sugarcreekstage1

              Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Sugar Creek Watershed TMDL
Stage One
Final Report
July 2009
Final Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contents
Section 1 Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1.1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Overview ............................................. 1-1
1.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed .............................. 1-2
1.3 Report Overview .............................................................................................. 1-6
Section 2 Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Location .................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Topography ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Soils.................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Soil Characteristics ....................................... 2-3
2.5 Population ........................................................................................................ 2-4
2.6 Climate and Streamflow .................................................................................. 2-5
2.6.1 Climate ................................................................................................ 2-5
2.6.2 Streamflow .......................................................................................... 2-5
Section 3 Public Participation and Involvement
3.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Public Participation and Involvement ....................... 3-1
Section 4 Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
4.1 Illinois Water Quality Standards ...................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Designated Uses ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 General Use ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Illinois Water Quality Standards ...................................................................... 4-1
4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources .............................................................................. 4-3
Section 5 Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5.1 Water Quality Data .......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Stream Water Quality Data ..................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1.1 Fecal Coliform ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1.2 pH .................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1.3 Manganese ...................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen ........................................................................... 5-3
5.1.2 Lake Water Quality Data ....................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Point Sources ................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3 Nonpoint Sources ............................................................................................. 5-4
5.3.1 Crop Information ................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.2 Animal Operations ................................................................................. 5-6
5.3.3 Septic Systems ....................................................................................... 5-7
5.4 Watershed Studies and Other Watershed Information ..................................... 5-7
FINAL i
List of Figures
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Sugar Creek Watershed
Section 6 Approach to Developing TMDLs and Identification of Data Needs
6.1 Simple and Detailed Approaches for Developing TMDLs .............................. 6-1
6.2 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Stream Segments in Sugar Creek
Watershed ........................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.1 Recommended Approach for DO TMDLs for Stream Segments ....... 6-1
6.2.2 Recommended Approach for pH TMDL in Sugar Creek Segment
OH-01 .................................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.3 Recommended Approach for Fecal Coliform and Manganese
TMDLs ................................................................................................ 6-2
FINAL ii
Figures
1-1 Sugar Creek Watershed
2-1 Sugar Creek Watershed Elevation
2-2 Sugar Creek Watershed Land Use
2-3 Sugar Creek Watershed Soils
5-1 Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Stations
5-2 Fecal Coliform Data Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
5-3 pH Values Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
5-4 Manganese Concentrations Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 and Bull
Branch Segment OHAA-07
5-5 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
5-6 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Lake Branch
5-7 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Impaired Segments in Sugar Creek
Watershed
5-8 Sugar Creek Watershed Point Sources
FINAL iii
List of Figures
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Sugar Creek Watershed
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL iv
vii
FINAL
Tables
1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed ......................................... 1-3
2-1 Land Cover and Land Use in Sugar Creek Watershed .................................... 2-2
2-2 Average Monthly Climate Data in Greenville, IL ........................................... 2-4
2-3 Streamflow Gages in the Sugar Creek Watershed ........................................... 2-4
4-1 Summary of Water Quality Standards for Potential Sugar Creek
Watershed Causes of Stream Impairments ...................................................... 4-2
4-2 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources in the Sugar Creek Watershed ........ 4-3
5-1 Existing Fecal Coliform Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired
Stream Segments .............................................................................................. 5-2
5-2 Existing pH Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream
Segments .......................................................................................................... 5-2
5-3 Existing Manganese Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream
Segments .......................................................................................................... 5-3
5-4 Existing Dissolved Oxygen Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired
Stream Segments .............................................................................................. 5-3
5-5 Permitted Facilities Discharging to or Upstream of Impaired Segments
in the Sugar Creek Watershed ......................................................................... 5-4
5-6 Tillage Practices in Bond County .................................................................... 5-5
5-7 Tillage Practices in Clinton County ................................................................. 5-5
5-8 Tillage Practices in Madison County ............................................................... 5-5
5-9 Tillage Practices in St. Clair County ................................................................ 5-5
5-10 Bond County Animal Population ..................................................................... 5-8
5-11 Clinton County Animal Population ................................................................. 5-8
5-12 Madison County Animal Population ............................................................... 5-8
5-13 St. Clair County Animal Population ................................................................ 5-8
6-1 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Impaired Stream Segments ................................. 6-2
FINAL v
List of Tables
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Sugar Creek Watershed
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL vi
FINAL 1-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek
Watershed
1.1 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Overview
A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.
TMDLs are a requirement of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). To meet
this requirement, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) must
identify water bodies not meeting water quality standards and then establish TMDLs
for restoration of water quality. Illinois EPA develops a list known as the “303(d) list”
of water bodies not meeting water quality standards every two years, and it is included
in the Integrated Water Quality Report. Water bodies on the 303(d) list are then
targeted for TMDL development. The Illinois EPA’s most recent Integrated Water
Quality Report was issued in March 2008. In accordance with USEPA’s guidance, the
report assigns all waters of the state to one of five categories. Category 5 includes
water bodies in which data have indicated that a TMDL is needed. Therefore, all
waters that appear on the 303(d) list are included in Category 5 of the Integrated Water
Quality Report and vice versa.
In general, a TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water quality impairments,
contributing sources, and pollutant reductions needed to attain water quality standards.
The TMDL specifies the amount of pollutant or other stressor that needs to be reduced
to meet water quality standards, allocates pollutant control or management
responsibilities among sources in a watershed, and provides a scientific and policy
basis for taking actions needed to restore a water body.
Water quality standards are laws or regulations that states authorize to enhance water
quality and protect public health and welfare. Water quality standards provide the
foundation for accomplishing two of the principal goals of the CWA. These goals are:
  Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters
  Where attainable, to achieve water quality that promotes protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides for recreation in and on the water
Water quality standards consist of three elements:
  The designated beneficial use or uses of a water body or segment of a water body
  The water quality criteria necessary to protect the use or uses of that particular water
body
  An antidegradation policy
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
Examples of designated uses are primary contact (swimming), protection of aquatic
life, and public and food processing water supply. Water quality criteria describe the
quality of water that will support a designated use. Water quality criteria can be
expressed as numeric limits or as a narrative statement. Antidegradation policies are
adopted so that water quality improvements are conserved, maintained, and protected.
1.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
The Illinois EPA has a three-stage approach to TMDL development. The stages are:
  Stage 1 – Watershed Characterization, Data Analysis, Methodology Selection
  Stage 2 – Data Collection (optional)
  Stage 3 – Model Calibration, TMDL Scenarios, Implementation Plan
This report addresses Stage 1 TMDL development for the Sugar Creek watershed.
Stages 2 and 3 will be conducted upon completion of Stage 1. Stage 2 is optional as
data collection may not be necessary if additional data are not required to establish the
TMDL.
