MAY

1 4 2001

Vermilon Coal Company

SiAtturILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Public Comments 8v Exhibits

Se

~

e, "! /?-//D

Before the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

Case PCBO1-112; Prairie Rivers Network v

IEPA and Black Beauty Coal Company

May 14, 2001

---

Vermilion Coal Company

1979 Johns Drive

Glenview IL 60025

Tel: 847.832.9007

Fax: 847.832.9010

May 14, 2001

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St

.

Street Suite 11-500

Chicago IL 60601

Re: PCB 01-112; Prairie Rivers Network v

IEPA and Black Beauty Coal Company

Ladies and Gentlemen

:

Prairie Rivers Network ("Appellant") has appealed the issuance of an NPDES

permit (the "Permit") to Black Beauty Coal Company ("Permittee") for the occasional

discharge of treated storm water into an unnamed tributary of the Little Vermilion River

from the surface property relating to Vermilion Grove underground coal mine, by the

Illinois EPA

("IEPA") .

Frederick Keady, President of Vermilion Coal Company

("Vermilion") provided public and written comments during the pendency of Permittee's

application. Vermilion sought standing as a party in this matter, which was denied

.

However, Vermilion was given the opportunity to submit public comment and an Ansicus

Curiae brief This letter is Vermilion's public comment . Vermilion's Ansicus Curiae Brief

is being submitted under separate cover

.

RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

MAY 14 2001

S

•t

AI b

OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

The Permits have significant environmental benefits

:

The Vermilion Grove mine

will have significant environmental benefits . Production and use of more than 40 million

tons of coal from the proposed Vermilion Grove mine will avoid the emission of an

estimated 1,600,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, relative to typical 3 .5% sulfur Illinois coal

.

The proposed coal mining and processing complex is a paragon of enlightened

environmental engineering. Underground mining operations and coal preparation, storage

and shipping will be conducted in accordance with the strictest environmental standards

.

Treated stormwater that would be infrequently discharged pursuant to the permit (and

only during heavy storms (when large quantities of water from other sources ensures

heavy dilution) would have an "immeasurable" on water quality in the Little Vermilion

River (the "River"), and, is a dramatic improvement over the unregulated farm runoff

previously discharged from the same property . Exhibit C hereto shows that a much of the

acreage of the permitted property is dedicated to water treatment facilities

Petitioner falsely alleged that water discharged pursuant to the Permits would degrade the

quality of the River. The River is known to suffer from high nitrates as a result of

agricultural runoff, and questions have been raised about phosphates, pesticide residues,

and coliform bacteria. The small and intermittent discharges permitted pursuant to the

Permits will not contain any of these substances, are certain to be cleaner and smaller in

quantity than the runoff from the previous land use or the surrounding lands, and are

This document is printed on recycled paper.

1

---

certain to improve the water quality of the River . Frederick Keady, Vermilion's president

has offered to cheerfully drink several glasses of the water from the Permitted discharge as

evidence of his confidence in this regard; and to present evidence of that fact .

The Permits have significant energy benefits

:

The coal to be produced by Permittee

will be used to produce more than 100 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy, at less

than one-fifth the fuel cost of natural gas . Natural gas is primarily a space-heating fuel for

homes and commercial buildings, and supplies are inadequate to service a major part of

the electric utility industry's fuels requirement . Recent uptake of natural gas by electric

utilities has crowded out city-gate uses of natural gas and resulted in prices exceeding

$10.00/mcf. Electric energy shortages here during the past few summers are ample

evidence that Illinois is precariously close to an electric energy crisis like California is now

suffering .

Vermilion's Property Rights Would be Adversely Affected : Vermilion is the owner of

the coal and mineral to be mined under lease by Permittee pursuant to the Permits

.

Vermilion also owns 32 acres of fee land whose surface comprises most of the North bank

of Lake Georgetown, and whose coal is included in Permittee's Lease . Virtually all of the

coal leased by Permittee from Vermilion is within the watershed of the Little Vermilion

River. Production of Vermilion's coal will require one or more NPDES permits to be

issued to Permittee for stormwater discharge into the Little Vermilion River or its

tributaries, regardless of where Permittee's surface facilities are sited. Accordingly, denial

or significant impairment of Permittee's permits amounts to a taking of Vermilion's

property .

Vermilion's Property is Verv Valuable

: The coal to be rained at Permittee's Vermilion

Grove coal mine includes at least 40 million salable tons of Vermilion's coal . Vermilion

has a contractual and business expectation of receiving an estimated $1

.00 per ton in

earned royalties in regard of this coal, in addition to additional revenues as minimum

royalties and wheelage fees. This income is expected to be received at the rate of

$250,000 per month from the time the Vermilion Grove mine reaches its capacity until the

coal is exhausted

.

The coal lands to be mined by Permittee are part of one of the largest low-sulfur coal

reserves in the State of Illinois. Vermilion and its predecessors have owned these lands

since 1920. More than 80 million tons of low-sulfur coal was produced between 1920 and

1972, and a similar quantity remains to be produced. Vermilion and its predecessors have

paid millions of dollars in property taxes to the Vermilion County, the State of Illinois, and

various other taxing bodies. Proceeds arising from the lease between it and Permittee are

Vermilion's principal source of revenue

.

Vermilion Made

Substantial

Financial

Commitments :

Vermilion has a sunk

investment of $20 million in its property . The property is secured by a $4,425,000 deed of

trust mortgage from a local bank. The balance of the sunk investment was provided by

predecessor companies and by borrowings and equity investments of shareholders of Iron

This document is printed on recycled paper

.

2

---

Carbide Technologies Inc. Vermilion's parent corporation. Many of these have invested a

substantial part of their savings

.

Vermilion Relied on Existing Regulations

:

These financial commitments were made in

express reliance upon the established permitting rules and regulations of the IEPA,

USEPA, IL PCB, Illinois Department of Natural Resources ("IDNR"), and US Office of

Surface Mining ("OSM") ; and for the express purpose of making available substantial

quantities of coal that would permit electric utilities to comply with the Acid Rain

provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991

.

Vermilion wasDenied its Right to DueProcess :

The facts set forth in this letter are

well documented and would have been placed into evidence if Vermilion had been granted

status as a party in the above captioned case, in accordance with its constitutional right to

due process. Vermilion made all reasonable efforts to obtain status in the case, which were

denied; and therefore must allege these facts through the public comment process

.

Vermilion remains ready, able and willing to prove these facts

.

IEPA ActedProperly: It is Vermilion's position that the IEPA lawfully and properly

issued the Permit; and that IEPA relied on the rules and regulations of the State of Illinois

and the United States Government, its own experience and a vast body of scientific and

engineering know-how. IEPA acted within its reasonable discretion. The USEPA

expressly consented to issuance of the Permit . From a practical standpoint, the issuance of

the Permit will have a beneficial effect on the Little Vermilion River

.

Any Errors or Omissionsby IEPA were Immaterial, andthe Permit Should Remain

in Force : Appellant alleged procedural errors by IEPA, and insists that it be given a

greater role in the permitting process for NPDES and similar permits . Appellant claims it

was disadvantaged by IEPA's reliance on its substantial expertise in water quality matters

.

While it may be prudent for IEPA to "include by reference" certain foundation authorities

(including but not limited to prior IL PCB rulemaking and other proceedings, and the

authorities relied upon therein. See Exhibits A and B hereto for examples of such

foundation authorities.) .

Permit Denial Would be anUnlawful Takingof Vermilion'sProperty

: Denial or

impairment of the Permit will certainly result in a drastic loss of value of Vermilion's coal

property. Vermilion conducted extensive due diligence on Illinois and United States

environmental regulations, and relied upon those laws and regulations in undertaking to

commit its investment in its Vermilion county coal rights. Acceding to the demands of

Appellant would require arbitrary changes in the letter or the spirit of these laws and

regulations subsequent to the time of Permittee application

.

Permit Denial Would be BadPublic Policy : Ironically, Vermilion's investment in these

coal lands was driven by an incentive to increase production of Illinois low-sulfur coal in

order to facilitate the efforts of Midwestern electric utilities to comply with the Acid-Rain

provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 . If such supply-side investments are

This document is printed on recycled paper

.

3

---

perceived to be at risk of being wasted by sudden, arbitrary, "Catch-22", zigzags in

regulatory policy, in response to

ad hoc

complaints by third-party intervenors, producers

of all forms of energy and environmental goods will invest elsewhere, or will require

higher returns to compensate for higher regulatory risks

.

Vermilion Could NotOversee IEPA's Review of Permittee'sApplication : Vermilion

must rely on IEPA's procedures . It would be inappropriate, and perhaps unlawful, for

Vermilion to afford itself access to, or influence on, the permit review processes of Illinois

State Agencies. If the Permit is denied or impaired for procedural reasons, Vermilion, as a

helpless pawn of procedural differences amongst regulatory entities of the State of Illinois

will certainly suffer loss or diminution of its property values. IL PCB's peremptory denial

of Vermilion's motion to intervene further diminished Vermilion's ability to protect and

conserve its property rights

.

Appellant's Conduct Raises Conflict-of-Interest Issues :

Ominously, Appellant has

afforded itself a remarkable degree of access into the regulatory process. Appellant Prairie

Rivers Network, perhaps assisted by the Environmental law and Policy Center, has acted

in concert with numerous employees of the IDNR in order to implement their particular

notions of State Environmental Regulatory Policy. While no evidence has emerged, as yet,

that IEPA staff have been similarly co-opted, the greatest degree of collaboration has

occurred regarding endangered species and nature preserves-key factors in granting

NPDES permits; and in Appellants appeal of the Permit

.

According to Appellant's' web site, a member of Appellant's Board of Directors, Virginia

Scott, is a key employee of the IDNR . According to Appellant,

"Her experience working

with governmental entities is particularly valuable to Prairie Rivers' Board "

(emphasis

added). While Appellant would doubtless dismiss conflict concerns with reassurances that

Ms. Scott has no involvement with permitting, it would stridently object to a similarly

situated IDNR or IEPA manager acting as a board member of Permittee or Vermilion

.

Most of Appellant's board members are State of Illinois Employees .

The September 1, 2000 letter of Carolyn Taft Grosboll, Executive Director of the Illinois

Nature Preserve Commission, to the IEPA Water Pollution Control Division, Permit

Section has and continues to play a prominent role in the adjudication of the Permit, Ms

.

Grosboll has admitted in sworn depositions that

this letter were drafted in their entirety by

Commission employee Mary Kay Solecke, a three-year member of Appellant .

Aside from

the threatening and coercive tone of the Grosboll/Solecke letters, Ms . Grosboll's

September 1, 2000 letter misleadingly cited the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory as an

authority for denying or limiting the Permit without disclosing that the INAI began its

report with the caveat that the Little Vermilion River has been subject to continuing

effects of human activities for at least 150 years

.

[Fred Hubbard to confirm reference to

INAI]

According to her testimony, Ms . Grosboll did not suspect at the time that she was

being used by Ms. Solecke to implement Appellant's agenda, and perhaps to set up

grounds for this appeal

.

This document is printed on recycled paper .

4

---

The conduct of IDNR's Endangered Species Office is perhaps the most troubling of the

numerous apparent conflicts of interest in the records of the Agencies that forms the

evidentiary basis for this Appeal. Deanna Glosser, the director of the JDNR Endangered

Species office during the pendency of the Permit application, sent a strongly worded letter

on Department letterhead to IEPA hearing Officer Seltzer, with copies to many other

IEPA and IDNR officials. Ms. Glosser's letter dwelt on the proposed antidegradation

regulations now pending before the IPCB, even though those regulations are not

applicable to the Vermilion Grove NPDES permit. Patrick Malone, a Glosser subordinate,

busied himself to provide legal research in regard to unlawful takings, which suggests this

was their intent all along

.

Both the Glosser and Grosboll letters knowingly, falsely, and willfully stated that the

permitted discharge would result in significant degradation during dry periods, even

though they were well aware that the discharge would only flow during major storms, and

then to a lesser extent than other watershed contributors . Both cited papers from other

regions to suggest that even minute contacts of water with coal anywhere in the watershed

would have disastrous effects on the Little Vermilion River, even though both were aware

that the LVR naturally flows through the coal seams throughout Vermilion County; and

that a major part of the riverbed in the Carl Flierman's nature preserve is comprised of old

coal mining strip pits (Ex. D). As illustrated by the photograph in Ex . G, Vermilion Grove

area residents seem to have viewed the unnamed tributary as a disposal area for old white

goods .

.

Appellant and the Environmental Law and Policy Center have not acted as responsible

advocates in this matter ; rather they have misrepresented facts, co-opted employees of

Illinois regulatory agencies; and generally abused the privilege they have been afforded as

responsible environmental organizations . The Executive Director of Appellant, made false

and defamatory statements without bothering to conduct or obtain any scientific or

engineering analysis. He himself is unqualified by education or experience to hold a

technically or managerially demanding position . His main qualifications seems to be a

smarmy, vaguely defined affection for rivers ; and a gift for inflammatory rhetoric. Any

pending or future comments or contribution by these persons or entities should be

regarded by the IL PCB as prejudiced, lacking in objectivity, and aimed at misusing the

regulatory process to achieve mainly political goals

.

The conduct of Appellant and its counsel, Environmental Law & Policy Center, suggests

that they and certain individuals politically activist persons within the IEPA and IDNR are

acting in concert to set up the Black Beauty Permit matter as a "Poster Child" that

illustrates the dire need for stricter antidegradation regulations . Any future efforts by them

to influence Illinois antidegradation rules should be viewed with great skepticism

.

Appellant has failed to meet its burden of proof in this matter . Further, Appellant has acted

in bad faith. Equity demands equity. Vermilion Coal Company respectfully requests that

the appeal be denied in its entirety

.

This document is printed on recycled paper

.

5

---

This document is printed on recycled paper

.

Wil

E. Stephe

Vic President

6

---

Before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, Case PCBOI-112

Prairie Rivers Network v IEPA and Black Beauty Coal Company

Exhibit List to Public Comments of Vermilion Coal Company

Exhibit A :

IL PCB Rulemaking Proceedings (1980)

Exhibit B

:

IL PCB Rulemaking Proceedings (1983)

Exhibit C

:

Plan View of Vermilion Grove Mine Water Treatment Facilities

Exhibit D :

Little Vermilion Riverbed Map Showing Old Strip Pits

Exhibit E :

September 1, 2000 Letter of Carolyn Grosboll (IEPA Ex. 72)

Exhibit F :

September 12, 2000 Letter of Deanna Glosser (1EPA Ex . 1)

Exhibit G:

Photo of LVR Unnamed Tributary Showing Discarded White Goods

Exhibit H

:

Biologically Significant Illinois Streams (Page 25, 1992) (IEPAIWPC/93-

139)

This document is printed on recycled paper .

7

---

Exhibit A

---

I

v

APR.19.2001

12:47PM

OPINIONPY :

[*1]

SATCHELL

OPINION: PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD (by Dr . Satchell)

:

This' matter comes before the Board upon two proposals for regulatory change .

On September 21, 1976 Ohio Power Company filed a petition for a change in the

definition of mine storage facility, docketed R76-20 . On April 20, 1977 the

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a petition proposing to repeal

Chapter 4 : Mine Related Pollution and substitute a new version, docketed R77-10,

On~August 18, 1977 the proceedings were consolidated on motion of Ohio Power

Company, The proposal in R76-20 was published in Environmental Register Number

135 on August 15, 1976, R77-10 was published in Environmental Register Number

146 on May 2, 1977 . Public hearings on the proposal were held

in Springfield on

October 31, 1977 and in Carbondale on November 2 and 3, 1977 . During the course

of these hearings, two amended proposals were presented by the Agency

.

On November 21, 1978, the Institute of Natural Resources (Institute), pursuant

to suggestion made by the Illinois Coal Association at the merit hearings, filed

with .the Board a proposal for interim regulations (R . 141) . On December 14,

1978 the Board ordered the record in this [*2] proceeding held open to take

evidence on the proposal for an interim regulation concerning total dissolved

solids in mine discharge (Rule 605 ; 32 PCB 321)

.

An Economic Impact Study (EcIS) was prepared by the Institute . Public

hearings on the EcIS were held in Springfield on July 31 and in Carbondale on

August 2, 1979

.

At these

hearings

evidence was also taken on the merits of the

Institute's interim proposal . On September 5, 1979 the Agency filed a third

amended proposal . on October 2, 1979 the Illinois Coal Association filed

a

set

of comments . On October 4, 1979 Monterey Coal Company filed its comments .

On

that same date the Illinois Mine Related Pollution Task Force filed a position

paper. On October 11, 1979 the Board received the comment of Directors Michael

Mauzy of the Agency and Brad Evilsizer of the Illinois Department of Mines and

Minerals .

The

hearings

were attended

by

members of the public and representatives of

-various coal companies and the Illinois Coal Association (Coal Association)

.

some of the latter were also members of the Task Force . The industry

representatives presented testimony and cross-examined witnesses

.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

The Chapter [*3] 4 revisions, drafted on the Order dated December 1$,, 1979,

are largely to accommodate the NPDES permit requirement . Currently mines

require two environmental permits in Illinois : they must have a Chapter 4 state

LEXSEE 1990 111. ENV LEXIS 379

IN THE MATTER OF: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE

REGULATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

Nos . R76-20 ; 77-10

Illinois Pollution control Board

2980 111. ENV LEXIS 379

January 24, 1980

CONTROL BOARD

NO . 663

P. 2/34

---

.J

APR.19.2001

12:47PM

NO.683

P.3/34

permit,

and, in most cases, an NPDES permit under Chapter 3, The new Chapter 4

provides specifically for Chapter 4 NPDES permits . The Agency regards this

permit requirement as essentially duplicative . The new Chapter 4 will exempt

from the state permit requirement those mines which hold an NPDES permit (Rule

402)

.

The proposal also contains a significant expansion of the scope of Chapter 4

to include coal transfer stations . This was the. proposal of Ohio Power Company

which was denominated R76-20 and consolidated with the Agency's proposal . This

will allow coal transfer and similar facilities to take advantage of the more

lenient effluent standards contained in Part VI of Chapter 4 (Rule 201 ; "Mining

Activities") . Since the inclusion of coal transfer facilities under Chapter 4

would represent a significant expansion of the permit requirement, there are

also provided exemptions from the permit requirement for smaller facilities

(Rule 403)

.

,

The Affluent limitations contained [*4] in Chapter 4 have been revised to

more closely follow the federal guidelines . The averaging rule has also been

changed to be similar to that found in federal guidelines and in the proposal in

R76-21 (Rules 601, 606) .

The present Chapter 4 requires an abandonment permit before a mine is

abandoned. The Agency has found these provisions to be unworkable . The new

Chapter 4 will provide for an abandonment plan which is filed with the permit

application and incorporated into the permit as a condition (Rule 509)

.

Most of the technical rules governing coal mining have been removed from

Chapter 4 . The remaining document is largely procedural. There is, however,

provisign for publication of an Agency guidance document which would contain

design criteria for coal mines and treatment works (Rule 5D1) . There in a

similar provision in the water rules (Water Pollution Rule 967)

.

Most of the controversy has controversy has centered around Rule 605 which is

unchanged from the old Chapter 4 . This rule requires that coal mine effluents

not cause violation of the water quality standards contained in Chapter 3

.

Apparently most of the coal mines in the state cause such water quality

violations [*5] with respect to total

dissolved

solids (TD5), chloride and

sulfate . Late in the proceeding the Institute of Natural Resources and the

Agency proposed a temporary rule to exempt coal mines from Rule 605 into the

year 1981, at which time the Institute intends to propose an alternative to Rule

605 (32 pCB 321) . In the interim, compliance will be required with good

housekeeping practices contained in a code of good mining practices promulgated

by a joint government-industry task farce,

STATE OR NPDES PERMIT

Although elimination of duplicate permits and provision 'for exemption from

the state permit requirements will result in dollar savings to the Agency and to

the industry, it adds considerable complexity to Chapter 4 . A facility carrying

out mining activities may fall into one of the following categories

:

1 . Combined Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 NPDES permit

;

2, chapter 4 NPDES permit

;

3. State permit ; or

4. Exempt from state permit (and not required to have an NPDES permit)

.

The following outline determines into which permit category a facility will

fall

:

---

RPR.19.2001

12:47PM

NO.683

P.4/34

1

.

bogs the applicant already possess a Chapter 4 state or NPDES permit for the

facility?

-- If so, is [*6] permit modification

required

under Rules 304(b) or 407?

2 . If not, does the applicant propose to carry out "mining activities" within

the meaning of Rule 201?

-- It the applicant does not propose to carry out mining activities a Chapter 4

permit is not required under Rule 401

.

3 . If the application proposes raining activities, then does the applicant

already possess a Chapter 3 NPDES permit for the facility [Rule 402(a)]?

-- If so, then the chapter 4 requirements will be written into the Chapter 3

NPDES permit (Rule 302)

.

4. If the applicant has no

NPDES

permit, then does the application propose a

discharge from a point source into navigable waters within the meaning of the

FWPCA (Rule 402)?

-- If so, then under Rules 300(a) and 302 the requirements of chapter 3 and

Chapter 4 will be written into one NPDES permit fox the facility subject to the

standard for permit issuance contained in Rule 502 .

5 . If an NPDES permit is neither held nor required, then does the facility

qualify for an exemption from the state permit requirement under Rule 403?

-- If not, a state permit is required under Rule 401

.

6 . If go, has the Agency notified the facility that a state [*7] permit is

nevertheless required under Rule 403(c)?

-- If

so,

a state permit will be written pursuant to Rule 401, subject to the

general standard for permit issuance contained in Rule 502 ; otherwise, a Chapter

4 permit is not required, provided the operator notifies the Agency of the

location of the facility and claims exemption prior to the filing of an

enforcement action [Rule 403(b)]

.

There are also construction permits (Rule 401) and construction

authorizations (Rule 304) . These are special, limited state and

NPDES

permits,

respectively. in the case of a facility which already has a Chapter 4 permit,

their issuance will amount to a permit modification in the above outline. In

the case of a new chapter 4 facility, the state or NPDES permit first issued

will ordinarily be a construction permit or authorization, although there is

flexibility on this point

.

ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY

The Economic Impact Study was prepared for the Institute by

Dr .

William C.

Hood and Dr. Donald W. Lybecker, The study found few identifiable costs and

benefits and concluded that the economic impact of proposed changes would be

minimal. The specific findings will be discussed with the individual [*8]

sections which were found to have an economic impact

.

The transcripts of the two sets of hearings are not numbered sequentially

.

It is therefore necessary to distinguish page numbers . "E" refers to a page

---

RPR.19 .2001 12:48PM

number in the economic impact hearings, while "R" refers to a page number in the

merit hearings

.

AGE1'CY PROPOSAL

At the hearings it was suggested that the Agency's proposal needed to be more

carefully drawn (R. 119) . It was further suggested that for clarity it was

desirable to separate the provisions applicable to : (1) NPOES permits, (2) state

permits and (3) both (R. 100) . The Agency's response to these criticisms was

three amended proposals which adjusted specific rules to meet specific

objections. The Agency suggested that the editorial changes were up to the

Board (R. 120) . Accordingly, the Board has regrouped the provisions from the

arrangement in the Agency proposal . After the proposal had been rearranged it

became apparent that its lack of structure had hidden a number of circular

definitions and conflicting provisions. An effort has been made to eliminate

these difficulties, Specific alterations in the Agency's proposal will be

discussed with each section. [*9] To aid in cross referencing the proposed

opinion and order to the proposal and the old Chapter 4, the comparable section

numbers have been listed in parentheses after the heading of each rule in this

Opinion, For example, "P-305" refers to Rule 305 in the Agency proposal and "0-

605" is Rule 605 in the old Chapter 4 .

PART I : GENERAL PROVISIONS

101 Authority (y-101; 0-101)

Rule 101 sets forth the Board's authority to regulate mine related pollution

under !3 13 12 and 13 of the Act which concern water pollution . The old chapter

4 also listed 13 13 9, 21, and 22 of the Act which related to air pollution and

land pollution and refuse disposal. These have been omitted from the revision,

Mining activities are subject to these provisions of the Act and to the Board

regulations adopted under them -- Chapter 2 : Air Pollution Control Regulations

and Chapter 7 : Solid Waste Rules and Regulations, as well as other Board

regulations (R. 43)

.

Mine refuse disposal is regulated by Chapter 4 pursuant to 13 12(d) of the

Act which

concerns

depositing contaminants upon the land so as

to cause a water

pollution hazard. It is arguable that mine refuse is also "refuse" within the

meaning of 13 13 21 and [*10] 22 . However, it is not the Board's intention that

disposal of mine refuse on a permitted Chapter 4 facility be subject to Chapter

7 as well as Chapter 4 .

Since chapter 3 and Chapter 4 both govern water pollution there mubt be

special rules establishing the respective jurisdictions . Chapter 4 governs

mining activities which include mine related facilities as defined by Rule 201

.

Part VI establishes effluent limits for mine discharges (Rule 600), Other

discharges and facilities are regulated under Chapter 3

.

102 Policy (P-102 ; 0-102)

This is largely unchanged from the Agency proposal and the old Chapter 4

.

The wording has been changed to include the defined terms "mining activities"

and "mine related facility" (R . 201)

.

