Protect Restore Enhance WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Linking Land, Water, and People CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN: RESTORING AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATERS UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITIES FOR ILLINOIS Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 September 1998 IEPA/BOW/98-017
95
Embed
Cover for Unified Watershed Assessment...manageable level and document improvements to a watershed’s health. For the purposes of this assessment, Illinois has chosen to coordinate
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Protect
Restore
Enhance
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMLinking Land, Water, and People
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN:RESTORING AND PROTECTING AMERICA’S WATERS
I. CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN - UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS
On October 18, 1997, the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the Vice President calledfor a renewed effort to restore and protect water quality. The Vice President asked that the Secretary ofAgriculture and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), working withother affected agencies, develop a Clean Water Action Plan that builds on clean water success and addressesthe following three major goals:
(1) enhanced protection from public health threats posed by water pollution;(2) more effective control of polluted runoff; and(3) promotion of water quality protection on a watershed basis.
On February 14, 1998, U.S. EPA Administrator Browner and Secretary Glickman, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, submitted the Clean Water Action Plan to the Vice President. A key component in the Action Planinvolves a watershed approach that identifies the most critical water quality problems and focuses on acooperative approach to develop and implement effective strategies to solve those problems. The Action Planprovides a blueprint of more than 100 specific actions that are designed to support continued progress towardclean water across the nation. One of the specific actions calls on the state environmental agency and NaturalResource Conservation Service (NRCS) State Conservationist to provide leadership in bringing all levels ofgovernment, the private sector, and the public together to undertake the process for conducting unifiedwatershed assessments.
The unified watershed assessments provide the foundation for this cooperative approach to restoring andprotecting water quality, and support the setting of watershed restoration priorities. The objective of the unifiedwatershed assessments is to combine assessments and build on current, cooperative efforts to identify commonpriorities - not to create a new activity that competes with existing processes. As indicated in the Clean WaterAction Plan, draft watershed assessments and draft watershed restoration priorities are to be scheduled forpublic comment by August 1, 1998, and final assessments and final watershed restoration priorities arescheduled to be completed by October 1, 1998.
Geographic Scope and Scale
Watersheds are evaluated and assessed at different geographic scales, ranging from watersheds around arelatively small waterbody to a large geographic area. While varying scales are often appropriate for highlylocalized or state-wide analyses, the unified watershed assessment framework calls for a more consistentapproach for multi-state and national objectives. For the unified watershed assessments, the USGS 8-digithydrologic unit code (HUC) serves as the common scale for reporting the results of watershed assessments andfor targeting resources on a national scale. The following information represents Illinois’ assessment andcategorization of river basins at the USGS 8-digit HUC.
The following map (Figure 1) and statewide categories were developed utilizing the methodology explained onthe following pages of this document. In order to determine whether an 8-digit HUC should be listed as aCategory I, II, III, or IV, the watershed categorizations were analyzed to determine the percentage of the riverbasin covered by each category. If the majority (50% or more) of the 8-digit HUC was comprised of
USGS Catalog Units (8 digit HUC)Category 1Category 2
Counties
Figure 1: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities
Aggregated toUSGS Catalog Unit
N
3
watersheds in a category, then the 8-digit HUC was listed accordingly. Using this criteria, of the 51 riverbasins in Illinois at the 8-digit HUC level, forty-three were Category I and eight are Category II. Thisinformation was provided to meet the needs of the unified watershed assessment framework for multi-state andnational objectives. While this information satisfies national needs, it is at a scale (51 river basins statewide)which is cumbersome to Illinois’ assessment, prioritization and planning efforts. For this reason, Illinoisdeveloped its assessment at a much smaller scale (820 watershed delineations statewide). Developing theassessment at this smaller watershed scale provides Illinois with the ability to address watershed issues at amanageable level and document improvements to a watershed’s health.
For the purposes of this assessment, Illinois has chosen to coordinate efforts for watershed restoration inaccordance with the process described from this point forward in the document. Coordination of watershedrestoration and protection efforts, the two year watershed restoration priorities for Category I watersheds, andthe long-term restoration schedule for the remaining Category I watersheds were established utilizing Illinois’prioritization and assessment methodology at the 820 statewide watershed level.
State of Illinois Natural Resources Coordinating Council - Watershed Management Committee
In 1994, Governor Jim Edgar’s administration created the Natural Resource Coordinating Council (NRCC)to address and coordinate issues between the state’s natural resource and environmental agencies. The NRCCconsists of the directors of eight Illinois state agencies (or their designated representatives), including theEnvironmental Protection Agency; the Pollution Control Board; and the Departments of Natural Resources,Agriculture, Public Health, Commerce and Community Affairs, Transportation, and Nuclear Safety.
Several committees were subsequently created by the NRCC to address specific natural resource issues,including the Watershed Management Committee (WMC). The NRCC has charged the committee with thefollowing mission:
To serve in an ongoing capacity to coordinate watershed-based activities and programs among thestate’s natural resource and environmental agencies. The Committee will also serve a liaisonfunction to provide for the coordination of federal and local involvement in watershed activities.An overall strategy will be developed that will include specific recommendations by the Committee,and review and endorsement by the Natural Resource Coordinating Council (NRCC).
The WMC has identified several coordination issues to be addressed in order to fulfill its charge. These includecoordinating the following between agencies: data collection and watershed assessment information, watershedplanning activities, the development of watershed indicators, and watershed priorities.
During 1998, the WMC was expanded to include additional state and federal agencies and several Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). A list of all the participants on the WMC is provided in Table 1.
In Illinois, the unified assessment of watersheds consists of expanding upon the previously described ongoingefforts of the WMC. The number of participants was expanded to include federal, state, and local agencies,government, non-governmental organizations, and the public during the watershed assessments. Meetings havebeen held to seek input, and informational packets are being developed for dissemination to the above-mentioned groups for further comment concerning the categorization of watersheds in Illinois.