Following this process, the TMDL goals and objectives for the Sugar Creek watershed
will include developing TMDLs for all impaired water bodies within the watershed,
describing all of the necessary elements of the TMDL, developing an implementation
plan for each TMDL, and gaining public acceptance of the process. Following are the
impaired water body segments in the Sugar Creek watershed for which a TMDL will
be developed:
  Sugar Creek (OH-01)
  Lake Branch (OHA-02)
  Lake Branch (OHA-03)
  Lake Branch (OHA-04)
  Lake Branch (OHA-05)
  Lake Branch (OHA-06)
  Bull Branch (OHAA-07)
  Grassy Branch (OHC)
  Trenton Creek (OHF-TR-A1)
  Trenton Creek (OHF-TR-C1)
  Sugar Creek (OH-HL-D1)
These impaired water body segments are shown on Figure 1-1. There are 11 impaired
water body segments within the Sugar Creek watershed. Table 1-1 lists the water body
segment, water body size, and potential causes of impairment for the water body.
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
FINAL 1-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment Potential Sources
OH-01 Sugar Creek 21.44
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
pH Unknown
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Animal Feeding Operations
OH-01 Sugar Creek 21.44
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
pH Unknown
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Animal Feeding Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
Total Suspended Solids Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Animal Feeding Operations
Primary
Contact
Recreation
Fecal Coliform Unknown
OHA-02 Lake Branch 3.98
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Livestock,
Animal Feeding Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Livestock,
Animal Feeding Operations
Total Suspended Solids Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production, Livestock
OHA-03 Lake Branch 2.01
miles
Aquatic Life Manganese Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Crop Production, Livestock,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges
Phosphorus (Total) Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Animal Feedings Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations, Crop Production
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment Potential Sources
OHA-04 Lake Branch 1.93
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Livestock
Phosphorus(Total) Animal Feeing Operations,
Livestock, Crop Production,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations, Livestock,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges
OHA-05 Lake Branch 1.24
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations,
Livestock
Phosphorus (Total) Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations, Crop Production
Sedimentation/Siltation Livestock, Animal Feeding
Operations, Crop Production
Total Suspended Solids Livestock, Crop Production,
Animal Feeding Operations
OHA-06 Lake Branch 3.36
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operation
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations
Total Suspended Solids Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
OHAA-07 Bull Branch 3.74
miles
Aquatic Life Barium Unknown
Manganese Unknown
Nitrogen (Total) Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
Sedimentation/Siltation Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
Total Suspended Solids Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations
OHC Grassy
Branch
Aquatic
Life
7.63 miles Nitrogen (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Animal Feeding Operations
Dissolved Oxygen Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production, Municipal
Point Source Discharges,
Animal feeding Operations
Sedimentation/Siltation Crop Production, Animal
Feeding Operations
OHF-TR-A1
Trenton
Creek
1.21
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
FINAL 1-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
Table 1-1 Impaired Water Bodies in Sugar Creek Watershed
Water
Body
Segment
ID
Water Body
Name Size
Impaired
Use Cause of Impairment Potential Sources
OHF-TR-C1
Trenton
Creek
.91 miles Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding
Operations
Phosphorus (Total) Animal Feeding Operations,
Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers
OH-HL-D1 Sugar Creek 10.41
miles
Aquatic Life Dissolved Oxygen Unknown
Phosphorus (Total) Crop Production
* Bold Causes of Impairment do have numeric water quality standard and TMDLs will be developed. Italicized Causes of
Impairment do not have numeric water quality standard.
Illinois EPA is currently only developing TMDLs for parameters that have numeric
water quality standards, and therefore the remaining sections of this report will focus
on the pH, dissolved oxygen, total fecal coliform, and manganese impairments in the
Sugar Creek watershed. For potential causes that do not have numeric water quality
standards as noted in Table 1-1, TMDLs will not be developed at this time. However,
in the implementation plans completed during Stage 3 of the TMDL, some of these
potential causes may be addressed by implementation of controls for the pollutants
with water quality standards.
The TMDL for the segments listed above will specify the following elements:
  Loading Capacity (LC) or the maximum amount of pollutant loading a water body
can receive without violating water quality standards
  Waste Load Allocation (WLA) or the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or
future point sources
  Load Allocation (LA) or the portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or future
nonpoint sources and natural background
  Margin of Safety (MOS) or an accounting of uncertainty about the relationship
between pollutant loads and receiving water quality
These elements are combined into the following equation:
TMDL = LC =  WLA +  LA + MOS
The TMDL developed must also take into account the seasonal variability of pollutant
loads so that water quality standards are met during all seasons of the year. Also,
reasonable assurance that the TMDL will be achieved will be described in the
implementation plan. The implementation plan for the Sugar Creek watershed will
describe how water quality standards will be attained. This implementation plan will
include recommendations for implementing best management practices (BMPs), cost
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-6 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
estimates, institutional needs to implement BMPs and controls throughout the
watershed, and a timeframe for completion of implementation activities.
1.3 Report Overview
The remaining sections of this report contain:
  Section 2 Sugar Creek Watershed Characteristics provides a description of the
watershed's location, topography, geology, land use, soils, population, and
hydrology.
  Section 3 Public Participation and Involvement discusses public participation
activities that occurred throughout the TMDL development.
  Section 4 Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards defines the water
quality standards for the impaired water body.
  Section 5 Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization presents the available water
quality data needed to develop TMDLs, discusses the characteristics of the
impaired stream segments in the watershed, and also describes the point and non-point
sources with potential to contribute to the watershed load.
  Section 6 Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
makes recommendations for the models and analysis that will be needed for TMDL
development and also suggests segments for Stage 2 data collection.
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Av i ston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madison
Clinton
Figure 1-1
Sugar Creek Watershed
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
Municipalities
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
DRAFT
Section 1
Goals and Objectives for Sugar Creek Watershed
1-8 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 1 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 2-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Location
The Sugar Creek watershed (Figure 1-1) is located in southern Illinois, flows in a
southerly direction, and drains approximately 112,700 acres. Approximately
41,800 acres (37% of the total watershed) lie in southeastern Madison County, 66,000
acres (59% of the total watershed) lie in western Clinton County, 3,800 acres (3% of
the total watershed) lie in southwestern Bond County, and 1,100 acres (less than 1% of
the watershed) lie in northeastern St. Clair County.
2.2 Topography
Topography is an important factor in watershed management because stream types,
precipitation, and soil types can vary dramatically by elevation. National Elevation
Dataset (NED) coverages containing 30-meter grid resolution elevation data are
available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for each 1:24,000-topographic
quadrangle in the United States. Elevation data for the Sugar Creek watershed were
obtained by overlaying the NED grid onto the GIS-delineated watershed. Figure 2-1
shows the elevations found within the watershed.
Elevation in the Sugar Creek watershed ranges from 630 feet above sea level in the
northern portion of the watershed at the headwaters of Sugar Creek to 394 feet at its
most downstream point near Damiansville in the southern end of the watershed. The
absolute elevation change of Sugar Creek is 162 feet over the approximately 78-mile
stream length, which yields a stream gradient of approximately 2.1 feet per mile.