103 Purpose (P-103 ; 0-102)

This has been taken largely unchanged from the second paragraph of old Rule

102

.

NO.683

P.5/34

h

---

HYK.17.c 4l 1G ; 4ChT1

NO.683

P

.6/34

104 Compliance with other Laws Required (P-105 ; 0-701)

This has been changed to indicate required compliance with "The Surface Coal

Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act ." The title of the law passed in

1979 differs slightly from the old title (R . 43, 58, 67)

.

105 Validity Not Affected (P-106 ; 0-702)

This is unchanged .

106 Repealer [*119

This has been added to the

Agency

Proposal. There is a proviso that if the

entire Chapter 4 is found invalid or if its enforcement

is

stayed, then the old

Chapter 4 will again come into effect . There is also a provision in Rule 704

which continues the abandonment permit requirements of old Rule 502 until

permits containing abandonment plans are issued,

PART II : DEFINITIONS

200 Terms Defined Elsewhere

This contains a listing of terms used

in Chapter 4 which are defined in the

Act, Chapter 3 or the FWPCA .

201 Definitions

Abandon : The definition of abandon has

been

enlarged to include "transfer of

ownersh.i,p," An operator who sells a mine may be obliged to execute an

abandonment plan under Rule 509 . Under the old Chapter 4 persons attempted to

evade their responsibilities for properly closing a site by transfer to a party

with insufficient resources to close the site . This change seeks to remedy this

(R. 9, ; E. 41)

.

The Agency proposal included "fail to open" under the definition of

abandonment. This has been deleted on the Agency's motion . Failure to open

will not therefore require execution of the abandonment plan . However, any

construction activity related to [*l21 preparation for mining amounts to

opening a mine. Therefore, execution of the abandonment plan will be required

unless the operator takes no action whatsoever preparatory to mining

.

Acid-producing Material: The definition has been changed slightly to clarify

the relationship between pyrite, iron and sulfur. Pyritic compounds include

pyrite, marcaSite and other compounds of iron and sulfur. These are acid-

producing. Other compounds of sulfur include sulfates and organic sulfur,

Sulfates are totally oxidized and hence do not, as such, produce acid . Organic

and elemental sulfur do not occur in large amounts in Illinois coal, but are

acid-producing. The definition has also been changed slightly to specify

consideration of the "quality of drainage produced by mining on sites with

similar soils ." This is in recognition of the fact that little mining actually

.occurs

in

the soil itself (R. 84)

.

Affected Land: The definition has been expanded to include all land owned,

controlled or used by the operator in connection With mining activities with the

exception of the surface area above underground mines. The old definition

included

only the actual mined area, refuse area, etc, [*13) The definition

has also been altered to exclude land once it has been reclaimed and abandoned

to the satisfaction of the .Agency

(R,

10) . Under Rule 513 the affected land

cannot be outside the permit area during the permit term .

---

H-'K . 17

. eoul

le ;4

C""1

NO.683

P.7/34

Coal Transfer Facilities or Coal Storage 3'ard: This is a new definition

.

Transfer and storage facilities have been included in the definitions of mining

activities and mine related facilities and have thus been brought under chapter

4 regulation. These facilities have much in common with coal mines and often

are larger than small mines and pose a similar pollution threat. Effluents from

these facilities will now be regulated under Part

VI

rather than under Chapter

3, Facilities which have ItPDES permits will now fall under Part IZI rather than

the permitting provisions of Chapter 3. Facilities which are not required to

have NPDES permits may be required to obtain a state permit under Part IV (R

.

10, 19, 60 ; E. 41, 45, 49, 61, 101)

.

This modification potentially represents a large expansion of the permit

requirement. However, Rule 403 provides exemptions from the state permit

requirements for domestic retail sales yards and consumer stockpiles . [*14]

Larger facilities are probably already required to have an NPDES permit,

in

which event Chapter 4 provisions will be written into the Chapter 3 permit .

The Agency proposal specified that coal transfer facilities and coal storage

yards were included not only in the definition of "mining activity," but also in

"mining" and "mine area." This usage was in conflict with the general

definitions of these terms in the proposal and it is not clear what its purpose

was . These have therefore been deleted . However, the definition has been

expanded to specify that transfer facilities and coal storage yards are "mine

related facilities ."

The Economic impact study concluded that inclusion of coal transfer

facilities and Storage yards under Chapter 4 would result both in costs and

benefits to the industry. They would have to prepare an abandonment plan at a

cost of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars . On the other hand, they will

not have to invest as much to construct larger treatment facilities to meet the

more stringent effluent standards of Chapter 3 (ECIS 35 ; E . 41, 45, 61) . The

looser effluent standards would have some negative effect on the environment

.

However, most of these facilities [*15] are located near major rivers where

ample dilution is available (ECIS 17; N . 49, 101) .

Construction Authorization: Authorization under Rule 304 to prepare land for

mining activities or to construct mine related facilities. Construction

authorization is issued to a person who holds or is required to have an NPDES

permit (R, 11) .

Construction Permit: A permit under Rule 401 allowing the operator to prepare to

carry out mining activities or to construct mine related facilities

(R.11) . A

construction permit is a state permit issued to an operator who does not hold an

NPDES permit . Under Rule 304 it is possible to issue a construction permit to a

person

who

may be required to apply for an NPDES permit . This will not affect

the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit for operation, but may simplify

administration in case there is doubt as to which type of permit is required

.

Construction of mine related facilities is a mining activity . Construction

may therefore be permitted by an operating permit as well as a construction

permit, The question is not what the title of the permit is but what the

.language of the permit allows, The construction permit is a special type of

[*16] operating permit which will usually be issued for a short period of time

to allow the operator to undertake something out of the ordinary routine of

mining. The construction permit contemplates eventual application for an

operating permit before daily operation is begun

.

It would be better to exclude from the definition of mining activities the

construction of mine related facilities . Mining could be separated neatly into

two worlds of construction and operation, each with its own permit . However,

v ,i"y

---

I

HrN . 17. eUW1 lei 41

imll

NO.683

P . 8/34

such definition would be difficult because mining is essentially an ongoing

construction process. It is not the Board's intent to require operators to make

continuous application for construction permits or authorizations as mining

proceeds (Comments of coal Association)

.

Domestic Retail Sales Yard: A coal stockpile which supplies only homeowners,

businesses or small industries or other institutions for individual consumption

.

This dges not include a sales yard located at a mine or mine related facility .

On the Agency's motion, a specific exclusion for sales yards which supply large

industrial operations has been excluded from the proposal . The word "small" has

been inserted (*17] in front of industries in the first half of the definition

.

This does not change the meaning (R. 11, 28; E. 43)

.

Domestic retail sales yards are excluded from the state permit requirement by

Rule 403 . This does not, however, exempt such a facility from the requirement

of obtaining an NPDES permit if the facility is otherwise required to obtain

such a permit, in which case the coal pile will be permitted under Part III of

Chapter IV (E. 84)

.

Drainage Course: Definition unchanged

.

Facility: This definition has been added to the Agency proposal . The term

was used in that proposal, although undefined, along with "mine," "mining

facility," and "operation ." A facility is a contiguous area of land, including

all structures above or below ground, which is owned or controlled by one

person. Two permits are required if there are either two isolated pieces of

land with one operator or adjacent tracts with two operators

.

The definition of mining activity in the proposal specified "activities on

land owned or controlled by the operator

.

.

.

." This has been changed to

"activities on a facility ." The implication that a permit is limited to one

operator on one site is now contained [*18]

in the definition of facility .

The one-site/one-operator limitation, although self-evident, is of central

importance deserving clarification in a separate definition . Furthermore, it is

logically remote from the definition of mining activity, except to the extent

that offsite activities are not mining activities within the meaning of chapter

4 .

The facility may be larger than the affected land. It may include

undisturbed land and contain within it facilities which are regulated under

Chapter 3 as well as mine related facilities . The permit area must be contained

within qne facility, but the permit area may be less than the entire facility,

It

is

the Board's intention that a site under control of one operator but

bisected by a roadway or other easement should be one facility . In the event

there nee two closely related, but noncontiguous facilities under the control of

one operator, the Agency may allow a combined permit application and issue

combined permits, it it is convenient to do so . In the event there are separate

surface installations serving a single mine, there will be one facility .

The phrase "owned or controlled" does not require permits of both the owner

of record [*19] title and, for instance, a lessee. However, in the event

control of mining activities is in dispute, the owner may be required to obtain

a permit also. Otherwise the permit will be required of the person in control

of the mining activities . The fact that two or more persons may be in control

of part of the facility is irrelevant so long as only one controls mining

activities ;

e.g ., utility easements or farm operations have no effect on

"control" for the purpose of determining the extent of the facility

.

During the hearings the Agency sought to amend the proposed definition of

"operator" to specifically include co-op preparation plants (R. 12, 29; Agency

---

I

I

U

N

N-

N-

H'K.1J.Gbd1

1e :4`J~'M

NO.683

P .9/34

Amendment)

.

The argument had been made that, since there was no one operator,

Chapter 4 was not applicable to the co-op . However, "operator" has been

redefined to include any person who carries out mining activities . The question

centers not on the legal character of the person, but on whether he carries out

mining activities . Even if a co-op falls under no other characterization in the

definition of "person" in the Act, then it will probably be a partnership within

the meaning of Chapter 106 1/2, b 6, Illinois Revised Statutes . [*20] If the

facility if physically separated, then multiple permits may be required .

However, if one site is operated by several persons, the

Agency

may require them

to enter into a formal agreement fixing control prior to permit issuance,

Mine Area or Mined Area : Although the definition is largely unchanged, it has

been altered to exclude the unmined surface land directly above underground mine

workings that is not otherwise disturbed by mining activities . The changes in

wording more clearly state the definition (R . 91)

.

Mine Discharge: Part VT regulates mine discharges . The production of a mine

discharge is a mining activity . The AGency proposal did not include a

definition of mine discharge . This definition has been taken from Rule 600 (P-

301) . Since the definition is fairly long it was thought better to set it forth

in definitions and then simply use the term "mine discharge" in Part VI .

The proposal brings preparation and milling plant effluents into Chapter 4

for the first time (R . 15) . The definition has also been expanded somewhat to

include discharge from affected land and runoff from land . The Agency

definition was somewhat more limited in scope. This [*21] may have been

inadvertently omitted from the Agency proposal since it is contained in the old

version of Chapter 4 [0-601(a), P-301(a)] (R. 51),

Coal mining is closely connected with activities affecting the land, The

exclusion of runoff from part of the affected land from Chapter 4 regulation

could have unintended results . It could be argued under the Agency proposal

that runoff from the affected land other than from the mining area or the mine

refuse area or processing plant, etc., would be regulated by Chapter 3. This

could be used to justify required segregation of waste streams where there was

no sound environmental reason for doing so . This is not intended, however, to

limit the Agency's power under Rule 604 to require segregation of waste streams,

A definition of other discharges is also included. These include sanitary

sewers and discharges. from facilities and activities which are not directly

related to mining activities . Other discharges are regulated under Chapter 3

.

If a facility with an NPDES permit has both mine discharges and other

discharges, they will be regulated by Chapter 4 or Chapter 3 respectively,

although there will be one permit only (Rule 302) . [*22]

Mine Refuse; Definition unchanged (R . 48)

.

Mine Refuse Area : Definition unchanged .

Mine Refuse Pile ; Definition unchanged .

Mine pelated Facility : A portion of a facility which is related to mining

activities, This is a new definition taken from the Agency's amended proposal,

the rule on construction authorization (Rule 304 ; P-204) . That amendment

required a construction permit for "any facilities related to mining

activities ." This has been shortened to "mine related facility" and used

throughout . There may be several mine related facilities within a facility .

There may also be other facilities, including facilities regulated under Chapter

3

.

Mining : The Agency proposal contained an exception from the definition of

mining for "dredging operations contained solely in natural bodies of water ." In

---

WK .

1

7

.6601

n:buHM

NO.683

P.10/34

a letter to the Board dated September 26, 1917 the Illinois Department of

Conservation objected to this exemption, At the hearings the Agency was unable

to explain why this was excluded from the definition of mining (R . 97), This

exception has therefore been deleted from the proposal . These operations may,

however, be exempt from the state permit requirement under [*23] Rule 403 . An

example of a regulated dredging operation is found in Votava v . Material Service

Corp., 2<d> District, #78-489 (July 19, 1979)

.

The wording of the definition has been somewhat changed to include the

surface and underground extraction or processing of natural deposits of coal,

clay, fluorspar, gravel, lead bearing ores, sand, stone, peat, zinc bearing ores

or other minerals, It was pointed out at the hearing that lead and zinc do not

occur in their native state in Illinois and that peat is mined in Illinois (R

.

93)

.

Mining Activities : All activities on a facility which are directly in

furtherance of mining. This definition, together with the permit requirement of

Rule 401, defines the scope of Chapter 4 (R . 11, 70) . The Agency's definition

has been essentially adopted . However, a listing of specific mining activities

mentioned

in the proposal have been listed with the definition

.

The Agency proposal contained many permit requirements (P-200, 201, 204, 251,

256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263 and 265) . All of these were in conflict with

the requirement of an operating permit to carry out mining activities . Many

also conflicted with other permit requirements [*24] through the use of

different language to cover similar activities . These have been brought

together under the definition of mining activities . There is now only one

permit requirement, the state permits of Rule 401 . NPDES permits have been made

an exception to Rule 401, This has eliminated conflicting language and provides

a simple statement of the scope of Chapter 4

.

The Agency's proposal contained several rules stating generally that a permit

was required to carry out mining activities or to carry out a special type of

mining activity, The proposed Chapter 4 contains several rules of the form : "Do

not do

A

or

B,"

where B'is a subset of A . These have been retained for clarity

even thqugh they are redundant (Rules 304, 400, 401, 501, 502, 505) . It is

possible to interpret this As excluding the special type from the definition of

mining activity. Therefore the definition of mining activities has been altered

to make it clear that the special type is still a mining activity

.

Opening a Mine : Any construction activity related to the preparation for

mining on a facility. This is a new definition . Once a mine has been opened,

it cannot be abandoned without execution of the [*25] abandonment plan as

provided by Rule 510 (R. 11) . Outstanding permits for mines which have never

been opened expire on the effective date of this Chapter as provided by Rule

703 . Permits issued in the future will include a definite expiration date as

provided-,by Rules 301 and 409 .

The Agency proposal specified preparation for mining on "the affected land ."

This has been changed to "facility" to avoid logical problems since the land

cannot b~ affected prior to opening a mine .

opening a mine is a mining activity and hence a state permit, construction or

operating, is required under Rule 401 . A construction permit is required by

that section to 'Prepare to carry out mining activities or construct a mine

related facility which could generate refuse, result in a discharge or have the

potential to cause water pollution

.

.

." ordinarily a permit will be obtained

before the mine is opened . Whether a permit is required for construction

activity preliminary to that specified in Rule 401 depends on intent . Turning a

spadeful of earth or driving a nail with the intent of ultimately mining is

opening

a

mine, which is a mining activity requiring a state permit . However,

---

N --

HYK. nh ca61 1Z SL~rn

NO .683

P . 1 1/34

the question of [*26) intent vani§hes once i,t can be said that a mine related

facility has been constructed which could generate refuse,

etc. in this case a

construction permit is required even if the operator has no intention of mining

.

Operating Permit : A state permit required of a person carrying out mining

activities as required by Rule 401 . An operating permit is not required for a

person holding an NPDpS permit as provided by Rule 402 . Other exemptions from

state permit requirements are provided by Rule 403

.

Construction permits and operating permits are referred to jointly and

severally as state permits . Since mining activities include construction, an

operating permit may authorize construction. There is no legal significance to

the designation "operating permit" or "construction permit ." The language of the

permit controls what is permitted

.

Operator: A person who carries out mining activities . An operator must have

a state, permit under Rule 401 unless one of the exemptions of Rules 402 and 403

applies

.

The definition has been considerably shortened from the Agency proposal which

listed various sorts of persons . This list is quite similar to that found in

the definition of "person" [*27] found in the Act . This term has been

substituted for the list for

clarity. it is doubtful the Board has the power to

regulate any person who falls outside the scope of the Act (R. 12)

.

The proposal specified "engages in mining or the generation or disposal of

mine refuse or the operation of any coal storage yard or stockpile area ." This

has been expanded to include all mining activities, The listed practices have

been moved to the definition of mining activities

.

under the Agency proposal state permits were required of operators who

carried out mining activities (P-251, 256, 257) . Apparently there were two

tests: Was the person an operator; and, (or?) was he carrying out mining

activities? This confusion has been eliminated by making the permit requirement

depend on the definition of mining activity only

.

Permittee: A person who holds a state or NPDES permit. This is a new term

taken

from

the new Reclamation Law. The Agency proposal spoke of "persons" and

"operators ." Where from the context a rule seems to apply only to permit holders

the term "permittee" has been substituted . A person who holds a combined

chapter 3 and Chapter 4 NPDES permit will be a "permittee" since (*28]

he

will

hold an NPDES permit issued under Chapter 4

.

Slurry: This definition has been somewhat changed and expanded to include

mill tailings

.

Spoil: This definition is unchanged, but has been clarified to include

"mineral seams or other deposits." This is in recognition of the fact that some

minerals do not occur in seams, but occur in lenses or other formations

(R .

99)

.

State Permit : A construction permit or operating permit

.

Surface Drainage Control ; This definition has been added to the original

proposal. An Agency amendment expanded the scope of

Rule 505 beyond diversion

of surface water around the active mining area to include diversion around mine

refuse areas and diversion, redirection or impoundment of streams . At this

point it became simpler to define a term for use in the operative rule .

Surface drainage control also includes flow augmentation and controlled

release

cf

effluents . These are suggested methods of avoiding violation of the

TDS

water quality standards which involve stream diversion and/or impoundment

.

They

wild.

require a permit under Rule 401

.

---

nrrs.l~.cr~n .t

lc',srl'I

NO.683

P . 12/34

surface Mining: Definition unchanged

.

Consideration has been given to bringing this definition [*29) into line

with the similar definition in the Reclamation Act. However, that act refers

only tq,coal mining, while chapter 4 covers mining activities in general . It is

the Hoard's intention to include "surface mining operations" as defined by f3

1.03(24) of the Reclamation Act within the definition of "surface mining" used

in chapter 4

.

Underground Mining: The definition has been changed slightly for

clarification

(R .

12),

Underground Water Resources : Definition unchanged .

Use of Acid-producing Mine Refuse : This definition is derived from the

Agency's proposal (Rule 508; P-259) . Use of acid-producing mine refuse has been

included in the definition of "mining activity" and the permit requirement, by

implication, moved to Rule 401: State Permits . . Under the old Chapter 4, use of

acid-producing mine refuse was illegal (0-404) . under the proposal, the Agency

may issµe permits (R. 112)

.

PART IIT : NPDES PERMITS

300 Preamble (P-200)

The wording of the original proposal has been changed to clarify the

NPDES/state permit relationship. Part III applies to mining activities carried

out by

any

person who holds an NPDES permit, regardless of whether he is

required to have [*30) an NPDES permit because of his mining activities . This

part dogs not seek to alter the law of who must obtain an NPDES permit .

However, it a person must obtain an NPDES permit, the Chapter 4 requirements

will be written into that permit (R . 12, 19

(

69, 100, 103, 167 ; S. 43, 82, 84)

.

Take, for example, a large mining operation which would not be subject to the

NPDES permit requirements except for a small sanitary waste facility . 14 the

sanitary waste facility must have an NPDES permit, then the entire facility is

governed by Part III and any Chapter 4 requirements will be written into the

NPDES permit. The facility will be exempt from the requirement of obtaining a

state permit under Rule 402

.

Part III also applies

to

mining activities carried out by persons required to

obtain an NPDES permit

.

It

will be a violation of Part

III

to carry out mining

activities without an NPDES permit if those activities are required to have such

a permit. In this case there will also be a violation of Part IV since the

exemption from obtaining a state permit will not be applicable if there is no

NPDES permit .

301 Incorporation of NPDES Water Rules (P-202)

Except to the extent contradicted [*31) in chapter 4, the rules contained in

subpart A of Part IX of Chapter 3 apply to Chapter 4 NPDES permits. This

incorporates Rules 901-916 of Chapter 3 into Chapter 4 . The permit requirement

of Rule 90'1 is identical to the permit requirement of Rule 302 . The application

requirement of Rule 902 has been supplanted by the requirements of Rule 504

.

Rule 903' is incorporated. Rules 904 through 909 set forth the permit

applications procedure before the Agency, These are generally incorporated

except to the extent they may be contradicted .

Rule 910(a) on general conditions is included in Chapter 4 subject to the

special conditions and Agency guidance document provided by Rule 501 . Rules

910(b), (c) and (d) concerning water quality standards, wasteload allocation,

---

RHH .1'$.2001

12:51PM

NO. 583

P.13/34

effluent limitations and new source standards of performance are included

.

Rules 910(e),

(f),

(q) and (h) concerning duration of permits, reporting and

monitoring, entry and inspection, schedules of inspection and compliance are

included. Rules 910(i) and (j) are generally incorporated. Rule 910 (k) on

maintenance and equipment

is

incorporated subject to the Agency guidance

document of Rule 501, Rules 910(1) and (m) on [*323 toxic pollutants and deep

well disposal are incorporated . Rule 910(n) on authorization to construct is

'supplanted by Rule 304 .

Rules 911 through 915 are generally included . These are appeal, authority to

suspend, modify or revoke, revision of scheduled compliance, variance and public

access to information. Rule 916, effective date, is not applicable

.

Rule 301 generally incorporates procedural rules applicable to NPDES permit

applications except to the extent that these are contradicted by the more

particular provisions applicable to mines . This is to be contrasted to Rule 600

which concerns the applicability of the effluent and water quality standards of

Parts II, III and IV of Chapter 3 . The standards contained in chapter 3 are

generally inapplicable to mine discharges unless otherwise provided,

302 NPDES Permit Required of Certain Discharges (P-201)

Rule 302 establishes the requirement of an NPDES permit for a Chapter 4

discharger. This merely repeats Rule 901 of Chapter 3 and the requirements of

section 301(a) of the FWPCA as applicable to mining activities

.

The Agency proposal also specified that an NPDES permit was required of all

discharges of pollutants or combination [*33] of pollutants from all point

sources as defined in the FWPCA into navigable waters . The Board does not

disagree with this statement of the NPDES permit requirement. However, this

language has been omitted out of concern that it might be construed not as a

guideline to aid persons unfamiliar with the permit requirement but as a new

standard for the permit requirement. It

is

not the Board's intention to change

the-NPDES requirements in this Chapter 4 . Whether the permit is required will

be judged solely by Chapter 3 and the FWPCA

.

303 Application (P-203)

Rule 303 requires a person to apply for an NPDRS permit if he is to engage in

a mininglactivity requiring such a permit . This rule contradicts the present

Rule 902(c) of Chapter 3 .

303(b) makes it clear that a person who has applied for an NPDES permit need

not apply for a state permit. If a person is in doubt as to whether an NPDES or

state permit is required, he

should

first apply for an NPDES permit. If the

Agency determines that a state permit is required, it will notify the person and

request dim to apply for a state permit . There will be no penalty for

application for the wrong permit

.

303(b) will also be applicable [*34) in the event the Agency loses NPDES

authority and notifies the permit holders that state permits are required as

provided by, Rule 402,

304 Construction Authorization (P-204)

Rule $04(b) provides for modification of a mining activity or mine related

facility for which the operator already holds an NPDES permit . Modification can

be undertaken only pursuant to a construction authorization which will take the

form of a condition of a new or supplemental NPDES permit (R . 13, 66)

.

---

HVK.1y.Gbb1 n :51HM

Rule 304(a) covers the more complicated case in which a person

:

1. Seeks to open a mine for which an NPDES permit will or may be required ; or

2. Seeks to modify a facility in such a manner that an NPDES permit will be

required after the modification but was not before, either because it operated

under

a

state permit or was exempt; or

3. Seeks to modify a facility in such a manner as to bring part of it under

Chapter 4 where the facility prior to modification held an NPDES permit but was

regulated under Chapter 3

.

Rule 304(b) covers the usual situation in which a person,operating under an

NPDES permit seeks to modify . This will be handled exclusively with a

construction authorization . However, [*35] flexibility is allowed in the less

common situation involving new construction which will bring a facility under

Chapter 4 for the first time. These situations could result in

confusion .

They

may be handled either by construction authorization or state construction permit

as provided by Rule 401 . Rule 304(c) provides that application must be made at

least 180 days in advance . Rule 304(d) provides that a person seeking

construction authorization will proceed just as though he were applying for an

NPDES permit . The Agency may provide construction criteria in its guidance

document promulgated pursuant to Rule 501 .

The original proposal contained a requirement that the construction

authorization not cause a violation of the conditions of the NPDES permit . This

has been deleted. The standard for issuance of a construction authorization

will be the same as the standard for the issuance of a permit, The question

will be

whether

the modified facility will cause a violation of the Act or

Rules, if not, the conditions of the permit will be adjusted to allow the

modification. Similar requirements have been dropped from USEPA regulations [40

C.F.R. b 124 .52(b) ; 44 Fed. Reg. 32,854, [*36] 32,899 (June 7, 1979)]

.

