
Aquatic Life - Streams
Aquatic life use assessments in streams are typically based on the interpretation of biological information, physicochemical water data and physical-habitat information from the Intensive Basin Survey, Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network or Facility-Related Stream Survey programs as described previously. The primary biological measures used are the fish Index of Biotic Integrity (fIBI; Karr et al. 1986; Smogor 2000, 2005), the new macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI; Tetra Tech, 2004) and the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI; Illinois 40
EPA 1994). Physical-habitat information used in assessments includes quantitative or qualitative measures of stream-bottom composition and qualitative descriptors of channel and riparian conditions. Physicochemical water data used include measures of ―conventional‖ parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature), priority pollutants, non-priority pollutants, and other pollutants (USEPA 2002 and www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html). In a minority of streams for which biological information is unavailable, aquatic life use assessments are based primarily on physicochemical water data. Physicochemical data (from water and sediment) and habitat information play primary roles in identifying potential causes and sources of aquatic life use impairment.
Table C-1 shows a decision matrix which illustrates how biological data (fIBI, mIBI, and MBI), physicochemical water data (i.e., water chemistry), and physical-habitat information are integrated and interpreted to guide the assessment of aquatic life use.
All biological indices are divided into three ranges: 1. a range which indicates no impairment; 2. a range which indicates moderate impairment, and, 3. a range which indicates severe impairment. (Table C-2). Water-chemistry data are also evaluated to determine whether the potential for impairment of aquatic life use is indicated (Table C-3). In addition, several conditions of physical habitat are used to indicate the potential for impairment of aquatic life use (Table C-4).
When all available data indicate no impairment, the stream segment is considered fully supporting aquatic life use. In general, when both fish and macroinvertebrate indicators are available for a site and each indicator shows a similar level of impairment, the attainment decision is based primarily on this concordant information. If either biological indicator shows severe impairment, the attainment decision is based primarily on a worst case emphasis.
For assessing attainment of aquatic life use in streams, direct reliance on information-rich biological indicators over indirect and sometimes simplistic comparisons of physicochemical water quality criteria is a useful and widely recommended approach (Karr and Dudley 1981; Yoder and Rankin 1995; Karr 1991; Yoder and Rankin 1998; Hall and Giddings 2000; National Research Council 2001). Much more than physicochemical water data, biological indicators--such as a fish Index of Biotic Integrity--provide direct, reliable measures of aquatic-community health and facilitate detection of cumulative impacts on aquatic life from multiple stressors (e.g., Norton et al. 2000). By relying more on biological indicators than on less-reliable surrogates (e.g., water chemistry), our assessments of aquatic life use achieve their primary purpose: to determine the degree to which a water body provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife (i.e., the Clean Water Act’s interim aquatic life goal). In these terms, an Illinois EPA assessment conclusion of Full Support for aquatic life use indicates conditions that meet the Clean Water Act’s interim aquatic life goal.
Water chemistry and habitat data are used to help determine the attainment status: 1) where only one biological assemblage is available, 2) where two biological assemblages may indicate different levels of impairment, or 3) occasionally, when no biological data are available. Water-chemistry data (Table C-3) and habitat data (Table C-4) are used as corroborating evidence when one biological assemblage indicates fully supporting but another indicates moderate impairment. 41
When only one biological assemblage (mIBI or fIBI) is available which indicates full support, an indication of severe water chemistry impairment overrides this single biological indicator. A limited amount of water chemistry data which indicates the potential for impairment may be used to determine non support of aquatic life use, but when biological data is unavailable, a conclusion of full support requires an amount of water chemistry data which represents a long period of time and a large suite of parameters. The dataset collected at the typical Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network station is considered adequate for concluding full support.
When interpreting water chemistry data for assessing attainment of aquatic life use, we do not consider a single exceedance of a water quality criterion as indicative of impairment. Such an event does not account for at least two other aspects critical for determining how physicochemical conditions in water affect aquatic life: the frequency and duration of the exceedances (Barnett and O’Hagan 1997; National Research Council 2001). Illinois EPA uses ―frequency of exceedance‖ guidelines (Table C-3) that better represent the true risk of impairment to aquatic life than do single-exceedance guidelines.
Illinois EPA’s approach for assessing attainment of aquatic life use achieves a reasonable balance in minimizing the two possible types of assessment mistakes: incorrectly concluding that a use is being fully supported or incorrectly concluding that it is not. Inherent uncertainty exists in using water-monitoring information to assess the condition of water resources (Ward et al. 1990). Designing an assessment protocol exclusively to minimize the potential for making one of these mistakes necessarily results in a counteractive, increased vulnerability to the other type of mistake. Therefore, short of incorporating an in-depth analysis of the relative costs and benefits of decision mistakes—some of which are very difficult to quantify—the most reasonable and practical assessment approach is one that results in an acceptably low and equal number of each type of mistake. In assessing attainment of aquatic life use, Illinois EPA tries to achieve this balance by recognizing and accommodating the greater information value of biological indicators over less informative, surrogate water-chemistry data or habitat data. Illinois EPA interprets water-chemistry data and habitat data as indicators of the potential for aquatic-life impairment, not as direct evidence of such. Consistent with this approach, we typically conclude Fully Supporting for situations in which two biological indicators indicate lack of impairment, despite any contraindication from surrogate data (see cells 1A and 4A in Table C-1).