2.3 Land Use
Land use data for the Sugar Creek watershed were extracted from the Illinois Gap
Analysis Project (IL-GAP) Land Cover data layer. IL-GAP was started at the Illinois
Natural History Survey (INHS) in 1996, and the land cover layer was the first
component of the project. The IL-GAP Land Cover data layer is a product of the
Illinois Interagency Landscape Classification Project (IILCP), an initiative to produce
statewide land cover information on a recurring basis cooperatively managed by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS), the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDA), and the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The land cover data was generated using
30-meter grid resolution satellite imagery taken during 1999 and 2000. The IL-GAP
Land Cover data layer contains 23 land cover categories, including detailed
classification in the vegetated areas of Illinois. Appendix A contains a complete listing
of land cover categories. (Source: IDNR, INHS, IDA, USDA NASS's 1:100,000 Scale
Land Cover of Illinois 1999-2000, Raster Digital Data, Version 2.0, September 2003.)
The land use of the Sugar Creek watershed was determined by overlaying the IL-GAP
Land Cover data layer onto the GIS-delineated watershed. Table 2-1 contains the land
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
uses contributing to the Sugar Creek watershed, based on the IL-GAP land cover
categories and also includes the area of each land cover category and percentage of the
watershed area. Figure 2-2 illustrates the land uses of the watershed.
The land cover data reveal that approximately 95,037 acres, representing nearly
84 percent of the total watershed area, are devoted to agricultural activities. Corn and
soybean farming account for 31 percent and 25 percent of the watershed area,
respectively, winter wheat/soybeans account for 11 percent, and rural grassland
accounts for an additional 9 percent of the total area. Other land cover types each
represent 4 percent or less of the watershed area.
Table 2-1 Land Cover and Land Use in Sugar Creek Watershed
Land Cover Category
Area
(Acres) Percentage
Corn 34,976 31.0
Soybeans 28,123 25.0
Winter Wheat/Soybeans 12,236 10.9
Rural Grassland 10,458 9.3
Other Small Grains & Hay 4,848 4.3
Floodplain Forest 4,453 4.0
Upland 3,869 3.4
Winter Wheat 3,757 3.3
Low/Medium Density 2,888 2.6
High Density 2,149 1.9
Partial Canopy/Savannah Upland 1,711 1.5
Urban Open Space 869 0.8
Other Agriculture 637 0.6
Surface Water 517 0.5
Seasonally/Temporarily Flooded 349 0.3
Deep Marsh 286 0.3
Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow 255 0.2
Barren & Exposed Land 202 0.2
Shallow Water 108 0.1
Total 112,691 100.0
2.4 Soils
Soils data are available through the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. For
SSURGO data, field mapping methods using national standards are used to construct
the soil maps. Mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360 making
SSURGO the most detailed level of soil mapping done by the NRCS.
Attributes of the spatial coverage can be linked to the SSURGO databases, which
provide information on various chemical and physical soil characteristics for each map
unit and soil series. Of particular interest for TMDL development are the hydrologic
soil groups as well as the K-factor of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. The following
sections describe and summarize the specified soil characteristics for the Sugar Creek
watershed.
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
FINAL 2-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
2.4.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Soil Characteristics
Appendix B contains a table of the SSURGO soil series for the Sugar Creek watershed.
Various soil types exist in the watershed, but no single type covers more than 2 percent
of the watershed. The table also contains the area, dominant hydrologic soil group, and
k-factor range. Each of these characteristics is described in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
Figure 2-3 shows the hydrologic soils groups found within the Sugar Creek watershed.
Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups. They are grouped according to the infiltration of water
when the soils are thoroughly wet and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.
Hydrologic soil groups A, B, C, D, B/D, and C/D are found within the Sugar Creek
watershed. Groups B and C cover 27 and 38 percent of the watershed, respectively.
Group D and B/D cover 15 and 17 percent of the watershed, respectively. The other
groups cover small percentages of the watershed. Group B soils are defined as having
"moderately low runoff potential when thoroughly wet." These soils have a moderate
rate of water transmission. Group C soils are defined as having "moderately high
runoff potential when thoroughly wet." These soils have a low rate of water
transmission. Group D soils are defined as having "high runoff potential when
thoroughly wet." These soils have a very low or non-existent rate of water
transmission. Group B/D soils are "placed in group D based solely on the presence of a
water table within 24 inches of the surface," however these soils have a moderate rate
of water transmission (NRCS, 2007).
A commonly used soil attribute is the K-factor. The K-factor:
Indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water.
(The K-factor) is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet
and rill erosion. Losses are expressed in tons per acre per year. These
estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic
matter (up to 4 percent) and on soil structure and permeability. Values
of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. The higher the value, the more susceptible
the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water (NRCS 2005).
The distribution of K-factor values in the Sugar Creek watershed range from 0.15 to
0.43.
2.5 Population
The Census 2000 TIGER/Line data from the U.S. Census Bureau were retrieved.
Geographic shapefiles of census blocks were downloaded for Bond, Clinton, Madison
and St. Clair Counties. The census block shapefiles were clipped to each watershed so
that only block populations directly associated with the watershed would be counted.
City populations were taken from the U.S. Census Bureau. For municipalities located
along a watershed boarder, population was estimated based on the percentage of the
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
municipalities' area within the watershed boundary. Approximately 31,000 people
reside in the Sugar Creek watershed. The major municipalities in the watershed are
shown in Figure 1-1. The largest urban development in the watershed is the city of
Highland, which is located in the northwestern corner of the Sugar Creek watershed.
2.6 Climate, Pan Evaporation, and Streamflow
2.6.1 Climate
Southwestern Illinois has a temperate climate with hot summers and cold, snowy
winters. Monthly precipitation data from Greenville, Illinois (station id. 3693) in Bond
County were extracted from the NCDC database for the years of 1901 through 2006.
Temperature data were available from 1901 to 1959. The data station in Greenville,
Illinois was chosen to be representative of precipitation throughout the Sugar Creek
watershed.
Table 2-2 contains the average monthly precipitation along with average high and low
temperatures for the period of record. The average annual precipitation is
approximately 36.2 inches.
