DOCSLIB.ORG

IL130/High Cross Road CORRIDOR PLAN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IL130/High Cross Road CORRIDOR PLAN Completed for the City of Urbana by the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission In cooperation with Illinois Department of Transportation Champaign County Highway Department Urbana Township Somer Township University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign This study was made possible by a grant from the Illinois Tomorrow Corridor Planning Grant Program Volume 1 of 2 IL130/High Cross Road CORRIDOR PLAN Prepared by the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission for the City of Urbana This study was made possible by a grant to the City of Urbana from the Illinois Tomorrow Corridor Planning Grant Program sponsored by the State of Illinois. Local funding for the study was contributed by the City of Urbana, Champaign County Regional Planning Commission, Champaign County Highway Department, Urbana Township, and Somer Township Corridor Study Steering Committee Elizabeth Tyler, City of Urbana Community Development Director William Gray, City of Urbana Public Works Director Gale Jamison, City of Urbana Assistant City Engineer Robert Myers, City of Urbana Planning Director Jeff Blue, Champaign County Highway Engineer Pamela Voitik, University of Illinois Director of Campus Services Jim Prather, Urbana Township Road Commissioner Rick Wolken, Somer Township Road Commissioner Ken Mathis, Somer Township Supervisor Dennis Markwell, Illinois Department of Transportation District 5 Engineer Sharon White, Corridor Resident Representative Corridor Study Staff John Dimit, Champaign County Regional Planning Commission CEO Rita Morocoima-Black, CCRPC/CUUATS Transportation Manager Susan Chavarria, CCRPC/CUUATS Associate Transportation Planner Eunah Kang, CCRPC/CUUATS Associate Transportation Planner Ahmed Mohideen, CCRPC/CUUATS Associate Transportation Engineer M. Sharif Ullah, CCRPC/CUUATS Associate Transportation Engineer Mary Cummings, CCRPC/CUUATS Administrative Secretary April 2007 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Study Purpose ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Study Methodology ................................................................................... 1-3 2 Planning Process ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Involve the Public ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Inventory Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Consider Existing Plans and Policies ............................................................ 2-2 2.4 Determine Issues ....................................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Develop Goals and Objectives ................................................................... 2-3 2.5.1 Objectives ................................................................................... 2-3 2.6 Forecast Population and Employment ......................................................... 2-4 2.6.1 Population Forecasts .................................................................... 2-4 2.6.2 Employment Forecasts .................................................................. 2-5 2.7 Model Existing and Future Conditions ......................................................... 2-5 2.8 Develop Alternatives for the Future ............................................................. 2-6 2.8.1 Strings & Ribbons Workshops ....................................................... 2-6 2.8.2 Processing the Strings & Ribbons Alternatives ................................. 2-6 2.8.3 Strings & Ribbons Part Two ........................................................... 2-6 2.9 Refining Options and Identifying a Preferred Alternative ................................ 2-7 2.9.1 Public Evaluation of the Preferred Alternative .................................. 2-9 2.10 Develop an Implementation Plan ............................................................ 2-11 2.11 Create Benchmarks for Implementation Success ...................................... 2-11 3 Existing Conditions 3.1 Demographics and Land Use ..................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Base Year (2000) ........................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Horizon Year 2025 ...................................................................... 3-4 3.2 Neighborhood Concerns ........................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Environmental Factors ............................................................................... 3-7 3.3.1 Topography and Geology ............................................................ 3-7 3.3.2 Soil ............................................................................................. 3-7 3.3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.4 Air Quality .................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.5 Noise ......................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.6 Water Quality ............................................................................. 3-9 3.3.7 Wildlife and Vegetation Habitat .................................................. 3-10 3.3.8 Visual Quality ............................................................................ 3-10 3.3.9 Light Pollution ........................................................................... 3-10 i Table of Contents 3.4 Transportation Network ........................................................................... 3-11 3.5 Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 3-12 3.6 Safety: Crashes ....................................................................................... 3-17 3.7 Travel Model .......................................................................................... 3-19 3.8 Origin-Destination Survey ........................................................................ 3-19 3.9 Current Transportation Plans .................................................................... 3-19 3.10 Existing Conditions Analysis .................................................................... 3-20 3.11 Demographics and Land Use ................................................................. 3-20 3.11.1 Population .............................................................................. 3-20 3.11.2 Employment ............................................................................ 3-20 3.11.3 Land Use ................................................................................ 3-20 3.12 Neighborhood Concerns ....................................................................... 3-21 3.13 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................... 3-21 3.13.1 Air Quality .............................................................................. 3-21 3.13.2 Noise ..................................................................................... 3-22 3.13.3 Wildlife and Vegetation Habitat ................................................ 3-22 3.14 Transportation Analysis .......................................................................... 3-23 3.14.1 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................... 3-23 3.14.2 Safety: Crash Locations ............................................................ 3-23 3.14.2.1 Intersections ............................................................... 3-27 3.14.2.2 Segments................................................................... 3-27 3.14.3 Capacity and Level of Service Analysis ....................................... 3-28 3.14.3.1 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...................................... 3-28 3.14.3.2 Segment Capacity Analysis .......................................... 3-31 3.14.4 Access Management ................................................................ 3-33 3.14.5 Transit .................................................................................... 3-36 3.14.6 Bikes and Pedestrians ............................................................... 3-36 3.14.7 Travel Model ........................................................................... 3-36 3.14.8 Origin and Destination Survey .................................................. 3-40 4 Future Conditions................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 The Preferred Alternative ............................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Preferred Alternative vs. No Build Alternative ............................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Transportation ............................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1.1 Mobility ......................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1.2 Safety ............................................................................ 4-3 4.2.2 Environment ................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.2.1 Air Quality ..................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2.2 Noise ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DRAFT TMDL Salt Fork Vermilion River Watershed
    DRAFT TMDL Salt Fork Vermilion River Watershed Prepared for: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency July 2007 Spoon Branch (IL_BPJD-02): Dissolved oxygen Salt Fork Vermilion River (IL_BPJ-10): Nitrate, pH Salt Fork Vermilion River (IL_BPJ-08): Nitrate, pH Salt Fork Vermilion River (IL_BPJ-03): Nitrate, fecal coliform bacteria Ann Arbor, Michigan www.limno.com This page is blank to facilitate double sided printing. Draft TMDL July 2007 Salt Fork Vermilion River Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 1. Problem Identification .....................................................................................................3 2. Required TMDL Elements...............................................................................................5 3. Watershed Characterization...........................................................................................19 4. Description of Applicable Standards and Numeric Targets ..........................................25 4.1 Designated Uses and Use Support .........................................................................25 4.2 Water Quality Criteria............................................................................................25 4.3 Development of TMDL Targets ............................................................................26 5. Development of water quality modelS ..........................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Lakes in the Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed
    29. Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed N Good BPKS Fair Poor Watershed Boundary County Boundaries Reference Communities VERMILION BPG BPKQ BPGD BPKP BPGE FORD BPKK CHAMPAIGN BPKI BPKL BPGC BPJI BPK BPJG BPGB STREAM CODES BPKF BPK BO Little Vermilion River BPJD BOB Yankee Branch BPKE BPKB BPF BOC Fairview Ditch BPJM BOD Fayette Creek BPJC BPJL BPG BOE Swank Creek BOG Archie Creek BOH Baum Branch BPK BOI Freedwell Branch BPJB BOJ Goodall Branch BP BOZ Ellis Branch BPJN BP Vermilion River BPJCA BPF BPE Grape Creek BPI Stoney Creek BPF BP BPG North Fork Vermilion River BPJ BPE BPGB Painter Creek BPJA BOD Jordan Creek BPGC BPJF BPGD Hoopeston Branch BOZ PBGE Middle Branch BPI Butler Branch BO BOE BOC BPJ Salt Fork Vermilion River BOI BO BPJA Jordan Creek Stony Creek BPJB BOH BPJC Saline Branch BOJ BPJCA Boneyard Creek BOB BPJD Spoon Branch BPJF Olive Branch BOG BPJG Upper Salt Fork Drainage Ditch BPJI Flatville Branch Water Quality Comparison BPJL Feather Creek BPJM Union Drainage Ditch 59.3% 5 0 5 10 Miles BPJN Conkey Branch 88.1% 1.3% 0.8% BPK Middle Fork Vermilion River 10.6% BPKB Windfall Creek 39.9% BPKE Collison Branch BPKF Knights Branch BPKI Bluegrass Creek Basin 29 Statewide BPKK Sugar Creek PBKL Prairie Creek BPKP Big Four Ditch BPKQ Big Four Ditch Tributary Illinois Environmental Protection Agency BPKS Wall Town Ditch Bureau of Water Surface Water Section 29. Vermilion (Wabash) River Watershed LAKE CODES N CLEAR (VERMILION) RBR CRYSTAL (CHAMPAIGN) RBU GEORGETOWN RBS HOMER RBO LONG (VERMILION) RBM MINGO RBN VERMILION RBD WILLOW CREEK RBY FORD VERMILION CHAMPAIGN # RBN RBD# RBR# # # RBM RBU RBO# # RBY # RBS 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles # Good Water Quality Comparison # Fair # Poor 9.4% 15.9% Watershed Boundary 90.6% 74.2% 9.9% County Boundaries Rivers and Streams Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Reference Communities Bureau of Water Surface Water Section Basin 29 Statewide.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Flood Insurance Study
    CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER * ALLERTON, VILLAGE OF 170660 BONDVILLE, VILLAGE OF 170909 BROADLANDS, VILLAGE OF 170025 CHAMPAIGN, CITY OF 170026 CHAMPAIGN COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 170894 FISHER, VILLAGE OF 170027 * FOOSLAND, VILLAGE OF 170028 * GIFFORD, VILLAGE OF 170921 * HOMER, VILLAGE OF 170854 IVESDALE, VILLAGE OF 170907 * LONGVIEW, VILLAGE OF 170918 * LUDLOW, VILLAGE OF 170979 Champaign MAHOMET, VILLAGE OF 170029 * OGDEN, VILLAGE OF 170030 County * PESOTUM, VILLAGE OF 170980 * PHILO, VILLAGE OF 170981 RANTOUL, VILLAGE OF 170031 ROYAL, VILLAGE OF 170982 SADORUS, VILLAGE OF 170855 * SAVOY, VILLAGE OF 170983 SIDNEY, VILLAGE OF 170033 ST. JOSEPH, VILLAGE OF 170032 * THOMASBORO, VILLAGE OF 170034 * TOLONO, VILLAGE OF 170984 URBANA, CITY OF 170035 * NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS IDENTIFIED PRELIMINARY JUNE 27, 2012 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 17019CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. It is advisable to contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections).
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Restoration Notice for Saline Branch and Forest Glen Restoration Assistance As Part of Hegeler Zinc--Lyondell Basell
    DRAFT Restoration Notice for Saline Branch and Forest Glen Restoration Assistance Vermilion River Watershed, Illinois As part of Hegeler Zinc--Lyondell Basell Companies NRDA Settlement August, 2016 Prepared by IDNR, Contaminant Assessment Section Staff Preface Releases of hazardous substances and oil into our environment can pose a threat to human health and natural resources. Natural resources are plants, animals, land, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other similar resources. When the public’s natural resources are injured by an unpermitted release of hazardous substances or oil, federal law provides a mechanism, Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) that authorizes Natural Resource Trustees to seek compensation for the public for injuries to natural resources. Illinois’ Natural Resource Trustees include Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The Illinois Natural Resources Coordinating Council oversees restoration efforts and includes the Trustees and their legal representative, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office (IAGO). This plan was developed by IDNR Contaminant Assessment Section (CAS) Staff who administer the NRDA program for Illinois. This Restoration Notice describes for the general public and interested parties the terms of the settlement and the State Trustees approach to restoration with focus on the Trustees’ support and assistance with two restoration efforts in the watershed. Introduction In 2009, Millennium Petrochemicals1 filed bankruptcy.
    [Show full text]
  • Plan Appendices
    Region 5 Regional Contingency Plan / Inland Zone Area Contingency Plan Appendix I: RRT Roster www.rrt5.org/RRT/Roster.aspx Revised November 2020 Page 79 Final Region 5 Regional Contingency Plan / Area Contingency Plan Appendix I: RRT Contacts REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAM 5 Fed Mem Primary Alternate Agency EPA Jason El-Zein Sam Borries US Environmental Protection Agency US Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response Branch #1 Emergency Response Branch #2 Ann Arbor, MI Chicago IL Office Phone: 734-214-4900 Office Phone: 312-353-8360 Hotline Phone (24hr): 312-353-2318 Hotline Phone (24hr): 312-353-2318 [email protected] [email protected] USCG Jerry Popiel TJ Mangoni Department of Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security US Coast Guard Ninth District US Coast Guard Ninth District Cleveland, OH Cleveland, OH Office Phone 216-902-6112 Office Phone 216-902-6118 Hotline Phone (24 hr) 1-800-321-4400 Hotline Phone (24 hr) 1-800-321-4400 [email protected] [email protected] NOAA LT Rachel Pryor, NOAA Adam Davis Scientific Support Coordinator NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator for USCG USCG D9 - Great Lakes District 8 1240 East Ninth Street, Suite 339 Emergency Response Division (ERD)/ Office of Cleveland, OH 44199 Response and Restoration (OR&R) Cell: 202-557-6801(primary telephone NOAA Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response number) Center Office: 216-522-7760 7344 Zeigler Blvd., Mobile, AL 36608 Spill Emergency 24/7: 206-526-4911 Office: 251.544.5012 [email protected] Cellular: 206.549.7759 [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Table 1. Waters and Impairments Approved on Illinois' 2018 303(D)
    Table 1 Waters and Impairments Approved on Illinois 1 of 133 of Illinois 2018 Decison Document 2018 303(d) List Title Corrected 3/24/2021 CWA303D ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT WATER PARAMETER WATER TYPE NAME UNITS PARAMETER NAME USE PRIORITY UNIT ID UNIT NAME SIZE ATTAINMENT RANKING GREAT LAKES BAYS Square POLYCHLORINATED Not meeting IL_3S Calumet Harbor 2.4 Fish Consumption Low AND HARBORS Miles BIPHENYLS (PCBS) criteria GREAT LAKES BAYS Square Not meeting IL_3S Calumet Harbor 2.4 MERCURY Fish Consumption Low AND HARBORS Miles criteria Primary Contact Not meeting IL_A-848-849 Ohio River STREAM 1.11 Miles FECAL COLIFORM Medium Recreation criteria Not meeting IL_A-848-849 Ohio River STREAM 1.11 Miles MERCURY Fish Consumption Medium threshold POLYCHLORINATED Not meeting IL_A-848-849 Ohio River STREAM 1.11 Miles Fish Consumption Medium BIPHENYLS (PCBS) threshold DIOXIN (INCLUDING 2,3,7,8- Not meeting IL_A-848-849 Ohio River STREAM 1.11 Miles Fish Consumption Medium TCDD) threshold POLYCHLORINATED Not meeting IL_A-849-862 Ohio River STREAM 12.68 Miles Fish Consumption Medium BIPHENYLS (PCBS) threshold Not meeting IL_A-849-862 Ohio River STREAM 12.68 Miles MERCURY Fish Consumption Medium threshold Primary Contact Not meeting IL_A-849-862 Ohio River STREAM 12.68 Miles FECAL COLIFORM Medium Recreation criteria DIOXIN (INCLUDING 2,3,7,8- Not meeting IL_A-849-862 Ohio River STREAM 12.68 Miles Fish Consumption Medium TCDD) threshold POLYCHLORINATED Not meeting IL_A-862-873 Ohio River STREAM 11.24 Miles Fish Consumption Medium BIPHENYLS (PCBS) threshold
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Riparian Habitat for Wildlife in the Vermilion Basin: An
    ILLINOI S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. Page 1 missing from the bound original ILENR/RE --- Printed: ---- 1990 Contract SENR-EH14 Project -- QUANTIFYING RIPARIAN HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE IN THE VERMILION BASIN: AN EVALUATION OF THE ILLINOIS STREAM INFORMATION SYSTEM AND OTHER GEOGRAPHIC DATA FOR STATEWIDE CLASSIFICATION OF RIPARIAN HABITAT Center for Biodiversity Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report 1991(2) Team of Investigators: Louis R. Iverson, Lewis L. Osborne, Mark G. Joselyn, Sharon E. Baum, Elizabeth A. Cook, and Diane L. Szafoni Illinois Natural History Survey 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, IL 61820 Prepared for Ram Reddy, Project Manager Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Energy and Environmental Affairs Division 325 West Adams, Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Jim Edgar, Governor John S. Moore, Director State of Illinois Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources NOTE This report has been reviewed by the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) and approved for publication. Statements made by the author may or may not represent the views of the Department. Additional copies of this report are available through ENR Clearinghouse at 800/252-8955 (within Illinois) or 217/785-2800 (outside Illinois). Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois. Date Printed: 1991 Quantity Printed: Referenced Printing Order: One of a series of research publications published since 1975. This series includes the following categories and are color coded as follows: Energy Resources - RE-ER - Red Water Resources - RE-WR Blue Air Quality - RE-AQ Green Environmental Health - RE-EH - Grey Economic Analysis - RE-EA - Brown Information Services RE-IS - Yellow Insect Pests - RE-IP - Purple Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Energy and Environmental Affairs Division 325 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio-River-Fact-Book-1994-Smaller-File
    9=0 Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Conunisslon MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION* ILLINOIS Richard S. Engelbrecht, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois Mary A. Gade, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Phillip C. Morgan, Director, Danville Sanitary District INDIANA Joseph H. Harrison, Sr., Attorney, Bowers, Harrison, Kent & Miller Albert R. Kendrick, Jr. Kathy Prosser, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Management KENTUCKY Gordon R. Garner, Executive Director, Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Ed Logsdon, Commissioner, Department of Agriculture Phillip J. Shepherd, Secretary, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet NEW YORK Douglas E. Conroe, Director of Operations, Chautauqua Institution Thomas A. Erlandson, Ph.D., Professor of Biology & Geology. Jamestown Community College Langdon Marsh, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation OHIO Lloyd N. Clausing Richard Miller Donald R. Schregardus, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency PENNSYLVANIA Arthur A. Davis, Secretary, Department of Environmental Resources Melvin E. Hook, R&D Engineering P.C. William M. Kudaroski, PA-American Water Company VIRGINIA Henry 0. Holliman, Ph.D. Delores Z. Pretlow, Ph.D. W. Bidgood Wall, State Water Control Board WEST VIRGINIA Edgar N. Henry David C. Callaghan, Director, Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources Ronald R. Potesta, Terradon Corporation UNITED STATES Valdas V. Adarnkus, Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report: Existing Conditions
    Environmental Report: Existing Conditions 1 Introduction This report describes the existing natural and human environmental conditions in the IL130/High Cross Road study area. Land uses, transportation facilities, air quality, water quality, wetlands, wild life and vegetation habitat, noise, visual quality and light pollution were all considered for the report. Data and information collected for existing environmental conditions will be used in estimating and analyzing future conditions such as the corridor improvement projects that could affect environmental conditions in the area. 1.1 Study Area Description The IL130/High Cross Road corridor extends eight miles between Ford Harris Road to the north and Old Church Road to the south. Interstate 74 essentially serves as a divider between the wooded and rural residential areas to the north and the urban and agricultural areas to the south. IL130/High Cross Road is the easternmost transportation artery of Urbana’s recent growing corridors. To the south of US150, the IL130 corridor includes land uses such as residential, retail, office/industrial park, commercial and agricultural areas. High Cross Road extends north from US150 and serves as a connector road between agricultural and rural residential areas located north of Interstate 74 and the City of Urbana and surrounding rural areas. The study area includes some areas of wildlife habitat such as the Saline Branch of Salt Fork River, the University’s Brownfield Woods, Trelease Woods, and Trelease Prairie. All of these natural areas are located in the northern part of the corridor whereas the south part of the study area is a typical agricultural landscape with a commercial-light industrial area around the intersection of IL130 and US150.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Nutrient and Soil Loss in Illinois Rivers, 1978–2017
    Trends in Nutrient and Soil Loss in Illinois Rivers, 1978–2017 Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5041 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photo. Winter sunrise over the Embarras River (03344000) near Fox Ridge State Park, Illinois (Photograph by Rebecca Meerdink). Trends in Nutrient and Soil Loss in Illinois Rivers, 1978–2017 By Timothy O. Hodson and Paul J. Terrio Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5041 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Hodson, T.O., and Terrio, P.J., 2020, Trends in nutrient and soil loss in Illinois rivers, 1978–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5041, 26 p., https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ sir20205041. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii Acknowledgments This report would not have been possible without the committed efforts of the personnel at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Chlorophyll-Aas a Criterion for Establishing Nutrient
    TECHNICAL REPORTS: SURFACE WATER QUALITY Assessment of Chlorophyll-a as a Criterion for Establishing Nutrient Standards in the Streams and Rivers of Illinois Todd V. Royer* Indiana University Mark B. David, Lowell E. Gentry, Corey A. Mitchell, and Karen M. Starks University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Thomas Heatherly II and Matt R. Whiles Southern Illinois University Nutrient enrichment is a frequently cited cause for biotic he Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify impairment of streams and rivers in the USA. Eff orts are Timpaired water bodies and develop plans to reduce underway to develop nutrient standards in many states, but impairment. Nutrient enrichment, mainly with nitrogen (N) defensible nutrient standards require an empirical relationship between nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P) concentrations and and phosphorus (P), is a frequently cited cause of impairment for some criterion that relates nutrient levels to the attainment streams and rivers (USEPA, 2000a). Nutrient loading can degrade of designated uses. Algal biomass, measured as chlorophyll-a the ecological integrity of streams and create human health (chl-a), is a commonly proposed criterion, yet nutrient–chl-a concerns. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency relationships have not been well documented in Illinois at a (USEPA) has set a drinking water standard of 10 mg NO –N L−1 state-wide scale. We used state-wide surveys of >100 stream 3 and river sites to assess the applicability of chl-a as a criterion to prevent methemoglobenemia. No drinking water standard for establishing nutrient standards for Illinois. Among all sites, exists for P; however, P enrichment can aff ect drinking water the median total P and total N concentrations were 0.185 and supplies by stimulating blooms of toxin-producing organisms, 5.6 mg L−1, respectively, during high-discharge conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • 7-Day 10-Year Low Flows of Streams in the Kankakee, Sangamon, Embarras, Little Wabash, and Southern Regions
    Illinois State Water Survey Division SURFACE WATER SECTION SWS Contract Report 441 7-DAY 10-YEAR LOW FLOWS OF STREAMS IN THE KANKAKEE, SANGAMON, EMBARRAS, LITTLE WABASH, AND SOUTHERN REGIONS by Krisban P. Singb, Ganapatbi S. Ramamurthy, and Il Won Seo Prepared for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Champaign, Illinois February 1988 Illinois State Water Survey 2204 Griffith Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Acknowledgments 4 Methodology 4 Flows at Stream Gaging Stations 4 Flows along the Streams 5 Low How vs Area Curves 5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluents 5 Water Withdrawals for Municipal and Industrial Uses 6 Timing of Low Flows in Two Major Branches. .6 Modification of Low Flows because of Lakes and Pools . .6 Flow Regulation for Navigation 6 Ground-Water Accretion to Low Flow 6 Flow Data from Gaging Stations in Adjoining States 7 Omer Considerations 7 Map 3. Kankakee Region 8 07,10 at Gaging Stations 9 Wastewater Plants and Effluents 9 Illinois River 9 Changes in Q7,10: An Example 10 Map 5. Sangamon Region 16 Q7,10 at Gaging Stations 16 Wastewater Plants and Effluents 16 Lake Springfield 16 Lake Decatur 17 Clinton Lake 17 Map 8. Embarras Region 21 Q7,10 at Gaging Stations 21 Wastewater Plants and Effluents 21 Wabash River 22 Lake Vermilion 22 Map9. Little Wabash Region 26 Q7,10 at Gaging Stations 26 Wastewater Plants and Effluents 26 Map 10. Southern Region 29 07,10 at Gaging Stations 29 Wastewater Plants and Effluents 30 Rend Lake 30 Crab Orchard Lake 30 Lake Egypt 30 Map 11.
    [Show full text]