However, Rule 301 incorporates a similar provision from the present Rule 902(i)

of Chapter 3 . On December 13, 1979 the Board proposed to delete this in R79-13,

The Agency proposal was also specifically conditioned on the validity of

existing permits . This has been deleted as unnecessary . The term permit always

means valid permit unless otherwise specified . Subsequent to the hearings the

Agency proposed an amended version of this rule [P-204(a)]

.

This amendment has

been substantially adopted in altered form

.

Deleted (P-205)

The Agency proposal contained a rule listing the rules which were applicable

to NPDES permits (P-205) . This rule has been deleted since the chapter has been

restructured to make this clear (R . 101)

.

PART IV; STATE PERMITS

400 Preamble [P-250 ; 0-203(a)]

Part IV governs in theory all mining activity and hence anything regulated

under Chapter 4. However, the exemptions for holders of NPDES permits and for

domestic retail sales yards, consumer stockpiles and some small mines will, as

things presently stand, relegate Part IV to a minor role (R . 69) . However, in

the event the Agency loses NPDES authority, this will become the [*37]

principal part of Chapter IV

.

401 Construction and operating Permits : State Permits (P-251, 256, 257 ; 0-201)

NO.683

P

. 14/34

---

RPR.19.2001

12:52PM

NO.683

P.15/34

Rule 401

sets forth the requirements of state permits. There are two types

of state permits

-- construction permits and operating permits . These are

referred to individually or collectively as state permits (A . 12) . Rule 401(c)

provides for a joint construction and operating permit to be issued whenever it

is not worth the administrative trouble to issue separate permits

.

An operating permit is required for a person to carry out mining activities,

The definition of mining activities includes construction activities . Therefore

an operating permit is sufficient for construction . However, Rule 401(a)

provides for a separate construction permit. There has been difficulty with the

old Chapter 4 in that it is not clear that construction is a mining activity

.

In some cases, coal has actually been removed from the ground and sold . Persons

have claimed that this was construction and not governed under Chapter 4 so as

to require an operating permit., A construction permit is provided in order to

make this clear (R. 33) .

The separate construction permit will also allow (*38] the Agency to review

and inspect a facility prior to issuance of the operating permit . In some

instances this will provide more flexibility in the permitting process .

It makes no legal difference whether a state permit is denominated a

construction permit or an operating permit . The language of the permit

will

determine what is permitted regardless of the name

.

The Agency's original proposal contained two separate rules for when a

construction permit was required (P-251, 256) . The standard adopted is from the

Agency's amended proposal (A .P .-251)

.

The standard for issuance of a joint permit in the Agency's proposal was that

the activities were "sufficiently standard to obviate the need" for separate

construction and operating permits. This has been changed to allow a joint

permit "for administrative convenience ." The Agency should issue a joint permit

not only when a standard design is involved, but also in the case of an

innovative design if it is more efficient to issue the joint permit . The Agency

may also require two permits even if the design is standard (P-251, 256)

.

The original proposal specified various mining activities for which a permit

was required. This has been (*39] changed to include all mining activities as

defined by Rule 201 . The specifics have been moved to the definition of mining

activities

.

402 Exemption from State Permit : NPDES Bolder (P-252, 200)

Rule 402 provides that an operator who holds an NPDES permit for a facility

need not have a state permit for mining activities on the facility . Whatever

mining activities an NPDES permit holder engages in will be permitted under Part

III (R. 12, 19, 69, 100, 167 ; E. 84) . The NPDES exemption will terminate when

and if the Agency ceases to administer the NPDES permit program . The Agency's

proposal set forth the requirements of the PWPCA and specified that the

exemption would not apply unless they were met . Even though the exemption and

the Agency's NPDES authority might be conditioned upon the same facts, this

construction would raise the possibility of an inconsistent determination of the

facts. The proposal has been changed to provide that the exemption ceases

whenever the Agency ceases to administer the program for any reason whatsoever

.

Rule 402(b) also provides for notice to the NPDES permit holders by the

Agency in the event the Agency ceases to administer the program. This (*40]

is the only way of guaranteeing that the permit holders will learn that a state

permit is required. The notification procedure also allows the Agency to

determine whether or not it has NPDES authority . The agency need not give

notice until it is convinced it has actually lost the authority with sufficient

---

APR.19.Z001

12:52PM

NO.683

P.16/34

certainty to justify the inconvenience of processing a large number of state

applications . The wording has also been changed to give the Agency authority to

set dates upon which applications must be received for state permits . It the

Agency, deems it necessary, it may spread these dates out over a period for

administrative convenience

.

The EcIS concluded that elimination of the present system of requiring

duplicate state and NPDES permits would result in an annual savings to the

Agency of $ 3000 to $ 5000 and $ 200 to $ 400 to the mines (E . 43)

.

403 Exemption from State Permit; Coal Piles and Small Mines (P-252)

Rule 403 provides a further exemption from the state permit requirement for

some sfiall mines, domestic retail sales yards and consumer stockpiles located at

the consuming facility, The

revision

has increased the scope of Chapter IV by

including under the definition [*41] of mining activities coal transfer

facilities and coal storage facilities . These definitions would include

domestic retail sales yards and consumer stockpiles . They are also able to take

advantage of the more lenient discharge standards found in Part VI

.

However,

it

would unduly burden retail sales yards to require them to obtain permits (R . 13,

20, 28, 104) . Although consumer stockpiles could include very large facilities,

it is expected that most of these

will

already have NPDES permits. This

provision does not create exemption from the NPDES permit requirement (R . 64; E

.

84) . However, Chapter 4 requirements concerning, for example, a consumer

stockpile will be written into the NPDES permit . The Agency retains the right

to require a state permit in the event a non-NPDES facility threatens to cause

water pollution or violation of the regulations .

Rule 403(a) (3) provides an exemption for any mine affecting less than ten

acres of land per year which is not a coal, fluorspar, lead or zinc mine. it is

contemplated that among other things, this will provide an exemption for small

sand and gravel operations . Since there is a large potential for abuse, the

Board has added to [*42] the Agency's proposal the requirement of notification

by a small mine. This will afford the Agency an opportunity to investigate and

will allow it to maintain an accurate list of mining operations in the state,

Since the exemption will date only from the time the Agency is notified of

the claim of exemption, this provision will be of limited utility as a defense

to operation without a permit, For the exemption to apply, operators who have a

mine with a doubtful exemption will have to notify the Agency and submit

themselves to an

inspection

in advance of an enforcement proceeding .

Rule

403(c) sets forth the requirement that the Agency notify the operator

that a permit is required and that the

exemption

is found inapplicable . In the

event the operator promptly applies for a permit, he can continue operating

without being subject to an enforcement action for operating without a permit

.

404 Applications

:

, Deadline to Apply (P-253)

A

person

who is required

to

have a state permit must tile the application at

least ninety days before the date

on

which the permit is required . This is

similar to rules found

in

Chapter 3 (Rules 902 and 960) . Under the

Administrative Procedure Act, [*43] if a timely permit application is made,

the old permit continues in effect after expiration until the new permit is

issued [x11. Rev. Stat. ch 127, 0 1016 (1977)] . An applicant will not be able

to avail himself of this statute if the application is not filed ninety days

prior to expiration .

405 Permit Applications : Signatures and Authorizations Required (P-254)

---

HVK . 17.eOO1 1eOt)J M

NO.683

P.17/34

This rule is virtually identical with Rule 902(h) of Chapter 3 which is

applicable to NPDES permits

.

406 Permit Applications : Registered or Certified mail or Hand Delivery Required

(P-255)

This rule is similar to Rule 959 of Chapter 3

.

407 Supplemental State Permits [P-251, 263 ; 0-203(b))

Rule 407 sets forth the rule for when supplemental state permits are

required. Rule 407(a) specifies that an operator may apply for a new or

supplemental permit whenever circumstances arise such that there could be a

violation of the previous permit .

The Agency's amended proposal specified that additional state permits are

required "whenever mine drainage, mining or mine refuse disposal enters an area

not covered by a previous permit or when the treatment or pollution control

plans ate modified in design or operation" (AD-251) . [*44] This provoked

comment from the Illinois Coal Association and

Monterey

Coal Company. They

objected to dropping the word "substantially" before "modified in design or

operation" and to the proposal to require a supplemental permit whenever the

mine

entered

any "area" as opposed to a "new drainage area ."

The supplemental permit requirement on entering a new drainage area is taken

from the old Chapter 4 [0-203(b)) . Under that rule an operator could mine for

an indefinite period at a given location once a permit was issued . The only

limitation was a new permit when a new drainage area was entered . The new

Chapter 4 is different in that the permit can have a duration of not more than

five years, It is possible to project the progress of the mining with greater

specificity for a limited period of time . Therefore, Rule 513 has been added to

the Agency's proposal, This requires that a state or

NPDES

permit specify a

permit area, the maximum,

extent

of the affected land during the permit term .

From the coal operators' comments', this appears to make Chapter 4 more in

agreement with the Department of Mines and Minerals' permitting system .

The Agency's proposal contained a substantive [*45) rule requiring

supplemental permits under certain circumstances . However, application for

supplemental

permit is a defensive move on the part of an operator . Therefore ;

a rule requiring a supplemental permit is unnecessary . Rule 407 has been

modified to make it clear that an operator may apply for a new or supplemental

permit whenever a change occurs such that there could be a violation of his

permit .

Under

the Agency proposal, for example, an operator mining beyond the

permitted area would violate not only the rule requiring an additional permit,

but also the rule against violating a permit condition . The redundancy is

unnecessary. The permit should specify with some particularity what it permits

.

If the operator goes outside the bounds of the permit it is a violation of the

permit condition . lie must either cease the activity or apply for a supplemental

permit .

,

Inspection of Chapter 3 reveals no similar rule applying to state permits . A

substantive rule

requiring

supplemental permits is not only unnecessary but is

redundant and conflicts with the various permit requirements contained in Part V

of Chapter 4 . For instance, Rule 506 requires a supplemental permit before

implementation [*46) of a revised disposal plan . Retention of

a

rule requiring

supplemental state permits could also be used as a defense to a complaint

alleging operation in violation of a permit condition not specifically listed in

the rule

requiring

supplemental permits. An operator could contend that under

---

v

.

HNK . 1:J .eUU1

1C

O

t>d- 1

NO.683

P . 18/34

his circumstances

a supplemental permit was not required and therefore he could

change his method of

operation

without applying for a supplemental permit .

The modified rule gives the Agency control by permit over the supplemental

permit requirement. For example, under Rule 501 the Agency is authorized to

impose special conditions, which could include details of the design and

operation of treatment or po3,lution control plans . The Agency can be more or

less specific about these details in the permit. The degree of specificity will

determine the latitude within which the permittee can operate without making a

supplemental application .

408 Vigiation of

Conditions

or Standards in a Permit (P-270 ; 0-206)

Rule-408 requires operators to comply with conditions of their state permit

.

Rule 400(b) provides for revocation of permits

.

The %gency proposal merely stated that a permit could be revoked (*47]

without giving any standard for revocation . In the Proposed order, four

circumstances warranting permit revocation are listed. These are taken in part

from Rule 912(b) of Chapter 3 and in part by analogy with case law developed in

connection with solid waste permits

. (EPA V . Harold Broverman, et al ., 28 PCB

123, November 10, 1977)

.

in

connection

with an enforcement action, the Board may revoke a state permit

if, because of existing geological conditions, an operator cannot carry out

mining activities so as not to cause a violation of the law ; or, the complainant

demonstrates a history of chronic disregard by the permittee of the mining

regulations; or, the complainant demonstrates that the permit was obtained by

misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts ; or, the

complainant demonstrates affirmatively that the general standard for permit

issuance

contained

in Rule 502 would not be met if a new application for permit

were made, This last circumstance is intended to be the converse for the

general standard for permit issuance .

409 State Permit Term [P-268; 0-203(a)]

Rule 409 provides that state permits shall be of a duration not to exceed

five yedrs [*48] as specified in the permit. The Agency may specify any

expiration date up to five years from the effective date of a state permit

(R.267) . The Agency proposal specified that permits had a duration of one to

five years . This has been changed to remove the requirement that the permit

have a duration of at least one year . Rule 910(e), Chapter 3 specifies that

NPDES permits be issued for specific terms not to exceed five years . In the

past the Agency has issued to coal mines NPDES permits expiring less than one

year after issuance. (See EPA V . Zeigler Coal Company, PCB 79-123, Order of

November 1, 1979) . The minimum requirement has been dropped in keeping with the

general

policy of this revision of keeping the NPDES and state permits as

similar gs possible

.

The Agency's proposal specified that operating permits, but not construction

permits, could have such duration except as provided in paragraph d of Section

33 of thA Act. That section establishes the Board's authority to revoke

permits . It is unclear why the Board should not have the authority to

revoke

construction permits also . This exception has been dropped from the rule since

it is not only redundant, but appears [*49] to conflict with the general rule

on revocation of permits found in Rule 407

.

The Agency proposal also contained a provision that all operating permits now

in effect expire when the earliest NPDES permit expires, but not later than

three years after the effective date of this Chapter . This has been moved to

---

U

HYK

. 17.CLO1

1C Jcsrn

NU . btii

f'. flJ/b4

Part VZI . Not only is this a temporary rule that doesn't belong with the body

of the chapter, but also it does not apply to state permits within the meaning

of Part

IV .

An Agency amendment to the rule on duration of permits which

specifies a 180 day period for abandonment plans after effective date of this

regulation has also been moved to Part VII .

410 Permit No Defense to Certain Violations (P-269 ; 0-207)

Rule 410 provides that possession of a state permit is not a defense except

to a complaint alleging mining activity without a permit. This is similar to

Rule

966 in chapter 3 and Rule 207 of the old Chapter 4 . In an amendment the

Agency also sought to expand this rule to cover NPDES permits, The Hoard

rejects this

change .

Rule 966 of chapter 3 is not applicable to NPDES permits

and there

is

no similar provision covering NPDES permits . Although the Board

has not [*50] so held, there is authority for the proposition that compliance

with the conditions of an NPDES permit is a defense to a complaint charging

violation of related regulations

.

On motion of the Agency, language relating to abandonment plans has been

stricken. Under the original proposal, operator compliance with its abandonment

plan was a defense to abandonment violations . This language was vague and

unnecessary since abandonment plans are covered in Rule 509 (R. 53, 77). The

Illinois Coal Association objected to this proposed modification . However, the

modification is in keeping with the general rule that Illinois permits are no

defense to complaints charging violation of the Act or rules,

411 Permit Review (P-272 ; 0-703)

This follows the general policy of the other Chapters that grant of a permit

with objectionable conditions is a permit denial under section 40 of the Act

allowing the applicant to appeal . This provision is substantially unchanged

from the old Chapter 4, although the language has been altered from that and

from that of the Agency proposal . Language has been inserted providing that

Agency notification of modification or revocation of an existing permit is also

[*51] a permit denial. Rule 503 covers permit modification when new

regulations are adopted. The added language will allow a permit appeal in the

event of Agency notification of modification in such a case. In some cases Rule

503 notification of modification could amount to revocation of the permit

.'

Language has been added to make certain that there is a right to appeal in this

case also .

PART V: STATE AND NPDES PERMITS

500 Preamble

Part V governs mining activities and issuance of permits to operators

regardless of whether they hold a state or NPDES permit,

501 Special Conditions ; Agency Guidance Document (P-261, 266 ; 0-205(c)]

Rule 501(a) allows the Agency to impose special conditions on a permit which

are consistent with the rules and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the

Act. Tha.s restates the Agency's authority under 13 39 of the Act to translate

the body of water pollution law into specific requirements which a discharger

must meet

.

The Agency proposal with regard to special conditions has been reworded to

track the language of 4 39 of the Act [Rule 501(a), P-205(b) and P-266] . The

---

I

I

HHK . 1:1 .

e0ol

12c b4HM

NO.683

P

. 20/34

requirement found in h 39(a) that permit conditions not be inconsistent with

the [*52] Board rules was not included

in the Agency proposal and has been

added

.

section 39 of the Act sets forth the Agency's authority to impose special

conditions in permits. The wording is slightly different depending on whether

the permit is state or NPDES. Section 39(a), which applies to permits required

by Board regulations, reads as follows: "In granting permits the Agency may

impose such conditions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this

Act, and as are not inconsistent with the regulations promulgated by the Board

hereunder." However, 13 39(b) of the Act sets forth that : "All

IQPDBS

permits

shall contain those terms and conditions, including but not limited to schedules

of compliance, which may be required to accomplish the purposes and provisions

of this Act ." Therefore, assuming J3 39(a) of the Act is inapplicable to NPDES

permits, the Act does not require NPDES permit conditions to be not Inconsistent

with Board regulations. This does not necessarily imply that the Agency must

ignore Board rules in writing NPDES permit conditions . Section 39(a) provides

that the Agency "may impose" conditions necessary to accomplish the Act's

purpose which are not inconsistent (*53] with Board rules . However, 13 39(b)

provides that, in the case of NPDES permits, the Agency "shall impose"

eonditigns required to accomplish the Act's purposes. The Act is silent about

what additional conditions the Agency may impose in NPDES permits

.

Rule 501(b) allows the Agency to adopt permitting procedures . These should

include rules of procedure and application forms . They shall be included in the

Agency guidance document provided for below

.

Rule 501(c) allows the Agency to adopt engineering criteria which will, be

published with the Agency guidance document . These should represent minimal

designs and practices which the Agency will accept for permit issuance

.

Rule 501(e) has been added to the Agency proposal . Although 4 39 of the Act

confers authority on the Agency to adopt rules governing permit procedures, the

Agency has no authority to promulgate substantive rules pursuant to 13 B 12 and

13 of the Act. This authority is given to the Board and there is no authority

for subdelegation to the Agency (E. 80) . Rule 501(e) has been added to clarify

the nature of the criteria which the Agency may promulgate,

The Agency necessarily has the power to develop guidelines for [*54] permit

issuance to be used within the Agency. Rules 501(c) and (d) contemplate

publication of these guidelines as criteria . The criteria will represent a

formal statement of what the Agency will not challenge in a permit application

.

The criteria are not rules and will not bind any party other than the Agency

.

Although these are not rules in the usual sense of the word, they are rules

within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, Ill . Rev. Stat . ch. 127,

3 1003 .09

:

"Rule" means each Agency statement

of

general applicability that implements,

applies, interprets, or prescribes law or policy, but does not include (a)

statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not

affecting private rights or procedures available to persons or entities outside

the agency, (b) informal advisory rulings issued pursuant to Section 9,

(0)

intra-agency memoranda or (d) the prescription of standardized forms

.

The c;iteria will amount to an Agency statement that interprets law or

policy. They will be of general applicability and not informal advisory rulings

issued to individual petitioners as contemplated by !3 1009 of ch . 127

.

Publication of the rules in conformity with (*55] the Administrative Practices

Act is therefore required (E . 82; Third Amended Proposal)

.

---

I

Hr(.17.Gbb1

iCt4VCi

502 Standard for Permit Issuance

Or

Certification (P-267 ; 0-202)

Rule 502(a) sets forth the standard for permit issuance . This is the usual

standard for permit issuance that the operator present evidence to demonstrate

that there will not be a violation of the Act or rules (J3 39 of the Act)

.

Rule 502(b) further sets forth the function of the Agency guidance document

.

Where the guidance document contains criteria with respect to some part-or

condition of the permit, then the applicant may demonstrate conformity with the

criteria of the guidance document in lieu of demonstrating that there

will

be no

violation of the Act or Rules . However, since the guidance document does not

constitute rulemaking, nonconformity with the criteria will not be grounds for

permit denial, provided the general standard for issuance is met. For an Agency

interpretation of the comparable Rule 967 of Chapter 3, see 3 211 . Reg. 36, p .

226 (September 7, 1979)

.

'

As an example of the function of the guidance document, consider that the

Agency might issue criteria to the effect that refuse piles shall have a slope

no I*56] greater than 10% . The permit applicant will be free to •offer evidence

that a slope of 12% under the circumstances will not cause a violation of the

Act or Chapter 4 . However, the Agency will not be allowed to argue that under

the circumstances a maximum slope of 8% is required. The function of the

guidance document is to provide guidance by permitting the Agency to set forth

minimal standards . An applicant can assure himself of prompt permit issuance by

conforming to the criteria of the guidance document .

The Agency's proposal required that as a condition for permit issuance the

applicant demonstrate that he had conformed with all conditions

in

the

construction permit. If such a requirement is to be imposed at all, it should

also be applicable to construction authorizations . However, it has been deleted

from the proposal altogether. The permit will be issued if it is shown that no

violation will occur regardless of whether the applicant conformed to the

conditions of the construction permit . If the applicant breached the

construction permit this will be grounds for an enforcement action, but standing

alone it should not prevent issuance of an operating or NPDES permit if [*57]

the general standard for permit issuance is met . Revocation of the permit

could, however, be imposed as a sanction in the enforcement action in an

appropriate case under Rule 408 or under Rule 916 of

chapter 3 .

503 Permit Modifications when New Regulations Are Adopted (P-271)

Rule 503 provides that the Agency

may

issue a supplemental permit setting

forth affected terms and conditions in the event the Board adopts new

regulations (R. 116) . This has been completely changed from the Agency's

proposal which would have provided for modification of permits by operation of

law. Violation of permit conditions frequently carries more severe penalties

than violation of regulations . The more severe penalties are warranted in part

because the operator has been afforded notice of particular provisions in

regulations by way of the permit and because regulations have been made more

specific when incorporated into the permit . Modification of the permit' by

operation of law would defeat these policies of the permit system . Rule 503 as

adopted conforms with the similar provision contained in Rule 96B of Chapter 3

.

$04 Permit Applications (P-258 ; 0-204)

Rule 504 sets forth what information [*58] must be provided in a permit

application . This is further specified in the sections which follow (E . 26)

.

The Agency proposal specified that soil classification was to be according to

Grandt and Lang, Reclaiming Illinois Strip Coal Land with Legumes and Grasses

.

NO.683

P .21/34

---

RPR . 19.2001

12:55PM

NO.683

P.22/34

This book is out of print . The Agency will reproduce it

in the guidance

document (R. 106)

.

The Agency proposal specified that the application must comply with the

conditions of the

Agency

guidance document. This has been deleted. If the

Agency were empowered to specify conditions which had to be met, the result

would be an improper delegation of rulemaking authority . However, the Agency is

permitted to

request

more information or more particular information than that

listed in Rule 504 . It may do this either through an application form, the

Agency guidance document or specific requests for information . However, failure

to comply with criteria of the guidance document or inability to supply all

information will not alone be grounds for permit denial absent a showing that

the criteria or information is necessary in the particular case . The Coal

Operators' comment that this is,"beyond the bounds of reason" is answered [*59]

by the requirement of "necessary information,"

Subsequent to the hearings

the

Agency specified certain additional

information. This has been rearranged and incorporated into Rule 504 . The Coal

Operators' comments are discussed in connection with Rule 505

.

505 Surface Drainage Control (P-260 ; 0-301(a), 301(b)]

Rule 505 provides for control of surface drainage by permit. Surface

drainage must be diverted around or away from the active mining area . Other

mining activities and mine refuse disposal must be planned to minimize contact

with waters of the state if such contact could result in pollution . Stream

diversion is to be avoided,

The original proposal provided only for diversion around the active mining

area, An Agency amendment

expanded

the scope of Rule 505 to include diversion,

redirection or impoundment of streams and a rule requiring that mining

activities and deposition of spoil be conducted so as to avoid contact or

interference with waters of the state . These amendments have been incorporated

in altered form,

•

The Agency amendment sought to expand the scope of Rule 505 to afford the

Agency the level of control it presently has under old Rule 301 of Chapter 4

.

[*60] Apparently in its original proposal the Agency restricted its authority

inadvertently .

Some Opecific requirements of old Rule 301 have been omitted . These include

certain mandatory diversion and impoundment provisions . In dropping these

requirements the Hoard does not intend to disavow them . They are mining

practices which carry a risk of water pollution. The Agency may provide for

these matters in the Agency guidance document and may write specific

requirements into permits to prevent water pollution

.

Rules 505(b), (c) and (d) set forth substantive rules governing the conduct

of mining activities . Rule 504(b)(7) requires a plan for surface drainage

control as part of a permit application. This plan will

be incorporated

into

the permit as a condition, Rule 201 defines surface

drainage

control as control

of surfaoe water on the affected land by a person who is engaged in mining

activities. Surface drainage control includes the practices governed by Rule

505(b), (c) and (d) . In permitting surface drainage control, the Agency shall

consider not only whether compliance with the requirements of Rule 505 has been

shown, bit also whether the plan will avoid other violations of [*61] the Act

and Chapter 4

.

The definition of surface drainage control has been expanded to include flow

augmentation and controlled release of effluents as a method of avoiding

violation of the TDS and related water quality standards, These practices may

---

nr'(.l7.ceei

1~~55rm

NO.683

P

. 23/34

previously have been considered illegal, although this opinion clarifies this

.

They will

require

a permit under Rule 401 since they will involve stream

diversion or impoundment. There is no special rule governing permit issuance in

this case other than the general standard of Rule 502

.