Table 2-2 Average Monthly Climate Data in Greenville, IL
Month
Total Precipitation
(inches)
Maximum Temperature
(degrees F)
Minimum Temperature
(degrees F)
January 1.6 40 22
February 1.5 42 24
March 2.6 54 33
April 3.8 66 44
May 3.8 75 53
June 4.3 83 62
July 4.3 88 66
August 3.8 83 62
September 3.3 77 55
October 2.7 66 44
November 2.4 54 34
December 2.1 42 25
Total 36.2 64 43
2.6.2 Streamflow
Analysis of the Sugar Creek watershed requires an understanding of flow throughout
the drainage area. One USGS gage within the watershed has historic data available
which is shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 Streamflow Gages in the Sugar Creek Watershed
Gage
Number Name POR
05594090 Sugar Creek at Albers, Illinois 1972-1982
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
FINAL 2-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
Because there are no gages within the watershed that have data available within the
past 20 years, flow data will be estimated and compared to historic values during Stage
3 using the drainage area ratio method, represented by the following equation.
where Qgaged = Streamflow of the gaged basin
Qungaged = Streamflow of the ungaged basin
Areagaged = Area of the gaged basin
Areaungaged = Area of the ungaged basin
The assumption behind the equation is that the flow per unit area is equivalent in
watersheds with similar characteristics. Therefore, the flow per unit area in the gaged
watershed multiplied by the area of the ungaged watershed estimates the flow for the
ungaged watershed. Further efforts to quantify watershed contributions will be
performed during Stage 3 of TMDL development.
ungaged
gaged
ungaged
gaged Q
Area
Area
Q      
 
 
   
 
 
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-6 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF -TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Trenton
Av is ton
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madison
Clinton
Figure 2-1
Sugar Creek Watershed
Elevation
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Elevation (feet)
394 - 411
412 - 424
425 - 435
436 - 446
447 - 458
459 - 470
471 - 483
484 - 494
495 - 505
506 - 515
516 - 526
527 - 537
538 - 550
551 - 571
572 - 630
DRAFT
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-8 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Tr enton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madis on
Clinton
Figure 2-3
Sugar Creek Watershed
Soils
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Hydrologic Soil Group
A
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Gravel, Urban Land, Other
Water
DRAFT
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-10 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
70
50
Tr enton
Aviston
64
161
40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
160
Madis on
Clinton
Figure 2-2
Sugar Creek Watershed
Land Use
0 2 4 8 Miles
Legend
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Land Cover
Corn
Soybeans
Winter Wheat
Other Small Grains & Hay
Winter Wheat/Soybeans
Other Agriculture
Rural Grassland
Upland
Partial Canopy/Savannah Upland
High Density
Low/Medium Density
Urban Open Space
Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow
Deep Marsh
Seasonally/Temporarily Flooded
Floodplain Forest
Shallow Water
Barren & Exposed Land
Surface Water
DRAFT
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-12 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 
T:\Stage1Data\USGS Gage Stations\Sugar_Gage_Data.xls
Figure 2-4:
Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow
in Sugar Creek
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month
Flow (cfs)
Estimated Total Monthly Streamflow
Section 2
Sugar Creek Watershed Description
2-14 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 2 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 3-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 3 sugar.doc
Section 3
Public Participation and Involvement
3.1 Sugar Creek Watershed Public Participation and
Involvement
Public knowledge, acceptance, and follow through are necessary to implement a plan
to meet recommended TMDLs. It is important to involve the public as early in the
process as possible to achieve maximum cooperation and counter concerns as to the
purpose of the process and the regulatory authority to implement any
recommendations.
Illinois EPA, along with CDM, will hold up two public meetings within the watershed
throughout the course of the TMDL development. This section will be updated as
public meetings occur.
Section 3
Public Participation and Involvement
3-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 3 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 4-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 4 sugar.doc
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality
Standards
4.1 Illinois Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards are developed and enforced by the state to protect the
"designated uses" of the state's waterways. In the state of Illinois, setting the water
quality standards is the responsibility of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB).
Illinois is required to update water quality standards every three years in accordance
with the CWA. The standards requiring modifications are identified and prioritized by
Illinois EPA, in conjunction with USEPA. New standards are then developed or
revised during the three-year period.
Illinois EPA is also responsible for developing scientifically based water quality
criteria and proposing them to the IPCB for adoption into state rules and regulations.
The Illinois water quality standards are established in the Illinois Administrative Rules
Title 35, Environmental Protection; Subtitle C, Water Pollution; Chapter I, Pollution
Control Board; Part 302, Water Quality Standards.
4.2 Designated Uses
The waters of Illinois are classified by designated uses, which include: General Use,
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies, Lake Michigan, and Secondary Contact
and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use (Illinois EPA 2008). The General Use designated use
is applicable to the Sugar Creek watershed.
4.2.1 General Use
The General Use classification is defined by IPCB as standards that "will protect the
state's water for aquatic life, wildlife, agricultural use, secondary contact use and most
industrial uses and ensure the aesthetic quality of the state's aquatic environment."
Primary contact uses are protected for all General Use waters whose physical
configuration permits such use.
4.3 Illinois Water Quality Standards
To make 303(d) listing determinations for aquatic life uses, Illinois EPA first collects
biological data and if this data suggests that an impairment to aquatic life exists, a
comparison of available water quality data with water quality standards will then
occur. Table 4-1 presents the water quality standards of the potential causes of
impairment the stream segments in the Sugar Creek watershed. Only constituents with
numeric water quality standards will have TMDLs developed at this time.
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
4-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 4 sugar.doc
Table 4-1 Summary of Water Quality Standards for Potential Sugar Creek Watershed Causes of
Stream Impairments
Parameter Units General Use Water Quality Standard
Regulatory
Reference
Manganese (total) μg/L 1000 302.208(g)
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L March through July
 5.0 minimum &  6.0 7-day daily
mean averaged over 7 days;
August through February
 3.5 minimum,  4.0 7-day minimum
averaged over 7 days &  5.5 30-day
daily mean
302.206(b)
Total Fecal Coliform Count/100
mL
May through October
200(1), 400(2)
302.209
pH 6.5-9 302.204
μg/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter
(1) Geometric mean based on a minimum of five samples taken over not more than a 30-day period.
(2) Standard shall not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected during any 30-
day period.
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
FINAL 4-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 4 sugar.doc
4.4 Potential Pollutant Sources
In order to properly address the conditions within the Sugar Creek watershed, potential
pollution sources must be investigated for the pollutants where TMDLs will be
developed. The following is a summary of the potential sources associated with the
listed potential causes for the 303(d) listed segments in this watershed. They are
summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources in the Sugar Creek Watershed
Segment ID Segment Name
Potential Causes of
Impairment
Potential Sources (as identified by
the 2006 303(d) list)
OH-01 Sugar Creek Dissolved Oxygen, pH,
Phosphorus(Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids,
Fecal Coliform
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Municipal
Point Source Discharges, Animal
Feeding Operations, Unknown, Corp
Production
OHA-02 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus(Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Livestock, Animal feeding Operations,
Crop Production
OHA-03 Lake Branch Manganese, Dissolved
Oxygen, Phosphorus
(Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation
Municipal Point Source Discharges,
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Animal
Feeding Operations, Crop Production,
Livestock
OHA-04 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation
Animal Feeding Operations, Municipal
Point Source Discharges, Livestock,
Crop Production
OHA-05 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Animal Feeding Operations, Livestock,
Crop Production
OHA-06 Lake Branch Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Total Suspended Solids
Animal Feedings Operations, Crop
Production
OHAA-07 Bull Branch Barium, Manganese,
Nitrogen (Total),
Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation,
Total Suspended Solids
Unknown, Animal Feeding Operations,
Crop Production
OHC Grassy Branch Nitrogen (Total),
Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total),
Sedimentation/Siltation
Crop Production, Municipal Point Source
Discharges, Animal Feeding Operations
OHF-TR-A1 Trenton Creek Dissolved Oxygen Animal Feeding Operations
OHF-TR-C1 Trenton Creek Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total)
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Municipal
Point Source Discharges
OH-HL-D1 Sugar Creek Dissolved Oxygen,
Phosphorus (Total)
Unknown, Crop Production
*Bold Potential Causes of Impairment have numeric water quality standard and TMDLs will be developed.