However, Illinois EPA does recognize and accommodate uncertainty in our biological indicators by allowing for situations in which the potential for impairment, as indicated by water-chemistry or habitat data, is sufficient to conclude Not Supporting despite contraindication from a biological indicator. Specifically, if one biological indicator indicates Fully Supporting and the other indicates Not Supporting, the potential for impairment, as indicated by water-chemistry or habitat data, typically results in a decision of Not Supporting (see cells 1B, 2A, and 5A in Table C-1). In such situations, we judge that the combined information value of one biological indicator indicating impairment, plus corroborating water-chemistry or habitat data, provides sufficient evidence of actual impairment.
For situations in which one biological indicator indicates Fully Supporting, but no other biological indicator is available (see cells 1D, 4D, and 7A in Table C-1), we typically conclude Fully Supporting, unless sufficient contraindication is provided by surrogate data. In such 42
situations, although our decision of Fully Supporting is based on less information than those in which we have two biological indicators, it nonetheless relies primarily on the superior information value of the single biological indicator relative to the surrogate data. Specifically, if a fish or macroinvertebrate IBI is the only available biological indicator and it indicates Fully Supporting, then typically we diverge from this conclusion only if water-chemistry data indicate a potential for severe impairment. If an MBI is the only available biological indicator and it indicates lack of impairment, we diverge from this conclusion if water-chemistry data indicate at least a potential for moderate impairment. We incorporate this distinction because, unlike an IBI score, an MBI score is designed to be sensitive only to a specific type of water-chemistry impact: organic pollution.
The last stage of the assessment process is a final review of the assessment conclusion (Table C-1, cell 8). In this review, Illinois EPA biologists carefully examine all available biological, water-chemistry and habitat data and also use their site-specific knowledge and other information about the environmental setting of the stream segment. This additional information includes field notes and observations, knowledge of the nature of the stream and its biological potential, the existence of potential sources of pollution, and riparian or watershed information. Based on this review, the biologist may modify the use-attainment decision indicated in any cell in Table C-1. For example, conflicting biological information may require case-specific interpretation, including analysis of possible error or ambiguity in an IBI score, especially when scores are near the threshold values in Table C-2. Also, physicochemical, physical-habitat and other information are examined for corroborating or refuting evidence of aquatic life use attainment. In some cases, after careful review, it may be determined that the current data are not adequate to make a new assessment. In these cases, the previous assessment status remains unchanged. Illinois EPA believes that this final review helps improve the accuracy of our aquatic life use assessments.
43
Table C-1. Decision Table for Assessing Attainment of Aquatic Life Use in Streams. Each table cell shows the preliminary assessment conclusions based primarily on biological data: fish Index of Biotic Integrity (fIBI), macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI), and Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI). See Table C-2 for how to interpret these biological indicators. See Tables C-3 and C-4 for how to interpret surrogate water-chemistry data or habitat data. The final review in table cell 8 applies to every preliminary assessment conclusion.
Biological Indicator Indicates:
A. fIBI Indicates
No Impairment
fIBI > 41
B. fIBI Indicates Moderate Impairment
fIBI < 41 and > 20
C. fIBI Indicates Severe Impairment
fIBI < 20
D. fIBI is Unavailable
1. mIBI Indicates
No Impairment
mIBI > 41.8
Fully Supporting (Good)
(Water chemistry and other data are considered during final review) (See cell 8 below.)
If water-chemistry data or habitat data indicate a potential for impairment, then
Not Supporting (Fair).
Otherwise,
Fully Supporting (Good).
Not Supporting (Poor)
If water-chemistry data indicate a potential for severe impairment, then
Not Supporting (Fair)
Otherwise,
Fully Supporting (Good).
2. mIBI Indicates
Moderate Impairment
mIBI < 41.8 and > 20.9
If water-chemistry data or habitat data indicate a potential for impairment, then
Not Supporting (Fair)
Otherwise,
Fully Supporting (Good).
Not Supporting (Fair)
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Fair)
3. mIBI Indicates
Severe Impairment
mIBI < 20.9
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Poor)
4. mIBI is Unavailable
and MBI Indicates
No Impairment
MBI < 5.9
Fully Supporting (Good)
Not Supporting (Fair)
Not Supporting (Poor)
If water-chemistry data indicate a potential for moderate impairment, then Not Supporting (Fair).
