(TMDL) Program in Illinois Jennifer Clarke Planning Unit Watershed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program in Illinois

Jennifer Clarke Planning Unit Watershed Management Section Bureau of Water Illinois EPA

TMDL

305(b) Assessments (Designated Uses/Standards, Bio/Chem Data) 303(d) List (Impairments) TMDL

11/17/2011 2

11/17/2011 3

Impaired Waters- 2008

• 1,030 water body segments

– 716 stream segments – 314 lakes – 51 Lake Michigan beaches – 14 Lake Michigan open water stations – 2 Lake Michigan harbors

Impaired Assessed Stream Miles 8,537 15,569 Lake Acres 142,761 147,361

11/17/2011 4

What is a TMDL?

• “TMDL is a calculation of the

maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards and support designated uses.”

11/17/2011 5

What is a LRS?

• A Load Reduction Strategy (LRS) is

essentially the same as a TMDL, but does not allocate between point and nonpoint sources. There are no wasteload allocations if there are no numeric standards in place.

11/17/2011 6

TMDL Calculation

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

• Wasteload allocation--point sources/

NPDES

• Load allocation--nonpoint sources
• Margin of safety

11/17/2011 7

TMDL / LRS PROCESS- IL

• Public meetings held in the watersheds

throughout TMDL process to inform stakeholders

• n TMDL developments.
• TMDLs currently being developed in three stages
• Currently, Illinois EPA only developing TMDL

allocations for parameters with numeric standards and LRS for nonnumeric parameters

• Once the TMDL report is complete, it is sent to

USEPA for approval

TMDL & LRS- Middle Illinois River

• Multiple interest in watershed- USACE

Comprehensive Plan/projects, USGG bacteria study, TCRPC studies, NRCS MRBI watersheds, ISWS projects

• Higher prioritization for TMDL

development may give more funding

• pportunities

11/17/2011 8

11/17/2011 9

Stage 1 TMDL/ LRS Development

• Watershed Characterization, Data Analysis,

Model Selection

• Description of the watershed
• Collection/analysis of available data
• Identifies targets
• ID methodologies, procedures and models

to be used to determine load reductions/allocations

• Two meetings held August 2, 2010 in Peoria

and Princeton

• Responsiveness Summary for Stage 1

11/17/2011 10

Stage 2 TMDL Development

• Stage 2: Data Collection

– Optional Stage

• Collection of mainstem and tributary

data- Sandy Creek, Crow Creek, Senachwine Creek, Lime Creek, Big Bureau Creeks

11/17/2011 11

Stage 3 TMDL Development

• Stage 3: Load Duration Curve Analysis,

Calculate Loads/Reductions, Implementation Plan

• Develop TMDLs with data from stages 1 (& 2)
• Calculate loads for each pollutant
• TMDL Load allocations (WLA and LA),

determine pollutant reduction needs.

• Develop a general implementation plan/
• ngoing projects in watershed

11/17/2011 12

11/17/2011 13

What’s Next?

• Comments and suggestions received

during the comment period will be reviewed and considered.

• A Final TMDL Report will be

completed and posted online.

• Phase Two- Implementation Plan
• Ongoing MRBI projects in

Senachwine and Big Bureau Creek watersheds

• River Action Network

11/17/2011 14

Phase II- Implementation Plan

• Urban stormwater best management

practices (BMPs)

• Hillslope and river bluff erosion control

– Targeted restoration/stabilization sites – ISWS sedimentation budget analysis

11/17/2011 15

For more information on Illinois TMDLs

• U.S. EPA contact- Chris Urban

Email- Urban.Christine@epa.gov

• Illinois EPA TMDL web site:

www.epa.state.il.us/tmdl Email: Jennifer.Clarke@Illinois.gov 1021 N. Grand Ave East (#15) P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Phone: 217/782-3362

Middle Illinois River TMDLs and Load Reduction Strategies

Jennifer Olson Tetra Tech, Inc. November 16, 2011 Peoria, Illinois

Presentation Overview

►What is a TMDL? ►TMDL Process ►TMDL Analysis and

Conclusions

►Implementation

Recommendations

►Questions &

Comments

What is a TMDL?

►Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are part

• f the 1972 Clean Water Act
• Goal of the Act is to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters ►Section 303(d)

• States must develop a list of waterbodies not

meeting water quality standards

• Must develop a TMDL that identifies the loads that

will allow the waterbody to attain water quality standards

What is a TMDL? (continued)

►TMDL report is prepared for USEPA review and

approval

• Report summarizes the conclusions of the analysis

and presents the allocations ►Wasteload allocations for regulated sources

• Can result in more restrictive permits

►Load allocations for unregulated sources

• Can only be implemented through voluntary actions

Project Area

►2,100 square mile

watershed

►Illinois River Bluffs

Region

►Many tributary

inputs

►Backwater lakes

Illinois River Watershed Middle Illinois River Watershed

Key Issues in the Illinois River Basin

►excessive

sedimentation

►loss of productive

backwaters, side channels and islands

►loss of floodplain,

riparian, and aquatic habitats and function

►loss of aquatic

connectivity on the Illinois River and its tributaries

►altered hydrologic

regime

►water quality and

sediment quality

►invasive species

Previous Work

►Tri-County Regional Planning

Commission

• Farm Creek + Main Stem +

Other ►IL State Water Survey –

Sediment work

►IL DNR – Big Bureau Creek +

Bluffs

►US Army Corps of Engineers

• Senachwine Creek
• IL River Basin Comprehensive

Plan

Why are TMDLs and LRSs needed for the Middle Illinois River watershed?

►Streams/River not meeting

water quality standards

• Pathogens (Fecal Coliform)
• Chloride
• Manganese
• Total Dissolved Solids
• Phosphorus (lakes)
• Sediment
• Nutrients

►Three Impaired Main

Stem Segments

►Three Impaired

Tributaries

• Big Bureau
• Kickapoo
• Farm

►Two Impaired Lakes

• Depue
• Senachwine

Impaired Water TMDL Pollutant Name Illinois River Fecal coliform Fecal coliform Fecal coliform, manganese, total dissolved solids Kickapoo Creek Fecal coliform Big Bureau Creek Fecal coliform West Bureau Creek Fecal coliform Farm Creek Chloride Depue Lake Phosphorus, dissolved

• xygen

Senachwine Lake Phosphorus, dissolved

• xygen

TMDL Pollutants

LRS Pollutants

Water LRS Pollutants Name Illinois River Sedjment, total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen Kickapoo Creek Senachwine Creek Snag and Crow Creek Sandy Creek Big Bureau Creek West Bureau Creek Farm Creek Depue Lake Sediment, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen Senachwine Lake

TMDL Process

►Compile and evaluate water quality data ►Identify potential sources and determine if

they are contributing to impairment

►Calculate allowable load and allocate to

regulated and unregulated sources

►Make implementation recommendations

Kickapoo Creek - Bacteria

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 mL)

Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville Annual Variation (1979 – 2010) Site: DL-01

25-75th Percentile Median 10th-90th Percentile Acute Standard Geomean Standard

Illinois River – Phosphorus Contributions

Kickapoo Creek - Sediment

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville Annual Variation (1979 – 2010) Site: DL-01

25-75th Percentile Median 10th-90th Percentile Median Annual T arget

Kickapoo Creek - Sediment

1 10 100 1,000 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Upstream to Downstream (Not to Scale)

Illinois River Tributaries Longitudinal Profile

25-75th Percentile Median 10th-90th Percentile Median Annual T arget D-16 D-09 D-30 D-05 D-23 West Bureau Creek Big Bureau Creek Sandy Creek Senachwine Creek Crow Creek Farm Creek Kickapoo Creek

Source Identification

►Wastewater (facilities,

• verflows, septics)

►Industrial facilities ►Stormwater runoff (urban

and agricultural)

►Erosion (bluffs, channel,

gullies)

►Animal agriculture

(stream access, AFOs)

Source Identification

Contributing source area Duration Curve Zone High Moist Mid-range Dry Low Point source M H Livestock direct access to streams M H On-site wastewater systems M M-H H H H Riparian areas H H M Storm water: Imperviousness H H H Combined sewer overflow H H H Storm water: Upland H H M Field drainage: Natural condition H M Field drainage: Tile system H H M-H L-M Bank erosion H M Implementation Opportunities

Stormwater BMPs Bank Stabilization Erosion Control Program Riparian Buffer Protection Point Sources

Kickapoo Creek – Bacteria

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 mL) Flow Duration Interval (%)

Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville WQ Duration Curve (1979 – 2010) Site: DL-01

All Data Runoff Event May-Oct Median Acute Standard Geomean Standard Series7 Series8 Series9 Series10

High Flows Moist Conditions Dry Conditions Low Flows Mid-Range Flows

Urban and rural runoff, failing septics Point sources, cattle access

Kickapoo Creek – Sediment

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Flow Duration Interval (%)

Kickapoo Creek at Bartonville WQ Duration Curve (1979 – 2010) Site: DL-01

All Data Runoff Event Apr-Sept Median Median Annual T arget Series6 Series7 Series8 Series9

High Flows Moist Conditions Dry Conditions Low Flows Mid-Range Flows

Urban and rural runoff, bank erosion

Percent Reduction by Pollutant

Watershed Cluster Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Reduction Requirement (%) Potential Sources Illinois River Fecal Coliform 0 - 79 agricultural and urban runoff; NPDES facilities; MS4s; CSOs/SSOs; watershed, streambank and gully erosion, bluff erosion; hydromodification; tributary loads; animal agriculture; livestock Manganese 0 - 26 Total dissolved solids Total suspended solids 0 - 39 Nitrogen 9 - 68 Phosphorus 72 -89 Farm Creek Chloride 75 watershed, streambank, and gully erosion; urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; NPDES facilities; MS4s; SSOs; hydromodification; deicing agents Total suspended solids 88 Nitrogen 17 - 63 Phosphorus 21 - 73 Kickapoo Creek Fecal Coliform 97 - 100 watershed, streambank, and gully erosion; urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; animal agriculture; MS4s; NPDES facilities Total suspended solids 96 Nitrogen 20 - 65 Phosphorus 32 - 76 Senachwine Lake Phosphorus 71 - 96 Illinois River inflows; NPDES facilities; watershed runoff Total suspended solids 20

Implementation

►TMDL Implementation Plan Goals:

• Document existing implementation-related

activities

• Identify planned future activities
• Recommend additional activities to meet the

TMDL reductions ►TMDL implementation is an iterative

process that relies on adaptive management over time

►Detailed Implementation Plan will be

developed in 2012

Questions/Comments

Middle Illinois River TMDLs and Load Reduction Strategies

Jennifer Olson Tetra Tech, Inc. November 16, 2011 Princeton, Illinois

Presentation Overview

►What is a TMDL? ►TMDL Process ►TMDL Analysis and

Conclusions

►Implementation

Planning

►Questions &

Comments

What is a TMDL?

►Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are part

• f the 1972 Clean Water Act
• Goal of the Act is to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters ►Section 303(d)

• States must develop a list of waterbodies not

meeting water quality standards

• Must develop a TMDL that identifies the loads that

will allow the waterbody to attain water quality standards

What is a TMDL? (continued)

►TMDL report is prepared for USEPA review and

approval

• Report summarizes the conclusions of the analysis

and presents the allocations ►Wasteload allocations for regulated sources

• Can result in more restrictive permits

►Load allocations for unregulated sources

• Can only be implemented through voluntary actions

Project Area

►2,100 square mile

watershed

►Illinois River Bluffs

Region

►Many tributary

inputs

►Backwater lakes

Illinois River Watershed Middle Illinois River Watershed

Key Issues in the Illinois River Basin

►excessive

sedimentation

►loss of productive

backwaters, side channels and islands

►loss of floodplain,

riparian, and aquatic habitats and function

►loss of aquatic

connectivity on the Illinois River and its tributaries

►altered hydrologic

regime

►water quality and

sediment quality

►invasive species

Previous Work

►Tri-County Regional Planning

Commission

• Farm Creek + Main Stem +

Other ►IL State Water Survey –

Sediment work

►IL DNR – Big Bureau Creek +

Bluffs

►US Army Corps of Engineers

• Senachwine Creek
• IL River Basin Comprehensive

Plan

Why are TMDLs and LRSs needed for the Middle Illinois River watershed?

►Streams/River not meeting

water quality standards

• Pathogens (Fecal Coliform)
• Chloride
• Manganese
• Total Dissolved Solids
• Phosphorus (lakes)
• Sediment
• Nutrients

►Three Impaired Main

Stem Segments

►Three Impaired

Tributaries

• Big Bureau
• Kickapoo
• Farm

►Two Impaired Lakes

• Depue
• Senachwine

Impaired Water TMDL Pollutant Name Illinois River Fecal coliform Fecal coliform Fecal coliform, manganese, total dissolved solids Kickapoo Creek Fecal coliform Big Bureau Creek Fecal coliform West Bureau Creek Fecal coliform Farm Creek Chloride Depue Lake Phosphorus, dissolved

• xygen

Senachwine Lake Phosphorus, dissolved

• xygen

TMDL Pollutants

LRS Pollutants

Water LRS Pollutants Name Illinois River Sediment, total phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen Kickapoo Creek Senachwine Creek Snag and Crow Creek Sandy Creek Big Bureau Creek West Bureau Creek Farm Creek Depue Lake Sediment, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen Senachwine Lake

TMDL Process

►Compile and evaluate water quality data ►Identify potential sources and determine if

they are contributing to impairment

►Calculate allowable load and allocate to

regulated and unregulated sources

►Make implementation recommendations

Big Bureau Creek - Bacteria

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 mL)

Big Bureau Creek at Princeton Annual Variation (1979 – 2010) Site: DQ-03

25-75th Percentile Median 10th-90th Percentile Acute Standard Geomean Standard

Illinois River – Bacteria Contributions

Big Bureau Creek - Phosphorus

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

Big Bureau Creek at Princeton Annual Variation (1978 – 2010) Site: DQ-03

25-75th Percentile Median 10th-90th Percentile T arget

Big Bureau Creek - Phosphorus

0.01 0.10 1.00 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Upstream to Downstream (Not to Scale)

Illinois River Tributaries Longitudinal Profile

25-75th Percentile Median 10th-90th Percentile T arget D-16 D-09 D-30 D-05 D-23 West Bureau Creek Big Bureau Creek Sandy Creek Senachwine Creek Crow Creek Farm Creek Kickapoo Creek

Source Identification

►Wastewater (facilities,

• verflows, septics)

►Industrial facilities ►Stormwater runoff (urban

and agricultural)

►Erosion (bluffs, channel,

gullies)

►Animal agriculture

(stream access, AFOs)

Source Identification

Contributing source area Duration Curve Zone High Moist Mid-range Dry Low Point source M H Livestock direct access to streams M H On-site wastewater systems M M-H H H H Riparian areas H H M Storm water: Imperviousness H H H Combined sewer overflow H H H Storm water: Upland H H M Field drainage: Natural condition H M Field drainage: Tile system H H M-H L-M Bank erosion H M Implementation Opportunities

Stormwater BMPs Bank Stabilization Erosion Control Program Riparian Buffer Protection Point Sources

Big Bureau Creek - Bacteria

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Fecal Coliform (cfu/100 mL) Flow Duration Interval (%)

Big Bureau Creek at Princeton WQ Duration Curve (1979 – 2010) Site: DQ-03

All Data Runoff Event May-Oct Median Acute Standard Geomean Standard Series7 Series8 Series9 Series10

High Flows Moist Conditions Dry Conditions Low Flows Mid-Range Flows

Runoff, failing septics WWTPs, cattle access

Big Bureau Creek - Phosphorus

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Flow Duration Interval (%)

Big Bureau Creek at Princeton WQ Duration Curve (1978 – 2010) Site: DQ-03

All Data Runoff Event July-Dec Median T arget Series6 Series7 Series8 Series9

High Flows Moist Conditions Dry Conditions Low Flows Mid-Range Flows

Runoff Point Sources

Percent Reduction by Pollutant

Watershed Cluster Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Reduction Requirement (%) Potential Sources Illinois River Fecal Coliform 0 - 79 agricultural and urban runoff; NPDES facilities; MS4s; CSOs/SSOs; watershed, streambank and gully erosion, bluff erosion; hydromodification; tributary loads; animal agriculture; livestock Manganese 0 - 26 Total dissolved solids Total suspended solids 0 - 39 Nitrogen 9 -68 Phosphorus 72 -89 Big Bureau Creek Fecal Coliform 15 - 99 streambank, bluff, and gully erosion; urban and agricultural stormwater runoff; livestock access to waterways; animal agriculture; untreated sewage; NPDES facilities; CSOs Total suspended solids 0 - 82 Nitrogen 9 - 86 Phosphorus 8 - 97 Lake Depue Phosphorus 91 Illinois River inflows; NPDES facilities; watershed runoff Total suspended solids 20

Implementation

►TMDL Implementation Plan Goals:

• Document existing implementation-related

activities

• Identify planned future activities
• Recommend additional activities to meet the

TMDL reductions ►TMDL implementation is an iterative

process that relies on adaptive management over time

►Detailed Implementation Plan will be

developed in 2012

Questions/Comments