Section 4
Sugar Creek Watershed Water Quality Standards
4-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 4 sugar.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 5-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
Data were collected and reviewed from many sources in order to further characterize
the Sugar Creek watershed. Data have been collected in regards to water quality,
reservoirs, and both point and nonpoint sources. This information is presented and
discussed in further detail in the remainder of this section.
5.1 Water Quality Data
There are 17 historic water quality stations within the Sugar Creek watershed that were
used for this report. Figure 5-1 shows the water quality data stations within the
watershed that contain data relevant to the impaired segments.
The impaired water body segments in the Sugar Creek watershed were presented in
Section 1. Refer to Table 1-1 for impairment information specific to each segment. The
following sections address both stream and lake impairments. Data are summarized by
impairment and discussed in relation to the relevant Illinois numeric water quality
standard. Data analysis is focused on all available data collected since 1990. The
information presented in this section is a combination of USEPA Storage and Retrieval
(STORET) database and Illinois EPA database data. STORET data are available for
stations sampled prior to January 1, 1999 while Illinois EPA data are available for
stations sampled after that date. The following sections will first discuss Sugar Creek
watershed stream data followed by Sugar Creek watershed lake data.
5.1.1 Stream Water Quality Data
The Sugar Creek watershed has 11 impaired stream segments within its drainage area
that are addressed in this report. There is one active water quality station on each of the
following impaired stream segments: OH-01, OHA-04, OHA-05, OHA-06, OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1, OH-HL-D1. There are two water quality stations on segments OHA-
02 and OHAA-07. In addition, there are three water quality monitoring stations
associated with a Facility Related Stream Survey (FRSS) on Grassy Branch segment
OHC and four water quality monitoring stations associated with a FRSS on Sugar
Creek segment OH-HL-D1 and Lake Branch segment OHA-03. All historic water
quality data are available in Appendix C.
5.1.1.1 Fecal Coliform
Sugar Creek segment OH-01 is listed as impaired by total fecal coliform. Table 5-1
summarizes available historic fecal coliform data on the segment. The general use
water quality standard for fecal coliform states that the standard of 200 per 100 mL not
be exceeded by the geometric mean of at least five samples, nor can 10 percent of the
samples collected exceed 400 per 100 mL in protected waters, except as provided in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 302.209(b). Samples must be collected over a 30-day period or less
during the months of May through October). There are no instances since 1990 where
at least five samples have been collected during a 30-day period. The summary of data
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
presented in Table 5-1 reflects single samples compared to the standards during the
appropriate months. Figure 5-2 shows the total fecal coliform samples collected over
time at Sugar Creek segment OH-01.
Table 5-1 Existing Fecal Coliform Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location and
Parameter
Period of Record
and Number of
Data Points
Geometric
mean of all
samples Maximum Minimum
Number
of
samples
> 200 (1)
Number
of
samples
> 400 (1)
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01; Sample Location OH-01
Total Fecal Coliform
(cfu/100 mL)
1990-2005; 61 789 77,000 10 56 43
(1) Samples collected during the months of May through October
5.1.1.2 pH
Sugar Creek segment OH-01 is listed for impairment caused by pH. A sample is
considered a violation if it falls below 6.5 or above 9.0 standard units at any time. A
total of 141 samples have been collected since 1990 from the impaired segment. As
shown in Table 5-3, three of the samples collected at OH-01during this time period
were in violation of the standard. Figure 5-3 shows the pH samples collected over time
at segment OH-01.
Table 5-2 Existing pH Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location and
Parameter
Illinois WQ
Standard
Period of
Record and
Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number
of
Violations
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01; Sample Location OH-01
pH 6.5-9.0 1990-2005;141 7.38 8.6 6.3 3
5.1.1.3 Manganese
Lake Branch segment OHA-03 and Bull Branch segment OHAA-07 are listed for
impairment caused by manganese. The applicable water quality standard is a
maximum total manganese concentration of 1,000 μg/L for general use and indigenous
aquatic life standards. Table 5-3 summarizes the available historic manganese data
since 1990 for the impaired stream segments. This includes dissolved manganese
samples where available. The table also shows the number of violations for each
segment. Total manganese samples collected over time for the impaired segments
OHA-03 and OHAA-07 are shown in Figure 5-4.
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
Table 5-3 Existing Manganese Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample
Location and
Parameter
Aquatic
Life WQ
Standard
(μg/L)
Period of
Record and
Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number of
Violations
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03; Sample Locations OHA-03, OHA-AV-A1, OHA-AV-C1, OHA-AV-
C3, and OHA-AV-D1
Manganese
(total)
1000 1991-2002;
7
561.6 1600 83 1
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07; Sample Location OHAA-07
Manganese
(total)
1000 1991; 6 461.5 1006 152 1
5.1.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen
All of the impaired stream segments in the Sugar Creek watershed are listed as
impaired for dissolved oxygen (DO). While there was a large number of available DO
data points for Sugar Creek segment OH-01 (147), only one data point was available
for each of the segments on Trenton Creek (OHF-TR-A1 and OHF-TR-C1) and from
segment OHA-04 on Lake Branch. Likewise, only 3-6 data points were available for
each of the remaining impaired segments in this watershed. The available data for each
stream segment are summarized in Table 5-4. A sample was considered a violation if it
was below 5.0 mg/L during the months of March through July and 3.5 mg/L during the
months of August through February. Figure 5-5 shows the instantaneous DO values for
all samples collected from Sugar Creek segment OH-01. Figure 5-6 shows the
instantaneous DO values for the impaired Lake Branch stream segments OHA-O2,
OHA-03, OHA-04, OHA-05, and OHA-06. Figure 5-7 shows the instantaneous DO
values for the remaining impaired stream segments in the Sugar Creek Watershed
(OHAA-07, OHC, OHF-TR-A1, and OHF-TR-C1).