Rule 505(a) requires the Agency to impose a surface drainage plan as a permit

.

condition. The Coal Association objected to this and in general to the

incorporation of the specific rules on stream relocations . Their contention was

that this was provided in the Department of Mines and Minerals permit and

application form which was reviewable by the Agency. They also objected that

the Agency did not presently have control over the permitting of stream

relocations, However, inspection of the old Chapter 4 at Rule 301(a) and (b)

reveals that the Agency does presently have such control

.

At

the

hearings the Agency indicated that the various state agencies [*62]

responsible for permitting coal mines would develop a single application form

which would be circulated. The coal Association's objection that the surface

drainage control provisions would be burdensome is answered by their contention

that the application is already required by Mines and Minerals (R . 27) .

The Coal Association's comments further infer that there is a legislative

intent in the Reclamation Act to exempt coal operators from the permit

requirements of the Act . Of course the bulk of the coal mines are required to

have NPDES permits and the state permit requirement will be inapplicable to

them. It is beyond the power of the state legislature to provide exemptions

from the NPDES permit requirement

.

The Reclamation Act does, as the Coal Association contends, provide for

Agency input and commeht

in

the mines and minerals permitting procedure

.

However, a careful examination of the Reclamation Act indicates that the

Agency's function is advisory. There is no provision for a veto by the Agency

in permit issuance from Mines and Minerals . Furthermore, section 3 .20 of the

"'

Reclamation Act provides that "all requirements of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act and rules [*63] and regulations thereunder shall be complied

with fully at all times during mining, reclamation and after reclassification ."

The Board cannot find from this a legislative intent to exempt coal mines from

the state permit requirements

.

506 Refuse Disposal (P-262 ; 0-401, 402)

Rule 506(a) requires that a state or NPDES permit contain a refuse disposal

plan, An applicant must submit a plan under Rule 504(b)

(12),

The plan will be

made a permit condition if it satisfies the standard for permit issuance

contained in Rule 502 . The applicant must show that there will be no violation

of the Act or rules, including Rules 504(c), (d) and (e) which are substantive

rules governing mining. The Agency may promulgate mine refuse criteria under

Rule 501

.

Rule 506(e) provides that runoff, etc ., from the affected land must meet the

standards contained in Part VI . Note that runoff from the affected land is a

mine dispharge under Rule 201 [0-401 (a)

(1)] . Rule 506(d) provides that refuse

areas must not be located

in

an area of natural springs or aquifer recharge area

or intercept a drainage course without special protective measures [0-401(a)

(2)]

.

Rule 506(e) establishes rules on spreading [*64] and compacting . These are

reminiscent of the solid waste rules. The original proposal specified only that

acid producing solid mine refuse be spread and compacted and covered when

necessary with "non-acid-producing material . ",This has been modified to include

the word "suitable" before "non-acid-producing material ." Impermeable clay would

---

I_

U

I

HrK . 17.GGYJ1

LG

•J

Jrrl

NU.b83

H.E4/34

be a suitable cover material in that it would prevent water and air from

reaching the-acid-producing material . However, the Agency may approve

other

suitable materials. Rule 506(e) permits alternate refuse disposal methods at

the Agency's discretion (R . 15, 114) . These will be subject to Rule 502

.

Rule 506(f) and (g) govern revised refuse disposal plans . This establishes a

speciall rule on when a new or supplemental permit is required . A new permit is

required it the revised plan contains any change from the permitted plan . Rule

506(d) requires that a revised disposal plan result in a new permit application

which must be made prior to implementation of the revised plan, ninety days

before for a state permit and 180 days for an NPDES permit

.

The original proposal defined revised disposal plan as one with a

"substantial" change, On the Agency's [*65] motion and over the Coal

Association's objections the word "substantial" has been deleted, A new permit

is required before there is any deviation from the permitted plan . Of course

the Agency can be more or less specific in permit conditions as required to

assure that the

standard

of Rule 502 will be met

.

The original proposal also

required

application to be made ninety or 180 days

prior to "completion" of the plan. The Agency recommended deletion of this

word, but the amended proposal could. still have been interpreted to require

application ninety or 180 days prior to mere possession of the plan . This would

be difficult to administer since submission of a plan is a necessary condition

for the new application under

Rule

504. The adopted rule specifies

"implementation" of the plan, Implementation will occur when the first action

is taken pursuant to the revised plan and contrary to the permitted plan .

507 Experimental Permits for Refuse Disposal (P-264 ; 0-403)

Rule-507 provides for experimental permits for refuse disposal . The standard

for issuanoe of experimental permit is not the same as usually applied to permit

issuances by Rule 502. The experimental permit may issue [*66] if the operator

demonstrates a reasonable chance for compliance with the Act and Chapter 4 . The

rule sets forth special monitoring and reporting requirements . The procedure is

laid out for notice and termination of the experimental permit (R . 114)

.

The original proposal required that the disposal area not be the "principal

area fog disposal of acid-producing refuse unless approved by the Agency." This

language has been deleted. It adds nothing to the proposal since no permit

would issue without Agency approval . It is not the Board's intention, however,

that experimental permits should often be issued for

a

principal disposal area

.

508 Permit for Use of Acid-producing Mine Refuse (P-259 ; 0-404)

Rule 508 requires that a state or NPDES permit include as a condition a plan

for the use of acid-producing mine refuse if the operator is to use such. The

definition of acid-producing mine refuse has been moved from its place in the

proposal to definitions . Use of acid-producing mine refuse is a mining activity

as defined by Rule 201 for which a permit is required under Rule 401 (R . 112),

The original proposal specified that use of acid-producing mine refuse was

restricted to holders [*67) of operating permits . On the Agency's motion, this

requirement has been deleted . There is no obvious reason why this rule should

not also:be applicable to holders of NPDES and construction permits .

Rule 504(b)

(17) requires a plan for use of acid-producing mine refuse in a

permit application. The Agency may set forth in an Agency guidance document

under Rule 501 criteria for the use of acid-producing mine refuse . The standard

---

I

H'K .1`3.GI~O1

12 5bPM

NO.683

P .25/34

for issuance of a permit for use of acid-producing mine refuse is that contained

in

Rule

502

.

Rule 404 of the old Chapter 4 contained an absolute proscription of use'or

offer of acid-producing mine refuse . This proposal would allow such use by

permit

.

509 Abandonment Plan (P-261 ; 0-502)

Rule 509 provj4ss that an application for a permit include an abandonment

plan. The permit will include an adequate plan as a condition, This represents

a drastic departure from the present chapter 4 which requires an abandonment

permit subsequent to abandonment of the mine, The Agency has had considerable

difficulty with enforcing the requirement of an abandonment permit . Requiring

the abandonment plan will force the operator to confront the problem prior to

abandonment [*681 and the operator will no longer be able to claim ignorance of

the requirement to take steps on abandonment (R . 14, 20, 39, 54, 66, 78, 112)

.

The EcIS was able to quantify the economic costs of this, This represents

one of the few

identifiable

costs associated with this revision . An abandonment

plan likely involves an engineering fee of $ 1000 or more . This fee will have

to be paid prior to application for the permit. This requirement therefore

increases the capital investment required to open a mine and obtain a permit

.

The cost of mining is increased somewhat by the cost of tying up this capital

for the period of time the mine is open (E. 42, 44, 99)

.

Rule 509(b) defines an adequate abandonment plan . The plan must provide a

time schedule for completion of abandonment work within one year. Subsequent to

abandonment, however, the Agency may approve departures from the plan that would

allow for completion over a period of more than one year

.

Rule 509(c) provides that the Agency may further define an adequate

abandonment plan by means of the Agency guidance document . However, the

Agency

must approve an abandonment plan upon a demonstration that it will provide

protection against [*69] violations regardless of whether it conforms with the

Agency guidance document .

Rules 509(d) and (e) provide for revised abandonment plans . A revised

abandonment plan is one constituting a substantial change from the permitted

one. Substantial will be defined on a case by case basis . It will be a

violation if an operator implements a revised abandonment plan without having

applied for a revised permit ninety days, prior to implementation (R . 166, 168)

.

510 Cessation; Suspension or Abandonment (P-361; 0-501(a)1

Rule 510 covers cessation, suspension or abandonment. The original proposal

covered the abandonment plan, permitting requirements and substantive rules on

abandonment in

one

rule, These have been separated into two rules .

Rule 510(a) provides that the operator notify the Agency within thirty days

of abandonment, cessation or suspension of mining . The original proposal

provided that notification was unnecessary if abandonment was caused by a labor

dispute . The language has been clarified and the labor dispute section applies

only to cessation or suspension. The Agency must be notified of abandonment

regardless of the cause

.

Rule 510(b) makes it clear that the operator [*70) must provide interim

impoundment,

etc . to avoid violations of the Act during cessation or suspension

of active mining. The operator will also be required to avoid violations during

excution,of the abandonment plan

.

---

I

I

I

I

RPR

. 19.2001 12:56PM

Rule 510(c) sets forth the rule that the abandonment plan must be executed

upon abandonment. The definition of abandonment includes transfer of ownership

.

This represents a substantial change from the existing Chapter 4 . In the past

operators have avoided their responsibilities for properly abandoning a

mine

by

transfer of ownership to an insolvent corporation . Such a transfer will be an

abandonment

under the new Chapter 4 and the transfer will not allow the operator

to escape responsibility for adequately closing the site (R . 14, 20, 39, 54, 66,

7B, 11.2)

.

Rule 510(c) provides a defense to

the requirement

to execute

the

abandonment

plan in the event the operator demonstrates that the transfer of ownership was

to a responsible party. A responsible party is

someone

who has already obtained

.

permits to operate the same mine. If the mine is transferred to a party who

does not have a permit at the t~me of transfer but subsequently obtains one, the

transferor will be [*71] relieved of the obligation of further executing the

abandotuttent plan. However, if the transferor has failed to perform part of the

plan during the interim,

there

will have been a breach of the permit condition

which will not be excused

.

It is assumed that a transferree who will be financially unable to execute an

abandonment plan will be unable to obtain the necessary permits to operate the

mine. In particular he will be unable to meet the bonding requirements of the

Mine Reclamation Act,

511 Emergency Procedures to Control Pollution [P-265 ; 0-205(a), 205(b)]

Rule 511 sets forth emergency procedures. The original proposal required

that

the

operator notify the Agency "immediately" of an emergency situation .

The requirement of immediate notification has been changed to notification

within Qne hour . It is feared that immediate notification may be impossible and

hence would not be enforced. it appears that notification within one hour would

be in all events possible and hence

enforceable

(R. 114)

.

The

Agency

proposal was also limited to "sudden discharges ." This has been

changed to include any discharges caused or

threatened

by an emergency. The

Agency should be notified of [*72] any emergency that could result even in a

slow leak .

512 Mine Entrances [0-301(a) and

(c)]

Bore holes, openings, drill holes,

entrances

to underground mines and auger

or punch mine entries must be plugged and sealed to the extent necessary to

avoid the threat of water pollution . This is taken from the old version of

Chapter 4, Rule 301 . It has been added to the Agency proposal on the assumption

that it was inadvertently omitted in the revisions .

513 Permit Area (P-263; 0-203(b)]

Rule 513 requires that a state or NPDES permit specify a permit area . During

permit term no portion of

the

affected land may be outside the permit area

.

This is a new provision which was not in the Agency proposal . The term "permit

area" is taken from the Reclamation Act .

Subsequent to the hearing, the Agency sought to amend its proposal to specify

that additional state permits were required whenever mine drainage, mining or

mine refuse disposal entered an area not covered by a previous permit . The Coal

Association objected to this and apparently construed it to mean a new

application was required each time a shovel took a bite out of a coal seam .

Consideration of this dispute led to the recognition [*73] that there was no

NO. 683

P.26/34

---

u

I

RPR.19.2001 12:57PM

NO.683

P.27/34

provision in the Agency proposal requiring that the permit specify a

geographical area. Accordingly, Rule 513 has been added to clarify this

.

Under Rule 504(b)(1) the permit applicant must specify the location of the

affected land and the maximum extent of the affected land during the term of the

requested permit. If there is some area in the proximity of the facility into

which mining cannot proceed without violation of the general standard for permit

issuance under Rule 502, the Agency should exclude that area from the permit

area. Otherwise the Agency should grant a permit area which will be consonant

with the permit term .

PART VT: EFFLUENT AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (P-301 ; 0-601(a)]

600 Preamble

Part VI applies to mine discharges as defined by Rule 201 . If a mining

activity has both a mine discharge and another discharge, it will be subject to

both Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 . Chapter 4 will govern the mining activities,

including mine discharges . Chapter 3 will govern the other discharges (R . 15)

.

rule 600(b) provides that except to the extent provided in Part VI, Parts II,

III, and IV of chapter 3 are inapplicable to mine discharges . In particular

(*74] the effluent standards of Part IV are inapplicable to mine discharges and

are supplanted by the discharge limitations specified in Rule 606 . The old

Chapter 4 did not make this altogether clear, The parameters of Chapter 3 which

are not mentioned in Rule 606 are unregulated for .mine discharges (E . 56). The

water quality standards of Parts II and

III are incorporated by Rule 605 which

provides for water quality related effluent standards . This is substantially

unchanged from the present Chapter 4 .

Part VI applies to mine discharges from facilities even if they may be exempt

from the state permit requirements under Rule 403 . Likewise Part VI applies to

any incidental mine discharge from a facility which possesses a Chapter 3 NPDES

permit .

601 Averaging (P-301; 0-601(d)]

Rule 601 sets forth the averaging procedure. Compliance with the numerical

standards is determined by averaging 24-hour composite samples over a calendar

month. No 24-hour composite sample may exceed two times the numerical standard

and no grab sample may exceed five times the standard.

On motion of the Agency the period was changed from thirty consecutive days

to a calendar month. This is in line with (*75J federal rules and R76-21

where objection was voiced to the thirty day period . Although the calendar

month is somewhat arbitrary, it is in line with other reporting requirements and

eliminates one degree of

freedom in determining compliance (R . 15, 51; First

Amended Proposal),

This averaging rule is a substantial change from the averaging rule set forth

in

Rule 601(d)(1)

and

( 2) of the old Chapter 4 . The old rule made a distinction

as to whether treatment other than impoundment is provided . Where no other

treatment was provided, the discharge limits had to be met at all times, but

where treatment other than impoundment was provided, the standards were

determined on the basis of 24-hour composite samples with no grab sample over

five times. This has been eliminated

.

In the Agency proposal the averaging rule was contained within the rule on

reporting and monitoring. It has been placed in

a

separate rule to emphasize

importance of averaging and to more clearly distinguish the difference between

---

I

N

HVK.l7.eee1

lc:5rrn

NO.683

P.28/34

averaging and reporting .

Averaging is a substantive rule of evidence whereas

reporting and monitoring are rules relating to permits and permit

conditions .

in addition, placement of the [*76) averaging rule within the provision for

reduced monitoring and reporting after demonstration of sample reliability

implied that the averaging rule itself could be altered by permit. This is not

the case .

602 Sampling, Reporting and Monitoring (P-301, 302 ; 0-601(b) and

(c),

603, 604]

Rule 602 provides for sampling, reporting and monitoring. A similar

provision is Rule 501 of Chapter 3 . Rules 602(a) and (c) provide for sampling

points. Where treatment is provided, sampling is to

be

between final treatment

and mixture with waters of the state .

Where

treatment is not provided, samples

are to be taken at the nearest point of access, but again before mixture with

the waters . Rule 602(b) provides that the operator shall design and modify

structures so as to permit the taking of effluent samples . The Agency proposal

only required design and modification of "structures for discharging treated

wastes." This has been changed to "structures" in general . It may be necessary

to design or modify structures other than the discharge facility itself in order

to provide access

.

Rule 602(d) provides that an operator report the actual concentration or

level of any parameter identified in the [*77] permit at a reasonable frequency

to be determined by the Agency . The reporting requirement will be specified in

the permit (R . 16) . Recent cases have challenged the authority of the Agency to

require monitoring and reporting of parameters other than those for which

effluent limits are specified in the permit . The intent of this section is that

the Agency may specify not only those parameters for which effluent limits are

set, but also parameters for which water quality levels are set by regulation or

any other parameter it

deems

necessary to have monitored,

Rule 602(e) sets forth that reporting and monitoring are presumptively on the

basis .

or

24-hour composite samples averaged over a calendar month . However, the

Agency may permit lesser reporting . Rule 602(f) provides for monitoring after

abandonment . Rule 602(g) incorporates the VSHPA's current manual of practice .

This was a separate section under the Agency proposal, but it has been included

since it logically relates to reporting and monitoring .

603 Background Concentration (P-303 ; 0-601(e)]

Rule 603 provides that the background level of contaminants in intake water

are not to be deducted in order to determine compliance [*78] with the effluent

standards. This is the same as Rule 601 (e) of the old Chapter 4 and is largely

the same as Rule 401(b) of Chapter 3 (R . 16)

.

Because mining activity necessarily disturbs the land and the flow of water

over and through the land it is the intent of this Chapter to regulate certain

discharges which in other contexts might be deemed background concentrations

.

As used in this Chapter, background concentration does not include contaminants

naturally occurring in underground waters which are brought to the surface as a

result of mining activity or which are pumped from one underground formation to

another, Also it does not include contaminants picked up by surface water as it

flows through the affected area .

604 Dilution (P-304 ; 0-602)

Rule 604 provides that dilution of effluents is not an acceptable

treatment

method. This is similar to Rule 602 of the present Chapter 4 and virtually

identical with Rule 401(a) of Chapter 3 (R . 17, 116) . Language relating to

---

I

place of sampling has been deleted from the Agency proposal . This language is

also contained in Rule 401(a) in Chapter 3. It has been eliminated because it

is provided in and may conflict with the sampling (*79] point rules provided by

Rule 602

.

The dilution rule interacts with Rule 605 which provides that effluents may

not cagse a violation of water quality standards . In the hearings on this

proposal and in R76-7, concern was expressed that the dilution rule prevents

certain treatment methods for chlorides, sulfates and TDS. In particular it was

feared that controlled release of impounded water was proscribed by this rule .

Controlled release of high TDS water during periods of naturally occurring high

flow in streams is not dilution. In this case the mixing occurs at a point

after the discharge .

Another possible technique

of

avoiding a TDS water quality violation would be

impounding surface water during wet periods and augmenting the flow of the

receiving stream during dry periods to dilute effluents. This would not

constitute a violation of the rule against dilution .

However, it could

constitute surface drainage diversion . A permit would be required under Rule

401

.

I

APR.i9 .2001 12:57PM

605 Violation of Water Quality standards [P-305 ; 0-605(a)]

Rule 605 incorporates the water quality standards contained in Parts IS and

III of Chapter 3 into Chapter 4 . This is the same as Rule 605(a) of the present

[*80] Chapter 4 and is similar to Rule 402 of Chapter 3 .

The second sentence of Rule 605 provides that the Agency shall take

appropriate action under Section 31 or 39 of

the Act. This is redundant because

under the remainder of Chapter 4 the Agency must take such action . However,

certain operators have recently contended before the Board that incorporation of

water quality related effluent standards is not authorized by Hoard regulations .

The second sentence is to make it clear that water quality related effluent

standards can be incorporated into permit conditions (R. 17),

605 .1 Temporary 2xemption from Rule 605

This rule will allow the Agency to issue permits through July 1, 1981 to

authorize discharges which violate Rule 605 by causing water quality violations

of TDS, chloride, sulfate, iron and manganese. For the

remainder

of the

u

discussion of this rule only, these will sometimes be referred to collectively

as 'DDS. An operator desiring such exemption may apply for a new state or NPDHS

permit

containing

the exemption. Rule 605.1(c) sets a special standard for

permit issuance different from that contained in Rule 502 . The burden will be

on the Agency to demonstrate significant [*81] adverse affect on the

environment in and around the receiving water in order to deny the permit, The

operator, however, will have to submit adequate proof that the discharge will

not adversely affect any public water supply. In order to qualify for the

exemption the operator will have to adopt "good mining practices," housekeeping

measures designed to, minimize TDS discharges

.

Rule 605 .1 was first proposed on November 21, 1978 by the institute . This

was after merit hearings on

the

proposal were concluded. On December 14, 1978

the Hoard ordered the record in this case held open to take evidence on Rule

605 .1 . Merit hearings on the proposal were held at the same time as the

economic impact hearings. This proposal has generated the bulk of the

controversy in this proceeding

.

Mine discharges are often high in TDS. Much of this comes from water pumped

from mine areas or runoff from spoil banks .

A substantial number of mines in

NO . 683

P .29/34

---

U

v

HI'K.1J.GV'JL~1 1:

brn

NO.683

P.38/34

the state produce mine discharges which cause water quality violations in the

receiving streams . Coal mines can seldom be located adjacent to large rivers,

but rather must be located where coal deposits are located. Their discharges

are frequently into [*82] intermittent streams so that the discharge comprises

the bulk of the flow of the stream. Therefore the discharge is limited, not by

the effluent standards of Rule 606, but by the more stringent water quality

standards referenced in from Chapter 3 (R . 129, 142, 151 ;

E

.

6, 11)

.

In a related proceeding, R76-7 the Coal Association sought to exempt coal

mines from application of Rule 605 with respeot-to TDS . Entry of a Final order

in that proceeding has been stayed pending final resolution of this proceeding,

kresently relief from Rule 605 is available only through the variance

procedure. At the hearings, the Coal Association stated that a variance

application can cost as much as'$ 10,000 (E. 126) . There was discussion at the

hearings of a class action variance . However, this was rejected (E . 19, 80)

.

Under the auspices of the Institute a joint Agency/industry group called the

mine Related Pollution Task Force has been formed. The Task Force is conducting

a study to propose an eventual permanent replacement for Rule 605 . It expects

to present this proposal before July 1, 1981 (E . 106)

.

A large amount of earth must be disturbed during the process of coal mining

.

Some of the [*83] TDS

in the discharge results from direct leaching of soluble

minerals from the rock by groundwater or rainwater falling on spoil banks . This

is the source of chlorides, which is not

generally

the main problem

in

Illinois

.

Much of the problem in Illinois is sulfates. These are formed when air or

dissolved oxygen comes into contact with

sulfur-containing minerals

which have

been disturbed. Sulfuric acid is formed, producing acid mine drainage

.

Neutralization of that discharge to moat the pH requirements of Rule 606 may

further

increase

the TDS concentration of the discharge,

The Economic impact Study in R76-7 has

been

incorporated into this proceeding

by reference (E . 103 ; Economic Impact of Dissolved Solids Regulation upon the

Coal Mining Industry, Institute Document No . 77/28) . Although there is

treatment available to reduce the iron and manganese levels, treatment to reduce

the soluble components of TDS is not economically available. Available

technology includes reverse osmosis and distillation . These are energy

intensive and very

expensive

on a scale that would be required to meet most mine

discharges . The Economic impact Study in R76-7 concluded that for the mines in

[*847 the state to meet the present TDS water quality standard would involve a

capital investment of $ 138 .4 million and annual operating costs of $ 37 .4

million (E . 69)

.

The Task Force has promulgated, as an interim measure, a code of good

mining

practices. The approach taken is not end-of-the-pipe treatment of the

discharge, but rather a series of housekeeping measures which are likely to

reduce the TDS concentration resulting from mining activities . These are

summarized on page 4 of Exhibit 4 . These involve practices which may minimize

water from coming in contact with disturbed areas, including bypass diversions,

slope and gradient reduction, stabilization, sealing of bore holes, introduction

of mine barriers, special steps for disposal of potential contaminant producing

materials and fracture zone

sealing,

There are also measures involving

retention and control of waters exposed to disturbed materials, including

erosion and sedimentation controls, reuse of discharges and minimization of

exposure of water to disturbed materials . Other methods include a rerouting of

discharges to larger streams where the dilution would be provided, augmentation

of flow of receiving streams to provide [*85] dilution and controlled release

of effluents during times of high flow when there is ample dilution .

---

I

HF'K .1'.i.Gb101

1a 58PM

NO.683

P . 31/34

Many of these practices are novel and reliable cost estimates are not

available, Therefore it is not possible at this time to do an actual economic

impact study evaluating the cost of requiring the code of good operating

practices. However, the Board incorporates the Economic Impact Study in R76-7

as an economic impact study on Rule 605 .1. Although that'study does not address

the code of good operating practices, it does conclude that enforcement of the

present standard by requiring end-of-the-pipe treatment would be very expensive

.

There is expert testimony in the record to substantiate that, although the costs

of good operating practices are unknown, they will be substantially loss than

the cost of end-of-the pipe treatment (E . 146)

.

The eventual rule may include some combination of these good housekeeping

procedures together with the proposal to increase the water quality standard for

TDS in intermittent streams receiving coal drainage (E . 73, 110, 128)

.

The Board notes that none of the parties in these proceedings has addressed

the dilution rule (Rule 604) . Part of the [*B6] rationale of the rule against

dilution of effluents goes to accumulation of toxic pollutants . Chlorides and

sulfates are generally soluble and should not accumulate under ordinary

circumstances . Furthermore, they are not at all toxic below a certain

concentration. Therefore, the Board suggests the Task Force consider amending

Rule 604 to allow dilution of effluents by permit where good housekeeping

practices cannot reduce the TDS levels to an acceptable level . However,

dilution of effluents should not be permitted where groundwater must be used for

the dilution or where there is available only surface water which has more

valuable uses

.