If water-chemistry data and sufficient habitat data 1 indicate no impairment, then
Fully Supporting (Good).
Otherwise, no assessment is made 2. 44
Biological Indicator Indicates:
A. fIBI Indicates
No Impairment
fIBI > 41
B. fIBI Indicates Moderate Impairment
fIBI < 41 and > 20
C. fIBI Indicates Severe Impairment
fIBI < 20
D. fIBI is Unavailable
5. mIBI is Unavailable
and MBI Indicates
Moderate Impairment
MBI > 5.9 and < 8.9
If water-chemistry data or habitat data indicate a potential for impairment, then
Not Supporting (Fair).
Otherwise,
Fully Supporting (Good).
Not Supporting (Fair)
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Fair)
6. mIBI is Unavailable
and MBI Indicates
Severe Impairment
MBI > 8.9
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Poor)
Not Supporting (Poor)
7. mIBI and MBI are
Unavailable
If water-chemistry data indicate a potential for severe impairment, then
Not Supporting (Fair)
Otherwise,
Fully Supporting (Good).
Not Supporting (Fair)
Not Supporting (Poor)
If water-chemistry data indicate a potential for moderate impairment, then
Not Supporting (Fair).
If water-chemistry data indicate a potential for severe impairment, then
Not Supporting (Poor).
If sufficient water-chemistry data 3 and sufficient habitat data 1 indicate no impairment, then Fully Supporting (Good).
Otherwise, no assessment is made2.
8. Final review using site-specific knowledge and considering all available biological, water-chemistry, habitat and other information. This review considers factors such as the extent to which biological-indicator scores exceed or fall short of impairment thresholds, the type and degree of water quality standard exceedances, the type and degree of habitat degradation, and the presence or absence of pollution sources. Based on this review, the biologist may modify the preliminary use-attainment decision. In some cases, after careful review, it may be determined that current data are not adequate to make a new assessment. In these cases the previous assessment status remains unchanged.
1. ―Sufficient habitat data‖ means a dataset at least as representative of physical-habitat conditions as the dataset that is typically available from an Intensive Basin Survey. For a relatively few waters, assessments of aquatic life use as Fully Supporting may not include consideration of habitat data because appropriate physical-habitat indicators have not yet been fully developed or conditions prevented comprehensive habitat measurements or observations. Typically, these are large-stream locations.
2. If a previous assessment exists, it remains unchanged.
3. ―Sufficient water chemistry data‖ means a dataset at least as representative of water-chemistry conditions as the three-year dataset that is typically available from an Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network station. 45
Table C-2. Guidelines for Using Biological Information in Table C-1 to Assess Aquatic Life Use Attainment in Streams.
No Impairment
Moderate Impairment
Severe Impairment
Biological Indicator
Fully Supporting
Aquatic Life Use
(Good Resource Quality)
Not Supporting
Aquatic Life Use
(Fair Resource Quality)
Not Supporting
Aquatic Life Use
(Poor Resource Quality)
Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (fIBI,)
fIBI > 41
fIBI < 41 and > 20
fIBI < 20
Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI)
mIBI > 41.8
mIBI < 41.8 and > 20.9
mIBI < 20.9
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index1 (MBI)
MBI < 5.9
MBI > 5.9 and < 8.9
MBI > 8.9
1. When the mIBI is available, the MBI is not used independently to assess attainment of aquatic life use. 46
Table C-3. Guidelines for Using Water-Chemistry Data in Table C-1 to Indicate the Potential for Impairment of Aquatic Life Use in Streams.
Number of
Observa-
tions 1
Type of Parameter
Type of Water Quality Standard
Water Chemistry Condition Indicating Potential for Moderate Impairment of Aquatic Life Use 2
Water Chemistry Condition Indicating Potential for Severe Impairment of Aquatic Life Use 2
Ten or more observa-tions are available for the applicable water-chemistry parameter
Toxic 3
Acute
For any single parameter,
two observations exceed the applicable standard 4.
For any single parameter,
three or more observations exceed the applicable standard.
Chronic
For any single parameter, there is
one exceedances of the applicable standard 5.
For any single parameter, there are two or more independent exceedances of the applicable standard 5.
Nontoxic 6
Other
For any single parameter, more than 10% but no more than 25% of observations exceed the applicable standard; or,
there is one exceedance of any standard that requires multiple observations to apply.
For any single parameter, more than 25% of observations exceed the applicable standard; or,
there are two or more exceedances of any standard that requires multiple observations to apply.
Fewer than 10 observa-tions are available for the applicable water-chemistry parameter
Toxic 3
Acute
Among all parameters,
one observation exceeds an applicable standard.
Among all parameters,
two or more observations exceed an applicable standard.
Chronic
Among all parameters, there is
one exceedance of an applicable standard 5.
Among all parameters, there are
two or more independent exceedances of an applicable standard 5.
Nontoxic 6
Other
Among all parameters, two observat