Table 5-4 Existing Dissolved Oxygen Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location
and Parameter
WQ
Standard
(mg/L)
Period of Record
and Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number of
Violations
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01; Sample Location OH-01
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1990-2005; 147 6.88 16 0.9 44
Lake Branch Segment OHA-02; Sample Locations OHA-01, OHA-02
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1991; 6 3.27 6.9 0.8 4
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03; Sample Locations OHA-03, OHA-AV-A1, OHA-AV-C1, OHA-AV-C3,
and OHA-AV-D1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1991-2002; 8 3.6 7.3 0.6 5
Lake Branch Segment OHA-04; Sample Location OHA-04
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1991; 3 4.07 7.2 2.1 2
Lake Branch Segment OHA-05; Sample Location OHA-05
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1991; 3 4.03 8.4 0.4 2
Lake Branch Segment OHA-06; Sample Location OHA-06
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1991; 3 5.3 8.5 0.7 1
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07; Sample Locations OHAA-07, OHAA-08
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1991; 6 3.08 7.5 0.2 4
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-4 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
Table 5-4 Existing Dissolved Oxygen Data for Sugar Creek Watershed Impaired Stream Segments
Sample Location
and Parameter
WQ
Standard
(mg/L)
Period of Record
and Number of
Data Points Mean Maximum Minimum
Number of
Violations
Grassy Branch Segment OHC; Sample Locations OHC-AL-C2, OHC-AL-C3, OHC-AL-D1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1994; 3 3.77 4.5 2.6 3
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-A1; Sample Location OHF-TR-A1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1998; 1 2.2 2.2 2.2 1
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-C1; Sample Location OHF-TR-C1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 1998; 1 3.7 3.7 3.7 1
Sugar Creek Segment OH-HL-D1; Sample Location OH-HL-D1
Dissolved Oxygen 5.0(1) 2002; 1 3.1 3.1 3.1 1
(1) -Instantaneous Mininmum
Additional data that may be helpful for future modeling has also been collected and
will be used as necessary during Stage 3.
5.1.2 Lake Water Quality Data
There are no impaired lakes within the Sugar Creek watershed.
5.2 Point Sources
There are 14 active point sources
located within the Sugar Creek
watershed that discharge to or
upstream of impaired segments.
Table 5-5 contains permit information
for these point sources while
Figure 5-8 shows the locations of
outfalls for each facility. Permit limits
and discharge monitoring reports will
be analyzed and further detailed during
Stage 3 TMDL development.
Historic mining likely took place
within the Sugar Creek watershed,
however, at mining records for historic mines were not available at the time of Stage 1
TMDL development. Historic mining information will be reviewed and incorporated
where appropriate during the final stages of TMDL development in this watershed.
5.3 Nonpoint Sources
There are many potential nonpoint sources of pollutant loading to the impaired
segments in the Sugar Creek watershed. This section will discuss site-specific cropping
practices, animal operations, and area septic systems. Data were collected through
communication with the local NRCS, Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD),
public health departments, and county tax department officials.
Table 5-5 Permitted Facilities Discharging to or
Upstream of Impaired Segments in the Sugar
Creek Watershed
Facility ID Facility Name
ILG551011 Wesclin High School Dist 3
ILG551027 IL DOT 1-70 Rest Area
ILG580002 Saint Rose SD STP
ILG580017 Albers STP
ILG580137 Pierron West STP
ILG640060 Aviston WTP
ILG640083 Saint Rose Public Water District
IL0020001 Aviston STP
IL0026701 Trenton STP
IL0029173 Highland STP
IL0032603 New Baden STP
IL0048691 Monterey Coal – Monterey Mine #2
IL0063762 Damiansville STP
IL0075388 Castle Ridge Estates Subdivision
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
5.3.1 Crop Information
The majority of the land found within the Sugar Creek watershed is devoted to crops.
Corn and soybean farming account for approximately 31 percent and 25 percent of the
watershed respectively. Tillage practices can be categorized as conventional till,
reduced till, mulch-till, and no-till. The percentage of each tillage practice for corn,
soybeans, and small grains by county are generated by the Illinois Department of
Agriculture from County Transect Surveys. The most recent survey was conducted in
2006. Data specific to the Sugar Creek watershed were not available; however, Bond,
Clinton, Madison and St Clair County practices were available and are shown in the
following tables.
Table 5-6 Tillage Practices in Bond County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 99% 55% 45%
Reduced - Till 0% 5% 0%
Mulch - Till 0% 0% 0%
No - Till 1% 40% 55%
Table 5-7 Tillage Practices in Clinton County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 67% 29% 15%
Reduced - Till 5% 5% 0%
Mulch - Till 19% 26% 62%
No - Till 9% 40% 23%
Table 5-8 Tillage Practices in Madison County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 66% 12% 0%
Reduced - Till 21% 41% 5%
Mulch - Till 3% 15% 77%
No - Till 10% 32% 18%
Table 5-9 Tillage Practices in St Clair County
Tillage System Corn Soybean Small Grain
Conventional 97% 29% 89%
Reduced - Till 1% 23% 7%
Mulch - Till 1% 7% 2%
No - Till 1% 41% 2%
Estimates on tile drainage were provided by the Madison, Clinton, and Bond County
NRCS offices. It is estimated that in Madison County, within the Sugar Creek
watershed, approximately 50% of the farms are drained by field tiles. Madison County
NRCS officials state that the amount of tiling on these farms is minimal and the
majority of fields are not extensively tiled. In Clinton County, NRCS officials
provided that approximately 5 to 10% of farms are drained by field tiles. Bond County
NRCS officials state that soils within the Bond County portion of Sugar Creek
watershed are gently sloping. Due to this slope, farms drain adequately without the use
of field tiles. As a result, there is only minimal tiling within this portion of the
watershed. Information on tile drainage was not available from St. Clair County, which
represents a very small portion of the watershed. More detailed site-specific data will
be incorporated if it becomes available.
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-6 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
5.3.2 Animal Operations
Animal populations are available from the National Agricultural Statistics Service.
Data specific to Sugar Creek watershed were not available; however, the Bond,
Clinton, Madison, and St Clair County animal populations were reviewed and are
presented in the following tables.
Table 5-10 Bond County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 10,413 11,378 9%
Beef 2,885 2,930 2%
Dairy 2,534 3,284 30%
Hogs and Pigs 18,334 10,810 -41%
Poultry 668 597 -11%
Sheep and Lambs 409 521 27%
Horses and Ponies NA 294 NA
Table 5-11 Clinton County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 37,735 36,849 -2%
Beef 5,095 2,242 -56%
Dairy 14,830 15,080 2%
Hogs and Pigs 93,190 177,880 91%
Poultry 552,992 514,945 -7%
Sheep and Lambs 473 430 -9%
Horses and Ponies NA 402 NA
Table 5-12 Madison County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 17,690 15,809 -11%
Beef 5,890 5,931 1%
Dairy 1,683 1,774 5%
Hogs and Pigs 46,331 29,844 -36%
Poultry 1,517 NA NA
Sheep and Lambs 1,047 1,013 -3%
Horses and Ponies NA 1,226 NA
Table 5-13 St Clair County Animal Population (2002 Census of Agriculture)
1997 2002 Percent Change
Cattle and Calves 8,362 6,985 -16%
Beef 1,888 1,656 -12%
Dairy 1,096 1,039 -5%
Hogs and Pigs 39,433 30,188 -23%
Poultry 1,426 790 -45%
Sheep and Lambs 449 374 -17%
Horses and Ponies NA 879 NA
Communications with local NRCS officials have provided more watershed-specific
animal information. Madison County NRCS officials stated that due to major
urbanization within the county during the past ten years, the number of animal
operations has declined considerably. They estimate that a few small operations exist
within the watershed, but no issues have been reported with any of the operations,
leading officials to believe that they are not contributing to water body use impairment.