Illinois Environmental Protection AgencyIllinois Department of AgricultureIllinois Department of Natural ResourcesIllinois Pollution Control BoardIllinois Department of Commerce and Community AffairsIllinois Department of Public HealthIllinois Department of TransportationUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUS Environmental Protection AgencyUS Geological SurveyUS Army Corps of EngineersIllinois Association of Drainage DistrictsIllinois Association of Floodplain and Stormwater ManagementIllinois Municipal LeagueAmerican Waterworks Association - Illinois ChapterSierra Club - Illinois ChapterThe Nature ConservancyIllinois Water Resources CenterU of I Cooperative Extension Service
Illinois Association of Wastewater AgenciesIllinois Environmental Regulatory GroupIllinois Farm BureauIllinois Lake Management AssociationCentral States Education CenterIllinois Chapter of the American Fisheries SocietyIllinois Rural Water AssociationIllinois Land Improvement Contractors AssociationIllinois Beef AssociationAssociation of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation DistrictsWildlife SocietyForestry SocietyIllinois Stewardship AllianceIllinois Fertilizer and Chemical AssociationIllinois Corn Growers AssociationNortheastern Illinois Planning CommissionGreater Egypt Regional Planning and Development CommissionSouthwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission
A. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERSHED PRIORITIES
Within Illinois, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Natural Resources andAgriculture, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service have internal mechanisms in place to, ona geographical basis, select and prioritize areas where limited funds and resources are to be directed. Usinga Geographic Information System (GIS), the priority areas of the various agencies/organizations werecompared on a watershed scale to determine where the watershed-based efforts overlap. Once identified,coordination of activities and resources are focused on these watersheds to enhance each agency’s/NGO’sindividual activities and prevent potential duplication of effort.
PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING HIGH PRIORITY AREAS
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
In 1993, the Bureau of Water of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency began the process ofrestructuring its program activities in all areas around a priority watershed management approach. Thisrestructuring includes both water pollution control and drinking water programs and focuses on restorative aswell as preventive measures directed to both surface and groundwater resources.
The report, Targeted Watershed Approach: A Data-Driven Prioritization, March 1997, describes theframework for prioritizing program activities and presents the resulting watershed priorities. To the extent thatflexibility is available in mandated and delegated responsibilities under the federal Clean Water Act, SafeDrinking Water Act, and state statutes, the Bureau of Water targets those programs and watersheds that havethe greatest impact on human health issues and ecosystem protection. Therefore, watersheds are targeted forspecific action, and the balance of available programmatic resources are used to maintain a statewide baselineprogram.
5
The Targeted Watershed Approach (TWA) described in the report significantly broadens the scope, purpose,and geographic targeting of the bureau’s program activities from what they were prior to 1993. In additionto focusing on water quality problems and restorative measures, the TWA also incorporates criteria foridentifying high-quality resources and protection measures to provide a more comprehensive approach togeographic targeting and prioritization of water resources, rivers, streams, Lake Michigan, inland lakes, andgroundwater.
The overall goal of the TWA is to focus programs and resources on those areas having the greatest need forrestoration while continuing statewide program activities. Specific objectives for applying the TWA in Illinoisare listed below:
1. Identify watersheds with the most critical water quality problems and direct programs andresources to the solution of those problems.
2. Direct programs and resources to those watersheds considered having the highest potential forimprovement.
3. Protect existing high-quality resources through a preventive approach to water qualitymanagement.
4. Identify watersheds where there is a need to coordinate multiple agency program priorities.
Priority watersheds are re-evaluated on an annual basis, in order to incorporate any new monitoring data andassessment information collected from the previous year to keep the watershed prioritization process current.
Through the TWA, high risk watersheds are identified, prioritized, and selected for integrated and cooperativeassessment and protection. The 303(d) process, which focuses on water quality problems and restorativemeasures, is used in conjunction with criteria for existing high quality resources and protection measures toprovide a more comprehensive approach to geographic targeting and prioritization of water resources (rivers,streams, Lake Michigan, inland lakes, and groundwater). High-priority watersheds identified through theIllinois EPA’s TWA (which includes 303(d) waters) are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities for
Illinois EPA
7
Illinois Department of Agriculture
Since their inception in FY 1986, Illinois’ soil conservation cost-share programs have collectively enabled theconstruction of several thousand soil erosion control projects in every county of the state. The result is asavings of millions of tons of soil annually on hundreds of thousands of acres of land. This investment offinancial resources by the state is making a significant contribution to cleaner water and to the goal of “T”, ortolerance loss levels, on all agricultural lands by the year 2000.
The Conservation Practices Program (CPP) and Watershed Land Treatment Program (WLTP) are two soilconservation cost-share programs which were introduced in FY 1986 and operated through FY 1992. Bothprograms were funded with appropriations made by the Illinois General Assembly to the budget of the Bureauof Land and Water Resources of the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Public funds were used in combinationwith private dollars for conservation projects approved by Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The CPPand the WLTP were successful examples of combining state resources with private-sector dollars to effectivelyreduce soil erosion and improve water quality.
Funding for the CPP was restored in FY 1996 through the Conservation 2000 program. The Conservation2000 - Conservation Practices Program (C2000 - CPP) combined the best, most efficient aspects of theprevious CPP with several new approaches. The result is an effective and cost-efficient program targeting themost erosion-prone areas of the state to reduce soil erosion and improve water quality.Conservation 2000-CPP provides cost-share assistance and other financial incentives for the construction oradoption of conservation practices that conserve soil and protect water quality. The objectives and highlightsof the C2000-CPP are listed below:
1. Assist landowners with highly erodible cropland exceeding one and one-half times thetolerable soil loss levels (1.5T) in constructing practices to conserve soil, protect waterquality, and reduce flooding.