Concern was expressed at the hearing that the Board was being asked to adopt

a rule requiring compliance with a code of good operating practices which had

•

not yet been promulgated (E. 111, 134) . Subsequent to the economic impact

hearings, the code was completed and submitted to the Board . Further concern

was expressed that the record was deficient in that there was no technical

testimony to the effect that compliance with the code of good operating

- practices would in fact reduce water pollution (E . 17, 80, 144) . Control of

mining practices which [*87] are not related to the Board's statutory

jurisdiction would, of course, be beyond the Board's authority . Further

consideration of this problem led to the recognition that the proposed version

of Rule 605 .1 required compliance with the code and that this was an

unauthorized delegation of rulemaking authority to the Agency . The proposal has

therefore been rewritten to provide that the Agency issue the exemption if the

operator submits proof that he is utilizing good mining practices designed to

minimize-discharge of TDS. The Agency is authorized to promulgate the code of

good mining practices . Compliance with the code will be deemed evidence that

the operator is utilizing good mining practices . However, should the Agency

deny the exemption due to non-compliance with the code, the operator will be

free on permit appeal to argue that his practices, though not conforming to the

code, are designed to minimize the discharge of TDS . With this construction,

the Board

is

not requiring compliance with the code and therefore technical

evidence to substantiate the code is not required. If provisions of the code

are not reasonably related to prevention of water pollution, this will be an

[*80] issue before the Board upon permit appeal .

Rule 605 .1(b) has been added to the Agency proposal . This provides

specifically that the permittee requesting exemption must file a permit

application. The Agency indicated at the hearing that this was the case and it

has been added to the proposal for clarity (E. 26, 121)

.

The Agency proposal was vague on the question of the burden of proving

adverse effect on the environment . At the hearing the parties agreed that the

Agency should have the burden of demonstrating adverse effects . This is at

---

RPR.19.2001

12:59PM

NO.683

P.32/34

variance with the usual burden of proof in permit issuance. Section 39 of the

Act provides that it shall be the duty of the Agency to issue such a permit

"upon proof

. that the facility

.

will

not cause a violation of this Act

or regulations hereunder." The Board in this situation is by regulation

reversing the burden of proof (B. 16, 30, 34, 37, 79, 81, 112, 118)

.

At the hearings there was a discussion of whether the intent of the proposal

was that the Agency fix an interim limitation on the TDS . The conclusion was

that under the proposal the Agency could not set such an interim limit . if the

Agency can demonstrate significant adverse [*89] effect on the environment,

then it must deny the exemption . In this case the applicant will have to

proceed by way of the variance route (E . 74, 78)

.

The original proposal specified "significant adverse effects on aquatic life

or existing recreational areas bf the receiving streams ." This has been changed

to "effect on environment in and around the receiving water ." The exemption

should be denied if there is significant adverse

effect

to riparian areas and in

general to the

environment

in and around the receiving water (E. 115)

.

606 Effluent Standards (P-306; 0-606)

Rule 606 sets effluent standards for mine discharges . Rule 606(a) has been

added to the Agency proposal . This makes it clear that the effluent limitations

contained in Part IV of chapter 3 do not apply to mine discharges . This has

always been the law. However, it is not clearly set forth

in

the proposal or

the Old Chapter 4 (E . 56)

.

Compliance with the effluent standards other than acidity and pH is

determined by the averaging rule

contained

in Rule 601 . Compliance is based on

a thirty day average with no 24-hour composite exceeding two times the standard

and no grab sample exceeding five times the standard . [*90]

New Storet numbers have been specified for acidity, ammonia nitrogen, zinc

and fluoride. The old Rule 606 regulated nitrogen at 5 mg/l

whereas

the new

rule specifies ammonia nitrogen, measured as N

.

The standards for zinc, lead and acidity are unchanged except for the Storet

number. The pH range has been tightened from five to ten to

six to

nine

(E. 45,

51) . The EcIS concluded that this would benefit the environment (EcIS 27 ; E .

52) . The cost will be minimal since only one additional mine will be out of

compliance with the new

standard

(ECIS 6, 39)

.

The standard for iron has been decreased from 7 to 3 .5 mg/l and the standard

for total suspended solids (TSS) has been tightened from 50 to 35 mg/l (R . 46,

51, 53) . These changes are environmentally

beneficial

(EcIS 25, 31; E. 51, 53)

.

Under the averaging rule, these standards must be met on a thirty day average

.

They are doubled

when

measured on a daily composite. The new numbers are the

same as,federal

guidelines

applicable to coal mines under 40 CPR 434 . A recent

permit appeal to the Board revealed that there is some dispute as to whether the

federal or the existing Chapter 4 standards are more stringent (Peabody Coal

[*91) Co. v. EPA; PCB 78-296, September 20, 1979) . This is

because

the federal

standard, when coupled with the averaging rule and precipitation

exception,

sometimes yields a higher number on. a 24-hour composite . However, the Board

concludes that it is more difficult to meet the lower thirty day average than

what the discharger must now meet and that this is a more stringent standard

(ECIS 25) . The economic impact will be minimal since most mines subject to the

rule must meet the federal guidelines anyway (EcIS 42)

.

Footnote 3 provides an

exception

for flows resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour

precipitation event. This

exception

applies only to a facility designed,

construgted and maintained to contain or treat discharge from less than a 10-

---

HYK.17.21Ob1

12:59PM

NO . 683

year, g4-hour precipitation event, but designed to bypass a larger precipitation

event. . This exception is taken from the federal standards of 40 CPR 434 .

Federal mine safety regulations mandate that holding ponds be designed to bypass

such rainfall for safety reasons. This exception has been added in order to

bring the effluent standards into line with these other regulations (E. 47, 56,

124)

.

The original Agency proposal was unclear as to which [*92] parameters were

subject to the exception in footnote 3. During discussion of the EcIS it became

clear that the Agency's intent was that the 10-year, 24-hour footnote apply to

all parameters

except

pH and acidity (E. 124) . The federal guidelines

apparently except pH and acidity also. pH and acidity are not exempt under this

version of

Rule

606. However, one would not expect to see excursions with

respect to these parameters during overflows caused by a large rainfall . The

large rainfall should not result in increased production of acid in disturbed

materials . A large flux of water has some buffer capacity and should dilute the

acidity so as to moderate pH .

The Economic Impact Study found that it would cost $ 40,000 to $ 90,000 per

mine to construct holding basins to contain a 10-year, 24-hour storm (ECIS 42

;

E .

56, 124) . However, this conclusion may be affected by confusion in the

proposal concerning the extent of footnote 3 to Rule 606 . It has been argued by

the

industry that the old Chapter 4 required construction of indefinitely large

holding basins and that 10-year/24-hour basins therefore represent a cost

savings over the present requirements of Chapter 4 (Peabody Coal [*93] Co . v .

EPA, op. cit .)

The fluoride standard has been increased from B

mg/l

to 15 mg/l . In the

hearings evidence was presented to substantiate this relaxation of the standard

.

The old standard was based on experiments which were done in deionized water

containing fluoride. In water containing other ions of hardness equivalent to

typical Illinois mine drainage water, the fluoride is not nearly so toxic to

aquatic life as had been previously believed (R . 117; R. 52)

.

607 Offensive Discharges [P-307; 0-605(b)]

Rule'607 proscribes drainage containing settleable solids, floating debris,

visible oil, grease, scum or sludge solids . Color, odor and turbidity should be

reduced below obvious levels . This is Rule 605(b) of the present chapter 4 and

Rule 404 of Chapter 3 (R . 47, 51) .

608 Deleted (P-308)

The Agency proposal contained a rule to the effect that an operator shall

conduct mining activities so as not to violate the Act and Chapter 4 . This has

been deleted. A number of substantive rules are set forth

in

chapter 4 and the

Act, it is unnecessary to make a rule against violating the other rules

.

Furthermore, a charge in a complaint that an operator had violated this [*94]

rule could be a Violation of due process in that it would not adequately inform

him of what he had done

.

PART VII : COMPLIANCE AND EFFECTIVE DATES

Part VII contains transitional rules covering situations which will arise

after the effective date of Chapter 4 . Rule 701 provides that the Chapter will

become

effective

ten days after filing with the Secretary of State . Rule 703

provides that the state permit requirement of Rule 401 becomes effective only on

expiration of outstanding permits . outstanding permits will expire no later

P

. 33/34

---

I

RPR.19.2001

1:00PM

NO.683

P.34/34

than three years after the effective date or upon the first' expiration of an

NPDES permit held for the facility

.

Rule 702 provides that a person holding an outstanding permit may make

application for a new permit either before or after the effective date of this

Chapter. It is anticipated that operators of coal transfer and storage

facilities will want new permits . After the effective date the Agency may

require a new permit application on 180 days notice . Rule 703(d) provides for

expiration of the outstanding permit if the application is not made by this

date. Rule 703(c) provides for expiration upon issuance of

a

new state or NPDES

permit for the [*95] facility . if the Agency denies the new permit or takes no

action, the outstanding permit will remain effective for up to three years as

provided by Rule 703(a)

.

The NPDES permit requirement'of Rule 302 is the same as that found in Rule

901 of Chapter 3 . There is no need to stay enforcement of that rule since this

revision does not impose an NPDES permit requirement on any additional

facilities

.

The provisions of Chapter 4, other than Rule 401 : State Permits, are

effective ten days after filing . At this time the other rules of Chapter 4

become immediately effective. This includes all of Part VI, including the new

effluent standards of Rule 606 . Holders of outstanding operating permits may be

subject to enforcement actions based on Rule 606 as provided by Rule 410 even if

their discharges conform with their old permit conditions

.

Rule 704 provides the requirement of old Rule 502 of an abandonment permit

continues to apply to operators who have opened mines prior to the effective

date. This will continue indefinitely until the operator is issued for the

facility a state of NPDES permit which contains an abandonment plan . Such a

permit may be issued under the procedures of Rule [*96] 702 and 703

.

This Opinion, together with the Board Order of December 13, 1979, constitute

the Proposed opinion and order of the Board in this proceeding

.

---

Exhibit

B

---

RP": . 13. a i i 12:31PM

OPINIONEY: [*1]

ANDERSON

OPINION; PROPOSED RULE. FIRST NOTICE

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD (by D . Anderson) :

on February 7, 1983 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

and

the Illinois Coal Association (1CA) proposed that the Board amend 35 111 . Adm .

Code 405 and 406 to add an effluent standard for manganese and to set a

permanent

rule

specifying the application of water quality standards to coal

mine discharges, Amended proposals were filed

on

May 27 and August 26, 1983

.

The proposal was the result of a joint industry/government group called the

-

Mine-Related Pollution Task Force (MRP)

.

On May 5, 1983 the Board designated this proposal as Docket A of 983-6

.

Docket H was utilized to extend the expiration date of Section 406 .201 beyond

July 1, 1983 (Final Order, Adopted Rule,. Odtober 6, 1.983 ; 7 Ill . Reg. 14515,

October 28, 1983) .

PublLo hearings were held on May 12, 1983 at Springfield, and on May 27, 1983

at Ina. Since the pages are not numbered sequentially, Roman numerals will be

used to indicate the volume, Thus, (11-17) will refer to page 17 Of the second

day of hearings

.

On

July

5, 1983 the

Department

of Energy and Natural Resources notified the

Board that a negative declaration [*2] had been made . On August 26, 1983 the

Hearing Officer closed the record except for final comments (Section 102 .163)

.

No comments were received during this period

.

Summary of the Proposal

The proposal will be discussed in detail in the order of sections affected

.

The following is a summary in a more informative order

.

The proposal adds an effluent standard of 2 .0 mg/l manganese, with a modified

pH standard where necessary for manganese treatment (Section 406 .106) .

The proposal repeals the temporary exemption from the water quality standards

contained in Section 406 .201 . This is replaced with a permanent procedure

.

Mine discharges

will

have permit conditions based on the permanent procedure for

total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride and sulfate if

:

1. There is no impact on public water supplies

;

LEXSEE 1983 111, ENV LBXIS 72

IN THE MATTER OF : PROPOSED AMENDMENTS' TO TITLE 35, SUHTITI,E

D: MINE RELATED WATER POLLUTION, CHAPTER 1, PARTS 405 and

406

No . R83-6 (Docket A)

Illinois Pollution Control Hoard

1983 111 . ENV LEXIS 72

December 15, 1983

NO . 592

P.2/8

---

AP,R.13.2001

12:31PM

NO . 592

2. The applicant utilizes "good mining practices" to reduce TDS production

;

and,

3. The discharge is less than 1,Q00 mg/l chloride and 3,500 mg/l sulfate

.

If the discharge exceeds the numerical levels, the permittee will need to prove

no adverse effect to the receiving stream (Section 406.203) .

Finally, the proposal extends the TDS water quality provisions to abandoned

mine [*3] impoundments and discharges (Sections 409 .109 and 409 .110)

.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

Section 405.109 Abandonment Plan

,

Paragraphs

(b)(3)

and (b)(4) have been added, and the old paragraphs with

these numbers moved down. These paragraphs specifically address the impact of

the special TDS provision of Section 406 .203 on discharges from abandoned mines

and on waters remaining in impoundments at such mines, This point first arose

in a case decided during the process of adoption of new Chapter 4

(IBPA

V .

Material Service Corp. and Freeman United coal Mining Co ., PCB 75-488, 31 PCB

275, February 7, 1980)

(1-42)

.

Strip mines frequently leave a final out which fills with water after

abandonment; slurry ponds and other impoundments may also be left

(1-40)

.

Some

of these may have a surface water discharge . Paragraph (b)(3) addresses the

discharge, while paragraph

(b)(4) addresses the waters

in

the lake or

impoundment .

Discharges from abandoned impoundments will have to meet the egflusnt

standards of Section 406 .106. if there was no TDS water quality condition

imposed under special procedures during active mining, the discharge will have

to avoid water quality violations. [*4i If there was such a TDS water quality

condition, the waters of the impoundment will have to meet the effluent

standards and make a part of the showing required under the TDS water quality

Section 406.203(c)(1) and

(c)(2) (I-38 ; II-10, 14, 18)

.

Paragraph

(b)(4) applies to the waters in the impoundments, which may not be

required to meet water quality standards during active mining, as for example,

treatment lagoons and settling basins. Impoundments which

will

not meet such

standards on abandonment will be required to meet the effluent standards after

abandonment, and toe make part of the showing under the TDS water quality Section

406 .203

(c)(1) and

(c)(2)

(11-21)

.

Section 406 .109(b)(4) applies the effluent standards as though they were

water quality standards (I-3B, it-11, 14, 18) . This will be sufficient to

ensure that any discharge will at least meet the effluent standards

.

The second and . third proposals limited the TDS procedure to impoundments

which did not meet the water quality standards during active mining . The Board

has deleted this requirement, since the water quality problems in a final cut

lake may not appear until after abandonment

(1-40)

.

The Board

has

added paragraph [*5] (e) to the proposal ; this requires

conditions in abandonment, plans to assure continued application of the TDS water

quality procedure

(1-37) .

Section 405.110 Cessation, Suspension or Abandonment

Paragraph

(e)(2) has been added to specifically require a showing that

Sections 405 .109(b)(3) and (b)(4) have been met before a certificate of

P. 3/8

---

NO.592

P.4/8

abandonment is issued. The permittee will have to show that those sections will

be met to get approval of the abandonment plan, and also show that they were in

fact met before the certificate of abandonment is issued (1-37, 11-10, 15)

.

Section 406 .104 Dilution

This section was taken from Section 304 .102, which it tracks almost verbatim

.

Paragraph (a) has been amended to make it clearer that the dilution rule refers

only to the effluent standards. This may have been lost when the language was

moved from Part 304 to Part 406, which deals with both effluent and water

quality standards. Section 302 .102 allows dilution in a mixing zone before

application of the water quality standards

.

The Board does not construe Section 406 .104 as in any way limiting dilution

after treatment in order to avoid, violation of water quality standards . This

dilution CI*6] may take place prior to discharge to waters of the State, so long

as it does not interfere with contaminant removal efficiency (1-62( 61) . If

effluent doncentrations are measured beyond the dilution point, concentrations

would have to be corrected .

Section 406 .105 has been renumbered to 406 .202 : the water quality rule and

special TDS procedure will be placed together in a separate Subpart

.

Section 406 .106 Effluent Standards

An effluent standard of 2 .0 mg/1 manganese has been added to the table

.

Manganeselis frequently regulated as an effluent parameter, and its omission

;Exam the 'revised mine waste rules may have been an oversight caused by the

ambiguity ,l as to whether the effluent standards

table

of old Chapter 4

supplemented or superseded the effluent standards of old Chapter 3

(1-55)

.

The

.

Board regulates manganese in effluents other than mine waste at 1 .0 mg/l

(Section 804 .124) . Federal regulations impose a limitation of 2 .0 mg/1 on

mining activities, including, for example,, the acid mine drainage category (40

CFR 434 .AP(a)),

Tree ant for manganese is similar to iron, involving addition of alkali to

cause pr~pipitation, followed by sufficient detention to allow settling . [*7]

Unlike iron, manganese may be too soluble at pH 9 to precipitate sufficiently to

~mce

'tht! 2.0 mg/1 standard. Effluents will be allowed to. go to pH 10 if

necessary to meet the manganese standard (1-36)

.

(For related discussion, see

Section 304 .125; R76-21, Opinion of September 24, 1981, 43 PCB 367, 6 111 . Reg .

563)

.

The Board regulates manganese as a water quality standard at 1 .0 mg/l

(Section 302 .208) . The standard was based on fish toxicity (R71-14, 3 PCB 755,

4 PCB 3, March 7, 1972) . In her study of several streams impacted by mine

discharges, which is discussed below, Dr. Allison Brigham found that manganese

was found to account for the greatest amount of variance of species diversity

and richness of several variables studied (II-31)

.

The manganese effluent standard will not apply to mine discharges which are

associated with areas whore no mining activities have taken place since May 13,

1976. This date is taken from Federal regulations regulating manganese

discharges from coal mining (1-36, 54; II-10, 12)

.

Section 406 .202 Violation of Water Quality Standards

This Section has been moved from Section 406 .105. Subpart A of Part 406 will

deal only with effluent rules, [*8] while Subpart

B

will deal with water

---

u

.

u

I

k-nc.1J.ctxii

1G

•o

cr1'I

,

NU.JyG

H

.

t>/6

quality rules .

The TbS procedure of the next Section will thus appear next to

the Section which it modifies .

Section 406 .203 Water Quality-based TDS Permit Conditions

TDS includes all material dissolved in water, as opposed to total suspended

solids. In Illinois coal mine discharges TDS consists mostly of chloride and

sulfate

(1-49)

.

Underground mines often have high chloride levels from saline

water encountered in mining. Surface mines often produce sulfuric acid from the

action of air and water on sulfur minerals exposed in mining . Neutralization of

the acid produces sulfate salts, and further increases the TDS because of the

dissolved solids in the alkali which must be added

.

The problems with treating for TDS have been adequately addressed in prior

Board Opinion

The Board repealed the TDS effluent standard in R76-21, supra,

,

[*9]

in R76-20, 77-10, the Board recognized that coal mines faced a special

problem With TDS in that they produced high TDS discharges, but were often

forced to locate upland, away from major rivers with dilution adequate to avoid

violation of water quality standards . In response, the Board adopted the

temporary exception procedure now found at Section 406 .201 (opinion and Order of

July 24, 1980, 39 PCB 196, 260)

.

The permanent

TDS

rule follows the temporary exemption in some respects : the

applicant is required to demonstrate that he is utilizing "good mining

practice$", and that .,there will be.,;:p„,impact,on public water supplies

(I-30)

.

However, under the permaneri

Pule,

the permittee, ratter •' thaii'the Kod'6cy, will

be required to demonstrate no impact on the receiving stream

.

The TDS procedure creates a presumption of no adverse impact on the stream if

discharge levels are less than 3500 mg/l sulfate and 1000 mg/1 chloride

(I-30) .

if levels are higher, the permittee

will

have to prove. 1gq

.

dverse,

..impact.

This

will involve actual stream StudieC to'be"done

-by

the

permittee, involving a

demonstration of the effect of the existing or proposed discharge levels on the

stream, not a showing [*10] of compliance with water quality standards (I-31,

46,61)

.

I_9,thp.1000.and 4500 mg/l numbers are met, it ,is assumed that there it

qo

adverse impact .on the secdivi.ng'"stream. This

is

a'presumption which could be

rebutted by bth r"widenbe inhroduced into the record in the permit proceeding

before the Agency .

If the water quality-based TDS condition is granted, the discharge will not

be subject to the water quality standards for sulfate, chloride and total

dissolved solids. The permit will Contain conditions requiring monitoring for

these parameters and limiting discharge concentrations (I-47, 11-17)

.

The proposal would have allowed exemption from the water quality standards

for iron and manganese, as well as the TDS related contaminants. The Board has

dropped this from the proposal. The logical relationship between the

presumptive sulfate and chloride levels and the iron and manganese levels is

tenuous at best. Furthermore, there exists a simple, relatively inexpensive way

to treat for iron and manganese. As noted above, manganese concentration was

finding that the only treatment technologies involved large amounts of energy

consumpt4on, and produced concentrated brines which still required ultimate

disposal .

Regulation of TDS discharges was left to enforcement of water quality

standards, of Section 302.208

:

Chloride

500 mg/1

sulfate

500 mg/l

TDS

1000 mg/l

---

APR.13.2001

12:32PM

NO-592

P.6i8

The presumptive levels refer to concentration of sulfate and chloride, with

no TDS level specified. As a matter of experience, . TDS is mostly these two ions

(1-49)

.

Sulfate and chloride concentrations generally correlate better with

environmental impacts than TDS (1-33; Ex. E, p . 29, 11-32) . Monitoring of TDS

will continue to provide a

check

for the possible presence of large

concentrations of some other matetial (1-41, 11-17)

.

Exhibit E is a study entitled "Acute Toxicity of Chlorides, Sulfates, and

Total Dissolved Solids to Some Fishes in Illinois" by Paula Reed and Ralph Evans

of the State Water Survey . They studied effects of TDS and constituents on

channel catfish fingerlings, large mouth bass fingerlings and blue gill

fingerlins . They found the following 96-hour median tolerance limits (1-33,

Ex. E, P-

129)-

sulfate

11,000 to 13,000 mg/i

Chloride

8,000 to 8,500 mg/l

TDS (sulfate)

14,000 to 17,500 mg/l

TDS (chloride)

13,000 to 15,000 mg/l

The presumptive values for sulfate are Set at about one-third of the 96-hour

[*12] median tolerance limit; those for chloride at about one-eighth

(1-33) .

This is less stringent than the general practice of setting water quality

standards at one-tenth the median tolerance limit (Section 302 .210) ; however,

this departure is justified for these contaminants, which are highly soluble,

not toxic in the usual sense and not expected to accumulate or have any chronic

effect .

The presumptive levels are also well below the levels considered safe for

livestock watering

(1-34)

.

If the discharge is above the presumptive levels, the operator could elect to

treat the effluent, or to obtain a source of fresh water to. dilute it to below

the presumptive levels (1-61, 67) . However; the thrust of the proposal is to

allow permittees to adopt operating practices designed to reduce TDS production,

rather than to require end-of-pipe treatment .

The Agency is to approve the water quality-based TDS condition only if the

permittee proves that it is utilizing "good mining practices" designed to

minimize TDS production . The Agency may promulgate a code of good operating

practices, in which case compliance with the code would be prima facie proof of

use of good mining practices

.

A

"final" (*13] draft o£ the code has been

filed as Exhibit H. The Hoard has proposed Sections 406 .204 through 406 .208 as

a definition of "good mining practices" . These are taken from Exhibit H .

Section 406 .204 defines "good mining practices." The Agency is to consider

whether the operator is utilizing the following practices ;

found to be adversely affecting stream conditions in sites affected by mine

discharges

.

These discharges will have to avoid causing [*11] water quality

violations

:

General Use

Effluent Std,

Water Quality Stdg .

Iron

3.5 mg/1

1 .0 mg/l

Manganese

2.0 mg/l

1 .0 mg/l

---

HVK . 1ci . Gbb1

1G

.

avr

NO. 592

P . 7/8

1. Practices

which

may stop or minimize water from coming into contact with

disturbed areas

.

2. Retention and control within the site of waters exposed to disturbed

materialp .

3 . Control and treatment of waters discharged from the site

.

4 . Unconventional practices

.

These practices are each further defined in Sections 406.205 through 406 .208 .

These sections are not intended to require that each of these practices be

carried out at each site; indeed, some of the practices would exclude the use of

others . What the Board intends is that the Agency review each of these

practices to determine if the operator is doing all that is economically

reasonable at the site to prevent the production of TDS discharges or to

minimize their impact .

The proposal is in practice a modification to the Illinois NPDES program,

since

all

mines with point source surface discharges [*14) are presently

required to have NPDES permits . Section 302(b) of the Clean Water Act allows

the State to establish procedures whereby dischargers can avoid application of

water quality standards where the discharger demonstrates at a public hearing

that "there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social costs

and benefits to be obtained ." The procedures of Section 406 .203 will arise in

the context of NPDES permit modification. Hearings required by the Clean Water

Act will be provided pursuant to Section 406 .203(a)

.

Based on the record before it ; the Board has determined that, for coal mine

discharges taken as a class, which have levels of chloride and sulfate less than

the presumptive levels, which are not upstream of public water supplies and

which are engaged in good mining practices, the cost of treatment outweighs the

value of any .improvement in stream quality by many orders of magnitude

.

Surthermore, the societa) costs associated with the effective prohibition of

mining in much of Illinois would be enormous (R 50, 64) . The proposed

procedures allow the Agency to confirm this conclusion in particular cases, with

an opportunity for a public hearing. in the [*15] case of discharges which

exceed the presumptive level, the Agency will make a case-by-case determination

pursuant to permit application including actual stream studies conducted by the

applicant (Proposed Section 406 .203(c)(4)

.

In gone, 1963 there were 45 active coal mines in Illinois, 19 surface and 26

underground. Of these, 31 are operating under the current exemption of Section

406 .201, 14 surface and 17 underground (Agency comment of August 3, 1983 in R83-

6B) . The remaining 14 are assumed to be able to meet the current water quality

standards and are not impacted at all by the permanent TDS procedure .

The 31 mines operating under the temporary exemption should be able to easily

demonstrate that they are using good mining practices and that they are not

adversely impacting public water supplies, since these requirements are not

altered, The mines with less than 1000 mg/1 chloride and 3500 mg/1 sulfate will

qualify under the permanent procedure automatically. The main difference will

be the mines which are above the presumptive levels. They will be required to

demonstrate no adverse impact on the receiving stream. This could cost quite a

lot of money .

If they are unable [*16] to make the showing, expensive

treatment may be required for continued operation .

As noted, the 31 potentially affected mines include 14 surface and 17

underground mines . Sulfate should be the limiting factor for surface, chloride

---

I

I

H1K Id e[501

1G ; JJM1

NO . 592

P . B/8

for underground mines. It appears that at the time Exhibit C was prepared, no

surface mines exceeded the 3500 mg/l sulfate level, but that four underground

mines' exceeded the 1000 mg/1 chloride level (11-52) . Thus a maximum of four

underground mines are expected to have to make stream studies, These are likely

to cost in excess of $ 10,000 each .

The cost of complying with the Part 302 water quality standards through

application of end-of-pipe treatment technology was discussed at 39 PCB 251 .

Updating these costs to the fourth quarter of 1982 infers construction casts of

$ 195 million and annual operating costs of $ 52 .8 million (11-56) . However,

the number of mines in the State has decreased, possibly reducing the aggregate

estimates . Any Costs associated with compliance with the exemption procedure

must be judged as savings with respect to the cost of current regulations

.

costs of various good mining practices are estimated in Exhibit C, although

[*17[ it is difficult to summarize these concisely . These costs are less than

the cost of treatment by orders of magnitude . The initial costs have already

been met under the temporary rule, although there may be continuing costs

associated with some practices

.

The proposal creates a special TDS water quality rule for a category of

dischargers . The Board has proposed to treat these dischargers differently for

several reasons unique to this industry group. Section 28 of

the

Act allows the

Board •to make "different provisions as required by circumstances for different

contaminant sources and for different geographical areas"

.

At the outset, the Board notes that coal mines represent an easily defined

category of dischargers. It is the only industry group with high TDS discharges

which has made itself known to the Board

by

filing a general proposal . The

Board would consider granting special rules by industry category to any group

should that group propose rules to it (Section 28 of the Act and 35 111 . Adm .

Code 102.120) .

Having defined a category of TDS dischargers, it is possible to be more

specific as to the identity of the TDS constituents : it is either primarily

chloride or sulfate, [*'18] and not often both . This allows the use of

chloride and sulfate toxicity data, which is better defined than, for TDS in

general .

Since there is no economically reasonable treatment available for TDS

discharges, compliance with the water quality standards depends on process

changes and location close to large rivers with adequate dilution . Existing

facilities have the variance and site-specific rulemaking procedures to ease any

difficulties. However, it has proven possible to propose a general regulation

for mines, both new and existing .

The most unique feature of coal mines is their relative inability to locate

close to major rivers; instead, they must locate where coal deposits are

located. Thus choice of location is largely eliminated for this category of

dischargers

.

Restricting consideration to a single industry group allows the Board to

adopt meaningful regulations taking account of

the

processes which produce the

TDS . It would not be feasible to address such a problem for industry

in

general .

Conclusion

In a separate Order the Board proposes to adopt the amendments to 35 Ill

.

Adm. Code 405 and 406 discussed above . The record will remain open for comment

for a period [*191 of 45 days after publication in the Illinois Register .

This Proposed Opinion supports the Board's Proposed order of this date

.

---

Exhibit C

---

C

---

Exhibit D

---

q1aD

---

Exhibit

E

---

Illinois Nature Preserves

September 1, 2000

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Bureau of Water, Division of Water Pollution Control

.

Permit Section

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Re: NPDES permit # IL0074802, Notice # 1592c/jkb

'Black Beauty Coal Company, Vermilion County

Dear Madam or Sir

:

This letter is in regard to the application by Black Beauty Coal Company to create a new

underground coal mine that will result in the discharge of acid mine drainage into outfall 003, an

unnamed tributary that flows into the Little Vermilion River . The Illinois Nature Preserves

Commission is concerned about potential negative impacts of this project on the Little Vermilion

River and Carl Fliermans' River Nature Preserve

.

The Little Vermilion River has been ranked as a Class "B" stream, a highly valued aquatic .

resource, (Biological Stream Characterization, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1996)

in the vicinity where the River will receive discharge from the mine area via an unnamed

tributary to the Little Vermilion River. Downstream of the unnamed tributary and the

Georgetown dam, the Little Vermilion River has received the highest biological aquatic

characterization as a Class "A" stream, an unique aquatic resource

.

The Little Vermilion River upstream, downstream, and in the vicinity of the proposed coal mine

is recognized as a high-quality stream by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI)

. In addition

to the INAI designation and Class "A" and "B" rankings, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has

categorized the Little Vermilion watershed as one of the 327 watersheds nationwide (15% of all

U.S. watersheds), as "critical" for maintaining freshwater biodiversity . The Little Vermilion

River is one of only four watersheds in Illinois categorized as such., The Nature Conservancy's

categorization of this stream in a nationwide comprehensive study emphasizes the national

significance of preserving the Little Vermilion River .

This unique River also provides

.habitat for several State endangered species : Indiana bat

(Myotis

sodalis),

Bigeye Shiner

(Notropis boops),

Bigeye

Chub.(Notropis amblops),

Rainbow mussel

(Villosa

iris),

Little Spectaclecase Mussel

(Villosa lienosa) ;

and Slippershell Mussel

(Alasmidonta viridis) .

EEPA EX

n

1i

No.

000072

Commission

LUJI

sap

0 5 2000

ILLINOIS ENVIROtiHENT L

PROTECTION ACRNCV

4QW/WPC/PER$T SECTION

000853

---

Re: NPDES permit A IL0074802, Notice # 1592c/jkb

Black Beauty Coal Company, Vermilion County

Page 2

The Carl Fliermans' River Nature Preserve, an area dedicated as a State nature preserve under the

Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act (525 ILCS 30), is located on the Little Vermilion River

approximately 2 miles downstream of the location where water from the unnamed tributary flows

into the Little Vermilion River. This Nature Preserve protects a high-quality 1 .2 mile segment of

the Little Vermilion River and . its associated riparian corridor. In addition to protecting a Class

"A" stream that is a unique aquatic resource, this Nature Preserve also supports populations of

Illinois threatened and endangered species including the Bigeye Shiner

(Notropis hoops),

Little

Spectaclecase Mussel

(Villosa lienosa),

and Slippershell Mussel

(Alasmidonta viridis)

.

Carl Fliermans' River Nature Preserve was dedicated as an Illinois Nature Preserve by the

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission to ensure its permanent protection and the perpetuation of

the area in as nearly a natural condition as possible . Areas dedicated as State nature preserves are

to be put to their highest and best use and are held in trust for the benefit of the people of the

State of Illinois. The.Commission is charged with implementing the . Illinois Natural Areas

Preservation Act (525 ILCS 30),.which states it is " .

.

. . public policy off the State of Illinois to

secure for the people

.

. . the benefits of an enduring resource of natural areas

.

.

.

. by establishing

a system

of

nature preserves, protecting nature preserves and

.

.

. otherwise encouraging and

assisting in the preservation of natural areas and features."

The development of

.a new coal mining surface facility in such close proximity to the Little,

Vermilion River is. of significant concern to the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission . The

Commission is concerned about potential negative impacts of the proposed coal mine on the

Little Vermilion River, including the Carl Fliermans' River Nature Preserve . The Little

Vermilion River is an important stream with unusually high fish and wildlife value . This natural

resource should receive protection from any source that could degrade its natural integrity.

After reviewing the permit application, it is our understanding that the sediment basin will result

in a discharge of sediment control effluent after the 24-hour, 10-year storm event. This standard

may be inadequate to prevent water quality degradation to oneof Illinois' most valuable

resources. Considering the frequency of the 10-year event, we believe more stringent measures

need to be taken. Increased storage capacity for the settling basins would ensure that water is

contained during greater storm events before it is released into a tributary of the Little Vermilion

River .

In 1999, IEPA issued a NPDES permit to DynaChem, Inc . of Georgetown, Illinois thatt permitted

stormwater discharge of contact water into a tributary of the Little Vermilion River. At this

facility, the stormwater retention basin was designed to contain the runoff

from

the 100-year

storm event. The applicant originally proposed that the retention basin contain the 25-year storm

event. After IEPA review and public comment, the NPDES permit stipulated that the retention

basin be increased in size to contain the 100-year storm event . IEPA should request that the

Black Beauty Coal Mine sediment control basin be increased in size, just as the DynaChem basin

was increased in size. If this is not done, please explain why it is not deemed necessary.

---

U

Re: NPDES permit t# IL0074802, Notice # 1592c/jkb

Page 3

Black Beauty Coal Company, Vermilion County

According to an IEPA memo dated Aug. 2, 2000 from Scott Twait to Larry Crispin regarding the

proposed coal mine "dissolved and suspended minerals (manganese, iron, sulfates, and chlorides)

will be present in the settled water discharged during storm events

.

. ." (Page 2, 3`d par

attached). The memo goes on to state that the dissolved and suspended minerals present in the

settled water that is discharged "will be limited in the permit at levels that will be protective of

aquatic life, including threatened and endangered species ." What is the factual basis for this

conclusion?' Have the effects of the specific.minerals contained in the proposed discharge water

been studied on the threatened and endangered species found in the Little Vermilion River?

Please provide citations or references to reports, studies, publications, etc . that support the

conclusion that the dissolved and suspended minerals (manganese, iron, sulfates, and chlorides)'

that will be present, in the settled water discharged during storm events will be at levels that will

be protective of aquatic life, including threatened and endangered species .

The permit proposes to regulate acid mine discharge .using effluent limits prescribed by the

standards for mining discharges . Are these effluent standards adequate to 1) protect the public

water supply of Georgetown, which is taken from Georgetown Lake, located about 1 mile

downstream of the unnamed tributary confluence and 2) assure that no ecological alteration of

the Little Vermilion River will occur? For example, the public notice states that discharge can

contain sulfates with a daily maximum concentration limit

.of 3,500 mg/l. However, general use

water quality standards for sulfates are 500 mg/I. Given the close proximity of the mine to

Georgetown's public water supply and the high natural quality of the Littler Vermilion River,

higher standards for water quality should be considered

.

Have ambient levels of sulfates, chlorides, iron, total suspended solids, manganese, pH,

acidity/alkalinity and settleable solids been determined for the Little Vermilion River? How do'

the proposed permitted levels of these minerals and substances compare to ambient levels? Does

the permit allow higher levels of certain pollutants than are currently in the river?

Alternatives should be seriously considered . For instance, could coal be extracted from aa portal

at the present Riola Mine instead .of creating anew surface facility? Has an analysis

of

alternatives been done?

A social or economic need for this project has not been demonstrated adequately. How many

jobs will be created by this project? Will new workers be hired in addition to those already

present at the Riola Mine? Will Illinois residents have first priority for employment?

On behalf of the Illinois Nature

•Preserve Commission, I respectfully request that a public

hearing be held regarding this permit application due to the high level of public concern

expressed to .the Commission about this project, possible negative impacts on the Little

Vermilion River, including the Carl Fliermans' River Nature Preserve, and possible . negative

.

impacts on aquatic life . found within the river, including State threatened and endangered

animals .

000855

---

Re: NPDES permit # IL0074802, Notice # 1592c/jkb

Page 4

Black Beauty Coal Company, Vermilion County

Please contact me at 217/785-8686 if I can provide further information or assistance . Thank you

for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. I look forward to your response

.

Sincerely,

Catolyn 1 aft. Grosboll

Director, Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

cc :

Director Brent Manning, IDNR

Rene Cipriano, Office of the Governor

INPC Commissioners

Tom Flattery, IDNIt, Office

of

Realty and Environmental Planning

Deanna Glosser, IDNR, Division of Resource Review and Coordination

Kim Underwood, IDNR, Office of Mines and Minerals

000856

---

Exhibit F

---

Illinois

Department. of

Natural Resources

http.-Ildnrsta te. it us

524

South Second Street, Springfield, Illinois

62707-1787

.

George

H .

Ryan, Governor

• Brent Manning, Director

September 13, 2000

Hearing Officer Bill Seltzer. 921

Water Pollution Control, Permit Section 'M 15

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

RE: NPDES PermitNo. 110074802, Notice No. 1592c/jkb

Discharger: Black Beauty Coal. Company

Facility Location: Vermilion Grove Mine

Receiving Waters: Unnamed tributary to the Little Vermilion River

Vermilion County : T17N R12W Sections 13

IDNR # 0005819

Dear Mr. Seltzer :

The following comments arg provided

in

response to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) request for comments on the NPDES non-degradation evaluation prepared 8/2/00 for the above

permit. These comments are also generated from the review of the NPDES draft Permit No . IL0074802,

Notice No. I592c/jkb in accordance with the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act [520 ILCS

10/11], the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act [525 . ILCS 30/17), Title 17 Illinois Administrative

Code Part 1075 .

The draft NPDES permit identifies the location of the proposed outfall 003 as the discharge point for a

series of three settling basins for the coal preparation site of the Black Beauty Coal Company in

Vermilion Grove. The discharge will enter an unnamed tributary of the Little Vermilion River (LVR)

.

This unnamed tributary is approximately 0 .5 mile upstream of the (LVR), and is recorded as having a zero

7Q 10

flow.

The IEPA non-degradation evaluation utilized the Biologically Significant Illinois Streams'

publication (Page et al. 1992) to document that the receiving stream does not have any listed resources

.

The LVR receives the water front the receiving tributary and

is

listed as

a

biologically significant stream

supporting several threatened and endangered species . The Natural Heritage Database and biological

reports

for

the area confirms that the state endangered Bigeye shiner

(Notropis

boops),

River chub

(Nocomis micropogon),

Slippershell mussel

(Alasmidonta viridis),

and the Little spectacle case mussel_

(Villosa lienosa) occupy

the waters of the LVR upstream and downstream of the confluence of the

discharge tributary. The LVR. is also identified

as

an Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) site due to

these sensitive resources and the presence of the State dedicated Carl Flierman's River Nature Preserve

just south of Georgetown in Section 5 of Township 17 North, Rangel2 West .

In addition to the LRV being

a

significant biological resource the Georgetown Reservoir has been

EXHIBIT

9//4"0

0

l~AA a!1

---

I

Black Beauty/Anti-degradation/NPDES Permit Page 2

identified as a public water supply. The Municipal Code [65ILCS 5/11-125-2] grants a city or a village

the authority to exteniitsjurisdiction to up to 20 miles beyond its corporate limits in order to "prevent or

punish any pollution or injury to the stream or source of water, or to the waterworks" . The concerns of

any municipality whose jurisdiction would include the location of the expanded coal processing activities

planned by the Black Beauty Coal Company should be addressed and incorporated into the permit before

it is issued.

A detailed description as to what portions of the LVR are considered to be part of the Georgetown

Reservoir has not been provided . This is significant because of the close proximity of the proposed

outfall to the upper reaches of the Georgetown Reservoir, which is on the 1998 303(d) List for Illinois

.

The proposed discharge point

for

outfall 003 is an unnamed tributary with a zer0 7Q10.flow,

so

it could be

considered a direct discharge to the upper reaches .of Georgetown Reservoir during those times of the

-year when the tributary is dry.

The effluent limits for any substance identified as a cause' of pollution oft the 303(d) list cannot be

revised for discharges to any 303(d) listed waters whose permit contains limits for those substances

[Sections 303(d)(4)(A) and 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act] . How have these public water supply

issues been addressed in the ; proposed

NPDES

permit?

The Department was requested by IEPA to review the above proposal under the revised IPCB non-

degradation Standard-3511 . Adm. Code 302 .105. This revised standard

is

the proposed new anti-

degradation standard and its purpose is

"to maintain high quality waters and to prevent unnecessary

deterioration of waters of the state . ."

Under this new anti-degradation standard, existing uses must be

maintained and protected. Degradation of existing uses includes but is riot limited to

"ann action that

would result in the deterioration of the existing aquatic. community, such as

a

shift from a community of

predominantly pollutant-sensitive species to pollutant-tolerant species or a

loss

of species diversity or an

action which, would result in a loss of

a

resident of indigenouss species whose presence is necessary to

sustain commercial or recreational activities"

.

The non-degradation evaluation which was completed to

satisfy this anti-degradation standard has deficiencies which need to be revisited by IEPAJ

According to the Section 354.103 of the proposed Anti-degradation Policy,

"ihe permit application must

include "a) . Identification and characterization of the waters affected by the proposed load increase

or

proposed activity and their exiting uses. Characterization must address physical, biological, and

chemical conditions of the waters."

The characterization of the existing uses and physical, biological and chemical conditions of the

water provided in the non-degradation evaluation appears deficient in determining the extent of

the existing uses. The public water supply and the threatened and. endangered species are the

only two uses mentioned. The data which substantiates the non-degradation decision is not

sufficiently demonstrated . There is no data .

Based on the criteria outlined in Section 302.105 some additional existing uses should be

addressed .

Sport

fishing/recreational use, habitats for a diverse macro-invertebrate community,

and the protection of the State's Natural Heritage of the 1 .2 mile stretch

of

the LVR designated

as Illinois' first river nature preserve - Carl Flierman's River Nature Preserve should be

evaluated for potential degradation. Simply.meeting permit limits does not infer non-degradation

to all aquatic resources and existing uses

.

---

Black

.Beauty/Anti-degradatiou/NPDES Permit Page 3

•

According to IMBiological Stream Characterization (BSC) (Bertrand, 1996), the LVR is rated as

' :B": however, previous biological surveys of the area (Sauer, 1989 ; Hefley, 1993; Hite and

Bertrand, 1989) did have "A" ratings for the LVR. Historically, abandoned coal mines have

.

been known to produce increasing toxic metal loads in adjacent streams and rivers, increases in

acidic conditions, and associated pH moderation of the bioavailability of metals (Milam and

Farris, 1998). The degradation from an A rating to a B rating in such a short time period could

be attributed to the exiting Riola Mine discharge which also, meets Mining Discharge Standards .

Cumulative and long term impacts need to be investigated before all our unique and high quality

waters' biological integrity gradually degrades over time

.

Although the Illinois Natural History Survey does not list the . unnamed tributary of the LVR as a

biologically significant stream, the habitat in this tributary is such that it could serve as spawning

areas for the Bigeye shiner and the River Chub, (Per. Comm. IDNR Fisheries, 2000) . '

•

The review of biological surveys (Sauer, 1989 ; Hefley, 1992) conducted for the. LVR and the

BSC (Bertrand et al ., 1996) indicate the presence of fish and macro invertebrate species which

are intolerantof water quality degradation. Sampling of benthic macro-invertebrates has been

used to collect baseline data to be used as a basis for detecting effects of waste water's and

determination of the extent of this impact in both the short-term and longer-term (Humphrey et

.

al, 1990). These resources should be considered

in

the non-degradation evaluation as existing

uses'

which could potentially be impacted if the water quality is degraded . 'The NPDES permit

should. include monitoring of these resources to quantify and monitorr fluctuations in water

quality to avoid degradation. The Department requests that a draft Monitoring Plan be prepared

by the Applicant for our review and concurrence prior to the plans approval by the IEPA

.

•

If the concentrations of the ambient conditions in the river today differs ignificantly from the it is

likely to create problems for sensitive or intolerant species. Current baseline data needs to be

collected to document the ambient conditions of the LVR which will eventually receive the

discharge.waters. This baseline data should be used to determine' if discharge will modify these

current water quality parameters . Acute and chronic whole-effluent toxicity testing and

biological monitoring should be required to serve as a check on the predicted effluent dilutions

and permit limits, as well as the responses of these discharges on the aquatic community

composition and diversity of unionids, macro-invertebrates, and fish

.

According to the Section 354.103 of the proposed Anti-degradation Policy,

"the permit application must

include "b) . Identification and quantification of the proposed load increased

for

the applicable

parameters and of the potential impacts of the proposed activity on the affected waters"

.

The IDNR, Office of Mines and Minerals, Mining Permit Application No. 342 section on

Hydrological information (Page 9 Part III) indicated that `.`there will be increased .pollutant

loadings for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Calcium, Chlorides, Sulfate, iron, manganese,

Magnesium, sodium, and pH and the effects of this increased loading

will

not diminish until after

the site is. reclaimed. All of these parameters. are not addressed in the non-degradation evaluation

or

the NPDES permit

.

The NPDES permit identifies parameters and limits for total suspended' solids (TSS), iron (total),

pH, Alkalinity/Acidity, sulfates, chlorides, manganese, and settleable solids . The non-

---

Black Beauty/Anti-degradation/NPDES Permit Page 4

degradation ettaation discussed the net siltation or suspended solids levels as potentially

decreasing since the current agriculture practices do not employ any storm water treatment for

runoff. There was also a forested riparian corridor which provided a buffer for the existing

agricultural land use practices. If these riparian corridors ate to be removed to accommodate for

the mining operation, the runoff from the site could actually be compounded as a result of this

mining operation

.

•

Currently, the Riola Mine discharges into the Fayette drainage system which eventually drains

into the

.LVR. This similar operation has sulfate discharges of 500 nig/I or less, yet the current

NPDES permit is allowing for 3500 mg/I to be discharged. If current technologies allow the

mining operation to. meet the 500 mg/I level what are the reasons for the increased load limits and

what data validates that these limits will_be protective of all aquatic life?

•

The evaluation for the .remaining parameters simply suggested that limits will be set using the

effluent limits prescribed by the standards for mining discharges. Where is the data which

substantiates that these mining limits do pot degrade the receiving waters of the coal mine

discharge .

•

The non-degradation evaluation indicates the storm- water ponds will not include any mine

plumage from the mining operation and there will be no dry weather discharge . The construction

permit for the site indicates the . discharge'for Outfall 003 will be classified as .Acid Mine

Drainage from coal refuse piles . Aii•-born coal dust is also an avenue for whichh pollutants can

reach the Little Vermilion River regardless of the surface water containment for the operation

.

Therefore, regardless of the intent to contain and limit the coal mining operation runoff, there is

always the potential for untreated acid mine drainage to enter the LVR and negatively impact the

sensitive resources it supports .

•

Historically, abandoned coal mines have been known to produce increasing toxic metal loads in

adjacent streams and rivers, increases in acidic conditions, and associated pH moderation of the

bioavailability of metals (Milam and Farris, 1998). Mine effluent has also been shown to be

toxic to zooplankton exposed to an undiluted effluent with metal concentrations approaching the

daily maximum limitations set in the NPDES permit .(Masnado, et. al. 1995). Masnado et. al also

demonstrated that depending on the hardness (calcium) of the dilution waters, the permitted

' .

metals mixture was sometimes toxic to the freshwater mussel

Anodonta imbecilis .

The non-

degradation evaluation and the NPDES permit fails to address the issues of metals and the

potential for bio-accumulation of these parameters associated with coal mines.

Larval mussels are known to have low tolerance to low pH which can decrease their viability

.

This decrease in viability is a possible explanation for the disappearance of mussels from acid-

contaminated waters (per . corn .. INHS 2000). In Ohio, the discovery of an endangered mussel

species prompted further validation of a lowest observable effect concentration for the discharge

as it was diluted by the Ohio River (Milam and Garris, 1998) . We owe our rivers the same

respect .

According to the Section 354.103 of the proposed Anti-degradation Policy,

"the permit application must

'

include "c,. The purpose and anticipated benefits of the .proposed activity, "

---

Black Beauty/Anti-degradationlNPDES Permit Page 5

•

The only discu`on of a social need is for the creation

of

jobs for the community . Alternative

discharge locations or a different surface preparation site should not affect the potential forjob

creation in the area and may in fact require more man power to accomplish some of the

additional hauling needs

.

According to the Section 354 .103 of the proposed Anti-degradation Policy,

"the permit application must

include "d) . Assessments of alternatives to proposed increases in pollutant loading . . .that result in less of

a load increase, no load increase

or

minimal environmental degradation . "

•

[EPA should require the Applicant to prepare an Altematives .Analysis'pertaining to the purpose

.

and need for the proposed location of the mine's surface facilities

.

•

[EPA should summarize the alternatives for the storm water discharge . The three settling basins

proposed will provide a 24 hour retention for

a

10 year storm event. Due the frequency of 10

year storm events and larger storm' events, a larger storage capacity or a

no discharge facility

should be investigated by the . applicant.

•

If additional sediment basin effluent treatment is required, the mining permit application

indicates that the treatment options would include : ammonia, soda ash, caustic soda, hydrated

lime, quick lime, limestone,. potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, coagulants ans

flocculent. These parameters are not addressed in the .NPDES permit

or

the non-degradation

evaluation .

•

The non-degradation evaluation mentions the additional dilution of the discharge due to the

relocation of the proposed Outfall 003 further upstream on the unnamed tributary . The stream

has a zero

7Q 10

flow and discharges'wiIt only occur under wet conditions; therefore, the only

dilution will occur during storm events as, a result of other storm water drainage into this

tributary. If discharge standards are being met at the discharge point before entering any

tributary waters and if these standards are suppose to protect all aquatic life, why would

additional dilution be suggested? If there is any insecurity about the .negative impacts to the

receiving waters, it is best to not discharge at all. The design and implementation of a no-'

discharge system is recommended by the IDNR as the best available method to maintain the

long-term integrity of the LVR ecosystem .

The close vicinity of the coal preparation site to the LVR should require some sort of

conservation easement for the remaining riparian corridor of the LVR to buffer the mining

activities' from this unique resource .

The Department does not feel the information presented in the non-degradation evaluation dated 8/2/00

meets the requirements of 35 11. Adm. Code 302.105 Anti-degradation due to the deficiencies mentioned

above. The issuance of the current NPDES draft permit

will

allow for degradation of the Little

Vermilion River and its unique resources

.

oooos3

---

Black Beauty/Anti-degradationfNPDES Permit Page 6

If you need additional{aformation or have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 217-785-

5500

.

.

Sincerely,

Deanna Glosser, Ph.D

.

OREP/Division of Natural Resource Review & Coordination

cc :

Brian Anderson, IDNRIINHS

Larry Crislip, [EPA Mine Pollution Control Program

Kirby Cottrell, IDNR/ORC

Kevin Cummings, IDNR/INHS

Tom

Flattery, IDNR/OREP

Scott Fowler, IDNR/OMM

Gary Lutterbie, IDNR/OREP

Patrick Malone, IDNR/OREP

Tom McSwiggin, I.EPA/BOW

Robert Mosher, IEPA/Planning

.

Lawrence Page, IDNR/INHS

Robert Szafoni, IDNR/OREP

Kim Underwood, IDNR/OMM

MaryJo Woodruff, IDNR/OREP

References :

*Bertrand, W. A., R, L. Hite, and D.M. Day, eds. 1996. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC)

:

Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality through 1993 . IEPA/BOW/96-058. 40pp .

.

*Hefey, J. E., 1993. State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency Division of Water Pollution

.

Control, Planning Section ; An Intensive Survey of the Little Vermilion River as Effected by Seasonal

Variation. IEPA/WPC/93-139 . 47 pp .

*Hit e, P . L. and W. A. Bertrand. 1989. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) : A Biological

Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality. Spec. Rep. No. 13 of the Illinios State Water Plan Task Force .

[EPA/AC/89-275 . 42pp .

*Humphrey, C .L.,K.A. Bishop,'and V.M. Brown. 1990. Use of biological monitoring in the assessment

of effects of mining wastes on aquatic ecosystems of the Alligator Rivers region, tropical northern

Australia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 14(2-3):139-181 .

*Masnado, R.G ., S.W. Geis, and W .C. Sonzogni. 1995. Comparative acute toxicity of a synthetic mine

effluent to

Ceriodaphnia dubia,'larval

fathead minnow and the freshwater mussel

Anodonta imbeciles.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14(11):1913-1920.

*Milam, C.D ., and J:L ..Farris 1998 Risk identification associated with iron-dominated mine discharges

and their effect upon freshwater bivalves . Environmental, Toxicology and Chemistry 17(8) :1611-16.19 .

---

Black Beauty/Anti-degradation/NPDES Permit Page 7

*Page, L.M .,et. al ., [Ilt 1s Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity Tech

.. Rep. 1992(1) .

Biologically Significant Illinois Streams, An Evaluation of the Streams of Illinois Based on Aquatic

Biodiversity. 485pp .

*Sauer, R. 1989 . Illinois Department of Conservation . Division of Fisheries Stream Program . Biological

survey of, the Little Vermilion River .

400055

---

Exhibit G

---

---

Exhibit H

---

An Intensive Survey of the

Little Vermilion River

As Affected By Seasonal Variation

1992

Printed on Recycled Paper

AOKI

Illinois

Environmental

Bureau of Water

2201 Churchill Road

August 1993

Protection Agency

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

IEPA/WPC/93-139

---

AN INTENSIVE SURVEY OF THE LITTLE VERMILION RIVER

AS AFFECTED BY SEASONAL VARIATION

1992

BY

J. E. HEFLEY

Central Monitoring Unit

4500 South Sixth Street

Springfield, Illinois 62706

STATE OF ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

PLANNING SECTION

MARCH

1993

---

CONTENTS

III

Stream Habitat and Substrate Characteristics

Introduction

8

Methods

8

Results and Discussion

9

Characterization By Study Site

10

IV

Water Quality

Introduction

12

Methods

12

Results and Discussion

13

V

Sediment Chemistry

Introduction

15

Methods

15

Results and Discussion

16

VI

Macroinvertebrate Populations

Introduction

17

Methods

17

Results and Discussion

18

VII

Fish Populations

Introduction

22

Methods

23

Results and Discussion

24

i

SECTION

PAGE

I

List of Figures

ii

List of Tables

iii

Executive Summary

1

II

.

Introduction

Background and Rationale

3

Survey Objectives

4

Basin Description

4

---

N

VIII

Biological Stream Characterization

Introduction

25

Methods

26

Results and Discussion

26

IX

Aquatic Life Use Support

Introduction

28

Methods

28

Results and Discussion

28

X

Literature Cited

30

XI

Appendix

33

LIST OF FIGURES

ii

FIGURE

PAGE

1

I

Locations of intensive sites monitored during the Little Vermilion River

survey, 1992

7

Substrate composition of an average Little Vermilion River site,

1992'

10

3

Seasonal trend of total organisms from stations BO-05 and BO-07,

1992

19

4

Seasonal trend of total taxa from stations BO-05 and BO-07,

1992

19

---

LIST OF TABLES

iii

TABLE

PAGE

1

Water quality techniques (II PA, 1982) and applicable

General Use Standards (IPCI3 1990)

13

Summary of macro invertebrate community characteristics in the

Little Vermilion River, March

- December, 1992

21

3

Metrics used to assess midwest fish communities (Karr et al ., 1986) 23

Summary of 1992 fish community characteristics in the

Little Vermilion River

24

5

Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) summary

27

6

Summary of use support assessment criteria for Illinois streams

(IF-IPA, 1990)

29

7

Assessment of the use support for the Little Vermilion River basin, 1992 29

APPENDIX

A

Description of 1992 IEPA-IDOC stations sampled during the

Little Vermilion River survey

34

B

Summary of habitat characteristics in the Little Vermilion River,

September, 1992

35

C

Seasonal water chemistry data from the Little Vermilion River survey,

. March-December, 1992

36

D

I lardness-dependent general use water quality standards for samples

collected from the Little Vermilion River survey, March - December, 1992 38

Ii

Classification of Illinois stream sediments (Kelly and Hite, 1984) 39

Concentrations of volatile solids, nutrients and metals in sieved bottom

sediment samples collected from the Little Vermilion River,

September, 1992

37

G

Macro i nvertebrate data collected from the Little Vermilion River

intensive survey, March - December, 1992

40

11

Fish community sampling results from the Little Vermilion River survey,

September. 1992

46

---

SECTION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1992, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency conducted a seasonal intensive

survey of the Little Vermilion River near Georgetown, Illinois . This study looked at

macroinvertebrate communities, fish populations, instream habitat, and water and

sediment chemistry as tools to document the biological and chemical status of the Little

Vermilion River .

The Little Vermilion survey was also designed as a program to observe biotic and

abiotic fluctuations within lotic environments due to seasonal variation .

STREAM HABITAT

Habitat data were recorded at seven sites on the Little Vermilion during a period of low

stream discharge in early September . During this time, the Little Vermilion River, a

fourth order stream, had an average discharge of 8 .1 cubic feet per second (cfs) . The

average water width and depth was 46 feet and 0 .9 foot respectively .' Bottom substrate

on the upper end of the basin, upstream of the Georgetown reservoir,

contained a high

percent of sand while the majority of the basin's substrate was coarse, composed

predominantly of gravel and cobble .

Predicted Index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) values generated from habitat metrics at the

seven Little Vermilion sites had an average value of 45 with only slight deviation

between sites . PIBI values indicated that every segment sampled exhibited the potential

of a Highly Valued or Class B resource.

WATER QUALITY

Water quality samples were collected from seven Little Vermilion main stem sites

during four sampling periods in 1992 . The water quality at all sites was considered

very good, showing no apparent seasonal fluctuation. There were no violations of

general use water quality standards throughout this study

.

SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY

A total of seven sieved sediment samples were collected from the Little Vermilion

basin for analysis . Nutrient and metal parameters examined were found to be non-

elevated within the surficial sediment deposits with the exception of. chromium, iron,

zinc, and phosphorus .

1

---

MACRO IN VERTEBRATES

A total of 99 taxa were collected from seven sites on the Little Vermilion during four

sampling runs in 1992. Taxa richness for the sudy revealed seasonal totals of 38

(March), 49 (May), 63 (September), and 48 (December), representing normal

fluctuations for an undisturbed environment. Calculated MBI values remained

consistent throughout the survey with seasonal averages for the study area of 5 .4

(March), 5.2 (May), 5 .0 (September), and 4.5 (December) .

On the basis of macroinvertebrate community metrics including MBI, taxa richness and

presence of intolerant species, the Little Vermilion River was ranked as having good to

excellent stream conditions

.

FISH POPULATIONS

To facilitate an assessment of biotic integrity, fish populations were sampled by

electrofishing at seven sites on September 21-23, 1992 . A total of 6,950 fish

represented by 50 species were collected . Five species including the white sucker,

northern hogsucker, golden redhorse, bluegill and longear sunfish were ubiquitous at

all sites. The sample included one specimen of the bigeyed chub(Hybopsis amblops),

an Illinois endangered species which is not known to have been collected in Illinois

since 1961

.

The biotic integrity of main stem fish communities was considered excellent based on

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) values which ranged from 44 to 56. The entire Little

Vermilion main stem was rated class A except for a reach south of Indianola which

received a class B rating

.

BIOLOGICAL STREAM CHARACTERIZATION

On the basis of Index of Biotic Integrity values ranging from 44 to 56, with an average

of 52, the Little Vermilion Basin was rated as a Class A stream or Unique Aquatic

Resource .

---

SECTION H. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Since 1981, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has used the

intensive basin survey as a means of generating baseline data for the review of Illinois'

water quality standards and more recently as a means of evaluating stream use support

.

The degree to which the streams of a particular basin support designated uses is

determined by a combination of biotic and abiotic data, intensive survey field

observations, and professional judgement (Ettinger, 1989) .

Between March and December of 1992, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) conducted an

intensive survey on the Little Vermilion River basin . This included a cooperative fish

sampling effort with Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC) in September of the

same year. From data collected, environmental quality was summarized utilizing

various indicies including macroinvertebrates (MBI), fish (IBI) and habitat (PIBI), as

well as, water and sediment chemistry .

In 1988 Kruse and Ebinger, private consultants and instructors at Eastern Illinois

University, conducted a biological survey of a 400 acre area to be inundated by a

proposed Little Vermilion Lake near Georgetown, Illinois . This included a reach of

the Little Vermilion River south of Georgetown at the IL Route 1 bridge to the

projected dam site, east of Georgetown near the Humrick Road bridge . Their species

list included two Illinois endangered mussels, slippershell(Alismidonta viridis) and

little spectacle case (Villosa lienosa), as well as, the big-eyed shiner (Notropis boops),

an Illinois threatened fish. They concluded that although unique small stream species

could potentially survive downstream, they would be eliminated from the proposed area

to be inundated .

A 1989 IDOC survey was conducted on the Little Vermilion River to determine the

overall biotic integrity of the stream while verifying the distribution of several state

"threatened" and "endangered" species. This survey was in response to the City of

Georgetown's proposal to impound over three miles of the river as a water supply

reservoir . The results reported this reach as a unique aquatic resource and that any

impoundment would cause permanent and unmitigable loss to this resource (Sauer,

1989) .

The United States Department of Agriculture has an ongoing project developing an

educational and technical assistance program that will ultimately improve water quality

in the Little Vermilion River and Georgetown Reservoir . Watershed background

information and project results are published in an annual report

.

---

SURVEY OBJECTIVES

Objectives of the 1992 Little Vermilion Intensive Survey were to :

1 . Evaluate biotic integrity using aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish communities

;

2. Observe seasonal water quality fluctuations and document specific constituents

contributing to water quality degradation

;

3 . Observe seasonal fluctuations in macroinvertebrate communities

;

4. Determine biotic potential for each stream segment through assessment of

available aquatic habitat ;

5. Evaluate sediment chemistry characteristics at selected stream sites and

document constituents present at abnormal levels

;

BASIN DESCRIPTION

According to Healy (1979), the Little Vermilion basin consists of a 244 square mile

total drainage area. One hundred and ninety-six square miles of the basin are located

in Illinois and include parts of Champaign, Edgar, and Vermilion counties . The river

continues for twenty miles into Indiana to its confluence with the Wabash River near

Newport (Figure 1)

.

The Little Vermilion River originates (at river mile 58.5) on the east side of

Champaign County and runs nearly due east with tributary drainages located on either

side of the main stem in a simple leaf pattern. This orientation of the tributaries causes

lower peak flows, and more sustained low flows . Approximately 28 miles from its

origin, the stream enters Georgetown Lake, a water supply reservoir located

on

the

southwest edge of Georgetown . It impounds approximately a 1 .5 mile reach of the

stream at river mile 30

.

Elevation in the watershed ranges from about 600 feet above sea level along the

floodplain near Georgetown, to over 720 feet on the uplands formed by the Ridge Farm

moraine which is located along the southern boundary of Vermilion County . Local

relief is generally less than 25 feet, but does reach as much as 60 feet along the Little

Vermilion River (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1991)

.

The slope of the stream is moderate, equaling about 3 .6 feet per mile in the lower third

of the basin, and approximately 2 .0 feet per mile in the upper two-thirds of the stream

length. There is much more surface relief in the lower part of the basin, east of Sidell,

and in the upper portion, the mild land slopes move right up to the stream bank

.

4

---

Physiographic Divisions and Natural Divisions

The topography of the Little Vermilion is the result of recent modification of glacial

activity during the Wisconsinan and Illinoian glacial periods

.

The Little Vermilion basin is within the Bloomington Ridge Plain and is described by

Wangsness

(1983)

as depositional plains of low relief underlain by thick till and

modified only slightly by postglacial stream erosion . The plains are nearly flat to

gently rolling and are crossed by several low and poorly developed end moraines. The

flatness of the plains is broken by low eskers, esker troughs, and meltwater drainways

that trend southeast .

Natural divisions of the State are characterized by bedrock, glacial history, topography,

soils, and the distribution of plants and animals (Schwegman,

1973) .

A small portion

of the basin, upstream of Sidell, is located in the Grand Prairie Division while the

remaining basin and all monitoring sites fall into the Wabash Border Division. This

division includes bottomlands along the Wabash River, loess covered uplands and

lowland oak forests. Several tree and fish species are unique to only this division .

Geology (from Wangsness,

1983)

The uppermost bedrock in this basin is primarily Pennsylvanian. The bedrock, is

covered by glacial deposits from the Kansan, Illinoian and Wisconsinan glaciers

.

Deposits associated with the Kansan advance are buried under deposits of subsequent

glacial advances . Illinoian deposits were in turn obscured by the Wisconsin advance

.

The Wisconsin drift is the uppermost deposit in this area . Thickness of the drift ranges

from about 50-400 feet. Wisconsin loess covers the entire Little Vermilion River

basin. A thickness of four feet is common on the Illinois side of the basin, but may be

as thick as eight feet in areas near the Wabash River

.

Soils (from U.S Dept. of Agriculture,

1991)

Soils of the Little Vermilion River basin developed from glacial tills, loess, and recent

alluvial deposits . Because of varying parent material and topography, these soils vary

widely in color, texture, and physical characteristics

.

.

There are three soil associations of major importance in the Little Vermilion basin

.

-Drummer-Flanagan association occurs on broad upland areas of the watershed and

includes the majority of soil found in the area. These dark colored soils form on three

to four feet of silty loess over a silty glacial till . The association is intensively cropped

and very productive .

-Fincastle-Russel association is found on nearly level to moderately sloping areas

parallel to major rivers and streams . The light colored soils make up 1.5 to

3

feet of

5

---

silty loess over silty glacial till. They are somewhat poor to moderately well drained .

The main use is cropland, but also includes pasture and timber

.

-Lawson-Strawn association occurs on moderate to steep slopes on both sides of nearly

level bottomland along the Little Vermilion River . The dark colored, nearly level,

bottomland soils formed on silt loam sediments . The light colored sloping soils formed

on silty glacial till. These soils are used as a combination of cropland, pasture and

woodland

.

Land Use

Land use in the watershed is approximately 90 percent in rowcrop agriculture, with

areas of woodland and grassland being equally divided and occurring mostly on the

floodplain along major drainage ways . Land ownership is mostly private, and about

half of the farms are owned by absentee landlords (U.S . Dept. of Agriculture, 1991)

.

Major Basin Discharges

Discharges located within the Little Vermilion River basin include permitted outfalls

for Allerton and Georgetown public water supplies, as well as, outfalls from municipal

wastewater treatment facilities in Georgetown and Ridge Farm, Illinois

.

Georgetown is a community of approximately 3,678 residents . Their wastewater

treatment facility consists of a trickling filter and aerated lagoon with tertiary rapid

sand filtration and sedimentation. Georgetown was granted a year-round chlorine

disinfection exemption. The plant has a design average flow of 0 .6 mgd with an actual

average flow in 1990 of 0.69 mgd. The point of discharge is located on an unnamed

tributary of the Little Vermilion River

.

Ridge Farm is a community of approximately 936 residents . Their wastewater

treatment facility consists of an Imhoff tank, slow sand filtration, and trickling filtration

followed by tertiary slow sand filtration and chlorine disinfection . It has a design

average flow of 0.2 mgd with an actual average flow in 1990 of 0 .2 mgd. The point of

discharge is located on an unnamed tributary of the Little Vermilion River (Figure 1)

.

6

---

C-C C

C(-( (-(

C(<( C C

-4

0

t

2

J

4

5

miles

C C(( C C< C

C(-( (

C<

LEGEND

-~'

--

Location of permited municipa discharge

Monitoring station

Streams having zero 7 day 10-year low flow

~' Streams having ncn-zero 7-day t 0-year low

ri

-w

* Georgetown Reservoir

V E R M I L I 0 N

`

}

7

m

,e

IBO 08["\i

.

~ ~

tndtsnnn

•

ts

All<rron

Cood+11

~

.

.

.J

t

itint

t

o

Sid

.tl

\

•

VCrl'

_

..

•

E

D

G

A

R

Little

Figure 1

. Locations of intensive sites monitored during the Little Vermilion River survey, 1992

.

Seven-day ten-year low flow designations were taken from Singh et al

. (1988)

.

C( C C( C

.( C(< C

;( i

---

SECTION III. HABITAT

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

The composition of aquatic communities and the distribution and abundance of

individual species in lotic systems are largely governed by geographically related

physicochemical variables . Although fish are found almost everywhere, each species

occurs in natural settings that are its habitat (Pflieger,

1975). A

local assemblage of

organisms results from passage of all the world's organisms "through a series of ever finer

zoogeographic, climatic, physiological and ecological screens

. . .the local fauna represent

the sum of the autecologies of the constituent species" (Haedrick,

1975) .

Stream quality is a function of two major components : chemical and physical. Both

suitable chemical water quality and desirable physical habitat

(e.g ., flow, current velocity,

bottom substrate composition, cover, etc.) must exist to meet specific individual species

requirements. While both major habitat components are largely determined by a mix of

naturally occurring geographic, climatic and physiographic conditions, man's activities

can alter these components

.

Biotic Potential

With respect to aquatic life (i .e., biotic integrity), the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency's mandate is to ensure that man's activities do not deleteriously affect the

chemical habitat component. When assessing aquatic environments where the biota are

impacted, it is frequently necessary to determine whether the impact is attributable to man

induced changes in the physical and/or chemical component. To accomplish this, it is

necessary to evaluate both water quality and stream habitat

.

In streams where fish populations are impacted from water quality degradation,

(i .e.,

water quality limitations), a stream habitat assessment provides an indication of the

community that could be present. The fish community that would theoretically be present

in the absence of water quality limitations is defined as biotic potential

.

METHODS

Field Procedures

A method modified from Gorman and Karr

(1978)

was used to assess stream habitat at all

sampling stations in the Little Vermilion River . A total of

17

habitat metrics were

recorded in accordance with guidelines established in the Agency Field Methods Manual

(I EPA, 1987) .

Habitat parameters including depth, velocity and substrate were recorded

along eleven transects in a 100 yard stream segment for all fish collection stations . Other

8

---

habitat metrics including percent shade, Stream cover and pool were estimated for the

study reach. Stream discharge measurements were made in accordance with U.S .

Geological Survey methods (USGS, 1976)

.

Data Analysis

Stream habitat metrics and substrate composition data were used to assess the biotic

potential of each station. The biotic potential is determined using specific habitat

variables identified through a stepwise multiple regression analysis (IEPA, 1986) . This

regression equation allows the biotic potential to be predicted in terms of an Index of

Biotic Integrity (PIBI). While the IBI measures actual fish populations, the predicted IBI

measures the potential for fish populations . Comparisons of PIBI values should only be

made between streams of the same order .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Habitat data were collected on September 1-3, 1992, a period when the basin was

experiencing low-flow conditions (Appendix Table B). The typical Little Vermilion

River habitat site reflected these low-flow conditions with a water width range of 29-61

feet, a water depth range of 0.6-1.4 feet, and a discharge range of 4.3-11.1 cubic feet per

second (cfs) for the project area. The mean percentages of pool and riffle in the study

area were 49.4 and 10.6 respectively. Average instream cover was 7.4 percent with

estimated shading being dense throughout most ofthe area, ranging from 0-84 percent

.

Gravel (31 .8 percent), cobble (22.5 percent), and sand (20 .2 percent) were the

predominant substrate types, reflecting a minimal impact from agricultural practices and

erosion. These were followed by silt\mud (8.0 percent), vegetation (4.7 percent), plant

detritus (3.4 percent) and lesser amounts of bedrock, claypan, and submerged logs (Figure

2). The Little Vermilion was a fourth order stream at each sampling site and had an

average PIBI (Predicted Index of Biotic Integrity) value of 45. Calculated values for

individual stations ranges from 42 to 47, indicating this basin had a biotic potential of a

highly valued aquatic resource

.

9

---

Figure 2. Substrate composition of a typical Little Vermilion River site, 1992 .

Silt/Mud

(8.0%)

* Other

(7.1%)

Sand

(20.2%)

Boulder

(5.7%)

* Includes bedrock (1.1%), claypan (1.1%), submerged logs (1.3%) and

plant detritus (3.4%) .

CHARACTERIZATION BY STUDY SITE

Station BO-08 was the farthest upstream site, located adjacent to county road #23 at the

Union Pacific RR bridge 0.75 mile NE of Sidell. The mean stream width and depth were

29 feet and 0.6 foot respectively with a discharge of 4 .3 cfs. The substrate consisted of

sand (46 percent), gravel (20 percent), vegetation (24 percent) and lesser amounts of

silt/mud and cobble. Instream vegetation was dominated by colonies of the green algae

Cladophora sp.

in late spring and later overgrown with dense patches of the macrophyte

water star-grass (Heteranthera dubia)

.

The stream banks were established with non-

woody vegetation, primarily grasses . Canary reed grass (Phalaris arrundinacea)

dominated areas adjacent to the stream . Shading was limited to a small area below the

RR bridge. A county road paralleled this reach to the north and cultivated fields existed

to the south .

Station BO-09 was located 0.75 mile SE of Indianola at the county road #16 bridge . The

mean stream width and depth were 34 and 1 .4 feet respectively with a discharge of 5 .7

cfs. The Little Vermilion in this area was mostly pooled with a small run . The substrate

consisted of sand (44 percent), gravel (16 .9 percent), plant detritus (10 .2 percent),

cobble/boulder (11 percent) and lesser amounts of silt/mud, claypan, vegetation, and

submerged logs. Instream vegetation was restricted to sparse patches of water willow

(Dianthera americana) in a shallow area near the bridge. This reach was characterized

by steep banks and a full canopy . Surrounding land was under cultivation with riparian

woods to the north and south. A residence was located to the northeast with a pasture

bordering the stream

.