Clinton County NRCS officials estimate that 100 animal operations exist within the
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
FINAL 5-7
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
Clinton County portion of the Sugar Creek watershed. Bond County NRCS officials
provided that there are 8 animal feeding operations within their county in the
watershed. Of these 8, a few are thought to be dairy concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) and the remaining operations are grazing animal operations. None
of the NRCS offices had detailed information regarding the number of animals on each
farm. Information on animal operations was not available from other county offices in
the watershed. Any additional site-specific information that becomes available will be
incorporated into the final TMDL.
5.3.3 Septic Systems
Many households in rural areas of Illinois that are not connected to municipal sewers
make use of onsite sewage disposal systems, or septic systems. There are many types
of septic systems, but the most common septic system is composed of a septic tank
draining to a septic field, where nutrient removal occurs. However, the degree of
nutrient removal is limited by soils and system upkeep and maintenance.
Across the U.S., failing or leaking septic systems have been found to contribute to
fecal coliform pollution, although animal waste, urban runoff and permitted point
sources can also contribute to the impairment. Information on septic systems within the
Sugar Creek watershed was obtained specifically for the areas surrounding and
upstream of Sugar Creek segment OH-01, where the water body use is impaired for
fecal coliform. Information on sewered and septic municipalities was obtained from
the Clinton County Health Department. Health department officials provided that the
cities of Damiansville, Albers, Trenton, Breese, Germantown, and Aviston are all
served by city sewers within the city limits. Each of these towns is located near the
impaired segment or near tributaries leading to the impaired segment. Health officials
also provided that land beyond the city limits of these towns is generally used for
agricultural purposes; however, the towns of Aviston and Trenton are expanding
quickly and several subdivisions have been developed beyond the city limits. Health
department officials provided that these subdivisions would be served by private septic
systems, as would any other homes located outside of city limits. According to health
department officials, there have been no complaints received regarding failing septic
systems in this area. The Clinton County Tax Assessor was able to provide estimates
on the number of homes in the areas of concern. According to the office of the
assessor, there are approximately 1,500 homes located outside city limits in the Clinton
County portion of Sugar Creek watershed. The condition of the septic systems serving
these homes is unknown.
5.4 Watershed Studies and Other Watershed Information
The extent of previous planning efforts within the Sugar Creek watershed is not
known. It is assumed that this information will become available through public
meetings within the watershed community. In the event that other watershed-specific
information becomes available, it will be reviewed and all applicable data will be
incorporated during Stages 2 and 3 of TMDL development.
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-8 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03 Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
§¨¦70
tu50
Trenton
Aviston
§¨¦64
¬«161
tu40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
¬«160
Madison
Clinton
OHA-05
OHF-TR-A1
OHC-AL-D1
OHC-AL-C2
OHA-04
OHAA-07
OHA-02
OHA-AV-C3
1-4
OH-01
OH-02
OHA-06
OHA-01
OHA-07
OHAA-08
OH-HL-D1
OHF-TR-C1
OHC-AL-C3
Figure 5-1
Sugar Creek Watershed
Water Quality Stations
 
Legend
") Water Quality Stations
Municipalities
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
DRAFT
ID Water Quality Station
1 OHA-03
2 OHA-AV-A1
3 OHA-AV-C1
4 OHA-AV-D1
0 2 4 8 Miles
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-10 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1000
10000
100000
/100ml)
OH-01
Standard (200 cfu/100ml))
Standard (400 cfu/100ml)
DRAFT
Figure 5-2:
Fecal Coliform Data
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
1
10
100
6/5/1990
12/5/1990
6/5/1991
12/5/1991
6/5/1992
12/5/1992
6/5/1993
12/5/1993
6/5/1994
12/5/1994
6/5/1995
12/5/1995
6/5/1996
12/5/1996
6/5/1997
12/5/1997
6/5/1998
12/5/1998
6/5/1999
12/5/1999
6/5/2000
12/5/2000
6/5/2001
12/5/2001
6/5/2002
12/5/2002
6/5/2003
12/5/2003
6/5/2004
12/5/2004
6/5/2005
Count (CFU/
Collection Date
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-12 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
d Units)
OH-01
Standard Minimum Value (6.5)
Standard Maximum Value (9.0)
DRAFT
Figure 5-3:
pH Vales
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
1/9/1990
7/9/1990
1/9/1991
7/9/1991
1/9/1992
7/9/1992
1/9/1993
7/9/1993
1/9/1994
7/9/1994
1/9/1995
7/9/1995
1/9/1996
7/9/1996
1/9/1997
7/9/1997
1/9/1998
7/9/1998
1/9/1999
7/9/1999
1/9/2000
7/9/2000
1/9/2001
7/9/2001
1/9/2002
7/9/2002
1/9/2003
7/9/2003
1/9/2004
7/9/2004
1/9/2005
7/9/2005
pH (Standard
Collection Date
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-14 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
ation (μg/L)
OHAA-07
OHA-03
WQ Standard (1000 μg/L)
DRAFT
Figure 5-4:
Manganese Concentrations
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 and
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
Concentra
Collection Date
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-16 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10
12
14
16
18
n (mg/L)
OH-01
WQ Standard
DRAFT
Figure 5-5:
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01
0
2
4
6
8
1/9/1990
7/9/1990
1/9/1991
7/9/1991
1/9/1992
7/9/1992
1/9/1993
7/9/1993
1/9/1994
7/9/1994
1/9/1995
7/9/1995
1/9/1996
7/9/1996
1/9/1997
7/9/1997
1/9/1998
7/9/1998
1/9/1999
7/9/1999
1/9/2000
7/9/2000
1/9/2001
7/9/2001
1/9/2002
7/9/2002
1/9/2003
7/9/2003
1/9/2004
7/9/2004
1/9/2005
7/9/2005
Concentratio
Collection Date
WQ Standard
5.0 mg/L or 3.5 mg/L
Insantaneous Minimum
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-18 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5
6
7
8
9
tration (mg/L)
OHA-02
OHA-03
OHA-04
OHA-05
5.0 mg/L instantaneous minimun (March July)
DRAFT
Figure 5-6:
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Lake Branch
0
1
2
3
4
Concent
Collection Date
3.5 mg/L instantaneous minimun (August February)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-20 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
5
6
7
8
ation (mg/L)
OHAA-07
OHC
OHF-TR-A1
OHF-TR-C1
OH-HL-D1
5.0 mg/L instantaneous minimun (March July)
DRAFT
Figure 5-7:
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Impaired Segments in Sugar Creek Watershed
0
1
2
3
Concentra
Collection Date
3.5 mg/L instantaneous minimun (August February)
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-22 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sugar Creek
OH-HL-D1
Lake Branch
OHA-06
Lake Branch
OHA-05
Bull Branch
OHAA-07
Grassy Branch
OHC
Lake Branch
OHA-02
Lake Branch
OHA-04 Lake Branch
OHA-03
Sugar Creek
OH-01
Trenton Creek
OHF-TR-A1,
OHF-TR-C1
Highland
Pierron
Damiansville
Sugar Creek
§¨¦70
tu50
Trenton
Aviston
§¨¦64
¬«161
tu40
St. Clair
Clinton
Madison
Bond
¬«160
Madison
Clinton
Pierron
West
STP
Trenton
STP Aviston
WTP
Wesclin High School
District 3
Aviston
STP
St. Rose
Public Water
District
Damiansville
STP
Albers
STP Monterey
Coal -
Monterey
Mine #2
IL DOT-I-70
Rest Area
Castle Ridge
Estates Subdivision
Highland
STP
Saint Rose SD
STP
New Baden
STP
Figure 5-8
Sugar Creek Watershed
Point Sources
0 2 4 8 Miles
 
Legend
!( Point Sources
Municipalities
County Boundary
Interstates
State and US Highways
Watershed
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
DRAFT
Section 5
Sugar Creek Watershed Characterization
5-24 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 5 sugar_081208.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FINAL 6-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 6 sugar.doc
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and
Identification of Data Needs
Illinois EPA is currently developing TMDLs for pollutants that have numeric water
quality standards. Of the pollutants causing impairment to stream segments in the
Sugar Creek watershed; manganese, pH, DO, and total fecal coliform are all of the
parameters with numeric water quality standards. Refer to Table 1-1 for a full list of
potential causes of impairment. Illinois EPA believes that addressing the parameters
with numeric standards should lead to an overall improvement in water quality due to
the interrelated nature of the other listed pollutants. Recommended technical
approaches for developing TMDLs for streams and lakes are presented in this section.
