DOCSLIB.ORG

Little Wabash River I Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little Wabash River I Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan Little Wabash River I Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT REPORT April 14, 2008 Submitted to: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 N. Grand Avenue East Springfield, IL 62702 Submitted by: Tetra Tech Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Little Wabash River I Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................iv List of Figures..............................................................................................................................................v Key Findings..............................................................................................................................................vii 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Description of Waterbody and Watershed Characteristics .......................................................5 3.0 Water Quality Data, Impairments, and TMDL Allocations....................................................11 3.1 Total Phosphorus.......................................................................................................................11 3.1.1 Water Quality Standards .......................................................................................................11 3.1.2 Impairments in the Little Wabash River I Watershed...........................................................11 3.1.3 TMDL Allocations................................................................................................................12 3.2 Dissolved Oxygen .....................................................................................................................15 3.2.1 Water Quality Standards .......................................................................................................15 3.2.2 Impairments in the Little Wabash River I Watershed...........................................................15 3.2.3 TMDL Allocations................................................................................................................15 3.3 pH ..............................................................................................................................................17 3.3.1 Water Quality Standards .......................................................................................................17 3.3.2 Impairments in the Little Wabash River I Watershed...........................................................17 3.3.3 TMDL Allocations................................................................................................................17 3.4 Manganese.................................................................................................................................19 3.4.1 Water Quality Standards .......................................................................................................19 3.4.2 Impairments in the Little Wabash River I Watershed...........................................................19 3.4.3 TMDL Allocations................................................................................................................21 3.5 Atrazine .....................................................................................................................................21 3.5.1 Water Quality Standards .......................................................................................................21 3.5.2 Impairments in the Little Wabash River I Watershed...........................................................22 3.5.3 TMDL Allocations................................................................................................................22 3.6 Fecal Coliform...........................................................................................................................22 3.6.1 Water Quality Standards .......................................................................................................24 3.6.2 Impairments in the Little Wabash River I Watershed...........................................................24 3.6.3 TMDL Allocations................................................................................................................24 4.0 Pollutant Sources In the Little Wabash River I Watershed ....................................................27 4.1 Point Source Dischargers...........................................................................................................27 4.1.1 Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................28 4.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................................28 4.1.3 Fecal Coliform ......................................................................................................................29 4.2 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems .....................................................................................29 4.2.1 Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................29 4.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................................31 4.2.3 Fecal Coliform ......................................................................................................................32 4.3 Crop Production.........................................................................................................................33 4.3.1 Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................33 4.3.2 Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................................33 4.3.3 Manganese.............................................................................................................................33 4.3.4 Atrazine.................................................................................................................................33 4.4 Animal Operations.....................................................................................................................34 4.4.1 Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................35 4.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen .................................................................................................................36 4.4.3 Fecal Coliform ......................................................................................................................37 4.5 Streambank and Lake Shore Erosion.........................................................................................37 Public Review Draft i Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Little Wabash River I Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan 4.6 Internal Loading from Lake and River Bottom Sediments........................................................38 4.6.1 Phosphorus ............................................................................................................................40 4.6.2 Manganese.............................................................................................................................40 4.7 Historic and Active Oil Mining Operations...............................................................................41 4.8 Domestic Pets and Wildlife Populations ...................................................................................41 5.0 Best Management Practices ........................................................................................................43 5.1 Disinfection of Primary Effluent from Sewage Treatment Plants.............................................43 5.1.1 Effectiveness .........................................................................................................................45 5.1.2 Costs......................................................................................................................................45 5.2 Control of Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) .......................................................................46 5.2.1 Effectiveness .........................................................................................................................49 5.2.2 Costs......................................................................................................................................49 5.3 Proper Maintenance of Onsite Systems.....................................................................................49 5.3.1 Effectiveness .........................................................................................................................51 5.3.2 Costs......................................................................................................................................51 5.4 Nutrient Management Plans ......................................................................................................52 5.4.1 Effectiveness .........................................................................................................................55 5.4.2 Costs......................................................................................................................................55
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Illinois' River Otter Recovery Program Began in 1994, When Fifty Wild River
    River Otter Recovery Update Furbearer Program Management Note 97-1 Prepared by Bob Bluets, Division of Wildlife Resources, 5/97 Illinois' river otter recovery program began dogs (1). Cause of death was unknown for in 1994, when fifty wild river otters were six otters, but we suspected stress associated purchased from a supplier in Louisiana by with transport and handling because the the State of Kentucky and traded to Illinois otters were recovered shortly after and in the in exchange for seventy-five wild turkeys. immediate vicinity of releases . Four more A total of 346 river otters have been mortalities caused by drowning in hoop nets released since that time (Table 1) . were reported second-hand but unconfirmed . One hundred and fifty otters were obtained Most losses occurred within three months through turkey trades with Kentucky ; 196 after release, and were distributed among 12 were purchased directly through the Wildlife of 15 release sites (Newton Lake (4); Preservation Fund, Furbearer Fund, Illinois Golden Gate (2) (not including 3 suspected Conservation Foundation and DNR-Wildlife losses); Fox Ridge (3); Skillet Fork (3); Resources operational funds (Fig . 1). North Fork Embarras (2) ; Vermilion River (1); Lake Shelbyville (1) ; Carlyle Lake (1); Shoal Creek (1); Spoon River (2) ; Mackinaw River (3) ; Quiver Creek (1) ; Turk" Tradee 4&8%1 Sanganois (1 suspected)) : Recoveries probably underestimate actual mortality. Post-release radiotelemetry studies at two sites in Missouri yielded first year mortality rates of 12 .5% and 22.8% . Researchers in Indiana found an observed mortality rate of 11% (primarily from recoveries) and an actual mortality rate of 29% (from radiotelemetry) during the first year after a release at Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • Technicalreport
    T E C H N I C A L R E P O R T FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: UNIONOIDEA) OF THE LITTLE WABASH RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, WITH COMMENTS ON HISTORICAL CHANGES IN THE MAINSTEM DURING THE PAST HALF-CENTURY Jeremy S. Tiemann, Kevin S. Cummings, Christine A. Mayer, and Christopher A. Phillips Illinois Natural History Survey Division of Biodiversity and Ecological Entomology Section for Biotic Surveys and Monitoring Prepared for: the Upper Little Wabash River C-2000 Partnership INHS Technical Report 2008(4) Date of issue: 15 January 2008 INHS 1816 S. Oak St. Champaign, IL 61820 http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA.....................................................................3 METHODS.....................................................................................................4 STATISTICAL ANALYSES..............................................................................5 RESULTS/DISCUSSION FRESHWATER MUSSELS OF THE LITTLE WABASH RIVER BASIN.......................... 6 HISTORICAL CHANGES IN THE LITTLE WABASH RIVER MAINSTEM DURING THE PAST 50 YEARS .................................................................... 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................10 LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Habitat and Otter Population Status Alan Woolf Southern Illinois University Carbondale
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Final Reports Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory 7-1997 Survey of Habitat and Otter Population Status Alan Woolf Southern Illinois University Carbondale Richard S. Halbrook Southern Illinois University Carbondale D. Todd Farrand Southern Illinois University Carbondale Chad Schieler Southern Illinois University Carbondale Ted Weber Southern Illinois University Carbondale Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cwrl_fr W-122-R-3. Recommended Citation Woolf, Alan; Halbrook, Richard S.; Farrand, D. Todd; Schieler, Chad; and Weber, Ted, "Survey of Habitat and Otter Population Status" (1997). Final Reports. Paper 7. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cwrl_fr/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Final Reports by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY OF HABITAT AND OTTER POPULATION STATUS FINAL REPORT Federal Aid Project W-122-R-3 Submitted by: Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, SIUC Presented to: Division of Wildlife Resources Illinois Department of Natural Resources Principal Investigators Alan Woolf Richard S. Halbrook Graduate Research Assistants/Staff D. Todd Farrand (Graduate Assistant) Chad Schieler (Graduate Assistant) Ted Weber (Researcher II) July 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. iii LIST OF FIGURES.. v LIST OF APPENDICES. vii NEED. 1 OBJECTIVES. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.. 10 JOB 1.1. OTTER HABITAT CRITERIA AND MONITORING.. 11 OBJECTIVES.. 11 INTRODUCTION.. 11 METHODS. 12 Habitat Characterization. 12 Otter Monitoring. 23 RESULTS. 24 Habitat Characterization. 24 Otter Monitoring. 25 DISCUSSION.
    [Show full text]
  • 1996 Illinois Fishing Guid
    ILLINOIS ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SPORT FISHING IN ILLINOIS The purpose of this guide is to help the Illinois has over 1.6 million acres of surface angler realize more fully the opportunities waters. Nearly two-thirds of this acreage is con- available for sport fishing in Illinois. All of the tained in the Illinois portion of Lake Michigan Department of Natural Resources fishing areas (976,640 acres). Approximately 26,440 miles of are included, together with a complete directory rivers and streams (325,000 acres) are found of streams and lakes in every county where sport throughout the state. These streams are fishing may be enjoyed. classified by width categories as follows: In order to acquaint everyone with the most 5-30 feet wide 20,000 miles 43,200 acres, important fish to be found in Illinois waters, 31-100 feet wide 3,900 miles 26,200 acres. thirty-one illustrations are presented with detailed 101-300 feet wide 1,030 miles 18,000 acres descriptions to aid in identification of the species 301 plus feet wide 1,513 miles 237,600 acres to be encountered. The three largest man-made lakes in Illinois Daily catch records obtained from census of were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of angler success also reveal that nearly 90 percent Engineers. These reservoirs total 54,580 acres and of those who fish either catch only a few fish or are composed of: no fish at all. This lack of success is caused by a Carlyle Lake 24,580 acres lack of "know how" among fishermen — either m Lake Shelbyville 11,100 acres selecting the spots to fish, or in methods of luring Rend Lake 18,900 acres the fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Figure 31. Little and Lower Wabash/Skillet Fork River
    Figure 31. Little and Lower Wabash/Skillet Fork River Watershed MOULTRIE Charleston Mattoon 303d Listed Waters (2002) RCG WSID WBSEG NAME # COLES ILB07 B 01 Wabash River B 03 Wabash RIver CP-EF-C2 CUMBERLAND BZE Wabash Levee Ditch CP-EE-C4 # CP-TU-C3 RCF RBZH Beall Woods CPC-TU-C1 CSB08 ILBC02 BC 02 Bonpas Creek CSB07 RBQ West Salem New SHELBY RBZN West Salem Old CPD04 ILC08 C 33 Little Wabash River EFFINGHAM CPD03 CDG-FL-A1 CC-FF-C3 Pond Creek RCE CPD01 CDG-FL-C1 CC-FF-D1 Pond Creek # Montrose CDG-FL-C4 CCA-FF-A1 Johnson Creek Altamont CDG-FL-C6 CCA-FF-C1 Johnson Creek COC10 RCZJ Fairfield COC09 RCJ ILC09 C 09 Little Wabash River # ILC19 C 19 Little Wabash River CJA02 ILC21 RCJ Altamont New RCR ILC22 C 22 Little Wabash River CH03 ILC23 C 23 Little Wabash River CM02 ILC24 RCG Paradise (Coles) # JASPER ILCA03 CA 02 Skillet Fork CA 03 Skillet Fork FAYETTE CA 05 Skillet Fork C19 RCC RICHLAND ILCA06 CA 06 Skillet Fork MARION RCB LAWRENCE CA09 CJAE01 # CA 07 Skillet Fork Kinmundy RCD ## CHEA11 CA 08 Skillet Fork CDF02 CLAY RCA CA 09 Skillet Fork # Claremont ILCAG01 CAGC 01 Auxier Ditch CAW04 ILCAN01 CAN 01 Horse Creek CAR01 ILCAR01 CAR 01 Brush Creek C22 CH02 RBF Sam Dale CA08 ILCAW01 CAW 04 Dums Creek RBQ St. ILCD01 CD 01 Elm River RBZN ILCDF02 CDF 02 Racoon Creek # # Francisville CA06 CD01 ILCDG01 CDG-FL-A1 Seminary Creek Kell RBF B01 CDG-FL-C1 Seminary Creek C09 CDG-FL-C4 Seminary Creek CAN01 CA07 Mount CDG-FL-C6 Seminary Creek BC02 Carmel ILCH01 CH 02 Fox River RCZJ CH 03 Fox River # RCA Vernor CA05 # RBZH RCB Borah (Olney New) C33 WABASH
    [Show full text]
  • Little Wabash River I Watershed Tmdl Report
    Illinois Bureau of Water Environmental P.O. Box 19276 Protection Agency Springfield, IL 62794-9276 June 2008 IEPA/BOW/08-014 LITTLE WABASH RIVER I WATERSHED TMDL REPORT Printed on Recycled Paper TMDL Development for the Little Wabash River I Watershed, Illinois This file contains the following documents: 1) U.S. EPA Approval letter for Stage Three TMDL Report 2) Stage One Report: Watershed Characterization and Water Quality Analysis 3) Stage Two Report: Data Report 4) Stage Three Report: TMDL Development 5) Implementation Plan Report Final Stage 1 Progress Report Prepared for Illinois Environmental Protection Agency September 2006 Little Wabash Watershed Little Wabash River (C19, C21), Paradise Lake (RCG), Lake Mattoon (RCF), First Salt Creek (CPC-TU-C1), Second Salt Creek (CPD 01, CPD 03, CPD 04), Salt Creek (CP-EF-C2, CP-TU-C3), Lake Sara (RCE), East Branch Green Creek (CSB 07, CSB 08) and Dieterich Creek (COC 10) Limno-Tech, Inc. www.limno.com Little Wabash Watershed September 2006 Final Stage 1 Report Table of Contents First Quarterly Progress Report (April 2006) Second Quarterly Progress Report (May 2006) Third Quarterly Progress Report (June 2006) Fourth Quarterly Progress Report (September 2006) Limno-Tech, Inc. i First Quarterly Progress Report Prepared for Illinois Environmental Protection Agency April 2006 Little Wabash Watershed Little Wabash River (C19, C21), Lake Paradise (RCG), Lake Mattoon (RCF), First Salt Creek (CPC-TU-C1), Second Salt Creek (CPD 01, CPD 03, CPD 04), Salt Creek (CP-EF-C2, CP-TU-C3), Lake Sara (RCE), East Branch Green Creek (CSB 07, CSB 08), Dieterich Creek (COC 10), and Clay City Side Channel Reservoir (RCU) Limno-Tech, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding in Illinois, April-June 2002
    USGS science fora changing world Flooding in Illinois, April-June 2002 Open-File Report 02-487 U.S. Department of the interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Flooding in Illinois, April-June 2002 By Charles Avery and Daniel F. Smith Open-File Report 02-487 Urbana, Illinois 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 221 N. Broadway Avenue Box 25286 UrbanaJL 61801 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction......................................................................................._^ 1 Purpose and scope....................................................................................................................................... 2 Flood damage assessments.......................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................... 2 Meteorological conditions and rainfall distribution............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy
    Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy: What Does It Mean For Illinois Ag? Lauren Lurkins Director of Natural and Environmental Resources Illinois Farm Bureau WHY IS THE STRATEGY NEEDED? • Gulf Hypoxia Task Force • USEPA Guidance Memo in March 2011 . Purpose: Encourage states to develop nutrient reduction strategies while continuing to develop numeric nutrient standards. Lays out 8 elements of a framework • Federal litigation in Louisiana STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Stakeholders met August 2013 – May 2014: . Illinois Department of Agriculture, Illinois EPA . University of Illinois Science Team . Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Pork Producers Association, Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association, Illinois Corn Growers Association, GROWMARK, Inc. Association of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts . University of Illinois Extension . NRCS . Sanitary Districts/Wastewater Treatment Plants . Prairie Rivers Network, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Sierra Club . Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group STRATEGY IS FINAL…NOW GET TO WORK! • NLRS was finalized and released in July 2015. • Now work continuing to IMPLEMENT the NLRS. SCIENCE ASSESSMENT • February 2013 – Illinois EPA partnered with University of Illinois to develop the Science Assessment: . Current conditions in Illinois of nutrient sources and export by rivers in the state from point and non-point sources . Methods that could be used to reduce these losses and estimates of their effectiveness throughout Illinois . Estimates of the costs of statewide and watershed level application of these methods to reduce nutrient losses to meet TMDL and Gulf of Mexico goals • 8 major river systems used in estimating nutrient loads • Gaging stations are upriver from the state boundary, so the estimated area is smaller • Rock River - Joslin • Green River - Geneseo • Illinois River – Valley City • Kaskaskia River – Venedy Stn.
    [Show full text]
  • LI'l' TLE .~AB Srl =Tl'lr.::R Illil
    LI'l' TLE .~AB Srl =tl'lr.::R ILLil. IS UNITED ST ATES DEPART:MENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION Region 4 FOR 06VEliNMENT USE ONLY September 13, 1963 Memorandum Tot The Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Fromt Lake Central Study Team Subject: Little Wabash River, Illinois The Little Wabash River in the State of Illinois does not meet. tht five criteria established for inclusion within the proposed nation• wide system of wild rivers. The river does not possess outstanding recreational qualiti,;:i~~~-a national standpoint. Oil and salt water pollution are ~i-f!l haBM-Mr. Due to the erosive qualities of the uplands, the stream is very muddy and sluggish. Root wads and trash jams are common. In all, the stream does not present a pleasant appearance. Lake Central Study Team FOR GOVERNMENT USE ONLY Wild Rivers Study For The LITTLE WABASH RIVER in Illinois September 1963 Lake Central Study Team William M. Byers, Jr. Donald M. Spalding u. s. Forest Service National Park Service John H. Eichstedt Robert A. Uppgren Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Bureau of Sport Fisheries LITfLE WABASH RIVER .,. ....,_ .. ,,_,¥... ... : v ..... i '· .. ·~r,,,· ... o....:.....!-.t'-· ;f ~Findlay '"I ~· Y,.iJ."-.. •' 'nee W1\n1JI P1a111• :; Melrose , , Ha1el O!!ll I Mo111h " Ora nae _w~t Umon) ii"" York,.... "·"' --- ~ -- W6i'Y~r~ I 1 Annapohs 1 · - Wn~hls H1dalgo l Corne1 ns~y ! Bellair Co~ \\'11\1 ) ~ t; I I Rose Hi ll ~ l "- b lon Prul'-11 Trim bit r11mouthJ Hunt • E T ( atJ~il tlll•""' .>''°u~"'v M A li>ll1,h1! ~ JO ~~,,.!....
    [Show full text]
  • Skillet Fork Report
    AERIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR SKILLET FORK MARION, WAYNE, HAMILTON and WHITE COUNTIES November 2005 Prepared by Wayne Kinney for IL. Department of Agriculture 1 The Skillet Fork Watershed TMDL report prepared by LimnoTech, Inc. determined that segments CA03, CA05, CA06 and CA09 are impaired waterbodies. These segments make up 54.49 miles of the main channel of Skillet Fork from the confluence with the Little Wabash River near Carmi in White Co. to the headwaters east of Kinmundy in Marion Co... Each of these segments has been found to be impaired by Dissolved Oxygen with Manganese and pH also listed for CA03, CA05 and CA06. Atrazine is also listed in CA03 and CA05. TSS and sedimentation/siltation are also listed for CA03, CA05 and CA06, but are not subject to TMDL development. According to the October 2004 Quarterly Report prepared by Limno-Tech, Inc. potential sources of impairment for Manganese include streambank erosion of soils naturally enriched with manganese. Natural background sources are also identified as potential sources of pH. The potential sources of DO impairment are algal respiration, sediment oxygen demand, degradation of CBOD, nitrification of ammonia, municipal point sources, agricultural runoff and intensive animal feeding operations. This report will present recommendations for the sources impacted either directly or indirectly by streambank erosion. 2 CA09 CA06 CA05 CA03 Fig. 1 Aerial Assessment Map of Skillet Fork and TMDL Segments 3 Assessment Procedure Low level geo-referenced video was taken of Skillet Fork in March, 2004. Video taping was completed by Fostaire Helicopters, Sauget, IL, using a camera mounted beneath a helicopter to record data from just above tree top level in DVD format for further evaluation and assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussels of the Little Wabash River Basin
    Freshwater mussels of the Little Wabash River basin Diane K. Shasteen, Alison L. Price, Sarah A. Bales INHS Technical Report 2012 (18) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources: Office of Resource Conservation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Illinois Natural History Survey Issued May 29, 2012 Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign William Shilts, Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Brian D. Anderson, Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Freshwater mussels of the Little Wabash River basin 2012 Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Illinois Department of Natural Resources Diane Shasteen, Sarah Bales, Alison Price Preface While broad geographic information is available on the distribution and abundance of mussels in Illinois, systematically collected mussel-community data sets required to integrate mussels into aquatic community assessments do not exist. In 2009, a project funded by a US Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant was undertaken to survey and assess the freshwater mussel populations at wadeable sites from 33 stream basins in conjunction with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)/Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) basin surveys. Inclusion of mussels into these basin surveys contributes to the comprehensive basin monitoring programs that include water and sediment chemistry, instream habitat, macroinvertebrate, and fish, which reflect a broad spectrum of abiotic and biotic stream resources. These mussel surveys will provide reliable and repeatable techniques for assessing the freshwater mussel community in sampled streams. These surveys also provide data for future monitoring of freshwater mussel populations on a local, regional, and watershed basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Surface Water Reservoirs of South-Central Illinois
    REPORT OF INVESTIGATION 54 Potential Surface Water Reservoirs of South-Central Illinois by JULIUS H. DAWES and MICHAEL L TERSTRIEP Printed by authority of the State of Illinois—Ch. 127, IBS, Par. 58.29 STATE OF ILLINOIS HON. OTTO KERNER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION JOHN C. WATSON, Director BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION JOHN C. WATSON, Chairman ROGER ADAMS, Ph.D., D.Sc, LL.D., Chemistry ROBERT H. ANDERSON, B.S., Engineering THOMAS PARK, Ph.D., Biology CHARLES E. OLMSTED, Ph.D., Botany LAURENCE L. SLOSS, Ph.D., Geology WILLIAM L. EVERITT, E.E., Ph.D., University of Illinois DELYTE W. MORRIS, Ph.D., President, Southern Illinois University STATE WATER SURVEY DIVISION William C. Ackermann, Chief URBANA 1966 FOREWORD In many parts of Illinois, reservoir storage of water is an important means of increasing usable water supplies to enable community growth and development. Because of this significance for water resources of the future, the Illinois State Water Survey initiated a reconnaissance investigation to identify potential sites within the state where surface storage of water is physically feasible. This report provides information on potential and existing reservoirs in 29 counties of south-central Illinois. Results of an earlier study of possible sites in the 17 southern counties of Illinois were published in 1957 as Report of Investi­ gation 31. Future reports will include similar information for 33 north-central counties and 23 northern counties. This division of the state was based primarily on drainage systems. These publications are intended to bring about greater understanding of the surface water storage potential.
    [Show full text]