2. Target cost-share monies to deliver effective and cost-efficient assistance to meet “T by 2000"and provide the greatest public benefit possible in conserving soil productivity and protectingriver, streams, and lakes. Figure 3 shows the Illinois DOA high-priority counties (those witha significant percentage of cropland acres exceeding 1.5T).
N
Figure 3: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities for
The identification and characterization of areas rich in biological resources (Resource Rich Areas (RRA) usedan analysis of natural resource data based on GIS technology guided by scientists with extensive knowledgeof ecosystem concepts and Illinois biota.
A landscape-level approach envisions the existence of a system of areas that would protect, maintain, andenhance the living natural resources of Illinois. The specific ecological roles of sites were determined to be thefollowing:
1. Provide areas large enough to allow for the natural dynamics of ecosystems and to allowmanagement to simulate natural forces to meet the needs of various communities and species.
2. Protect, restore, and enhance areas to provide the ecological requirements for animals andplants that need large areas.
3. Include representative examples of the natural communities of Illinois.4. Protect areas with significant habitat and species diversity.5. Protect habitat types that are diminishing at an alarming rate, such as wetlands, forests,
prairies, and biologically significant streams.
Watersheds, as identified by the Illinois EPA, were used as the geographic unit for evaluation and analysis.Criteria for the evaluation and characterization of RRAs were selected because (1) they emphasizedecologically important characteristics; (2) they were available as statewide digital databases; and (3) they weresuitable for analysis using Illinois EPA watersheds. The criteria, analysis, maps, and summaries in this reportare based on ecological characteristics, economics, recreational interests, and other consideration that were notexplicitly accounted for in this effort. Watersheds were evaluated using the following variables:
1. Forest — percentage of the watershed.2. Wetlands — percentage of the watershed3. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory — total area.4. Biologically significant streams — total length.
The four variables were given equal weight in the analysis. Each watershed was ranked against all otherwatersheds for each variable. Watersheds were placed into 10 percent deciles for each variable and givena score of ten points if they were in the decile, nine points in the 81-90 percent decile, eight points in the 71-80percent decile, etc. Watersheds in which a variable did not occur were given a score of zero for that variable.The scores for each variable in each watershed were summed; the maximum possible cumulative score was 40.Watersheds were defined as resource rich if their cumulative score ranked in the top 10 percent. Thisquantification resulted in the inclusion of watersheds having a score of 26 or greater (actually the top 12percent of all watersheds due to tied scores).
Efforts to involve Illinois’ substantial base of private landowners began with the establishment of theEcosystems Program and recruitment of Ecosystem Partnerships. This voluntary, incentive-based programrequires the commitment of local public and private partners before application to the program. Throughpartnerships, the Ecosystem Program provides financial and technical assistance to private landownersinterested in maintaining and enhancing both ecological and economic conditions in key watersheds throughoutthe state. The program includes habitat restoration, enhancement, and protection components, as well asfunding for education and research projects that will benefit students, managers, and concerned citizensstatewide. The Ecosystem Partnerships, RRAs, and CREP priorities are depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities for
Illinois DNR
11
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides cost-share assistance to landowners forimplementation of best management practices to address multiple resource concerns. This program’s fundsand planning activities are concentrated in priority areas as identified by local work groups, the NRCS StateTechnical Committee, and the NRCS State Conservationist. These priority areas are designated on a watershedbasis. The priority areas can be categorized into the Unified Watershed Assessments Category I or IIdepending upon the nature of the watershed and the objectives of the local work group.
The Small Watersheds Program (P.L.-566) provides technical and financial assistance to local sponsors toaddress water resource issues such as flooding and water quality. The P.L.-566 projects for water qualitypurposes address local concerns with water resources for various uses, mainly public water supplies. Due tothe extent of the planning and federal authorization process for P.L.-566 projects, all active P.L.-566watersheds for water quality improvement will be identified in Category I.
Throughout Illinois, many local stakeholders are in the process of addressing concerns in their watershedthrough the Resource Planning Process. This process involves identifying the resource concerns, inventoryingthe natural resources, and identifying goals and objectives to address the concerns. NRCS provides technicalassistance in these efforts along with various other state and federal agencies. The watersheds are of highpriority due to the involvement and leadership at the local level. Watersheds actively engaged in the resourceplanning process would be placed into Category IV until a plan has been completed. At that time, they can beplaced in Category I or II depending upon the nature and the extent of the resource concerns identified in theplan. The EQIP, PL-566, and the Locally Led Resource Planning Watersheds are the high priorities for NRCSand are depicted in Figure 5.
NN
Figure 5: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities for
One of the primary missions of the Corps as established in Section 306 of the Waters Resources DevelopmentAct of 1990 is to conduct studies which examine the condition of existing ecosystems and determine thefeasibility of changing a degraded ecosystem to a less degraded, natural condition. Corps activities concentrateon engineering solutions particularly as they relate to the hydrologic regime.
The ecosystem restoration initiative is conducted under the normal two phase study process. This is knownas a “General Investigation” study. The Phase I is a reconnaissance study which:
1. Identifies the problems and opportunities and identifies potential solutions.2. Determines whether the planning should proceed further, into a feasibility phase, based on
preliminary appraisal of consistency with Corps policies.3. Provides an estimate of time and costs for the feasibility phase through the development of a
“Project Study Plan.”4. Provides an assessment of the level of interest and support on non-federal interests in a
potential project.
Phase II is a feasibility study which:
1. Further defines problems and opportunities.2. Inventories and forecasts resources.3. Formulates alternative plans.4. Evaluates plan effects.5. Compares effects of alternative plans.6. Selects the best plan.
The benefits are non-monetary, and are justified by net increases in fish and wildlife. These studies are initiatedlocally and lead by local citizens to improve the condition of a disturbed ecosystem, including its plant andanimal communities, or portions thereof, to some prior ecological condition. High-priority watershedsidentified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are depicted in Figure 6.
N
Figure 6: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities for
The Nature Conservancy of Illinois (TNC) is committed to the conservation (restoration and protection) ofbiological diversity. The Nature Conservancy’s mission is to ensure the long-term survival of all viable nativespecies and community types. Recently, TNC has recognized that many large-scale ecological processes areimpacting the viability of many target species and communities. In order to be more effective, a new initiativewas launched which outlines a broader-scale approach to conservation. Outlined in Conservation by Design:A Framework for Mission Success (1996), large landscape areas called ecoregions were identified as theprimary planning unit for the organization. The Nature Conservancy continues its traditional site-based effortswhich involve a rigorous site-planning process to identify specific target species and communities, and detailsthe management actions necessary for effective conservation of these targets. This multi-scale approach ofcoupling ecoregional and site-based planning efforts determines the conservation priorities for the organization.
In Illinois, TNC is following this multi-scale approach to identifying specific priority watersheds. Based onextensive planning efforts, which include information from field surveys, research and expert input bothinternally and from external agencies, priority areas around the state have been chosen. Of particularimportance to prioritizing watersheds across the state, an aquatic community classification system has beendeveloped to further define TNC’s efforts for conserving and protecting aquatic target species and communities.The Nature Conservancy’s priority list was chosen for its important contribution to the biological diversityfrom a state and global perspective. They are watersheds which possess outstanding biological diversity, andare in urgent need of conservation. These watersheds are depicted in Figure 7.
N
Figure 7: State of IllinoisWatershed Priorities for
Each agency/NGO provided a GIS coverage or list of their priority areas to the WMC. For thoseagencies/NGOs unable to provide a GIS coverage, one was created from the list provided. Priority areas wereidentified by the various agencies/NGOs by county boundaries, or watershed boundaries, or by a combinationof both.
In order to compare the priority areas from each agency/NGO, the Illinois EPA’s watershed delineationcoverage was used to provide a consistent geographic baseline. A database capable of integrating the priorityareas of each agency/NGO was created and included the following fields: WSID (Watershed Identifier), IllinoisEPA (Priority 1 Targeted Watersheds, and 303(d) identified waters); Illinois DNR (Ecosystem Partnerships,Resource Rich Areas and CREP); Illinois DOA (Priority County) NRCS (Priority Areas which include EQIP,P.L.-566, Local Watershed Planning Initiatives); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Priority Watersheds), TheNature Conservancy (Priority Watersheds) and Combined Score.
The Integrated Priorities map and associated database were generated using Arc View 3 software (Figure 8).The”select by theme” option in Arc View was used to intersect each agency’s/NGO’s coverage of priority areaswith the Illinois EPA watershed coverage. A value of one was assigned to all watersheds intersecting asignificant portion of an agency’s/NGO’s priority areas. The values were totaled and recorded in the CombinedScore field. The Combined Score field was queried for unique values to actually produce the IntegratedPriorities map.
INTEGRATING PRIORITIES AMONG AGENCIES/NGOS
The WMC uses the information resulting from this comparative analysis in coordinating activities andresources to enhance each agency’s/NGO’s individual activities and prevent potential duplication of effort.This information will be updated on an annual basis as each participating agency/NGO uses new data toidentify its priority areas. The WMC has created a focus group (or subcommittee ) to initiate efforts tocoordinate activities within those watersheds identified as priorities for all agencies/NGOs. Specificcoordination protocols and procedures for the assessment of watershed conditions, watershed planning, funding,and delivery of services will be developed for endorsement by the NRCC to streamline future coordinationefforts between the participating agencies/NGOs.
N
Figure 8: State of IllinoisMultiple Priorities for
B. CATEGORIZATION OF WATERSHEDS FOR THE UNIFIED WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS
The unified watershed assessment created a framework for characterizing the condition of waters within awatershed and the overall health of the aquatic system in watersheds. Watersheds are to be identified in fourcategories. The framework’s categories, with the criteria used to identify listed watersheds for each category,are found below. Priority watersheds identified by each agency/NGO, as described beginning on page 4,Process for Identifying High Priority Areas, were categorized based on the selection factors described in theClean Water Action Plan – Unified Watershed Assessment Framework. Appendix B provides detailedinformation regarding the watershed categories and the number of agencies/NGOs for which that watershedis a priority.
CATEGORY I – Watersheds in Need of Restoration. These watersheds do not now meet, or face an imminent threat of not meeting, clean water and other natural resource goals.
< 303(d) Listed WatershedsIdentified waters which will not attain applicable water quality standards with technology-based controls alone (e.g., water quality limited).
< EQIP Priority WatershedsWatersheds that were most recently added to the program in order to address resourceconcerns identified by the local people.
< P.L.-566 Water Quality WatershedsWater quality projects funded under P.L.-566 which address local concerns in waterresources. Projects in Category I are those that are approved or currently underimplementation phase.
< The Nature Conservancy Priority WatershedsWatersheds which possess degraded aquatic communities in need of restoration based onThe Nature Conservancy’s aquatic community classification system.
CATEGORY II – Watersheds meeting goals, including those needing action to sustain water quality.
< Preventative StreamsBased on assessments as required under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
< “A” and “B” StreamsThe Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) is a system for characterizing biotic integritydeveloped by the BSC Work Group, composed of biologists from the Illinois EPA, IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources (Illinois DNR), and the Illinois Natural History Survey(INHS). The BSC Work Group developed a five-tier stream classification system in 1984,predicated largely on the attributes of lotic fish communities as measured by the Index ofBiotic Integrity. In the absence of adequate fishery data or information, aquaticmacroinvertebrate data may be used to develop stream ratings for “Class C, D, or E”streams.
Streams with BSC ratings of “A” or “B” are streams that are considered to be UniqueAquatic Resources and Highly Valued Resources respectively. Watersheds in which thesestreams are found have been identified as Category II watersheds in the Unified WatershedAssessment.
20
< EQIP Priority WatershedsWatersheds that have been EQIP priorities for multiple years. Watershed conditions haveimproved due to project implementation.
< Resource Rich AreasWatershed in need of protection which have been identified and characterized as areas richin biological resources. Analysis of natural resource data is based on GIS technologyguided by scientists with extensive knowledge of ecosystem concepts and Illinois biota.
< The Nature Conservancy Priority WatershedsWatersheds which possess outstanding biological diversity requiring the need for protectionbased on The Nature Conservancy’s aquatic community classification system.
CATEGORY III – Watersheds with pristine/sensitive aquatic system conditions on lands administered by federal, state, or tribal governments.
< U.S. Forest Service Managed LandFederally managed lands (Category III) were selected based on information provided by theU.S. Forest Service. Those lands selected and placed in Category III are only those landsthat constitute 50 percent or more of a watershed.
CATEGORY IV – Watersheds with insufficient data to make an assessment.
< Locally Led Resource Planning WatershedsPlanning efforts underway through a local initiative.
< All Other Watersheds which do not fall under Categories 1, 2, or 3
II. CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN -- DEFINING WATERSHED RESTORATION
PRIORITIES
The watershed restoration priority setting process builds on the findings of the Unified Watershed Assessments.Both the Unified Watershed Assessments and the Watershed Restoration Priorities are to be included in thefinal due October 1, 1998. The Clean Water Action Plan indicates that “States and tribes working withappropriate agencies, organizations, and the public define watershed restoration priorities, with special attentionto watersheds most in need of restoration and protection through the year 2000.” The development ofwatershed restoration priorities needs to be coordinated, or “bundled” with other priority setting mechanismsincluding:
< schedules for total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) under the Clean Water Act,
< priority watersheds under USDA’s environmental quality incentives program (EQIP),
< the state nonpoint source program,
< state and local source water assessment and protection programs,
< other related programs and priorities.
21
Beginning in the fall of 1998, states are to work with federal agencies and others to develop and implementwatershed restoration action strategies to restore the health of those watersheds most in need of attention(Category I watersheds). Based on unified watershed assessments, watershed restoration action strategies focuson the appropriate parts of Category I watersheds to achieve the water quality and other natural resource goalsidentified for the watershed. Most of the new federal resources proposed for FY 1999 will be directed to thoseactivities which provide measurable improvement to water quality. Where maintenance, prevention, oradditional monitoring actions are needed for pristine or sensitive watersheds on federal, state, or tribal lands(Categories II, III, and IV), base program funding may be re-prioritized to address those needs. Watershedrestoration action strategies are not subject to federal approval.
WATERSHED RESTORATION PRIORITIES FOR ILLINOIS
The two year restoration schedule for Category I watersheds listed below (Table 2) contains all watershedswhich were a priority for four or more (4, 5, and 6) agencies/NGOs as established by Comparing PriorityAreas Among Agencies/NGOs. The Illinois EPA has also identified seven watersheds where Total MaximumDaily Load (TMDL) allocations are to be developed within the next two years. The TMDL two-year schedulewas provided to the general public for review and comment at the July 22, 1998, public hearing conducted bythe Illinois EPA.. As indicated in the Clean Water Action Plan, these seven watersheds have been included inthe proposed two year watershed restoration schedule. The USDA-NRCS selected five P.L.-566 projects thathave been approved for construction for inclusion on the two year restoration list.
Watersheds in the two year restoration schedule are listed in alphabetical order by Watershed ID, and are notlisted in order of priority. The list represents watersheds which are eligible for funds should they becomeavailable, but does not guarantee that financial resources will be adequate for all watersheds on the list. Thelocation of these watersheds within the state are depicted in Figure 9.
22
Table 2 – 1999-2000 RESTORATION SCHEDULE FOR
CATEGORY I WATERSHEDS MOST IN NEED OF RESTORATION
Map # Watershed ID Agencies/NGOs USGS Catalog Unit (8 digit) Prioritizing Watershed
Figure 9: State of IllinoisProposed Watershed RestorationPriorities Through the Year 2000
NN
26
The unified watershed assessment also calls for the development of a long-term schedule for the remainingCategory I watersheds. The long-term list consists of those watersheds which were a priority to three orfewer (3, 2, and 1) agencies/NGOs. The watersheds are listed in alphabetical order by Watershed ID, andare not listed in order of priority. The long-term schedule for the remaining Category I watersheds is listedin Table 3 and depicted in Figure 10.
Table 3 – LONG-TERM SCHEDULE FOR ALL REMAINING CATEGORY I WATERSHEDS
Map # Watershed ID Agencies/NGOs USGS Catalog Unit (8 digit) Prioritizing Watershed
33 ILAF01 3 5140206
32 ILAJFA01 3 5140203
32 ILAK02 2 5140203
32 ILAO03 3 5140203
32 ILAT05 2 5140204
32 ILAT06 1 5140204
32 ILATE01 2 5140204
32 ILATEE08 2 5140204
32 ILATF04 3 5140204
32 ILATF05 3 5140204
32 ILATFE01 3 5140204
32 ILATFF01 3 5140204
32 ILATFH01 3 5140204
32 ILATFI01 3 5140204
32 ILATFJ01 2 5140204
32 ILATG03 2 5140204
32 ILATGC01 2 5140204
32 ILATGH01 2 5140204
32 ILATGM01 1 5140204
32 ILATH01 1 5140204
32 ILATH02 2 5140204
32 ILATH05 2 5140204
32 ILATHC01 2 5140204
32 ILATHG01 2 5140204
32 ILATHJ01 2 5140204
32 ILATHT01 2 5140204
27
Map #
32
Watershed ID
ILATZM01
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
1
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
514020432 ILATZN10 1 5140204
30 ILB06 3 5120111
31 ILB07 3 5120113
31 ILBC02 3 5120113
30 ILBE01 3 5120112
30 ILBE07 3 5120112
30 ILBE14 3 5120112
30 ILBEA01 3 5120112
30 ILBEF05 3 5120112
30 ILBEJE01 3 5120112
30 ILBEZF01 2 5120112
30 ILBEZX01 2 5120112
30 ILBF22 2 5120111
30 ILBFC10 2 5120111
30 ILBFCA21 2 5120111
30 ILBFCB12 1 5120111
30 ILBH01 3 5120111
30 ILBM02 2 5120111
29 ILBO07 2 5120108
29 ILBP01 2 5120109
29 ILBPE02 2 5120109
29 ILBPG09 3 5120109
29 ILBPG10 3 5120109
29 ILBPGB01 1 5120109
29 ILBPGC01 2 5120109
29 ILBPGD01 3 5120109
29 ILBPGE01 2 5120109
29 ILBPJ03 3 5120109
29 ILBPJ07 3 5120109
29 ILBPJC06 3 5120109
28
Map #
29
Watershed ID
ILBPK07
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
2
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
512010931 ILC09 3 5120114
31 ILC19 3 5120114
31 ILC21 1 5120114
31 ILC22 3 5120114
31 ILC23 1 5120114
31 ILC24 2 5120114
31 ILCA03 2 5120115
31 ILCA06 3 5120115
31 ILCAR01 2 5120115
31 ILCAW01 1 5120115
31 ILCD01 2 5120114
31 ILCDG01 2 5120114
31 ILCH01 3 5120114
31 ILCHE01 1 5120114
31 ILCJ01 2 5120114
31 ILCM01 3 5120114
31 ILCO01 1 5120114
31 ILCOC09 1 5120114
31 ILCPD01 2 5120114
31 ILCSB07 2 5120114
18 ILDA06 3 7130012
18 ILDAF01 3 7130012
18 ILDAG01 2 7130012
18 ILDB01 3 7130011
18 ILDC01 2 7130011
18 ILDD04 3 7130011
18 ILDE01 2 7130011
18 ILDF04 2 7130011
18 ILDFH01 2 7130011
17 ILDGL01 2 7130010
29
Map #
17
Watershed ID
ILDGLA01
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
2
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
713001013 ILDI01 3 7130003
15 ILDJ01 3 7130005
15 ILDJ02 3 7130005
15 ILDJ08 3 7130005
15 ILDJ09 3 7130005
15 ILDJB18 3 7130005
15 ILDJF01 3 7130005
15 ILDJHD01 3 7130005
14 ILDK12 3 7130004
14 ILDK17 3 7130004
13 ILDL01 3 7130003
13 ILDLF01 3 7130003
11 ILDM01 3 7130001
11 ILDN01 3 7130001
11 ILDO01 2 7130001
11 ILDP01 2 7130001
11 ILDQA01 3 7130001
12 ILDS06 3 7130002
12 ILDS07 3 7130002
3 ILDT22 3 7120006
3 ILDT35 2 7120006
4 ILDT38 2 7120007
4 ILDT46 2 7120007
4 ILDTA01 2 7120007
4 ILDTD02 3 7120007
4 ILDTE02 3 7120007
3 ILDTG02 3 7120006
3 ILDTK06 3 7120006
3 ILDTZP02 2 7120006
3 ILDTZS01 3 7120006
30
Map #
3
Watershed ID
ILDTZT02
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
3
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
712000611 ILDV04 1 7120005
11 ILDW01 2 7120005
11 ILDWD01 2 7120005
18 ILDZD01 2 7130011
13 ILDZI01 3 7130003
11 ILDZS01 2 7130001
11 ILDZX01 1 7120005
18 ILDZZJ01 3 7130011
11 ILDZZP03 3 7130001
21 ILE09 2 7130006
21 ILE16 1 7130006
20 ILE24 1 7130008
20 ILE25 2 7130008
20 ILE26 1 7130008
21 ILE28 2 7130006
21 ILE29 2 7130006
20 ILEE01 2 7130008
22 ILEI02 1 7130009
22 ILEI06 2 7130009
22 ILEIC01 1 7130009
22 ILEID04 1 7130009
22 ILEID05 1 7130009
22 ILEIDB01 1 7130009
22 ILEIG01 1 7130009
22 ILEIJ01 2 7130009
20 ILEO01 1 7130007
20 ILEO02 1 7130007
20 ILEOA01 1 7130007
20 ILEOA02 1 7130007
20 ILEOCA02 1 7130007
31
Map #
20
Watershed ID
ILEOF01
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
1
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
713000720 ILEOH01 1 7130007
21 ILERA01 2 7130006
21 ILES01 2 7130006
10 ILF01 3 7120001
10 ILF08 3 7120001
10 ILFA01 3 7120001
10 ILFK01 3 7120001
10 ILFL03 3 7120002
10 ILFL04 3 7120002
10 ILFLD01 3 7120002
10 ILFLDA01 3 7120002
10 ILFLI02 3 7120002
10 ILFLID01 3 7120002
10 ILFLIDA01 3 7120002
10 ILFQA01 3 7120001
2 ILG01 2 7120004
2 ILG08 2 7120004
2 ILG23 2 7120004
2 ILGA01 2 7120004
2 ILGB11 3 7120004
2 ILGBAA01 2 7120004
2 ILGBE01 3 7120004
2 ILGBK05 3 7120004
2 ILGC02 2 7120004
2 ILGF01 2 7120004
2 ILGG02 2 7120004
1 ILGI03 2 7120003
2 ILGW02 2 7120004
2 ILGWAA01 2 7120004
2 ILH01 2 7120004
32
Map #
1
Watershed ID
ILH02
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
2
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
71200031 ILHA04 2 7120003
1 ILHAA01 2 4040001
1 ILHC01 2 7120003
2 ILHCC07 2 7120003
1 ILHCC08 2 7120003
1 ILHCCA01 2 7120003
1 ILHCCC04 2 7120003
1 ILHCCD09 2 7120003
1 ILHF01 2 7120003
28 ILI01 3 7140105
28 ILI02 1 7140105
28 ILI84 3 7140105
28 ILIC01 3 7140105
28 ILICD01 3 7140105
28 ILICE01 3 7140105
28 ILII03 3 7140105
28 ILII04 2 7140105
28 ILIIC01 2 7140105
28 ILIIH01 2 7140105
33 ILIXD01 3 7140108
27 ILJ83 3 7110009
27 ILJMAC02 2 7140101
27 ILJN02 2 7140101
27 ILJNA01 2 7140101
27 ILJQ03 2 7140101
27 ILJQ05 2 7140101
27 ILJQA01 2 7140101
27 ILJQD01 2 7140101
27 ILJR02 2 7110009
27 ILJV01 3 7110009
33
Map #
19
Watershed ID
ILK01
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
3
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
711000419 ILK02 2 7110001
19 ILK07 2 7110004
19 ILKC02 2 7110004
19 ILKC04 3 7110004
19 ILKCA01 3 7110004
19 ILKCAG01 3 7110004
19 ILKCB01 2 7110004
19 ILKD01 1 7110004
19 ILKG01 1 7110001
19 ILKI02 1 7110001
16 ILLD02 2 7080104
16 ILLD03 1 7080104
16 ILLDA01 3 7080104
16 ILLDD01 1 7080104
16 ILLDDC01 1 7080104
16 ILLDG01 1 7130010
16 ILLDH01 2 7080104
16 ILLF01 1 7080104
16 ILLF02 2 7080104
16 ILLFD01 2 7080104
16 ILLFG01 2 7080104
9 ILMJ01 2 7060005
9 ILMJ02 2 7060005
9 ILMJB02 2 7060005
9 ILMN04 3 7060005
9 ILMNI11 3 7060005
9 ILMNID01 3 7060005
9 ILMQ01 3 7060005
26 ILN01 2 7140106
26 ILN07 1 7140106
34
Map #
26
Watershed ID
ILN08
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
3
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
714010626 ILN11 2 7140106
26 ILN12 1 7140106
26 ILN14 2 7140106
26 ILNA01 3 7140106
26 ILNC05 3 7140106
26 ILNC07 1 7140106
26 ILNCD01 2 7140106
26 ILNCDA01 2 7140106
26 ILND01 1 7140106
26 ILND02 1 7140106
26 ILND04 3 7140106
26 ILNDA01 2 7140106
26 ILNDB01 1 7140106
26 ILNDC01 3 7140106
26 ILNDDA01 3 7140106
26 ILNE04 2 7140106
26 ILNE05 2 7140106
26 ILNEB01 2 7140106
26 ILNF01 2 7140106
26 ILNG02 2 7140106
26 ILNGA01 2 7140106
26 ILNH06 3 7140106
26 ILNHB01 2 7140106
26 ILNJ07 3 7140106
26 ILNZM01 2 7140106
24 ILO08 3 7140202
25 ILO20 3 7140204
24 ILO38 3 7140202
25 ILOC94 2 7140204
25 ILOCB99 3 7140204
35
Map #
25
Watershed ID
ILOCC98
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
2
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
714020425 ILOD07 3 7140204
25 ILOD08 2 7140204
25 ILODE01 3 7140204
25 ILODG01 2 7140204
25 ILODL02 2 7140204
25 ILOEB01 2 7140204
25 ILOHA01 3 7140204
25 ILOHAA07 3 7140204
24 ILOI08 3 7140203
24 ILOI09 2 7140203
24 ILOIC01 3 7140203
24 ILOID01 3 7140203
24 ILOIL01 3 7140203
24 ILOIM02 3 7140203
24 ILOIO09 2 7140203
24 ILOIP10 2 7140203
24 ILOJAF01 3 7140202
24 ILOJK02 2 7140202
24 ILOKA01 3 7140202
24 ILON01 3 7140202
24 ILONB01 3 7140202
24 ILOPA01 3 7140202
25 ILOZC01 2 7140204
23 ILOZZT01 2 7140201
6 ILP06 3 7090005
6 ILP15 3 7090005
6 ILPA01 2 7090005
8 ILPB02 2 7090007
8 ILPB04 2 7090007
8 ILPBD01 2 7090007
36
Map #
8
Watershed ID
ILPBE01
Agencies/NGOsPrioritizing Watershed
2
USGS Catalog Unit(8 digit)
70900078 ILPBG01 2 7090007
8 ILPBI01 2 7090007
8 ILPBJ01 2 7090007
8 ILPBJA01 2 7090007
8 ILPBO10 1 7090007
8 ILPBP01 2 7090007
6 ILPE05 2 7090005
6 ILPJ01 3 7090005
6 ILPO01 3 7090005
5 ILPQE06 1 7090006
5 ILPQEA01 2 7090006
5 ILPQEC01 2 7090006
6 ILPS01 2 7090005
7 ILPW13 3 7090003
7 ILPWQ04 3 7090003
6 ILPZB01 2 7090005
6 ILPZR01 1 7090005
1 ILQ01 2 4040002
32 ILRAL 2 5140204
31 ILRCD 1 5120115
31 ILRCE 1 5120114
31 ILRCF 3 5120114
21 ILREA 3 7130006
20 ILREF 1 7130007
20 ILREJ 1 7130007
26 ILRNA 2 7140106
26 ILRNB 3 7140106
23 ILROC 3 7140201
24 ILRON 3 7140203
3 ILRTZC 3 7120006
NN
Figure 10: State of IllinoisProposed Watershed RestorationPriorities Beyond the Year 2000
As previously identified, Illinois’ WMC of the Natural Resources Coordinating Council served as an existingmechanism for public involvement and participation in the Unified Watershed Assessment and WatershedRestoration Priorities process. The WMC and its participants were combined with the NRCS State TechnicalCommittee representatives for coordination of the Unified Watershed Assessment effort.
Beginning in April of 1998, a series of meetings conducted by the WMC were held to coordinate thedevelopment of the August 1, 1998, draft. These meetings were held on April 1, June 18, and July 15, 1998.In addition, several of the participants in Illinois also attended the federal city tours meeting in Chicago, Illinois,on May 12 and 13, 1998, to provide input on all aspects of the Clean Water Action Plan. Public input wassought on the draft assessment utilizing such methods as: the distribution of a joint press release by the IllinoisEPA and USDA-NRCS, placing the draft on the NRCS and Illinois EPA web sites, distribution of the draftto numerous governmental and non-governmental groups with the request that they share the draft with theirconstituents. Numerous comments were received and incorporated into this final version of the UnifiedWatershed Assessment and Watershed Restoration Priorities For Illinois.
APPENDIX A. FINDING YOUR WATERSHED
The 33 major watersheds utilized for the Unified Watershed Assessments are comprised of one or more USGScatalog units. Those major watersheds containing more than one catalog unit are grouped together in twodifferent ways. Either several catalog units which cross the state boundary have been grouped together or asmaller catalog unit has been grouped with a larger catalog unit it is a tributary to.
The maps which follow are intended to help people locate the watersheds which are of most interest to them.While these maps should assist people in finding a particular watershed, it is our intention to include bettermaps in the final document which will include additional locational information.
Finding Which Major Watershed You Live In
Locate the county where you live on the statewide Major Watershed Boundaries map (page A-2). Identify theMajor Watershed Number that corresponds to your area. These numbers match the numbered maps whichfollow on pages A-3 through A - 35. Turn to the map number you have identified for your area.
Finding The Specific Watershed You Live In
Using the county and municipal boundaries on the maps as a guide, find the label(s) for the watershed(s) forthe area you have identified.
Interpreting The Label Once You Have Located it
The label has three components: ILAD05 = Watershed Identifier (an alpha/numeric code whichuniquely identifies each watershed).
4 = Number of agencies/NGOs which consider this watersheda priority for one or more of there programs.
1 23 4 = Four categories each of which apply or do not apply to
each watershed. An (0) means that category does notapply to this watershed.
A - 1
6
31
3018
11
9
2
24
5
26
8
4
10
20
22
15
32
16
13
7
25
1923
2921
17
12
1
3
27
14
33
28
LEE
PIKE
WILL
COOK
MCLEAN
OGLE
LASALLE
KNOX
ADAMS
HENRY
IROQUOIS
FULTON
BUREAU
WAYNE
SHELBY
KANE
LAKE
CLAY
LOGAN
EDGAR
LIVINGSTON
FORD
PEORIA
CHAMPAIGNVERMILION
HANCOCK
DEKALB
FAYETTE
MACOUPIN
MADISON
MACON
WHITE
PIATT
MASON
CLARK
COLES
SANGAMON
MARION
ST. CLAIR
CASS
POPE
CHRISTIAN
BOND
MERCER
UNION
PERRY
GREENE
JACKSON
JASPER
MORGAN
KANKAKEE
WHITESIDE
TAZEWELL
WARREN
MCHENRY
CLINTON
SALINE
RANDOLPH
JO DAVIESS
DEWITT
GRUNDY
CARROLL
JEFFERSON
JERSEY
MONTGOMERY
WOODFORD
MONROE
FRANKLIN
MCDONOUGH
STARK
DOUGLAS
HAMILTON
WINNEBAGOSTEPHENSON
WASHINGTON
EFFINGHAM
SCHUYLER
BROWN
DUPAGE
BOONE
CRAWFORD
SCOTT
MARSHALL
MENARD
JOHNSON
KENDALL
RICHLAND
WILLIAMSON GALLATIN
ROCK ISLAND
MOULTRIE
LAWRENCE
HENDERSON
CALHOUN
MASSAC
WABASH
CUMBERLAND
PULASKI
HARDIN
EDWARDS
ALEXANDER
PUTNAM
ILLINOIS' MAJOR WATERSHED BOUNDARIES
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
MAJOR WATERSHEDS 1. GREAT LAKES/CALUMET 2. DES PLAINES 3. UPPER FOX 4. LOWER FOX 5. KISHWAUKEE 6. ROCK 7. PECATONICA 8. GREEN 9. MISSISSIPPI NORTH10. KANKAKEE/IROQUOIS11. UPPER ILLINOIS12. VERMILION13. MIDDLE ILLINOIS14. MACKINAW15. SPOON
17. LA MOINE18. LOWER ILLINOIS19. MISSISSIPPI CENTRAL
21. UPPER SANGAMON22. SALT FORK, SANGAMON23. UPPER KASKASKIA