Additional data needs are also discussed.
6.1 Simple and Detailed Approaches for Developing TMDLs
The range of analyses used for developing TMDLs varies from simple to complex.
Examples of a simple approach include mass-balance, load-duration, and simple
watershed and receiving water models. Detailed approaches incorporate the use of
complex watershed and receiving water models. Simple approaches typically require
less data than detailed approaches and therefore these are the analyses recommended
for the Sugar Creek watershed except for stream segments where there are major point
sources whose NDPES permit may be affected by the TMDL's WLA. Establishing a
link between pollutant loads and resulting water quality is one of the most important
steps in developing a TMDL. As discussed above, this link can be established through
a variety of techniques. The objective of the remainder of this section is to recommend
approaches for establishing these links for the constituents of concern in the Sugar
Creek watershed.
6.2 Approaches for Developing TMDLs for Stream Segments
in Sugar Creek Watershed
6.2.1 Recommended
Approach for DO
TMDLs for Stream
Segments
Table 6-1 contains
information on the
stream segments within
the Sugar Creek
watershed that are
303(d) listed for
impairment caused by
low DO.
Table 6-1 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Impaired Stream Segments
Segment Data
Count
Period Of
Record
Sugar Creek Segment OH-01 147 1990-2005
Lake Branch Segment OHA-02 8 1991
Lake Branch Segment OHA-03 3 1991-2002
Lake Branch Segment OHA-04 3 1991
Lake Branch Segment OHA-05 3 1991
Lake Branch Segment OHA-06 3 1991
Bull Branch Segment OHAA-07 6 1991
Grassy Branch Segment OHC 3 1994
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-A1 1 1998
Trenton Creek Segment OHF-TR-C1 1 1998
Sugar Creek Segment OH-HL-D1 1 2002
Section 6
Approach to Developing TMDL and Identification of Data Needs
6-2 FINAL
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage1Drafts\Sugar\Text2\Sec 6 sugar.doc
The data for these segments do suggest impairment of the DO standard. However,
spatial data are limited and therefore, additional data collection is recommended to
support model development. Specific data requirements include a synoptic (snapshot in
time) water quality survey of each reach with careful attention to the location of the
point source dischargers. The surveys should include measurements of flow,
hydraulics, DO, temperature, nutrients, and CBOD. The collected data will be used to
support the model development and parameterization and will lend significant
confidence to the TMDL conclusions. Illinois EPA plans to collect additional data in
the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009.
This newly collected data will be used to support the development and
parameterization of the QUAL2K model. QUAL2K is an updated spreadsheet-based
version of the well-known and USEPA-supported QUAL2E model. The model
simulates DO dynamics as a function of nitrogenous and carbonaceous oxygen
demand, atmospheric reaeration, SOD, and phytoplankton photosynthesis and
respiration. The model also simulates the fate and transport of nutrients and BOD and
the presence and abundance of phytoplankton (as chlorophyll-a). Stream
hydrodynamics and temperature are important controlling parameters in the model.
The model is suited to steady-state simulations. It is not anticipated that an additional
watershed model will be needed to develop DO TMDLs for these streams.
6.2.2 Recommended Approach for pH TMDL in Sugar Creek
Segment OH-01
Segment OH-01 of Sugar Creek is listed for pH impairments. Segment OH-01 had
only three violations of the pH standard out of 141 samples. Potential approaches to
developing the pH TMDL for this segment include a spreadsheet approach that would
take into account natural conditions in the watershed such as soil buffering capacity. A
more detailed procedure to develop the pH TMDL would be based on an analytical
procedure developed by the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
(2001). The procedure calculates a maximum allowable hydrogen ion loading in the
water column to maintain pH standards. It is assumed that adequate data is available to
develop a pH TMDL and further data collection is not needed.
6.2.3 Recommended Approach for Fecal Coliform and Manganese
TMDLs
Segment OH-01 of Sugar Creek is listed as impaired by total fecal coliform. Lake
Branch segment OHA-03 and Bull Branch segment OHAA-07 are listed for
impairment caused by manganese. The recommended approach for developing
TMDLs for these segments and parameters is the load-duration curve method. The
load-duration methodology uses the cumulative frequency distribution of streamflow
and pollutant concentration data to estimate the allowable loads for a waterbody.
Further data collection is not needed.
Appendix A
Land Use Categories
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
File names and descriptions:
Values and class names found in the Land Cover of Illinois 1999-2000 Arc/Info GRID coverage.
Value Class Names
0 Background
AGRICULTURAL LAND
11 Corn
12 Soybeans
13 Winter Wheat
14 Other Small Grains & Hay
15 Winter Wheat/Soybeans
16 Other Agriculture
17 Rural Grassland
FORESTED LAND
21 Upland
25 Partial Canopy/Savannah Upland
26 Coniferous
URBAN & BUILT-UP LAND
31 High Density
32 Low/Medium Density
35 Urban Open Space
WETLAND
41 Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow
42 Deep Marsh
43 Seasonally/Temporally Flooded
44 Floodplain Forest
48 Swamp
49 Shallow Water
OTHER
51 Surface Water
52 Barren & Exposed Land
53 Clouds
54 Cloud Shadows
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B
Soil Characteristics
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOIL CHARACTERISTIC DATA AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
CONTACT ILLINOIS EPA AT (217) 782-3362
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix C
Water Quality Data
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WATER QUALITY DATA AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
CONTACT ILLINOIS EPA AT (217) 782-3362
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK