saline-middle-fork-stage3

              Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed TMDL
Stage Three
Draft Report
August 2010
Draft Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT i
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
Contents
Sections 1-6 Stage 1 Report
Section 7 Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7.1 Total Maximum Daily Load Overview............................................................ 7-1
7.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for the Middle Fork Saline River
Watershed ........................................................................................................ 7-2
7.3 Methodology Overview................................................................................... 7-2
7.3.1 Load-Duration Curve Overview........................................................ 7-2
7.3.2 BATHTUB Overview........................................................................ 7-3
7.4 Methodology Development ............................................................................. 7-3
7.4.1 Load Duration Curve Development................................................... 7-4
7.4.1.1 Watershed Delineation and Flow Estimation .................. 7-4
7.4.1.2 Manganese: Bankston Fork ATGC-01, ATGC-02,
ATGC-11, Brushy Creek ATGH-09, and Harco
Branch ATGM-01............................................................ 7-5
7.4.1.3 Silver: Bankston Fork ATGC-01, ATGC-02, Brushy
Creek ATGH-10, and Harco Branch ATGM-01 ............. 7-6
7.4.1.4 Sulfates: Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01, ATGC-
02, ATGC-11, Brushy Creek ATGH-09, ATGH-10,
and Harco Branch ATGM-01 .......................................... 7-6
7.4.1.5 Copper, Nickel, and Zinc: Harco Branch ATGM-01 ...... 7-8
7.4.1.6 Fecal Coliform: Bankston Fork ATGC-01 ...................... 7-8
7.4.2 BATHTUB Development for Harrisburg Reservoir.......................... 7-9
7.4.2.1 Global Inputs.................................................................... 7-9
7.4.2.2 Reservoir Segment Inputs ................................................ 7-9
7.4.2.3 Tributary Inputs ............................................................. 7-10
7.4.2.4 BATHTUB Confirmatory Analysis............................... 7-11
Section 8 Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8.1 TMDL Endpoints for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ..................... 8-1
8.2 Pollutant Source and Linkages......................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Allocation......................................................................................................... 8-3
8.3.1 Manganese TMDLs ........................................................................... 8-3
8.3.1.1 Loading Capacities........................................................... 8-3
8.3.1.2 Seasonal Variations.......................................................... 8-3
8.3.1.3 Margins of Safety............................................................. 8-4
8.3.1.4 Waste Load Allocations................................................... 8-4
8.3.1.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries........................ 8-4
8.3.2 Silver TMDLs .................................................................................... 8-6
8.3.2.1 Loading Capacities........................................................... 8-6
Table of Contents
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
ii DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
8.3.2.2 Seasonal Variations.......................................................... 8-6
8.3.2.3 Margins of Safety............................................................. 8-7
8.3.2.4 Waste Load Allocations................................................... 8-7
8.3.2.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries........................ 8-7
8.3.3 Sulfate TMDLs .................................................................................. 8-8
8.3.3.1 Loading Capacities........................................................... 8-9
8.3.3.2 Seasonal Variations.......................................................... 8-9
8.3.3.3 Margins of Safety............................................................. 8-9
8.3.3.4 Waste Load Allocation .................................................... 8-9
8.3.3.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary.......................... 8-10
8.3.4 Copper, Nickel, and Zinc TMDLs ................................................... 8-11
8.3.4.1 Loading Capacities......................................................... 8-11
8.3.4.2 Seasonal Variations........................................................ 8-12
8.3.4.3 Margins of Safety........................................................... 8-12
8.3.4.4 Waste Load Allocations................................................. 8-12
8.3.4.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries...................... 8-12
8.3.5 Fecal Coliform TMDL..................................................................... 8-14
8.3.5.1 Loading Capacity........................................................... 8-14
8.3.5.2 Seasonal Variation ......................................................... 8-14
8.3.5.3 Margin of Safety ............................................................ 8-14
8.3.5.4 Waste Load Allocation .................................................. 8-14
8.3.5.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary.......................... 8-15
8.3.6 Total Phosphorus TMDL for Harrisburg Reservoir......................... 8-15
8.3.6.1 Loading Capacity........................................................... 8-15
8.3.6.2 Seasonal Variation ......................................................... 8-15
8.3.6.3 Margin of Safety ............................................................ 8-16
8.3.6.4 Waste Load Allocation .................................................. 8-16
8.3.6.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary.......................... 8-16
Table of Contents
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT iii
T:\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\ForConnie\TOC-LOFT Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Section 9 Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
9.1 Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for Metals, pH, and
Sulfates in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed....................................... 9-2
9.2.1 Point Sources of Metals, pH, and Sulfates......................................... 9-2
9.2.1.1 Permitted Mining Outfalls ............................................... 9-2
9.2.1.2 Municipal/Industrial Sources ........................................... 9-3
9.2.2 Nonpoint Sources of Sulfates, pH, and Metals .................................. 9-3
9.2.2.1 Aerobic Wetland .............................................................. 9-5
9.2.2.2 Compost or Anaerobic Wetland....................................... 9-5
9.2.2.3 Open Limestone Channels ............................................... 9-5
9.2.2.4 Diversion Wells ............................................................... 9-5
9.2.2.6 Vertical Flow Reactors .................................................... 9-5
9.2.2.7 Pyrolusite Process ............................................................ 9-6
9.2.2.8 Filter Strips....................................................................... 9-6
9.2.2.9 Sediment Control Basins.................................................. 9-7
9.2.2.10 Streambank Stabilization/Erosion Control ...................... 9-8
9.3 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for Fecal Coliform in
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01.................................................................. 9-8
9.3.1 Point Sources of Fecal Coliform........................................................ 9-9
9.3.1.1 Stormwater Sources ......................................................... 9-9
9.3.1.2 Permitted Mining Operations........................................... 9-9
9.3.2 Nonpoint Sources of Fecal Coliform................................................. 9-9
9.3.2.1 Filter Strips....................................................................... 9-9
9.3.2.2 Private Septic System Inspection and Maintenance
Program............................................................................ 9-9
9.3.2.3 Restrict Livestock Access to Bankston Fork and
Tributaries ...................................................................... 9-10
9.4 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for Phosphorus in
Harrisburg Reservoir...................................................................................... 9-11
9.4.1 Point Sources of Phosphorus ........................................................... 9-11
9.4.1.1 Urban Stormwater Sources ............................................ 9-11
9.4.2 Nonpoint Sources of Phosphorus..................................................... 9-11
9.4.2.1 Conservation Tillage Practices ...................................... 9-12
9.4.2.2 Filter Strips..................................................................... 9-12
9.4.2.3 Wetlands ........................................................................ 9-12
9.4.2.4 Nutrient Management .................................................... 9-13
9.5 Reasonable Assurance ................................................................................... 9-14
9.5.1 Available Programs for Nonpoint Source Management.................. 9-14
9.5.1.1 Illinois Department of Agriculture and Illinois EPA
Nutrient Management Plan Project................................ 9-14
Table of Contents
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
iv DRAFT
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
9.5.1.2 Conservation Reserve Program...................................... 9-14
9.5.1.3 Clean Water Act Section 319 Grants ............................. 9-16
9.5.1.4 Wetlands Reserve Program............................................ 9-16
9.5.1.5 Environmental Quality Incentive Program.................... 9-17
9.5.1.6 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program............................. 9-18
9.5.1.7 Illinois Conservation and Climate Initiative .................. 9-19
9.5.1.8 Local Program Information............................................ 9-20
9.5.2 Cost Estimates of BMPs .................................................................. 9-20
9.5.2.1 Wetlands ........................................................................ 9-21
9.5.2.2 Filter Strips and Riparian Buffers .................................. 9-21
9.5.2.3 Nutrient Management Plan – NRCS.............................. 9-21
9.5.2.4 Nutrient Management Plan – IDA and Illinois EPA ..... 9-21
9.5.2.5 Conservation Tillage...................................................... 9-21
9.5.2.6 Planning Level Cost Estimates for Implementation
Measures ........................................................................ 9-21
9.6 Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................. 9-22
9.7 Implementation Time Line ............................................................................ 9-23
Section 10 References
Appendices
Appendix A Drainage Area Ration Calculations
Appendix B Manganese Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix C Silver Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix D Sulfate Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix E Zinc, Copper, and Nickel Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix F Fecal Coliform Load Duration Curve Calculations
Appendix G BATHTUB Model Files
DRAFT v
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
Figures
7-1 Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-2 Middle Fork Saline River TMDL Watersheds & Sampling Locations
7-3 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 Manganese Load Duration Curve
7-4 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02 Manganese Load Duration Curve
7-5 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11 Manganese Load Duration Curve
7-6 Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-09 Manganese Load Duration Curve
7-7 Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01 Manganese Load Duration Curve
7-8 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 Silver Load Duration Curve
7-9 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02 Silver Load Duration Curve
7-10 Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-10 Silver Load Duration Curve
7-11 Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01 Silver Load Duration Curve
7-12 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 Sulfate Load Duration Curve
7-13 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02 Sulfate Load Duration Curve
7-14 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11 Sulfate Load Duration Curve
7-15 Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-09 Sulfate Load Duration Curve
7-16 Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-10 Sulfate Load Duration Curve
7-17 Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01 Sulfate Load Duration Curve
7-18 Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01 Nickel Load Duration Curve
7-19 Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01 Copper Load Duration Curve
7-20 Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01 Zinc Load Duration Curve
7-21 Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 Fecal Coliform Load Duration
Curve
7-22 Harrisburg Reservoir BATHTUB Segmentation and Watershed
Delineation
List of Figures
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
vi 
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT vii
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
Tables
7-1 Methodologies Used to Develop TMDLs in the Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed .............................................................................................. 7-2
7-2 Harrisburg Reservoir Segment Data .............................................................. 7-10
7-3 Harrisburg Reservoir Tributary Subbasin Areas and Estimated Flows ......... 7-10
7-4 Summary of Model Confirmatory Analysis - Harrisburg Reservoir Total
Phosphorus..................................................................................................... 7-11
8-1 TMDL Endpoints and Average Observed Concentrations for Impaired
Constituents in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ............................... 8-1
8-2 Example Source Area/Hydrologic Condition Considerations ......................... 8-2
8-3 Manganese Loading Capacity for Impaired Segments in the Middle
Fork Saline River Watershed........................................................................... 8-3
8-4 Total Manganese TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ........ 8-4
8-5 Loading Capacity for Silver for Impaired Segments in the Middle Fork
Saline River Watershed ................................................................................... 8-6
8-6 Silver TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed .......................... 8-7
8-7 Sulfate Loading Capacity for Impaired Segments in the Middle Fork
Saline River Watershed ................................................................................... 8-9
8-8 Total Sulfate TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ............. 8-10
8-9 Copper, Nickel, and Zinc Loading Capacities for Harco Branch Based
on Minimum Reported Hardness in the Watershed....................................... 8-12
8-10 Dissolved Copper, Nickel, and Zinc TMDLs for Harco Branch Segment
ATGM-01 ...................................................................................................... 8-13
8-11 Fecal Coliform Loading Capacity for Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-
01 ................................................................................................................... 8-14
8-12 Fecal Coliform TMDL for Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01 .................... 8-15
8-13 TMDL Summary for Harrisburg Reservoir ................................................... 8-16
9-1 Point Source Discharges in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed ............ 9-3
9-2 Filter Strip Flow Lengths Based on Land Slope.............................................. 9-6
9-3 Total Area and Area of Agricultural Land Within 234-feet Buffer by
Segment ........................................................................................................... 9-7
9-4 Acres of Wetland for Harrisburg Reservoir Watershed................................. 9-13
9-5 Local NRCS and FSA Contact Information .................................................. 9-20
9-6 Cost Estimate of Various BMP Measures ..................................................... 9-22
List of Tables
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
viii 
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT ix
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
Acronyms
°F degrees Fahrenheit
ALMP Ambient Lake Monitoring Program
BMP best management practice
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CBOD5 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
cfs cubic feet per second
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CWA Clean Water Act
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DMR Discharge Monitoring Reports
DO dissolved oxygen
DP dissolved phosphorus
ft foot
GIS geographic information system
GWLF generalized watershed loading function
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
ICLP Illinois Clean Lakes Program
IDA Illinois Department of Agriculture
IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources
ILLCP Illinois Interagency Landscape Classification Project
Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board
ISWS Illinois State Water Survey
LA load allocation
LC loading capacity
MBI Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
mg/L milligrams per liter
MOS margin of safety
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
PO4 phosphate
SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database
List of Acronyms
Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
x 
T:\IEPA-2008\STAGE3\SALINE\REPORT\FORCONNIE\TOC-LOFT MIDDLE FORK SALINE RIVER.DOC
STATSGO State Soil Geographic
STORET Storage and Retrieval
TMDL total maximum daily load
TP total phosphorus
TSS total suspended solids
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WLA waste load allocation
DRAFT 7-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle
Fork Saline River Watershed
7.1 Total Maximum Daily Load 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 lists water bodies not meeting water
quality standards every two years. This list is called the 303(d) list and water bodies on
the list are then targeted for TMDL development.
In general, a TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water quality problems,
contributing sources, and pollution reductions needed to attain water quality standards.
The TMDL specifies the amount of pollution or other stressor that needs to be reduced
to meet water quality standards, allocates pollution 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
Examples of designated uses are recreation and protection of aquatic life. 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.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-2 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
7.2 TMDL Goals and Objectives for the Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed
The Illinois EPA has a three-stage approach to TMDL development. The stages are:
 Stage 1 – Watershed Characterization, Data Analysis, Methodology Selection
 Stage 2 – Data Collection (optional)
 Stage 3 – Model Calibration, TMDL Scenarios, Implementation Plan
This report addresses Stage 3 TMDL development for the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed. Stage 1 of the TMDL (available at http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/
tmdl/report-status.html) was completed in 2008. Following are the impaired water
body segments in the Middle Fork Saline watershed for which TMDLs were developed
(Figure 7-1):
 Bankston Fork (ATGC-01)
 Bankston Fork (ATGC-02)
 Bankston Fork (ATGC-11)
 Brushy Creek (ATGH-09)
 Brushy Creek (ATGH-10)
 Harco Branch (ATGM-01)
 Harrisburg Reservoir (RAI)
7.3 Methodology Overview
Table 7-1 contains information on the methodologies selected and used to develop
TMDLs for impaired segments within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
Table 7-1 Methodologies Used to Develop TMDLs in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Segment Name/ID Causes of Impairment Methodology
Bankston Fork - ATGC-01 Manganese, Silver, Sulfates, Fecal
coliform
Load Duration Curves
Bankston Fork - ATGC-02 Manganese, Silver, Sulfates Load Duration Curves
Bankston Fork - ATGC-11 Manganese, Sulfates Load Duration Curves
Brushy Creek - ATGH-09 Manganese, Sulfates Load Duration Curves
Brushy Creek - ATGH-10 Silver, Sulfates Load Duration Curves
Harco Branch - ATGM-01 Copper, Manganese, Nickel, pH, Silver,
Sulfates, Zinc
Load Duration Curves
Harrisburg Reservoir - RAI Total Phosphorus BATHTUB
7.3.1 Load-Duration Curve Overview
Loading capacity analyses were performed for each of the impaired stream segments in
this watershed (ATGC-01, ATGC-02, ATGC-11, ATCH-09, ATGH-10, and ATGM-
10). A load-duration curve is a graphical representation of the maximum load of a
pollutant that a stream segment can assimilate over a range of flow scenarios while still
meeting the instream water quality standard. The load-duration curve approach utilizes
historic flow data and observed water quality data to provide useful information
regarding the magnitude and frequency of exceedences as well as the flow scenarios
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 7-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Schematic 1
when exceedences occur most often (see Schematic 1).
In the Middle Fork Saline River watershed, load
duration curves were constructed for a number of
contaminants including; copper, manganese, nickel,
silver, zinc, sulfates, and fecal coliform.
7.3.2 BATHTUB Overview
TMDL analysis for total phosphorus in Harrisburg
Reservoir involved the use of observed data coupled
with the rational method as inputs to the BATHTUB
model. This method required inputs from several
sources including online databases and GIS-compatible
data.
Schematic 2 shows the data inputs for the BATHTUB
model that was used to calculate the TMDL. Subbasin
flows were estimated using the area ratio method and
phosphorus loadings to the reservoir from the
surrounding watersheds were estimated using the unit
area load method, also known as the "export
coefficient" method (USEPA 2001). This method is
based on the assumption that, on an annual basis and
normalized to area, a roughly constant runoff pollutant
loading can be expected for a given landuse type. This
method also requires that unit area loads are not
applied to watersheds that differ greatly in climate,
hydrology, soils, or ecology from those from which the
parameters were derived (USGS 1997).
Once the subbasin flows and concentrations were estimated, they were used as input
for the BATHTUB model. The BATHTUB model uses empirical relationships
between mean reservoir depth, total phosphorus inputted to the lake, and the hydraulic
residence time to determine in-reservoir concentrations (see Schematic 2).
7.4 Methodology Development
The following sections further discuss and describe the methodologies utilized to
examine copper, manganese, nickel, silver, zinc, sulfates, fecal coliform, and total
phosphorus levels in the impaired waterbodies in the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed.
Harco Branch segment ATGM-01 is also listed for impairment caused by pH. pH is a
measure of acidity and/or alkalinity in the stream and not associated with a pollutant
load but rather the amount of H+ ion in the solution. It is anticipated that pH issues will
be addressed by implementing load reduction strategies for the TMDL pollutants
associated with the segment, as outlined in Section 9 of this document. Therefore, a
Hydraulic
Residence Time
Lake
Mean Depth Total P
Inflow P
Unit Area Loads
Schematic 2
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-4 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
specific TMDL calculation for pH on Harco Branch segment ATGM-01 will not be
developed at this time.
7.4.1 Load Duration Curve Development
Load duration curves are used to gain understanding of the range of loads allowable
throughout the flow regime of a stream. This approach was used to characterize the
current loading of contaminants to impaired segments of Bankston Fork (ATGC-01,
ATGC-02, and ATGC-11), Brushy Creek (ATGH-09 and ATGH-10), and Harco
Branch (ATGM-01).
7.4.1.1 Watershed Delineation and Flow Estimation
Watersheds for the areas contributing directly to the impaired stream segments at the
Illinois EPA data collection stations were delineated with GIS analyses through use of
the NED as discussed in Section 2.2 of the Stage 1 report. The delineation determined
that Bankston Fork segments ATGC-01, ATGC-02, and ATGC-10 capture flows from
directly contributing watersheds of approximately 76.3, 39.2, an 10.1 square miles,
respectively. Brushy Creek segment ATGH-09 captures flows from a directly
contributing watershed of 21.8 square miles and the watershed for Brushy Creek
segment ATGH-10 is 16.6 square miles. Stream segment ATGM-01 on Harco Branch
is somewhat smaller with a watershed area of approximately 4.0 square miles.
Figure 7-2 shows the location of the water quality stations on each segment as well as
the boundary of the GIS-delineated watersheds.
In order to create a load duration curve, it is necessary to obtain flow data
corresponding to each water quality sample. As discussed in Section 2.6.3 of the
Stage 1 report, there are no USGS stream gages within the watersheds that have
current, or even recent, streamflow data. Therefore, the drainage area ratio method,
represented by the following equation, was used to estimate flows.
ungaged
gaged
ungaged
gaged Q
Area
Area
Q =  


 


where Qgaged = Streamflow of the gaged basin
Qungaged = Streamflow of the ungaged basin
Areagaged = Area of the gaged basin
Areaungaged = Area of the ungaged basin
The assumption behind the equation is that the flow per unit area is equivalent in
watersheds with similar characteristics. Therefore, the flow per unit area in the gaged
watershed multiplied by the area of the ungaged watershed estimates the flow for the
ungaged watershed.
USGS gage 05597500 (Crab Orchard Creek near Marion, Illinois) was chosen as an
appropriate gage from which to estimate flows for all impaired stream segments in the
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 7-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The Crab Orchard Creek watershed is
approximately 9 miles west of the nearest sampling site on the impaired segments in
the Middle Fork Saline River watershed (ATGC-11) and approximately 19 miles west
of the furthest sampling site in the watershed (ATGC-01). The gage drains an area of
31.7 square miles, which is within an order of magnitude in size as the watersheds
delineated for the impaired segments in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed and
receives comparable precipitation throughout the year.
Data were downloaded through the USGS for the Crab Orchard Creek gage and
multiplied by the area ratio method discussed above to estimate flows for each
watershed. Only one of the four NPDES permitted facilities in the Crab Orchard
watershed has a measureable permitted flow (Crab Orchard Grade & High School
permit number IL0037311). The facility is permitted to discharge 0.003 million gallons
per day (mgd). These flows were subtracted from the gage to account for point source
influence. The Liberty Mine (NPDES IL 0059749) has two outfalls that discharge
upstream of Brushy Creek segment ATGH-10. Stormwater sedimentation ponds
discharge from outfalls 005 and 009 at rates of 0.074 mgd and 0.002 mgd,
respectively. Additional adjustments were made to account for these flows in Brushy
Creek and Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01 which are downstream of these outfalls.
Spreadsheets used for the area ratio flow calculations are provided in Appendix A.
7.4.1.2 Manganese: Bankston Fork ATGC-01, ATGC-02, ATGC-11,
Brushy Creek ATGH-09, and Harco Branch ATGM-01
Flow duration curves for each impaired segment were generated by ranking the
estimated daily flow data generated through the area ratio method discussed above,
determining the percent of days these flows were exceeded, and then graphically
plotting the results. The flows in the duration curve were then multiplied by the water
quality standard for manganese to generate a load duration curve. The general use
water quality standard for manganese is 1.0 mg/L (302.208(g)).
Data collected from USEPA STORET and Illinois EPA databases during Stage 1 of
TMDL development and data collected by Illinois EPA in 2008 and 2009 were paired
with the corresponding flow for the sampling dates and plotted against the load
duration curves. Figures 7-3 through 7-7 show the load duration curves as solid lines
and the historically observed pollutant loads for manganese as points on each graph.
Historic data are limited within the watershed with the exception of Bankston Fork
segment ATGC-01. The load duration curve for manganese on this segment shows
that, out of the 137 total samples collected since 1990, 59 have exceeded the total
manganese standard of 1.0 mg/L (or 1,000 ug/L). Eighty percent of the exceedences
for manganese on this segment have occurred during mid-range to high flows and there
have been zero exceedences in the lowest flow category.
The remaining segments (Bankston Fork ATGC-02 and ATGC-11, Brushy Creek
ATGH-09, and Harco Branch ATGM0-01) each have six historic samples available for
analysis. The load duration curves for manganese on these segments show that all
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-6 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
exceedences occurred under mid-range to high flow conditions. Spreadsheets used for
the calculation of manganese load duration curves are provided in Appendix B.
7.4.1.3 Silver: Bankston Fork ATGC-01, ATGC-02, Brushy Creek ATGH-
10, and Harco Branch ATGM-01
Flow duration curves for analysis of silver loads to impaired segments were generated
by ranking the estimated daily flow data generated through the area ratio method
discussed above, determining the percent of days these flows were exceeded, and then
graphically plotting the results. The flows in the duration curve were then multiplied
by the water quality standard for silver to generate a load duration curve. The general
use water quality standard for silver is 5 ug/L (302.208(g)).
Data collected from USEPA STORET and Illinois EPA databases during Stage 1 of
TMDL development and data collected by Illinois EPA in 2008 and 2009 were paired
with the corresponding flow for the sampling dates and plotted against the load
duration curves. Figures 7-8 through 7-11 show the load duration curves as solid lines
and the historically observed pollutant loads for silver as points on each graph.
The load duration curve for silver on Bankston Fork ATGC-01 shows that 29 of the
137 total samples exceeded the water quality criteria since 1990. Exceedences at
ATGC-01 are distributed evenly throughout the range of flows with the greatest
number of exceedences occurring in the mid-range of flow values. The load duration
curve developed for silver at ATGC-02 shows the 2 of 6 samples exceeded the water
quality standard. One of the exceedences was in a relatively high flow range and the
other was in a relatively low flow range. Analysis of the load duration curve developed
for silver at Brushy Creek segment ATGH-10 shows that there has only been 1
exceedence of the silver criteria since 1990. The one exceedence occurred under
relatively low flow conditions. Appendix C contains spreadsheets used for the
calculation of the load duration curves for silver.
7.4.1.4 Sulfates: Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01, ATGC-02, ATGC-11,
Brushy Creek ATGH-09, ATGH-10, and Harco Branch ATGM-01
Flow duration curves for sulfate analysis were generated by ranking the estimated
daily flow data generated through the area ratio method discussed above, determining
the percent of days these flows were exceeded, and then graphically plotting the
results. The sulfate standard has recently been updated in the State of Illinois (2008).
The general use standard was previously 500 mg/L as outlined in Section 302.208(g)
of the water quality standards. The recently adopted standard for sulfate states that "the
following concentrations for sulfate must not be exceeded except in receiving waters for
which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102:
1. 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.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 7-7
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
2. The results of the following equations provide sulfate water quality standards in
mg/L for the specified ranges of hardness (in mg/L as CaCO3) and chloride (in
mg/L) and must be met at all times:
a. If the hardness concentration of receiving waters is greater than or equal to
100 mg/L but less than or equal to 500 mg/L, and if the chloride concentration
of waters is greater than or equal to 25 mg/L but less than or equal to
500 mg/L, then: C = [1276.7 + 5.508 (hardness) – 1.457 (chloride) ] * 0.65
where, C = sulfate concentration
b. If the hardness concentration of waters is greater than or equal to 100 mg/L but
less than or equal to 500 mg/L, and if the chloride concentration of waters is
greater than or equal to 5 mg/L but less than 25 mg/L, then: C = [-57.478 +
5.79 (hardness) + 54.163 (chloride) ] * 0.65 where C = sulfate concentration
3. The following sulfate standards must be met at all times when hardness (in mg/L as
CaCO3) and chloride (in mg/L) concentrations other than specified in (h)(2) are
present:
a. If the hardness concentration of waters is less than 100 mg/L or chloride
concentration of waters is less than 5 mg/L, the sulfate standard is 500 mg/L.
b. If the hardness concentration of waters is greater than 500 mg/L and the
chloride concentration of waters is 5 mg/L or greater, the sulfate standard is
2,000 mg/L.
c. If the combination of hardness and chloride concentrations of existing waters
are not reflected in subsection (h)(3)(A) or (B), the sulfate standard may be
determined in a site-specific rulemaking pursuant to section 303(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act), 33 USC 1313,
and Federal Regulations at 40 CFR. 131.10(j)(2).
In order to develop a load duration curve to analyze sulfate, the flows in the duration
curves were multiplied by the most commonly calculated standards for sulfates (500
and 2,000 mg/L).
Data collected from USEPA STORET and Illinois EPA databases during Stage 1 of
TMDL development were paired with the corresponding flow for the sampling date
and plotted against the load duration curve. Data collected by IEPA in 2008, but not
available for the Phase 1 report, were also included in the load duration plots.
Figures 7-12 through 7-17 show the load duration curves as two solid lines (sulfate
loads at 2,000 mg/L and 500 mg/L) and the observed pollutant loads as points on each
graph. Actual exceedences of calculated sulfate criteria are highlighted using an
alternate point symbol. Appendix D contains the spreadsheet used for this analysis.
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-8 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
On Bankston Fork at ATGC-01, a total of 14 of 116 sulfate samples exceeded the
calculated standard with a higher concentration of exceedences observed in the lower
flow ranges (2 additional exceedences were observed in the zero-flow range, but are
not shown on the load duration plot). Using the new calculated standard, data show no
violations on segment ATGC-02 of Bankston Fork or on Harco Branch segment
ATGM-01. No further TMDL analysis for sulfates will be completed for these
segments as loads do not need to be reduced. Load duration analysis for sulfates at
Bankston Fork segment ATGC-11 reveals that 3 of 6 samples collected in this segment
since 1990 exceed the calculated water quality criteria. The exceedences are found in
low, medium and high flow conditions, suggesting that sulfate exceedences can occur
across a broad range of flow conditions. Analysis for sulfates at segment ATGH-09
reveals that 1 of 6 samples collected in this segment since 1990 exceed the calculated
water quality criteria. The exceedence occurred under relatively low flow conditions.
Load duration analysis for sulfates at segment ATGH-10 reveals that 1 of 6 samples
collected in this segment since 1990 exceed the calculated water quality criteria. The
exceedence occurred under low flow conditions.
7.4.1.5 Copper, Nickel, and Zinc: Harco Branch ATGM-01
Flow duration curves for Harco Branch ATGM-01 were generated by ranking the
estimated daily flow data generated through the area ratio method discussed above,
determining the percent of days these flows were exceeded, and then graphically
plotting the results. Water quality standards for dissolved copper, dissolved nickel, and
dissolved zinc can be found in Section 302.208(e) of the Illinois water quality
standards. Standards for these metals are expressed as acute and chronic calculations
that are dependent on instream hardness values. The load duration curves for each
parameter were developed by multiplying the flow duration values by the acute
standards calculated for the lowest observed hardness value on the segment
(100 mg/L). Actual exceedences of the standards are based on acute standards
calculated for each sample using total hardness data collected at the time of sampling
and are also shown on Figures 7-18 through 7-20.
The load duration curve developed for copper shows 2 exceedences of the calculated
acute standard for the 6 dissolved copper samples reported since 1990. Both
exceedences occurred under medium to high flow conditions. Similarly, 3 of 6 samples
collected for dissolved nickel and 3 of 6 samples collected for dissolved zinc at
ATGM-01 since 1990 have exceeded the calculated acute water quality standard. The
exceedences for nickel and zinc also occurred at medium to moderately elevated flow
levels. Spreadsheets used for the calculation of load duration curves for copper, nickel
and zinc at segment ATGM-01 are provided in Appendix E.
7.4.1.6 Fecal Coliform: Bankston Fork ATGC-01
A flow duration curve was developed for Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01 by
determining the percent of days each estimated flow was exceeded, and then
graphically plotting the results. Because the fecal coliform standard is seasonal and is
only applicable between the months of May and October, only flows during this time
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 7-9
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
period were used in the analysis. The flows in the duration curve were then multiplied
by the water quality standard of 200 cfu/100mL to generate a load duration curve.
Fecal coliform data collected between May and October were compiled from data
amassed during Stage 1 of TMDL development. These data were then paired with the
corresponding flows for the sampling dates and plotted against the load duration curve.
Figure 7-21 shows the load duration curve for the segment as a solid line and the
observed pollutant loads as points on the graphs. The load duration curve for fecal
coliform indicates, since 1990, 24 of the 64 samples collected between the months of
May and October have exceeded the geometric mean standard of 200 cfu/100mL, with
a higher proportion of exceedences occurring in the mid to high flow ranges.
Exceedences during high flows are likely attributable to the fecal matter introduced to
the stream via overland runoff and the re-suspension of fecal material in the stream
sediment. Appendix F contains spreadsheets used for the calculation of the load
duration curves for fecal coliform at Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01.
7.4.2 BATHTUB Development for Harrisburg Reservoir
Harrisburg Reservoir is an approximately 220 acre reservoir located 1 mile east of
Galatia, Illinois. The reservoir has a reported maximum depth of around 30 feet and an
average depth of approximately 10 feet.
The BATHTUB model was used to develop the total phosphorus TMDL for
Harrisburg Reservoir. BATHTUB has three primary input interfaces: global, reservoir
segment(s), and watershed inputs. The individual inputs for each of these interfaces are
described in the following sections along with watershed and operational information
for the lake.
7.4.2.1 Global Inputs
Global inputs represent atmospheric contributions of precipitation, evaporation, and
atmospheric phosphorus. Based on precipitation and evaporation rates discussed in the
Stage 1 report, the average annual precipitation input to the model was 38.4 inches,
and the average annual evaporation input to the model was 36.1 inches (ISWS 2008).
The default atmospheric phosphorus deposition rate suggested in the BATHTUB
model was used in absence of site-specific data, which is a value of 30 kilograms per
square kilometer (kg/km2)-year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1999). This
value is based on a compilation of available historic data and Illinois EPA believes that
it is appropriate for use in this watershed where site-specific rates of deposition are not
available.
7.4.2.2 Reservoir Segment Inputs
Reservoir segment inputs in BATHTUB are used for physical characterization of the
reservoir. Harrisburg Reservoir is modeled with three segments in BATHTUB. The
segment boundaries are shown on Figure 7-22. Segmentation was established based on
available water quality sampling locations and lake morphologic data. Segment inputs
to the model include average depth, surface area, segment length, and depth to the
metalimnion. The lake depth was represented by the 2002 data from the water quality
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-10 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
stations discussed in the Stage 1 report. Segment lengths and surface areas were
determined in GIS. These data are shown below (Table 7-2) for reference.
Table 7-2 Harrisburg Reservoir Segment Data
Segment
Surface Area
(km2)
Segment
Length (km)
Average
Depth
(m)
RAI-1 0.232 0.83 7.69
RAI-2 0.433 1.40 4.40
RAI-3 0.286 0.96 2.55
7.4.2.3 Tributary Inputs
Tributary inputs to BATHTUB include drainage area, flow, and total phosphorus
(dissolved and solid-phase) loading. The drainage area of each tributary is equivalent
to the basin or subbasin it represents, which was determined with GIS analyses.
Figure 7-22 also shows the subbasin boundaries. The watershed was broken up into
three tributaries for purposes of the model. There is one primary tributary stream that
flows into Harrisburg Reservoir, however, no water quality or flow data are available
for this tributary. Therefore, the three areas contributing loads to each lake segment
were used for the BATHTUB tributary inputs.
As discussed in Section 7.4.1, there are no flow gages within the watershed and the
drainage area ratio method was used to estimate flows. The total mean flow into
Harrisburg Reservoir was estimated to be 6.09 cfs. The flow contribution from each
tributary was estimated by multiplying the average inflow by the ratio of the subbasin
areas. The estimated flow from each tributary is shown in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3 Harrisburg Reservoir Tributary Subbasin Areas and Estimated
Flows
Tributary Name Lake Segment
Area
(acres)
Flow Rate
(cfs)
Overland Flow to RAI-3 Segment 1: RAI-3 3,226 4.88
Overland Flow to RAI-2 Segment 2: RAI-2 589 0.89
Overland Flow to RAI-1 Segment 3: RAI-1 212 0.32
TOTAL 4,027 6.09
According to the USACE, the normal storage volume for Harrisburg Reservoir is
6,233 acre-feet (USACE, National Dam Inventory data for the Harrisburg Reservoir
dam). Based on this storage volume and the inflow of 6.09 cfs, the lake residence time
is approximately 1.41 years.
Because there are no available historic concentration data, phosphorus loads from the
contributing watershed were estimated based on land use data and the median annual
export coefficients for each land use. Export coefficients for each land use category
found in the Harrisburg Reservoir watershed were extracted from the USEPAs
PLOAD version 3.0 user's manual. This document provides an extensive list of
phosphorus export coefficients for various land uses in several regions of the country
compiled from a number of sources in the literature. The export coefficients for each
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 7-11
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
land use are reported in lbs/acre/year which can then be multiplied by the number of
acres of each land use in the Harrisburg Reservoir watershed to provide a total median
phosphorus load into the reservoir. The overall load is then distributed to each tributary
area for modeling input based on the proportion of the overall watershed represented
by each subbasin.
7.4.2.4 BATHTUB Confirmatory Analysis
Historical water quality data for Harrisburg Reservoir are summarized in Section 5.1.2
of the Stage 1 report. These data were used to help confirm model calculations.
Although the analyses presented below do lend confidence to the modeling, they
should not be considered a true model "calibration." Additional lake and tributary
water quality and flow data are required to fully calibrate the model.
The Harrisburg Reservoir BATHTUB model was initially simulated assuming default
phosphorus kinetic parameters (assimilation and decay) and no internal phosphorus
loading. The lake concentrations are lower than the incoming tributary concentrations
indicating that the lake is a net sink of total phosphorus. Therefore, in order to achieve
a calibration, the model calibration coefficients for "sedimentation" rates (nutrient
removal rates) were adjusted, rather than adjusting internal loads.
The model was simulated using the median phosphorus loads calculated with the unit
area load method. These initial results showed that the predicted lake concentrations
were consistently lower than observed lake concentrations. Therefore, the default
phosphorus decay coefficient was lowered to increase predicted total phosphorus
concentration. The reduction in phosphorus decay rate brought predicted phosphorus
levels in line with the observed concentrations. As can be seen in Table 7-4, an
excellent match was achieved, lending significant support to the predictive ability of
this simple model. A printout of the BATHTUB model files is provided in Appendix G
of this report.
Table 7-4 Summary of Model Confirmatory Analysis- Harrisburg Reservoir Total
Phosphorus (mg/L)
Lake Site Observed Predicted
Segment 1 : RAI-3 0.0920 0.0923
Segment 2 : RAI-2 0.0855 0.0854
Segment 3 : RAI-1 0.0697 0.0698
Lake Average 0.0836 0.0837
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-12 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Harco Branch
ATGM-01
Middle Fork Saline River
Bankston Fork
ATGC-11
Bankston Fork
ATGC-02
Bankston Fork
ATGC- 0 1
Brushy Creek
45
Eldorado
13
Brushy Creek
Franklin
Williamson
Hamilton
Saline
Harrisburg
Reservoir
RAI
Middle Fork Saline River
Carriers Mills
Franklin
34
13
34
Gallatin
Williamson
Saline
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
ATG H- 0 9 , AT GH- 1 0
Figure 7-1
Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
0 2 4 8 Miles DRAFT
Legend
Municipalities
County Boundary
State and US Highways
Saline_2008ws_Project
Streams and Rivers
Minor Streams
Lakes and Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
303(d) Listed Streams
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-14 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
")
")
")
")
")
ATGH-10 ")
ATGM-01
ATGC-01
ATGH-09
ATGC-11 ATGC-02
IL_ATGC-11
IL_ATGC-02
IL_ATGC-01
IL_ATGH-10
IL_ATGM-01
IL_ATGH-09
WILLIAMS
SALINE
Harrisburg
Raleigh
Galatia
Carrier
Mills
Figure 7-2
Middle Fork Saline River
TMDLWatersheds & Sampling Locations
0 1 2 4 Miles
-
DRAFT
Legend
") Primary Sampling Location
303(d) Listed Reservoirs
Impaired Stream Segments
Streams and Rivers
County Boundaries
Municipality
State and US Highways
TMDL Watershed Boundaries
¬«13
£¤45
¬«34
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-16 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-18 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-4
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02
Manganese Load Duration Curve
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Manganese (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-20 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-5
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11
Manganese Load Duration Curve
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Manganese (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-22 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-24 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-7
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Manganese Load Duration Curve
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Manganese (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows Moist Conditions
Mid-
Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-26 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-28 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-9
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02
Silver Load Duration Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Silver (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-30 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-32 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-11
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Silver Load Duration Curve
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Silver (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-34 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-36 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-13
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02
Sulfate Load Duration Curve
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
100,000,000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Sulfate (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load -
500 mg/L
Standard (lb/day)
Allowable Load -
2,000 mg/L
Standard (lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
Exceedence -
Actual Load >
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-38 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-14
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11
Sulfate Load Duration Curve
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
100,000,000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Sulfate (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable
Load - 500
mg/L
Standard
(lb/day)
Allowable
Load - 2,000
mg/L
Standard
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
Exceedence
- Actual
Load >
Allowable
Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-40 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-42 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-44 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-17
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Sulfate Load Duration Curve
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Total Sulfates (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Allowable Load -
500 mg/L
Standard (lb/day)
Allowable Load -
2,000 mg/L
Standard (lb/day)
Exceedence -
Actual Load >
Allowable Load
(lb/day)
Actual Load
(lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-
Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-46 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-18
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Nickel Load Duration Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Dissolved Nickel (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Actual Load
(lb/day)
Exceedence- Actual
Load > Calculated
Acute Allowable
Load
Allowable Load -
based on acute
standard calculated
with 100 mg/L total
hardness (lb/day)
High
Flows Moist Conditions
Mid-
Range
Flows
Dry Conditions
Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-48 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-19
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Copper Load Duration Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Dissolved Copper (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Actual Load
(lb/day)
Allowable Load
based on Total
Hardness of
100mg/L (lb/day)
Exceedence-
Dissolved Cu >
Calculated Acute
Standard
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-
Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow
15% of the time
based on historic
gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-50 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Figure 7-20
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Zinc Load Duration Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
0.0% 8.5% 17.0% 25.5% 34.0% 42.5% 51.0% 59.5% 68.0% 76.5% 85.0% 93.5%
Dissolved Zinc (lbs/day)
Flow Exceedence Probability
Actual Load
(lb/day)
Exceedence -
Actual Load >
Calculated Acute
Allowable Load
Allowable Load -
based on acute
standard
calculated with
100 mg/L total
hardness (lb/day)
High
Flows
Moist Conditions Mid-Range
Flows
Dry Conditions Low
Flows
*There is no flow 15%
of the time based on
historic gage data
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-52 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-54 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
")
")
")RAI-3
RAI-2
RAI-1
Galatia
Figure 7-22
Harrisburg Reservoir
BATHTUB Segmentation and Watershed Delineation
0 0.5 1 Miles
-
DRAFT
Legend
") Harrisburg Reservoir Sampling Locations
Harrisburg Reservoir Watershed Segmentation
Harrisburg Reservoir
Streams and Rivers
County Boundaries
Municipality
State and US Highways
¬«34
Section 7
Methodology Development for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
7-56 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 7 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DRAFT 8-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Load for the Middle
Fork Saline River Watershed
8.1 TMDL Endpoints for the Middle Fork Saline River
Watershed
The TMDL endpoints for copper, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, silver, sulfates, fecal
coliform, and zinc are summarized in Table 8-1. For all parameters, the concentrations
must be below the TMDL endpoint. The TMDL endpoint for copper, nickel, and zinc
can vary from sample to sample because the water quality standards are derived
through calculations based on the measured total hardness of the water at the time of
sampling. TMDL endpoints for sulfates are also variable due to the water quality
standards for sulfates, which are calculated for each sample based on total hardness
and chloride concentrations. All of these endpoints, plus the TMDL endpoints for
manganese and silver, are based on protection of aquatic life in the impaired segments
of Bankston Fork, Brushy Creek, and Harco Branch. TMDL endpoints for fecal
coliform on segment ATGC-01 of Bankston Fork are based on protection of the
primary body contact recreation designated use and endpoints for phosphorus in
Harrisburg Reservoir are established to protect the aesthetic quality designated use for
this reservoir.
Some of the average concentrations presented in Table 8-1 meet the desired endpoints.
However, the data sets have maximum or minimum values, presented in the Stage 1
report, which do not meet the desired endpoints and this was the basis for TMDL
analysis. Further monitoring as outlined in the monitoring plan presented in Section 9,
will help further define when impairments are occurring in the watershed and support
the TMDL allocations outlined in the remainder of this section.
Table 8-1 TMDL Endpoints and Average Observed Concentrations for Impaired
Constituents in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Segment Name/ID Parameter TMDL Endpoint
Average
Observed Value
Bankston Fork - ATGC-01
Manganese 1,000 μg/L 1,147 μg/L
Silver 5 μg/L 4.00 μg/L
Sulfate
Calculated based
on Total Hardness
and Chlorides
1,287 mg/L
Fecal Coliform 400 cfu/100 mL
(October - May) 1,063 cfu/100mL
Bankston Fork - ATGC-02
Manganese 1,000 μg/L 562 μg/L
Silver 5 μg/L 4.35 μg/L
Sulfate
Calculated based
on Total Hardness
and Chlorides
1,170 mg/L
Bankston Fork - ATGC-11
Manganese 1,000 μg/L 888 μg/L
Sulfate
Calculated based
on Total Hardness
and Chlorides
1,198 mg/L
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-2 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 8-1 TMDL Endpoints and Average Observed Concentrations for Impaired
Constituents in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed (cont)
Segment Name/ID Parameter TMDL Endpoint
Average
Observed Value
Brushy Creek - ATGH-09
Manganese 1,000 μg/L 620 μg/L
Sulfate
Calculated based
on Total Hardness
and Chlorides
1,217 mg/L
Brushy Creek - ATGH-10
Silver 5 μg/L 4.1 μg/L
Sulfate
Calculated based
on Total Hardness
and Chlorides
739 mg/L
Harco Branch - ATGM-01
Copper Calculated base
on Total Hardness 68 μg/L
Manganese 1,000 μg/L 5,119 μg/L
Nickel Calculated base
on Total Hardness 209 μg/L
pH 6.5 - 9.0 2.64
Silver 5 μg/L 3.9 μg/L
Sulfates
Calculated based
on Total Hardness
and Chlorides
672 mg/L
Zinc Calculated base
on Total Hardness 3,654 μg/L
Harrisburg Reservoir - RAI Total Phosphorus 0.05 mg/L 0.08 mg/L
8.2 Pollutant Source and Linkages
Potential pollutant sources for the Middle Fork Saline River watershed include both
point and nonpoint sources as described in Section 5 of the Stage 1 report. Load
duration curves were developed for the majority of the TMDLs described in this
section. Load duration curves are useful in that they provide a link between historic
sampling values and hydraulic condition. Table 8-2 shows the example source
area/hydrologic condition consideration developed by EPA.
Table 8-2 Example Source Area/Hydrologic Condition Considerations (EPA, 2007)
Contributing Source Area
Duration Curve Zone
High Flow Moist Mid-Range Dry Low Flow
Point Source M H
Onsite Wastewater System H M
Riparian Areas H H H
Stormwater: Impervious Areas H H H
Combined sewer overflows H H H
Stormwater: Upland H H M
Bank Erosion H M
Note: potential relative importance of source area to contribute loads under given hydrologic
conditions (H: High; M: Medium)
Further pollutant source discussion is provided throughout this section and
implementation activities to reduce loading from the potential sources are outlined in
Section 9.
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
8.3 Allocation
As explained in the Stage 1 report, the TMDL for impaired segments in the Middle
Fork Saline River watershed will address the following equation:
TMDL = LC = ΣWLA + ΣLA + MOS
where: LC = Maximum amount of pollutant loading a water body can receive
without violating water quality standards
WLA = The portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or future point
sources
LA = Portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or future nonpoint
sources and natural background
MOS = An accounting of uncertainty about the relationship between
pollutant loads and receiving water quality
Each of these elements will be discussed in this section as well as consideration of
seasonal variation in the TMDL calculation.
8.3.1 Manganese TMDLs
Five segments within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed are listed for
impairment caused by manganese: Bankston Fork ATGC-01, ATGC-02, and
ATGC-11; Brushy Creek ATGH09; and Harco Branch ATGM-01. Load duration
curves were developed (see Section 7) to determine load reductions needed to meet the
instream water quality standard of 1,000 μg/L total manganese at varying flow levels.
8.3.1.1 Loading Capacities
The LC is the maximum amount of
manganese that the impaired segments
can receive and still maintain compliance
with the water quality standard. In order
to determine the loading capacity at
various flow conditions, a range of flows
were multiplied by the water quality
standard. Table 8-3 contains the loading
capacity for manganese.
8.3.1.2 Seasonal Variations
Consideration to seasonality is inherent in the load duration analysis described above.
The standard is not seasonal and the full range of expected flows is represented in the
loading capacity table (Table 8-3). Therefore, the loading capacity represents
conditions throughout the year. Load duration curve development and analysis
(Section 7) showed that manganese violations in the impaired segments are most likely
to occur under mid-range to moist conditions. By considering and addressing all flow
scenarios, these critical conditions when the stream segments are most vulnerable to
water quality exceedences were addressed.
Table 8-3 Manganese Loading Capacity for
Impaired Segments in the Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed
Estimated Mean Daily
Flow (cfs)
Load Capacity
(lbs/day)
5 27
10 54
50 270
100 539
500 2,697
1,000 5,394
5,000 26,969
10,000 53,938
15,000 80,907
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-4 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
8.3.1.3 Margins of Safety
The MOS can be implicit (incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative
assumptions) or explicit (expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings) or a
combination of both. The manganese TMDLs developed for the impaired segments
within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed contain an explicit MOS of 10 percent.
Ten percent is considered adequate to compensate for any uncertainty in the TMDLs.
8.3.1.4 Waste Load Allocations
There are two permitted facilities in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The
Delta Mine Holding Company (NPDES Permit No. IL006402) is a reclaimed surface
coal mine site that is permitted to discharge stormwater from multiple outfalls to
Bankston Fork and Brushy Creek. The permit requires monitoring for pH and
settleable solids only and has no flow information. Additionally, Western Fuels-
Illinois, Inc operates the Liberty under NPDES Permit No. IL0059749. The facility is
currently in the process of permit renewal for acid mine drainage from outfalls 002 and
005. These outfalls discharge to Brushy Creek ATGH-04 which is upstream of
segments ATGH-10 and ATGH-09. Outfalls 002 and 005 are permit to discharge a
maximum daily concentration of 1 mg/L manganese at 0.002mgd and 0.074mgd,
respectively. WLA for Brushy Creek segment ATGH-09 were developed based on the
permitted concentrations and discharge rates. Both permits have conditions that state
that the facilities will be considered in violation if it is determined that the permittee is
not utilizing "good mining practices which are applicable in order to minimize the
discharge of TDS, chloride, sulfate, iron and manganese".
8.3.1.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries
The manganese loads have been allocated between the LAs (nonpoint sources) and the
MOSs. Table 8-4 shows the summary of the manganese TMDLs for the impaired
segments along with the percent reductions required at various flow levels.
Table 8-4 Total Manganese TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
(10% of
LC)
High 0-8.5 2,166.8 1,950.1 0 216.7 6,166.0 65%
Moist
8.5-17 441.6 397.4 0 44.2 705.9 37%
17-25.5 208.1 187.3 0 20.8 364.3 43%
25.5-34 119.9 107.9 0 12.0 233.9 49%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 71.9 64.7 0 7.2 215.9 67%
Dry
42.5-51 40.8 36.7 0 4.1 60.9 33%
51-59.5 18.7 16.9 0 1.9 25.9 28%
59.5-68 9.7 8.7 0 1.0 16.7 42%
68-76.5 4.5 4.0 0 0.4 28.4 84%
Low Flow 76.5-85 1.9 1.7 0 0.2 0.7 0%
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 8-4 Total Manganese TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed (cont)
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
(10% of
LC)
High 0-8.5 1,113.40 1,002.00 n/a 111.3 - -
Moist
8.5-17 226.7 204 0 22.7 300.4 25%
17-25.5 106.6 96 0 10.7 - -
25.5-34 61.3 55.2 0 6.13 - -
Mid-Range 34-42.5 36.6 33 0 3.66 - -
Dry
42.5-51 20.6 18.6 0 2.06 - -
51-59.5 9.3 8.4 0 0.93 - -
59.5-68 4.6 4.2 0 0.46 1 0%
68-76.5 2 1.8 0 0.2 - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.6 0.6 0 0.06 0.1 0%
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
(10% of
LC)
High 0-8.5 286.84 258.16 0 28.68 - -
Moist
8.5-17 58.39 52.55 0 5.84 90.9 36%
17-25.5 27.47 24.73 0 2.75 - -
25.5-34 15.79 14.21 0 1.58 - -
Mid-Range 34-42.5 9.44 8.5 0 0.944 17.31 45%
Dry
42.5-51 5.32 4.79 0 0.532 - -
51-59.5 2.4 2.16 0 0.24 - -
59.5-68 1.19 1.07 0 0.119 0.88 0%
68-76.5 0.51 0.46 0 0.051 - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.16 0.15 0 0.016 0.02 0%
Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-09
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
(10% of
LC)
High 0-8.5 618.62 556.12 0.63 61.86 - -
Moist
8.5-17 126.44 113.16 0.63 12.64 127.72 11%
17-25.5 59.83 53.21 0.63 5.98 - -
25.5-34 34.66 30.56 0.63 3.47 - -
Mid-Range 34-42.5 20.97 18.24 0.63 2.10 10.77 0%
Dry
42.5-51 12.09 10.25 0.63 1.21 - -
51-59.5 5.80 4.58 0.63 0.58 - -
59.5-68 3.21 2.25 0.63 0.32 1.50 0%
68-76.5 1.73 0.92 0.63 0.17 - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.99 0.25 0.63 0.10 0.08 0%
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-6 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 8-4 Total Manganese TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed (cont)
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
(10% of
LC)
High 0-8.5 114.27 102.84 0 11.43 - -
Moist
8.5-17 23.26 20.94 0 2.33 - -
17-25.5 10.95 9.85 0 1.09 124.86 91%
25.5-34 6.29 5.66 0 0.63 52.17 88%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 3.76 3.38 0 0.38 33.65 89%
Dry
42.5-51 2.12 1.91 0 0.21 - -
51-59.5 0.95 0.86 0 0.1 - -
59.5-68 0.48 0.43 0 0.05 0.27 0%
68-76.5 0.2 0.18 0 0.02 - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.07 0.06 0 0.007 0.04 0%
1 Actual Load was calculated using the 90th percentile of observed total manganese concentrations in a given flow
range (EPA 2007)
8.3.2 Silver TMDLs
Four segments within the Middle Fork
Saline River watershed are listed for
impairment caused by silver: Bankston
Fork ATGC-01 and ATGC-02; Brushy
Creek ATGH10; and Harco Branch
ATGM-01. Load duration curves were
developed (see Section 7) to determine
load reductions needed to meet the
instream water quality standard of 5 μg/L
silver at varying flow scenarios.
8.3.2.1 Loading Capacities
The LC is the maximum amount of silver that the impaired segments can receive and
still maintain compliance with the water quality standard. In order to determine the
loading capacity at various flow conditions, a range of flows were multiplied by the
water quality standard. Table 8-5 contains the loading capacity for manganese.
8.3.2.2 Seasonal Variations
Consideration to seasonality is inherent in the load duration analysis described above.
The standard is not seasonal and the full range of expected flows is represented in the
loading capacity table (Table 8-5). Therefore, the loading capacity represents
conditions throughout the year. Load duration analysis showed that exceedances have
occurred over most flow regimes on the impaired segments. By considering and
addressing all flow scenarios, the critical conditions when the stream segment is most
vulnerable to water quality exceedences were addressed.
Table 8-5 Loading Capacity for Silver for
Impaired Segments in the Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed
Estimated Mean Daily
Flow (cfs)
Load Capacity
(lbs/day)
5 0.13
10 0.27
50 1.3
100 2.7
500 13.5
1,000 27.0
5,000 134.8
10,000 269.7
15,000 404.5
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-7
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
8.3.2.3 Margins of Safety
The MOS can be implicit (incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative
assumptions) or explicit (expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings) or a
combination of both. The TMDLs developed for silver contain an explicit MOS of
10 percent. Ten percent is considered adequate to compensate for any uncertainty in
the TMDLs.
8.3.2.4 Waste Load Allocations
There are two permitted facilities in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The
Delta Mine Holding Company (NPDES Permit No. IL006402) is a reclaimed surface
coal mine site that is permitted to discharge stormwater from multiple outfalls to
Bankston Fork and Brushy Creek. The permit requires monitoring for pH and settlable
solids only and has no flow information. Additionally, Western Fuels-Illinois, Inc
operates the Liberty under NPDES Permit No. IL0059749. The facility is currently in
the process of permit renewal for acid mine drainage from outfalls 002 and 005. These
outfalls discharge to Brushy Creek ATGH-04 which is upstream of segments ATGH-
10 and ATGH-09. Outfalls 002 and 005 are permit to discharge 0.002mgd and
0.074mgd, respectively. Although the permit does not require monitoring for silver, a
WLA was developed for Brushy Creek segment ATGH-10 based on the discharge
rates and the water quality standard.
8.3.2.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries
Because there is no WLA in these TMDLs, the silver loads have been allocated
between the LAs (nonpoint sources) and the MOSs. Table 8-6 shows the summary of
the silver TMDLs for the impaired segments along with reductions needed at various
flow levels.
Table 8-6 Silver TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC
(lbs/day)
LA
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day)
MOS
(10% of
LC)
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed (%)
High 0-8.5 10.834 9.750 0 1.083 36.985 74%
Moist
8.5-17 2.208 1.987 0 0.221 1.783 0%
17-25.5 1.041 0.937 0 0.104 0.782 0%
25.5-34 0.600 0.540 0 0.060 0.714 24%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 0.360 0.324 0 0.036 0.678 52%
Dry
42.5-51 0.204 0.184 0 0.020 0.336 45%
51-59.5 0.094 0.084 0 0.009 0.119 29%
59.5-68 0.048 0.043 0 0.005 0.067 35%
68-76.5 0.022 0.020 0 0.002 0.015 0%
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.009 0.008 0 0.001 0.005 0%
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-8 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 8-6 Silver TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed (cont.)
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-02
Zone
Flow
Exceedance
Range (%)
LC
(lbs/day)
LA
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day)
MOS
(10% of
LC)
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed (%)
High 0-8.5 5.567 5.010 0 0.5567 - -
Moist
8.5-17 1.133 1.020 0 0.1133 1.055 0%
17-25.5 0.533 0.480 0 0.0533 - -
25.5-34 0.307 0.276 0 0.0307 - -
Mid-Range 34-42.5 0.183 0.165 0 0.0183 - -
Dry
42.5-51 0.103 0.093 0 0.0103 - -
51-59.5 0.047 0.042 0 0.0047 - -
59.5-68 0.023 0.021 0 0.0023 0.060 62%
68-76.5 0.010 0.009 0 0.0010 - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.003 0.003 0 0.0003 0.003 0%
Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-10
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC
(lbs/day)
LA
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day)
MOS
(10% of
LC)
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed (%)
High 0-8.5 2.3588 2.1197 0.003 0.2359 - -
Moist
8.5-17 0.4827 0.4344 0.003 0.0483 0.1947 0%
17-25.5 0.2288 0.2059 0.003 0.0229 - -
25.5-34 0.1329 0.1196 0.003 0.0133 0.0993 0%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 0.0807 0.0726 0.003 0.0081 - -
Dry
42.5-51 0.0468 0.0421 0.003 0.0047 - -
51-59.5 0.0229 0.0206 0.003 0.0023 - -
59.5-68 0.0130 0.0117 0.003 0.0013 0.0231 44%
68-76.5 0.0073 0.0066 0.003 0.0007 - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.0045 0.0041 0.003 0.0005 0.0010 0%
Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedance
Range (%)
LC
(lbs/day)
LA
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day)
MOS
(10% of
LC)
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed (%)
High 0-8.5 0.5714 0.5142 0 0.05714 - -
Moist
8.5-17 0.1163 0.1047 0 0.01163 - -
17-25.5 0.0547 0.0493 0 0.00547 0.1301 58%
25.5-34 0.0315 0.0283 0 0.00315 0.0203 0%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 0.0188 0.0169 0 0.00188 0.0252 25%
Dry
42.5-51 0.0106 0.0095 0 0.00106 - -
51-59.5 0.0048 0.0043 0 0.00048 - -
59.5-68 0.0024 0.0021 0 0.00024 - -
68-76.5 0.0010 0.0009 0 0.00010 0.00004 0%
Low Flow 76.5-85 0.0003 0.0003 0 0.00003 0.00002 0%
1 Actual Load was calculated using the 90th percentile of observed total silver concentrations in a given flow range
(EPA 2007)
8.3.3 Sulfate TMDLs
Six segments within the Middle Fork Saline River watershed are listed for impairment
caused by sulfate: Bankston Fork ATGC-01, ATGC-02, and ATGC-11; Brushy Creek
ATGH09 and ATGH10; and Harco Branch ATGM-01. The water quality standard for
sulfates in Illinois was revised in 2008. The new standard considers the total hardness
and chloride conditions present at the time of sample collection to calculate the sulfate
standard. Using the new calculated standard, data showed no violations on segment
ATGC-02 of Bankston Fork or on Harco Branch segment ATGM-01. No further
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-9
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
TMDL analysis for sulfates will be completed for these segments as loads do not need
to be reduced. The load duration curves for the remaining impaired segments were
used to determine load reductions needed to meet an instream water quality standard of
500 mg/L at varying flow scenarios (further discussion provided in Section 8.3.3.1
below).
8.3.3.1 Loading Capacities
The LC is the maximum amount of sulfate
that the impaired segments can receive
and still maintain compliance with the
water quality standards. As discussed
above, the water quality standard for
sulfates in Illinois was revised in 2008.
The new standard considers the total
hardness and chloride conditions present
at the time of sample collection to
calculate the sulfate standard. The
minimum hardness and chloride values
seen in the watershed result in a sulfate standard of 500 mg/L. Table 8-7 contains the
loading capacity for sulfate at 500 mg/L for varying flows in the impaired segments.
8.3.3.2 Seasonal Variations
Consideration to seasonality is inherent in the load duration analysis described above.
The standard is not seasonal and the full range of expected flows is represented in the
loading capacity table (Table 8-7). Therefore, the loading capacity represents
conditions throughout the year. Exceedances of the standar have been recorded under
most flow scenarios with the highest percent of exceedances occurring during dry and
low flows. By considering and addressing all flow scenarios, the critical conditions
when the stream segment is most vulnerable to water quality exceedences were
addressed.
8.3.3.3 Margins of Safety
The MOS can be implicit (incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative
assumptions) or explicit (expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings) or a
combination of both. The TMDLs developed for sulfate in impaired segments in the
Middle Fork Saline River watershed contain implicit MOSs because the TMDLs are
based on the allowable loads calculated for the minimum calculated water quality
standard of 500 mg/L. Therefore, the TMDL calculations underestimate the allowable
loads for the stream segment under various flow conditions, providing a conservative
estimate of the TMDLs.
8.3.3.4 Waste Load Allocation
There are two permitted facilities in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The
Delta Mine Holding Company (NPDES Permit No. IL006402) is a reclaimed surface
coal mine site that is permitted to discharge stormwater from multiple outfalls to
Bankston Fork and Brushy Creek. The permit requires monitoring for pH and settlable
Table 8-7 Sulfate Loading Capacity for
Impaired Segments in the Middle Fork Saline
River Watershed
Estimated Mean Daily
Flow (cfs)
Load Capacity
(lbs/day)
5 13,484
10 26,969
50 134,844
100 269,689
500 1,348,444
1,000 2,696,888
5,000 13,484,440
10,000 26,968,879
15,000 40,453,319
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-10 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
solids only and has no flow information. Additionally, Western Fuels-Illinois, Inc
operates the Liberty under NPDES Permit No. IL0059749. The facility is currently in
the process of permit renewal for acid mine drainage from outfalls 002 and 005. These
outfalls discharge to Brushy Creek ATGH-04 which is upstream of segments ATGH-
10 and ATGH-09. Outfalls 002 and 005 are permit to discharge a maximum daily
concentration of 2000 mg/L sulfate at 0.002 mgd and 0.074 mgd, respectively. WLA
for Brushy Creek segments ATGH-09 and ATGH-10 were developed based on the
permitted concentrations and discharge rates. The TMDL was developed based on the
endpoint of 500 mg/L sulfate. At low flows, the WLA based on maximum permitted
concentrations and flow rates exceed the LCs of the segments. In these instances, the
WLA was set to the LC. Both permits have conditions that state that the facilities will
be considered in violation if it is determined that the permittee is not utilizing "good
mining practices which are applicable in order to minimize the discharge of TDS,
chloride, sulfate, iron, and manganese."
8.3.3.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary
The sulfate loads have been allocated between the LA (nonpoint sources) and the
MOS. Table 8-8 shows the summary of the sulfate TMDLs for the impaired segments
along with the percent reductions required at various flow levels.
Table 8-8 Total Sulfate TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC1
(lbs/day)
LA1
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day) MOS
Actual
Load2
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(%)
High 0-8.5 1,083,385 1,083,385 0 implicit 1,769,911 39%
Moist
8.5-17 220,798 220,798 0 implicit 479,314 54%
17-25.5 104,057 104,057 0 implicit 400,972 74%
25.5-34 59,955 59,955 0 implicit 174,635 66%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 35,958 35,958 0 implicit 129,057 72%
Dry
42.5-51 20,392 20,392 0 implicit 60,879 67%
51-59.5 9,367 9,367 0 implicit 56,023 83%
59.5-68 4,827 4,827 0 implicit 25,016 81%
68-76.5 2,233 2,233 0 implicit 8,811 75%
Low Flow 76.5-85 935 935 0 implicit 3,094 70%
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC1
(lbs/day)
LA1
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day) MOS
Actual
Load2
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(%)
High 0-8.5 143,420 143,420 0 implicit - -
Moist
8.5-17 29,196 29,196 0 implicit 100,464 71%
17-25.5 13,737 13,737 0 implicit - -
25.5-34 7,897 7,897 0 implicit - -
Mid-Range 34-42.5 4,720 4,720 0 implicit 20,772 77%
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-11
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 8-8 Total Sulfate TMDLs for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed (cont.)
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC1
(lbs/day)
LA1
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day) MOS
Actual
Load2
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(%)
Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-11 (cont)
Dry
42.5-51 2,658 2,658 0 implicit - -
51-59.5 1,198 1,198 0 implicit - -
59.5-68 597 597 0 implicit 203 0%
68-76.5 254 254 0 implicit - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 82 82 0 implicit 455 82%
Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-09
High 0-8.5 309,308 308,041 1268 implicit - -
Moist
8.5-17 63,219 61,951 1268 implicit 81,145 22%
17-25.5 29,913 28,645 1268 implicit - -
25.5-34 17,331 16,063 1268 implicit - -
Mid-Range 34-42.5 10,485 9,217 1268 implicit 19,865 47%
Dry
42.5-51 6,044 4,777 1268 implicit - -
51-59.5 2,899 1,631 1268 implicit - -
59.5-68 1,604 336 1268 implicit 6,727 76%
68-76.5 863 0 863 implicit - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 493 0 493 implicit 682 28%
Brushy Creek Segment ATGH-10
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC1
(lbs/day)
LA1
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day) MOS
Actual
Load2
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(%)
High 0-8.5 235,878 234,610 1,268 implicit - -
Moist
8.5-17 48,270 47,002 1,268 implicit 41,609 0%
17-25.5 22,880 21,612 1,268 implicit - -
25.5-34 13,288 12,020 1,268 implicit 19,118 30%
Mid-Range 34-42.5 8,069 6,801 1,268 implicit - -
Dry
42.5-51 4,683 3,415 1,268 implicit - -
51-59.5 2,285 1,017 1,268 implicit - -
59.5-68 1,298 30 1,268 implicit 480 0%
68-76.5 734 0 734 implicit - -
Low Flow 76.5-85 451 0 451 implicit 853 47%
1 Allowable loads calculated based on the minimum calculated water quality standard of 500 mg/L
2 Actual Load was calculated using the 90th percentile of observed total sulfate concentrations in a given flow
range (EPA 2007)
8.3.4 Copper, Nickel, and Zinc TMDLs
Harco Branch segment ATGM-01 in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed is also
listed for impairment caused by copper, nickel, and zinc. Load duration curves were
developed (see Section 7) to determine load reductions needed to meet the instream
water quality standards at varying flow scenarios.
8.3.4.1 Loading Capacities
The LC is the maximum amount of a constituent that an impaired segment can receive
and still maintain compliance with the water quality standard. In order to determine the
loading capacity of each constituent at various flow conditions, a range of flows were
multiplied by the water quality standard. The water quality standards copper, nickel
and zinc are dependent on total hardness. Therefore, the minimum reported hardness in
the watershed of 100 mg/L was used for calculation of the standard and development
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-12 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
of the load duration curves for each parameter. Table 8-9 contains the loading
capacities for copper, nickel, and zinc based on a total hardness of 100 mg/L.
Table 8-9 Copper, Nickel, and Zinc Loading Capacities for Harco Branch
Based on Minimum Reported Hardness in the Watershed
Estimated Mean
Daily Flow (cfs)
Copper Load
Capacity
(lbs/day)
Nickel Load
Capacity
(lbs/day)
Zinc
Load Capacity
(lbs/day)
1 0.1 0.4 0.6
5 0.5 2.2 3.2
10 0.9 4.4 6.4
25 2.3 11.1 16.1
50 4.6 22.2 32.2
100 9.2 44.4 64.4
500 45.9 222.2 322.2
1,000 91.8 444.3 644.5
8.3.4.2 Seasonal Variations
Consideration to seasonality is inherent in the load duration analysis described above.
The standards for copper, nickel, or zinc apply year-round and the full range of
expected flows is represented in the loading capacity table (Table 8-9). Therefore, the
loading capacity represents conditions throughout the year. Load duration curve
development and analysis (Section 7) showed that violations for copper, nickel, and
zinc segment ATGM-01 are most likely to occur under mid-range to moist conditions.
By considering and addressing all flow scenarios, these critical conditions when the
stream segments are most vulnerable to water quality exceedences were addressed.
8.3.4.3 Margins of Safety
The MOS can be implicit (incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative
assumptions) or explicit (expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings) or a
combination of both. The TMDLs developed for copper, nickel, and zinc for Harco
Branch segment ATGM-01 contain implicit MOSs because of conservative
assumptions made in the development of the TMDL. The TMDL calculations were
made using the minimum reported total hardness value for the watershed as a variable
in the acute water quality standard calculations. The water quality criteria increases
with total hardness and therefore, using the minimum reported total hardness results in
an underestimation of the loading capacity of the segment.
8.3.4.4 Waste Load Allocations
There are no facilities within the watershed that discharge to Harco Branch. Because of
this, WLAs were not calculated and were set to zero.
8.3.4.5 Load Allocations and TMDL Summaries
Table 8-10 shows the summary of the copper, nickel, and zinc TMDLs for Harco
Branch segment ATGM-01 along with the percent reductions required at various flow
levels.
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-13
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 8-10 Dissolved Copper, Nickel, and Zinc TMDLs for Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Copper TMDL for Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA
MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
High 0-8.5 1.944 1.944 0 implicit - -
Moist
8.5-17 0.396 0.396 0 implicit - -
17-25.5 0.186 0.186 0 implicit 0.598 69%
25.5-34 0.107 0.107 0 implicit 1.084 90%
Mid-
Range 34-42.5 0.064 0.064 0 implicit 0.533 88%
Dry
42.5-51 0.036 0.036 0 implicit - -
51-59.5 0.016 0.016 0 implicit - -
59.5-68 0.008 0.008 0 implicit 0.001 0%
68-76.5 0.003 0.003 0 implicit - -
Low
Flow 76.5-85 0.001 0.001 0 implicit 0.0003 0%
Nickel TMDL for Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA
MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
High 0-8.5 9.413 9.413 0 implicit - -
Moist
8.5-17 1.916 1.916 0 implicit - -
17-25.5 0.902 0.902 0 implicit 5.33 83%
25.5-34 0.518 0.518 0 implicit 2.64 80%
Mid-
Range 34-42.5 0.31 0.31 0 implicit 1.23 75%
Dry
42.5-51 0.174 0.174 0 implicit - -
51-59.5 0.079 0.079 0 implicit - -
59.5-68 0.039 0.039 0 implicit 0.002 0%
68-76.5 0.017 0.017 0 implicit - -
Low
Flow 76.5-85 0.005 0.005 0 implicit - -
Zinc TMDL for Harco Branch Segment ATGM-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC LA WLA
MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed
(lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (%)
High 0-8.5 13.654 13.654 0 implicit - -
Moist
8.5-17 2.78 2.78 0 implicit - -
17-25.5 1.308 1.308 0 implicit 93.64 99%
25.5-34 0.752 0.752 0 implicit 49.46 98%
Mid-
Range 34-42.5 0.449 0.449 0 implicit 20.75 98%
Dry
42.5-51 0.253 0.253 0 implicit - -
51-59.5 0.114 0.114 0 implicit - -
59.5-68 0.057 0.057 0 implicit 0.004 0%
68-76.5 0.024 0.024 0 implicit - -
Low
Flow 76.5-85 0.008 0.008 0 implicit 0.0002 0%
1 Actual Load was calculated using the 90th percentile of observed concentrations in a given
flow range (EPA 2007)
2 Allowable loads calculated using minimum reported hardness in watershed (100mg/L)
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-14 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
8.3.5 Fecal Coliform TMDL
Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01 in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed is also
listed for impairment caused by fecal coliform. A load duration curve was developed
(see Section 7) to determine load reductions needed to meet the instream water quality
standards at varying flow scenarios.
8.3.5.1 Loading Capacity
The LC is the maximum amount of fecal
coliform that Bankston Fork segment
ATGC-01 can receive and still maintain
compliance with the water quality
standards. The allowable fecal coliform
loads that can be generated in the
watershed and still maintain the geometric
mean standard of 200 cfu/100mL were
determined with the methodology
discussed in Section 7. The fecal coliform loading capacity according to flow is
presented in Table 8-11.
8.3.5.2 Seasonal Variation
Consideration of seasonality is inherent in the load duration analysis. Because the load
duration analysis represents the range of expected stream flows, the TMDL has been
calculated to meet the standard during all flow conditions. In addition, seasonality is
addressed because the TMDL has been calculated to address loading only when the
seasonal standard is applicable (May through October).
For this TMDL, the critical period for fecal coliform is the primary contact recreation
season which is May through October each year. There is no one critical condition
during the recreation season. The fecal coliform standard must be met under all flow
scenarios and standard exceedances have occurred during the majority of flow
scenarios. By using the load duration curve method, all of these "critical conditions"
are accounted for in the loading allocations.
8.3.5.3 Margin of Safety
The MOS can be implicit (incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative
assumptions) or explicit (expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings) or a
combination of both. The MOS for the ATGC-01 TMDL is implicit as the analysis
used the more conservative 200 cfu/100mL standard and did not consider die-off of
bacteria which is likely occurring in the system but unquantified.
8.3.5.4 Waste Load Allocation
There are no facilities within the watershed that discharge to segment ATGC-01 of
Bankston Fork. Because of this, WLAs were not calculated and were set to zero.
Table 8-11 Fecal Coliform Loading Capacity
for Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
Estimated Mean
Daily Flow (cfs)
Load Capacity (mil
col/day)
5 24,466
10 48,932
50 244,663
100 489,332
500 2,446,689
1,000 4,893,434
5,000 24,467,455
10,000 48,935,475
15,000 73,404,063
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 8-15
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
8.3.5.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary
Table 8-12 shows a summary of the TMDL for Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01.
Table 8-12 Fecal Coliform TMDL for Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01
Zone
Flow
Exceedence
Range (%)
LC
(lbs/day)
LA
(lbs/day)
WLA
(lbs/day) MOS
Actual
Load1
(lbs/day)
Percent
Reduction
Needed (%)
High 0-7.5 883,694 883,694 0 implicit 15,940,920 94%
Moist
7.5-15 141,830 141,830 0 implicit 618,236 77%
15-22.5 60,578 60,578 0 implicit 6,881,269 99%
22.5-30 31,139 31,139 0 implicit 113,695 73%
Mid-Range 30-37.5 18,186 18,186 0 implicit 63,310 71%
Dry
37.5-45 11,474 11,474 0 implicit 34,163 66%
45-52.5 7,470 7,470 0 implicit 2,214 0%
52.5-60 4,644 4,644 0 implicit 12,536 63%
60-67.5 2,878 2,878 0 implicit 5,583 48%
Low Flow 67.5-77 1,700 1,700 0 implicit 353 0%
1 Actual Load was calculated using the 90th percentile of observed fecal coliform concentrations in a
given flow range (EPA 2007)
8.3.6 Total Phosphorus TMDL for Harrisburg Reservoir
8.3.6.1 Loading Capacity
The LC of Harrisburg Reservoir is the pounds of total phosphorus that can be allowed
as input to the lake per day and still meet the water quality standard of 0.05 mg/L total
phosphorus. The allowable phosphorus loads that can be generated in the watershed
and still maintain water quality standards were determined with the BATHTUB model
that was set up and confirmed as discussed in Section 7. To accomplish this, the loads
calculated using average values from the historic data were reduced by a percentage
and entered into the BATHTUB models until the water quality standard of 0.05 mg/L
total phosphorus was met in Harrisburg Reservoir. The allowable phosphorus load
determined by reducing modeled inputs to Harrisburg Reservoir through BATHTUB is
2.66 lbs/day.
8.3.6.2 Seasonal Variation
A season is represented by changes in weather; for example, a season can be classified
as warm or cold as well as wet or dry. Seasonal variation is represented in the
Harrisburg Reservoir TMDL as conditions were modeled on an annual basis. Modeling
on an annual basis takes into account the seasonal effects the lake will undergo during
a given year. Since the pollutant source can be expected to contribute loadings in
different quantities during different time periods (e.g., various portions of the
agricultural season resulting in different runoff characteristics), the loadings for this
TMDL will focus on average annual loadings converted to daily loads rather than
specifying different loadings by season. The Harrisburg Reservoir Watershed would
most likely experience critical conditions annually based on the growing season.
Because an average annual basis was used for TMDL development, it is assumed that
the critical condition is accounted for within the analysis.
Section 8
Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
8-16 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 8 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
8.3.6.3 Margin of Safety
The margin of safety (MOS) can be implicit (incorporated into the TMDL analysis
through conservative assumptions) or explicit (expressed in the TMDL as a portion of
the loadings) or a combination of both. The MOS for the Harrisburg Reservoir TMDL
is implicit. The analysis completed for this waterbody was conservative because of the
following:
 In the absence of site-specific data, an atmospheric loading rate of 30 mg/m2-yr total
phosphorus (USACE 1999) was taken from literature values and used in the
BATHTUB model. This is a conservative value because atmospheric loadings of
phosphorus are attributed to erosion that becomes wind borne and because of the
low amount of agricultural practices in the surrounding area, the atmospheric
loading is most likely negligible. This conservative value likely overestimates
loading resulting in a conservatively high percentage reduction needed to meet the
TMDL endpoints.
 Default values were used in the BATHTUB model, which in absence of site-specific
information are conservative. Default model values, such as the phosphorus
assimilation rate, are based on scientific data accumulated from a large survey of
lakes. Because no site-specific data are available, default model rates are used which
are based on error analysis calculations. The model used for this analysis uses
estimates of second-order sedimentation coefficients which are generally accurate to
within a factor of 2 for phosphorus and a factor of 3 for nitrogen. This provides a
conservation range of where the predictions could fall and provides confidence in
the predicted values.
8.3.6.4 Waste Load Allocation
There are no point sources within the Harrisburg Reservoir watershed. Therefore, the
WLA is set to zero for this TMDL.
8.3.6.5 Load Allocation and TMDL Summary
Table 8-13 shows a summary of the TMDL for Harrisburg Reservoir. A total reduction
of 52 percent of total phosphorus loads to Harrisburg Reservoir would result in
compliance with the water quality standard of 0.05 mg/L total phosphorus.
Table 8-13 TMDL Summary for Harrisburg Reservoir
Load Source
LC
(lb/day)
WLA
(lb/day)
LA
(lb/day)
MOS
(lb/day)
Current
Load
(lb/day)
Reduction
Needed
(lb/day)
Reduction
Needed
(percent)
Total 2.66 0 2.66 Implicit 5.54 2.88 52%
Internal 0.00 0 0.00 Implicit 0.00 0.00 0%
External 2.66 0 2.66 implicit 5.54 2.88 52%
DRAFT 9-1
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork
Saline River Watershed
9.1 Adaptive Management
An adaptive management or phased approach is recommended for the TMDLs
developed for the Middle Fork Saline River watershed due to the limited amount of
data available for the TMDL analysis. Adaptive management is a systematic process
for continually improving management policies and practices through learning from
the outcomes of operational programs. Some of the differentiating characteristics of
adaptive management are:
 Acknowledgement of uncertainty about what policy or practice is "best" for the
particular management issue
 Thoughtful selection of the policies or practices to be applied (the assessment and
design stages of the cycle)
 Careful implementation of a plan of action designed to reveal the critical knowledge
that is currently lacking
 Monitoring of key response indicators
 Analysis of the management outcomes in consideration of the original objectives
and incorporation of the results into future decisions (British Columbia Ministry of
Forests 2000)
Implementation actions, point source controls, management measures, or BMPs are
used to control the generation or distribution of pollutants. BMPs are either structural,
such as wetlands, sediment basins, fencing, or filter strips; or managerial, such as
conservation tillage, nutrient management plans, or crop rotation. Both types require
good management to be effective in reducing pollutant loading to water resources
(Osmond et al. 1995).
It is generally more effective to install a combination of point source controls and
BMPs or a BMP system. A BMP system is a combination of two or more individual
BMPs that are used to control a pollutant from the same critical source. In other words,
if the watershed has more than one identified pollutant, but the transport mechanism is
the same, then a BMP system that establishes controls for the transport mechanism can
be employed (Osmond et al. 1995).
To assist in adaptive management, implementation actions, management measures,
available assistance programs, and recommended continued monitoring are all
discussed throughout the remainder of this section.
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
9-2 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
9.2 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for
Metals, pH, and Sulfates in the Middle Fork Saline River
Watershed
Violations of the water quality standards for manganese have been documented on
segments ATGC-01, ATGC-02, ATGC-11, ATGH-09, and ATGM-01 in the Middle
Fork Saline River watershed. Segments ATGC-01, ATGC-02, ATGH-10, and ATGM-
01 have had violations for silver recorded since 1990. Violations of the sulfate
standards have been reported on all 6 impaired stream segments in the watershed. In
addition, segment ATGM-01 has had violations of the water quality standards for
copper, nickel, zinc, and pH. The most likely sources of these contaminants are runoff
from historic mining operations in the watershed as well as natural sources including
overland runoff, soil erosion, and groundwater.
As discussed in the Stage 1 report, there are a number of active and historic mining
operations in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed that may contribute to the loads
of these contaminants to the impaired stream segments. Impacts from abandoned mine
lands, acid mine drainages, surface mining, and mine tailings have all been identified
in the 303(d) list as potential sources of sulfates, metals, and pH violations in the
watershed. Implementation actions and management measures available to address the
water quality issues associated with these sources of contaminants in all of the
impaired stream segments in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed are discussed
below.
9.2.1 Point Sources of Metals, pH, and Sulfates
9.2.1.1 Permitted Mining Outfalls
There are two permitted facilities in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed. The
Delta Mine Holding Company (NPDES Permit No. IL006402) is a reclaimed surface
coal mine site that is permitted to discharge stormwater from multiple outfalls to
Bankston Fork and Brushy Creek. The permit requires monitoring for pH and settlable
solids only and has no flow information. Additionally, Western Fuels-Illinois, Inc
operates the Liberty under NPDES Permit No. IL0059749. The facility is currently in
the process of permit renewal for acid mine drainage from outfalls 002 and 005. These
outfalls discharge to Brushy Creek ATGH-04 which is upstream of segments ATGH-
10 and ATGH-09. It should be noted that segment ATGH-04 is not listed for
impairment on the 303(d) list.
Table 9-1 contains permit information for these facilities. The Liberty Mine permit is
currently in the process of renewal and Table 9-1 contains information to reflect this.
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 9-3
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
Table 9-1 Point Source Discharges in the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
Facility Name Outfall
Permit
Number
Daily
Average
Flow (mgd)
Manganese
(mg/L)
Sulfate
(mg/L)
Daily
Maximum
Daily
Maximum
Liberty Mine - previous
permit
002. 005.
009 IL0059749 n/a 4 3500
Liberty Mine - 2010
renewal
002. 005.
009 IL0059749
0.002, 0.074,
0* 1 2000
Delta Mining Company ** IL0060402 0 - -
n/a = information not available
* 009 only is described in the permit as "emergency only"
** The Delta Mine has multiple stormwater outfalls. Receiving waters include Bankston Fork, Unnamed Tribs to
Bankston Fork, and Brushy Creek
Illinois EPA will evaluate the need for point source controls through the NPDES
permitting program as the permits are due for renewal. The City of Paris STP permit
has limits for BOD5 and ammonia-nitrogen. Both permits have conditions that state
that the facilities will be considered in violation if it is determined that the permittee is
not utilizing "good mining practices which are applicable in order to minimize the
discharge of TDS, chloride, sulfate, iron and manganese". Mine effluent limitations are
provided in Part 406 of the Illinois Administrative Code Section 406.202 states:
In addition to the other requirements of this Part, no mine discharge or
non-point source mine discharge shall, alone or in combination with other
sources, cause a violation of any water quality standards of 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 302 or 303. When the Agency finds that a discharge which would
comply with effluent standards contained in this Part would cause or is
causing a violation of water quality standards, the Agency shall take
appropriate action under Section 31 or 39 of the Environmental
Protection Act to require the discharge to meet whatever effluent limits
are necessary to ensure compliance with the water quality standards.
When such a violation is caused by the cumulative effect of more than one
source, several sources may be joined in an enforcement or variance
proceeding and measures for necessary effluent reductions will be
determined on the basis of technical feasibility, economic reasonableness
and fairness to all discharges (IPCB 1999b).
These permit and their associated limits are thought to be adequately protective of
aquatic life uses within the receiving waters.
9.2.2 Nonpoint Sources of Sulfates, pH, and Metals
A potential source of metals, sulfates, and pH in the Middle Fork Saline River
watershed is abandoned mining operations. For this source, chemical treatment
methods, passive treatment methods, and mine reclamation are potential
implementation activities. Active chemical treatment typically involves the addition of
alkaline chemicals, such as calcium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate,
and anhydrous ammonia to acid mine drainage. These chemicals raise the pH to
acceptable levels and decrease the solubility of dissolved metals. Metal precipitates
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
9-4 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
form and settle out of the solution. Active chemical treatment is not likely to be a
viable option for the Middle Fork Saline River watershed because the chemicals are
expensive, and the treatment system requires additional costs associated with operation
and maintenance, as well as the disposal of metal-laden sludge.
Reclamation of abandoned mines is another method of controlling pollutants.
Reclamation of abandoned mine land involves clearing site vegetation, removing
contaminated topsoil and coal, and restoring functionality of the site for recreational,
agricultural, or wildlife habitat purposes. The environmental benefits realized from
abandoned mine reclamation projects are numerous and significant, including restoring
land for future use and improving water quality. Restoration of the land can result in
increased and enhanced pasture land, recreational areas, or wildlife habitat
(Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [PDEP] 2002). However,
reclamation projects tend to be costly and resource intensive and may not be
appropriate for all abandoned mine sites in Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
Passive methods could be utilized until full reclamation of a mine occurs. Chemical
addition and energy consuming treatment processes are virtually eliminated with
passive treatment systems. The operation and maintenance requirements of passive
systems are considerably less than active treatment systems (PDEP 2002). Therefore,
passive treatment systems may be the best solution for controlling metals, sulfates, and
pH originating from mining operations in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
Following are examples of the passive treatment technologies:
 Aerobic wetland
 Compost or anaerobic wetland
 Open limestone channels
 Diversion wells
 Anoxic limestone drains
 Vertical flow reactors
 Pyrolusite process
Additional sources of some metals contamination may be from high background levels
of the metals in the soils of the watershed. As such, nonpoint source controls that are
designed to reduce erosion may provide a secondary benefit of reducing any
contaminants that may be attached to the soil.
Following are examples of potentially applicable erosion control measures:
 Filter Strips
 Sediment Control Basins
 Streambank Stabilization/Erosion Control
The remainder of this section discusses these technologies and management options.
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 9-5
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
9.2.2.1 Aerobic Wetland
An aerobic wetland consists of a large surface area pond with horizontal surface flow.
The pond may be planted with cattails and other wetland species. Aerobic wetlands
can only effectively treat water that is net alkaline (pH greater than 7). In aerobic
wetland systems, metals are precipitated through oxidation reactions to form oxides
and hydroxides. A typical aerobic wetland will have a water depth of 6 to 18 inches
(PDEP 2002).
9.2.2.2 Compost or Anaerobic Wetland
Compost wetlands, or anaerobic wetlands as they are sometimes called, consist of a
large pond with a lower layer of organic substrate. The flow is horizontal within the
substrate layer of the basin. Piling the compost a little higher than the free water
surface can encourage the flow within the substrate. Typically, the compost layer
consists of spent mushroom compost that contains about 10 percent calcium carbonate.
Other compost materials include peat moss, wood chips, sawdust, or hay. A typical
compost wetland will have 12 to 24 inches of organic substrate and be planted with
cattails or other emergent vegetation (PDEP 2002).
9.2.2.3 Open Limestone Channels
Open limestone channels may be the simplest passive treatment method available.
Open limestone channels are constructed in two ways. In the first method, a drainage
ditch constructed of limestone collects contaminated acid mine drainage water. The
other method consists of placing limestone fragments directly in a contaminated
stream. Dissolution of the limestone adds alkalinity to the water and raises the pH.
This treatment requires large quantities of limestone for long-term success (PDEP
2002).
9.2.2.4 Diversion Wells
Diversion wells are another simple way to increase the alkalinity of contaminated
waters. Acidic water is conveyed by a pipe to a downstream "well," which contains
crushed limestone aggregate. The hydraulic force of the pipe flow causes the limestone
to turbulently mix and abrade into fine particles preventing armoring (PDEP 2002).
9.2.2.5 Anoxic Limestone Drains
An anoxic limestone drain is a buried bed of limestone constructed to intercept
subsurface mine water flow and prevent contact with atmospheric oxygen. Keeping
oxygen out of the water prevents oxidation of metals and armoring of the limestone.
An anoxic limestone drain can be considered a pretreatment step to increase alkalinity
and raise pH before the water enters a constructed aerobic wetland (PDEP 2002).
9.2.2.6 Vertical Flow Reactors
Vertical flow reactors were conceived as a way to overcome the alkalinity producing
limitations of anoxic limestone drains and the large area requirements of compost
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
9-6 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
wetlands. The vertical flow reactor consists of a treatment cell with an underdrained
limestone base topped with a layer of organic substrate and standing water. The water
flows vertically through the compost and limestone and is collected and discharged
through a system of pipes. The vertical flow reactor increases alkalinity by limestone
dissolution and bacterial sulfate reduction (PDEP 2002).
9.2.2.7 Pyrolusite Process
The pyrolusite process is a patented process, which utilizes site-specific cultured
microbes to remove iron, manganese, and aluminum from acid mine drainage. The
treatment process consists of a shallow bed of limestone aggregate inundated with acid
mine drainage. After laboratory testing determines the proper combination,
microorganisms are introduced to the limestone bed by inoculation ports located
throughout the bed. The microorganisms grow on the surface of the limestone chips
and oxidize the metal contaminants while etching away limestone, which in turn
increases the alkalinity and raises the pH of water. This process has been used on
several sites in western Pennsylvania with promising results (PDEP 2002).
9.2.2.8 Filter Strips
Filter strips can be used as a control to reduce pollutant loads from runoff and
sedimentation to impaired stream segments in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed.
Filter strips implemented along stream segments slow and filter runoff and provide
bank stabilization decreasing erosion and deposition. The following paragraphs focus
on the implementation of filter strips in the watershed.
Filter strips may help control contaminant levels by removing loads associated with
sediment from runoff; however, no studies were identified as providing an estimate of
removal efficiency. Grass filter strips have been shown to remove as much as 75
percent of sediment and 45 percent of total phosphorus from runoff, so it is assumed
that the removal of other contaminants such as metals and sulfates from runoff may
fall within this range (NCSU 2000). Riparian vegetation also provides bank stability
that further reduces sediment loading to the stream and therefore reduces the loading of
silver and manganese found in soils.
Filter strip widths for the impaired stream segments TMDLs were estimated based on
the land slope. According to the NRCS Planning and Design Manual, the majority of
sediment is removed in the first 25 percent of the width (NRCS 1994). Table 9-2
outlines the guidance for filter strip flow length by slope (NRCS 1999).
Table 9-2 Filter Strip Flow Lengths Based on Land Slope
Percent Slope 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%
5.0% or
greater
Minimum 36 54 72 90 108 117
Maximum 72 108 144 180 216 234
GIS land use data described in Section 5 of the Stage 1 report were used in conjunction
with soil slope data to provide an estimate of acreage where filter strips could be
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 9-7
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
installed. As discussed in Section 2.4.1 of the Stage 1 report, there is a wide diversity
of soil types in the watershed with no single soil type accounting for more than 2% of
the watershed. Because soil type and corresponding slope values vary so widely across
the watershed, maximum values associated with 5% or greater slopes were used for
this analysis. Based on this slope value, filter strip widths of 234 feet could be
incorporated into agricultural lands adjacent to the ditch and its tributaries.
Mapping software was then used to buffer impaired stream segments and their major
tributaries to determine the total area found within 234 feet the stream channels. There
are approximately 2,260 total acres within this buffer distance throughout the
watershed. The land use data were then clipped to the buffer area to determine the
amount of this land that is agricultural. There are an estimated 932 acres of agricultural
land surrounding tributaries of the Middle Fork Saline River watershed where filter
strips and riparian buffers could potentially be installed. The relative areas within the
buffer distance for each impaired stream segment and its tributaries are provided in
Table 9-3. Landowners should evaluate their land near the stream and its tributaries
and install or extend filter strips according to the NRCS guidance provided in Table 9-
1. Programs available to fund the construction of these buffer strips are discussed in
Section 9.5.
Table 9-3 Total Area and Area of Agricultural Land Within
234-feet Buffer by Segment
Stream Name Segment ID
Area in
234 ft
Buffer
(Acres)
Agricultural
Land In 234 ft
Buffer (Acres)
Bankston Fork
ATGC-01 2260.5 932.2
ATGC-02 1142.3 460.2
ATGC-11 483.9 243.3
Brushy Creek ATGH-09 869.4 346.0
ATGH-10 605.1 119.2
Harco Branch ATGM-01 178.7 90.2
9.2.2.9 Sediment Control Basins
Sediment control basins are designed to trap sediments (and the pollutants bound to the
sediment) prior to reaching a receiving water. Sediment control basins are typically
earthen embankments that act similarly to a terrace. The basin traps water and
sediment running off cropland upslope from the structure, and reduces gully erosion by
controlling flow within the drainage area. The basin then releases water slowly, which
also helps to decrease streambank erosion in the receiving water.
Sediment control basins are usually designed to drain an area of 30 acres or less and
should be large enough to control runoff form a 10-year, 24-hour storm. Locations are
determined based on slopes, tillage and crop management, and local NRCS can often
provide information and advice for design and installation. Maintenance includes
reseeding and fertilizing the basins in order to maintain vegetation and periodic
checking, especially after large storms to determine the need for embankment repairs
or excess sediment removal.
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
9-8 DRAFT
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
9.2.2.10 Streambank Stabilization/Erosion Control
Soil erosion is the process of moving soil particles or sediment by flowing water or
wind. Eroding soil transports pollutants, such as manganese, that can potentially
degrade water quality.
Following are three available approaches to stabilizing eroding banks that could, in
turn, decrease nonpoint source manganese and silver loads:
 Stone Toe Protection (STP)
 Rock Riffle Grade Control (RR)
 Floodplain Excavation
Stone Toe Protection uses non-erodible materials to protect the eroding banks.
Meandering bends found in the ATGC-01 watershed could possibly be stabilized by
placing the hard armor only on the toe of the bank. STP is most commonly
implemented "using stone quarry stone that is sized to resist movement and is placed
on the lower one third of the bank in a windrow fashion" (STREAMS 2005).
Naturally stable stream systems typically have an alternating riffle-pool sequence that
helps to dissipate stream energy. Rock Riffle Grade Control places loose rock grade
control structures at locations where natural riffles would occur to create and enhance
the riffle-pool flow sequence of stable streams. By installing RR in an incised channel,
the riffles will raise the water surface elevation resulting in lower effective bank
heights, which increases the bank stability by reducing the tractive force on the banks
(STREAMS 2005).
Rather than raising the water level, Floodplain Excavation lowers the floodplain to
create a more stable stream. Floodplain Excavation uses mechanical means to restore
the floodplain by excavating and utilizing the soil that would eventually be eroded
away and deposited in the stream (STREAMS 2005).
The extent of streambank erosion in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed is
unknown. It is recommended that further investigation be performed to determine the
extent that erosion control measures could help manage nonpoint source manganese
and silver loads to the creek.
9.3 Implementation Actions and Management Measures for
Fecal Coliform in Bankston Fork Segment ATGC-01
The TMDL analysis performed for fecal coliform in ATGC-01 showed that although
exceedences were reported over the full range of flow conditions, the majority of the
samples collected that exceeded the standard were collected during higher flow
conditions. This indicates the majority of the exceedances have occurred as a result of
stormwater runoff and resuspension of instream fecal material.
Section 9
Implementation Plan for the Middle Fork Saline River Watershed
DRAFT 9-9
\\Densvr1\projects\IEPA-2008\Stage3\Saline\Report\Sec 9 Middle Fork Saline River.doc
9.3.1 Point Sources of Fecal Coliform
9.3.1.1 Stormwater Sources
A portion of the Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01 watershed is urban in nature
(approximately 6% of the watershed area). However, none of the municipalities within
the ATGC-01 watershed are required to have stormwater permits. Therefore, little
information is available regarding stormwater runoff in the watershed. It is
recommended that a storm sewer survey be performed to determine the amount of
fecal coliform that may be contributed to the stream via urban stormwater sources.
9.3.1.2 Permitted Mining Operations
The permitted mining facilities in the Middle Fork Saline River watershed were
discussed in Section 9.2.1.1. The facilities associated with these NPDES permits are
significantly upstream of the impaired segment and are not expected to be a significant
source of fecal coliform loads to the stream segment.
9.3.2 Nonpoint Sources of Fecal Coliform
Several management options have been identified to help reduce fecal coliform counts
in Bankston Fork segment ATGC-01. These management options focus on the most
likely sources of fecal coliform within the basin, such as agricultural runoff, septic
systems, and livestock. The alternatives that were identified