10

---

.J

Station BO-05 was the first site downstream of the Georgetown Reservoir . It was located

south of Georgetown above the IL Route 150 bridge . The mean stream width and depth

were 48 feet and 1.1 feet respectively with a discharge of 7.6 cfs. This was a large pooled

area with riffles located below the bridge. The substrate consisted of gravel (45 percent),

cobble (27 percent) boulder (14 .3 percent) and lesser amounts of silt/mud, sand, plant

detritus, and submerged logs. This reach was characterized by steep banks and a dense

canopy. Surrounding land to the south was under cultivation with riparian trees and

wooded to the north with an occasional residence

.

Station BO-04 was located at a ford in Flierman's Nature Preserve on the southeast corner

of Georgetown. The mean stream width and depth were 43 feet and 0.8 foot respectively

with a discharge during this sampling period of 9.7 cfs. Most of this site was a

combination of pools and runs with a riffle area at the ford crossing . The substrate

consisted of silt/mud (10 percent), gravel (26 percent), cobble (38 percent) and lesser

amounts of sand, claypan, boulder, bedrock, and sparse patches of water willow

growing among gravel bars and within the ford crossing. This reach was moderately

shaded by riparian wooded areas

.

Station BO-06 was located a half mile east of Georgetown at the Humrick Road bridge

.

The bridge at this site was under construction throughout most of the survey, limiting

access and sampling during the March round . The mean stream width and depth were 49

feet and 1 foot respectively with a discharge of 8 .5 cfs. This site was a combination of

pooled areas and slow moving runs. Substrate consisted of gravel (25 percent), cobble

(35 percent), sand (17.2 percent) and lesser amounts of silt/mud, boulders, plant detritus,

and submerged logs. A wooded floodplain to the east and riparian woods to the west

provided a full canopy for this reach of the stream

.

Station BO-02 was located three miles ESE of Georgetown at the end of a township road

.

Peabody Coal owned the land adjacent to the river in this area with evidence of past

mining activity. This was an IDOC fish site and was only sampled during the September

round. The mean stream width and depth were 6 .1 feet and 1.1 feet respectively with a

discharge of 11 .1 cfs. This was a very slow moving section and almost all pooled

.

Substrate consisted of gravel (45 percent), sand (16 .3 percent), silt/mud (13 .5 percent),

cobble (12.5 percent) and lesser amounts of boulder, claypan, and plant detritus . This

reach was located in a wooded floodplain which provided a full stream canopy .

Station BO-07 was located at a steel bridge 1 .5 miles north of Humrick and was the

farthest downstream site. The mean. stream width and depth were 59 feet and 0 .7 foot

respectively with a discharge of 9 .5 cfs. This reach differed from upstream sites in

having a large percent of riffle and run areas with an occasional pool . Substrate consisted

of gravel (45 percent), cobble (31 percent), sand (8.8 percent) and lesser amounts of

silt/mud, boulder, submerged logs, and vegetation which consisted of abundant patches of

water willow. A riparian border of trees provided moderate canopy along this reach . The

surrounding land was primarily in cultivation with a residence located on the northeast

corner

.

1 1

---

SECTION IV. WATER QUALITY

INTRODUCTION

The single most important feature of a lake or river system is water (Reid, 1961)

; the

quantity and quality of that water regulate aquatic ecosystems and ultimately, beneficial

uses to man. The quantity of water available on the land, or surface water, is largely a

function of the hydrologic cycle (Leopold, 1974), a natural phenomenon governed by

geography and climate. Following precipitation, many other variables affect hydrologic

regimes some of which include vegetative cover, gradient, soil type and infiltration rate

.

Water quality refers to the chemical and physical properties of water which are the result

of complex interactions between physicochemical and environmental constituents and

biological factors. Data used in the determination of water quality are obtained by the

chemical analyses of water samples in the laboratory or on-site sensing of chemical

properties in the field (Hem, 1970)

.

As the chemical composition of natural waters is controlled by many interrelated

processes, it follows that some understanding of these processes and water quality

constituents are needed before one can understand water quality and the manner in which

such constituents affect aquatic life and other designated beneficial uses

. To supplement

biological monitoring, an acceptable water quality constituent data base should include

(but not necessarily be limited to) an assessment of the following parameters :

1 . Nutrients, physical and chemical factors that may limit, inhibit, or stimulate

plant growth ;

2. Constituents which affect water transparency and thus, primary production and

higher trophic levels ; and

3. Potentially toxic contaminants such as ammonia, heavy metals and

organochlorine compounds .

METHODS

To characterize water quality within the Little Vermilion River, stream water samples

were collected in accordance with quality assurance procedures outlined in the IEPA

Field Methods Manual (IEPA, 1987) . Hand held bottles or weighted bottle holders were

used to collect vertically integrated samples representative of the water column

. Samples

were cooled with ice in the field and shipped to the Champaign IEPA laboratory for

analysis (Table 1) . A Surveyor II Hydrolab was used for on-site measurements of pH,

temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance

.

1 2

---

`

.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 24 water samples from 7 sites were collected at various stream stages during

March, May, September, and December in 1992 (Appendix Table C & D) . Due to

inclement weather and inaccessability, station BO-04 was not sampled during the March

round. Station BO-02 was an IDOC fish site and was only sampled for water quality

during the September round

.

There were no recorded water quality violations for the basin during any of the sampling

rounds. All sampled parameters were within State General Use Water Quality Standards

(Table 1). Outside of water temperature, there was no discernable seasonal pattern to the

water chemistry for any of the stations sampled.

Garment Use

Standard

Apr-Nov32oC

DecMar teoC

not less than

5 mgA

In range

6.5 to 9.0

200/100 ml

13

Un-Ionized

NH3-N 0.04 mg/

0.04mgA

&3.9-188 ugA Cu

a0.4-14 ugA Cd

a,cl5.100 ugA Pb

1000 ugA Mn,

Zn

Table 1. Water quality techniques (IEPA, 1982) and applicable General Use

Standards (IPCB, 1990).

Parameter

Sample

Prwrtatlan

Method ofAnalysis

Unite of

Detsalen

lab Performing

Contalna

Measure

Limits

Analysis

Water

In Situ measurement

degrees 0

nearestOAoC

Fieldmessurement

Temperature

using SRVR2 Hydrolab

I

Dissolved

In situ measurement

mgA 02

0.1 mg/l

Field measurement

Oxygen

using SRVR2 Hydrolab

u

Conductivity

In situ measurement

umhos/cm

nearest

Field measurement

using SRVR2Hydrolab

Iumhos/cm

pH

In situ measurement

units

nearest

Field measurement

using SRVR2 Hydrolab

0.1 units

.

Fecal Coliform

6 oz sterile

0.15 m1-10%

Membranefhration-24hr

N/100 ml

Field aneysls

U

glass

thiosuifate

Incubation at 44.5oC + 0.2oC

40C

u

Total

quart

refrigeration

Filtration on glass fiber filter,

mg/TSS

1mg/

Champaign IEPA tab

Suspended

polyethylene

at 4o0

determination of increase In weight

Solids (1SS)

upon drying at 103-105DC

NIVate+nitrite

4oz

10 ml-20%

Cadmium reduction method with Flan

mg/ N

Low level at

Champaign IEPA lab

nitrogen

polyethylene

H2SO411

Injection Analyze,

0.02 mgA

(1,103+1 ,102-N)

at 40C

high level at

0.05 mg/

Ammonia-N

4oz

10 ml-20%

Phenate method on technlcon

mg/ N

Low level at

Champaign IEPA lab

polyethylene

H2S04A

Auto-Analyzer 11

0.01 mg/,

at 400

high Ievei at

0.05 mgA

Unionized

Calculated based on Total

mgA

0.0D1mgA

Calculated

Ammonia

ammonia-N, pH end temperature

Total

4oz

10 ml-20%

Digestion to convert all phosphorus

mgA P

Low level at

Champaign IEPA lab

Phosphorus

polyethylene

H2S04/I

forms to odhophaphate followed by

0.001 mg/I,

at 40C

dissemination using ascorbic acid

mid level at

reduction method using technicon

0.01 mgA,

AutoansiyzerII

high level at

0.1 mg/

Total ICP :

S oz

20 ml- 50%

inductively Coupled Piasma

ug/

5 ug/IPb

Cu

Champaign IEPA lab

(Pb, Cu, Fe,

polyethylene

HN0311

QCP) Atomic Emission Spectrometric

elemental

5 ugA

MN, Cd, Cr,

Method

metal

50 ugl Fe, 5 ugA Mn

Mg, Zn, K 04 Se,

5 ugA Cd, 50 mg/

Co, NI, Sr, Cs, Na

5 mg/i Cr

AI, S, Ag,

A

---

Table 1. (cont.) Water quality techniques (IEPA,1982) and applicable General Use

Standards (IPCB, 1990) .

a Standard dependent upon hardness

b Chronic standard

c Acute standard

14

Bu

bb

quart

re tgeraion

Automated Mad yMymol Blue

mg l

Low him a

Champaign IEPA lab

500 mV

(804)

pdyMylane

9400

Method, Technioon Aubanaysr

a

804

0.5 mgi,

high I"

at 5 .0

mgA

Tool

quart

rahlgeradol

Residue on Evaporation (ROE)

mgi

40-2500

mgA

Champaign IEPA lab

1000 mgA

DIasoNad

polyethylene

a 4oC

Filterable RnMw, GraWmeldc a

Solids (TDB)

1a0cC Micro Method

Chemical

eoz

10 ml-20%

Dichromate Rellua

mgA

Low

will

at

Champaign IEPA lab

Oxygen

poy*i)lem H28W

TMm*Wc Method

1 mgfl

Demand

a 40C

high level a

(COD)

M

mgA

Cyanide

4 az

5 m1 . 5N

Automated Pyddlntrbarbitudc

mgA

0.002 myl

Champaign EPA lab

b5.2 mgA

poyethylem

NaOH

Add Method using Tschnlcon

Auteanayzer11

Chloride

quart

reTigersdon

Automated Fenlcyanlde Method using mg/I

Low level at

Champaign IEPA lab

500 mgA

polyethylene

at 4oC

Technicon Autwnalym II

0.5"w

high lava a

5 mgfl

Total

quart

rehlgva5on

Automated Methyl Orange Method win mgA

5 mgA

Champaign IEPA lab

Alkalinity

poyahylem

a 4cC

Technicon Aubanaymor II

r CiC03

Tool

2oz

20mb25%

Automated Cold Vapor Technique

wen

ugA

0.005 ugh

Champaign IEPA lab

0.5 ugh

Mercury

glass

K2C,207

Atomic Abeorbton

(Hg)

in 50% HN0311

Total

quad

refrigeration

Automated Camagite Method

MgA

5 mgr

Champaign IEPA lab

Hard rifle

polyethylene

a 4oC

using Technlcon Auroanalyur II

as CAC03

Total

4 oz

10 ml -20%

Block Digestion, Automated

mgi

0.1 mgi

Champaign EPA lab

lg4ldahl

polyethylene

H25041,

Phonetic Method for Ammonia

Nitrogen (TNN)

refrigeration

-

at 40C

Arsenic

aoz

20 .1-50%

Manual OlgealoNoddeton,

mgi

0.0005 mgA

Champaign IEPA lab

blOO ugh

polyethylene

HN03A

Automated Hydride Generation,

Atomic Abeorbtien Specboecopy

Floudde

quart

refrigeration

Automated Complexone Method

mgA

0.04 mg/

Champagn IEPA lab

1.4 mgA

polyethylene

a 4oC

using Technicon Autoenayzer II

Phenol

acz

10ml-CuSO4

Automated 4Aminoantpydne

ugh

2 ugh

Champaign IEPA lab

0.1 mgA

glass

+H3PO4A,

method using manual distillation

and Technicon Autoanaym II

a 400

Olland

quartglsaa

4m1 .50%

ParMon with Freon-Gnwimabic

mgA

1 mgA

Champaign IEPA lab

Grew

H2904

Method

refrigeration

a 4cC

---

N

SECTION V. SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY

INTRODUCTION

Many water-borne contaminants sorb to particulate materials,

i.e., suspended and

settleable solids, or sediment. Heavy metals, nutrients, and oxygen-demanding materials

occur naturally in stream sediments, generally in low to moderate concentrations. Most

elevated levels of sediment constituents are caused by point-source wastewater

dischargers and/or non-point runoff from urban, industrial, or agricultural areas. Harmful

or toxic levels of contaminants could, in many cases, be prevented through control at the

source .

Sediment has the advantage of being available and collectable with a minimum of

sampling gear in most streams. Collection and chemical analysis of stream sediment is a

useful monitoring tool for locating sources of potentially harmful contaminants, targeting

areas where further monitoring is appropriate, and identifying areas where remedial

action may be necessary .

METHODS

Field Collection

Stream sediments were collected in accordance with guidelines established in the

Division of Water Pollution Control Field Methods Manual (IEPA,

1987) .

All sampling

equipment was cleaned with detergent, rinsed with deionized water, acetone rinsed, and

rinsed in the ambient water prior to use

.

Sediment samples were collected by scraping the uppermost layer of recently deposited

sediment with a stainless steel spoon. After compositing samples from several deposits in

a stainless steel pan, sediment was wet sieved through a U .S. Standard No. 230 (63-

micron) stainless steel sieve. Sieving allows the collection of a known particle size and

decreases variability between samples . Sediment samples were then placed in glass quart

jars and allowed to settle. The supernatent was decanted and sieved sediment transferred

to

8

ounce plastic bottles for metals and

8

oz. glass bottles for organics . The samples were

frozen and shipped to the appropriate IEPA laboratory for analysis .

Data Interpretation

Currently, there are no standards for sediment concentrations . To evaluate Little

Vermilion sediment chemistry, nutrient and metal constituent concentrations were

compared to a stream sediment classification derived from analysis of over

800

sediment

samples at 556 stream sites throughout Illinois from

1974

to

1980

(Kelly and Hite,

1984 ;

Appendix Table E). For the purpose of this study, all sediment data were interpreted

using this sediment classification .

15

---

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of seven sieved surficial samples were collected from 7 sites during the Little

Vermilion survey in 1992 (Appendix Table F) .

Metals and Arsenic

Sediment samples were analyzed for arsenic, mercury, potassium, barium, cadmium,

chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickle, silver, and zinc . The majority of the

samples contained non-elevated levels of these constituents with the following

exceptions :

1. Chromium was slightly elevated in 6 samples and highly elevated in one sample ;

2. Iron was slightly elevated in 3 samples and elevated in two samples ; and

3. Zinc was slightly elevated in 2 samples

.

The elevated chromium level was from a sample collected at station BO-09 . Elevated

levels of this metalare generally associated with areas of high fossil fuel usage, industrial

influences, or waters which receive wastewater discharge or runoff. The area in question

is very rural with a past history of only sporatic mining . Since this site was unique in

having bordering pastures, the confined elevation of chromium to this site may be runoff

related .

Iron is a widespread and plentiful constituent of rock and soil which may fluctuate from

site to site based on geology . High levels are also typical downstream from urban areas

.

The elevated levels in this case were collected from stations BO-04 and BO-06, which

were located immediately downstream from the city of Georgetown

.

Nutrients

In general, low concentrations of COD, phosphorus, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and volatile solids

were recorded from the Little Vermilion sediment samples . All parameters were non-

elevated at each site except for a slight elevation of volatile solids at one site and slightly

elevated phosphorus throughout the survey area .

16

---

SECTION VI. MACROINVERTEBRATES

INTRODUCTION

The use of aquatic organisms to evaluate water quality is well established. The rationale

is that good water quality supports a diverse biotic community with pollution-intolerant

forms (Wilhm, 1975). Macroinvertebrates are well suited for bio-monitoring purposes

since they are easily collected and indicative of the quality of their environment . They

are dependent on lower trophic levels for their energy supply while higher trophic levels

are dependent on them for their energy sources . Each species is dependent on specific

ranges of environmental conditions throughout its lifespan. Each macroirivertebrate

community reflects the sum of these conditions for numerous species

over time (i.e., weeks or month preceding collection)

.

METHODS

Field Methods

Qualitative sampling of macroinvertebrates in the Little Vermilion River was conducted

in accordance with Agency guidelines .(IEPA, 1987). Macroinvertebrates were sampled

from all available habitats with emphasis on riffles or runs . Organisms were collected

with forceps, U.S. Standard 30-mesh sieve, and/or D-net. A uniform sampling effort was

made at each site. This method yields a sample representing relative abundance of each

taxon in the aquatic community. All organisms were preserved in 95 percent ethyl

alcohol and returned to the Springfield Regional Office for identification, enumeration,

and calculation of MBI values .

Data Handling

Macroinvertebrate data are interpreted by analysis of community structure and applicable

biotic indices. Several methods are used to summarize macroinvertebrate data in a

concise and consistent manner for easy understanding by decision makers and others who

may not have the expertise and/or time to evaluate detailed macroinvertebrate data. One

method presently used by IEPA is the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index or MBI .

The Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) used by IEPA is a modification of the

Hilsenhoff method (1982). IEPA personnel are, based on available literature and field

experience, assigning a pollution tolerance rating to each taxon . Pollution tolerance

ratings range from 0 to 11 ; a rating of zero is assigned to taxa found only in unaltered

streams of high water quality, and a rating of 11 is assigned to taxa known to occur in

severely polluted or disturbed streams . Intermediate ratings are assigned based on an

organism's relative degree of tolerance or intolerance to pollution. The MBI is the mean

tolerance rating for the sample and is computed as MBI = E(niti)/N, where ni is the

number of individuals in each taxon, ti is the tolerance rating assigned to that taxon and N

1 7

---

is the total number of individuals in the sample. A high MBI value, therefore, usually

denotes a community of low species richness with few if any intolerant (sensitive) species

present and poor water quality. Good water quality is indicated by a low MBI value

which results from a higher proportion of sensitive organisms .

Based on present assessment methods, the breakdown of MBI values to reflect water

quality is as follows (IEPA, 1988) :

<5.0

Excellent

5.0-

6.0

Very Good

6.1- 7.5

Good/Fair

7.6-10.0

Poor

>10.0

Very Poor

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 2,665 organisms representing 99 macroinvertebrate taxa were collected from

seven sampling locations on the Little Vermilion River . Data were collected in March,

May, September, and December in 1992 to document seasonal variation in the biotic

community (Appendix Table G) .

Due to station inaccessibility, macroinvertebrates were not collected at sites BO-04 and

BO-06 during the March round. Station BO-02 was an IDOC fish site and was only

sampled for macroinvertebrates during the September round. For this reason, stations

BO-05 and BO-07 were picked as representative Little Vermilion sites to observe

changes in the macroinvertebrate community during all four sampling periods. Table 2

represents a summary of data collected at each station

.

Figure 3 shows total organisms at their lowest during late winter, gradually increasing

through spring and reaching their peak in late summer and fall . According to Hynes

(1972), this cycle represents normal fluctuations for macroinvertebrate communities

within undisturbed streams. The increase in total organisms during spring and dramatic

rise through summer and fall represent a period of active breeding and growth, while the

decrease in total organisms collected during December and March represents a period

when many taxa are present at an uncollectible stage of their life cycle and other taxa are

reduced from winter die-off. By comparing these data with taxa richness results (Figure

4), a seasonal correlation is evident . This comparison shows the richness of the

community fluctuating as total numbers fluctuate rather than one or two dominant

organisms controlling the curve

.

18

---

u

I

Figure 3. Seasonal trend of total organisms from stations BO-05 and BO-07, 1992 .

300

250-

-.

0

150-

100-

50

March

May

September

December

Sample Date

f BO-05

&

BO-07

Figure 4. Seasonal trend of total taxa from stations BO-05 and BO-07,1992

.

35

30-

March

May

September

Sample Date

-

BO-05 -1

BO-07

1 9

December

---

Data from four sampling periods gives a general picture of seasonal variation within the

macroinvertehrate community as a whole . It is possible that an increased number of

sampling periods would show smaller peaks occurring at different times of the year

representing individual or smaller groups of taxa with fast seasonal cycles in which

growth is rapid after a long egg diapause. Given a healthy environment, this would

explain the occurrence of organisms unique to only one sampling period, such as

stoneflies. Allocapnia vivipara

and

Taeniopleryx nivalis

were well represented in

December but failed to appear at any other sampling period .

Other organisms were present during each sampling period, and seemed to exhibit non-

seasonal trends. These trends seemed characteristic of several different taxanomic

groups, those which require more than one year to complete their life cycle (e.g .

Corydalus cornulus)

and those with a series of overlapping generations (e.g . Gastropoda

and certain Crustacea)

.

Intolerant or sensitive organisms represented a high percentage of samples throughout the

survey. Their abundance is indicative of low organic enrichment and a balaned aquatic

environment .

In general, calculated MBI values remained very consistent, with only slight deviations

from site to site and season to season (Table 2) . During the March round, MBI values

ranged from 4.6 to 6.3 with an average of 5 .4, indicating very good water quality. In

May, MBI values ranged from 4 .9 to 6.2 with an average of 5 .2, indicating very good

aquatic conditions. September MBI values ranged from 4.5 to 5.5 with an average of 5 .0,

indicating excellent stream quality. During the final December round, MBI values ranged

from 3 .8 to 6.1 with an average of 4.5, indicating excellent aquatic conditions

.

20

---

Figure 3. Seasonal trend of total organisms from stations BO-05 and BO-07, 1992

.

March

May

September

December

Sample Date

-

BO-05 --1 BO-07

Figure 4. Seasonal trend of total taxa from stations BO-05 and BO-07, 1992

.

35

30

March

May

September

Sample Date

-a- BO-05 -1 BO-07

19

December

---

Data from four sampling periods gives a general picture of seasonal variation within the

macroinvertebrate community as a whole. It is possible that an increased number of

sampling periods would show smaller peaks occurring at different times of the year

representing individual or smaller groups of taxa with fast seasonal cycles in which

growth is rapid after a long egg diapause . Given a healthy environment, this would

explain the occurrence of organisms unique to only one sampling period, such as

stoneflies. Allocapnia vivipara and Taeniopleryx nivalis were well represented in

December but failed to appear at any other sampling period

.

Other organisms were present during each sampling period, and seemed to exhibit non-

seasonal trends. These trends seemed characteristic of several different taxanomic

groups, those which require more than one year to complete their life cycle (e .g .

Corydalus cornulus) and those with a series of overlapping generations (e.g. Gastropoda

and certain Crustacea)

.

Intolerant or sensitive organisms represented a high percentage of samples throughout the

survey. Their abundance is indicative of low organic enrichment and a balaned aquatic

environment .

In general, calculated MBI values remained very consistent, with only slight deviations

from site to site and season to season (Table 2) . During the March round, MBI values

ranged from 4 .6 to 6.3 with an average of 5.4, indicating very good water quality . In

May, MBI values ranged from 4 .9 to 6.2 with an average of 5.2, indicating very good

aquatic conditions. September MBI values ranged from 4.5 to 5.5 with an average of 5 .0,

indicating excellent stream quality . During the final December round, MBI values ranged

from 3 .8 to 6.1 with an average of 4.5, indicating excellent aquatic conditions .

20

---

I

Table 2. Summary of macroinvertebrate community characteristics In the Little

Vermilion River, March -December, 1992 .

•

Calculated from seasonal totals, not compilation of station totals

`

sampling station are listed in upstream to downstream order

NS station was not sampled

I

.

I

u

2 1

Community Metric

--Site

60-08

80.09

BO-05

60-04

BO-06

60-02

BO-07

Season

Total

Season

Ave.

Total Organisms

Mat

93.0

48.0

51.0

NS

NS

NS

81.0

273.0

68.3

Ws'

64.0

142.0

78.0

124.0

78.0

NS

108.0

594.0

99.0

September

201.0

122.0

223.0

212.0

156.0

171.0

258.0

1343.0

191 .9

December

91.0

56.0

89.0

81 .0

51.0

NS

87.0

455.0

75.8

mean

112.3

92.0

110.3

139.0

95.0

171.0

133.5

Taxa Richness

March

16.0

15.0

15.0

NS

NS

NS

17.0

3

8.0

15.8

May

18.0

21.0

23.0

28.0

19.0

NS

24.0

4

9.0

22.2

September

24.0

22.0

27.0

33.0

25.0

30.0

32.0

6

3.0

27.6

December

20.0

14.0

11.0

22.0

15.0

NS

26.0

4

8.0

18.0

mean

19.5

18.0

19.0

27.7

19.7

30.0

24.8

# Intolerant Organisms (M81<=5.0)

March

50.0

37.0

29.0

NS

NS

NB

14.0

130.0

32.5

May

35.0

97.0

46.0

77.0

- 25.0

NS

81 .0

361.0

60.2

September

127.0

98.0

110.0

148.0

108.0

131.0

203.0

925.0

132.1

December

41.0

39.0

45.0

40.0

32.0

NS

69.0

266.0

44.3

mean

63.3

67.8

57.5

88.3

55.0

131 .0

91 .8

% Intolerant Organisms

March

54.0

77.0

57.0

NS

NS

NS

17.0

48.0

51.3

u

May

55.0

68.0

59.0

62.0

.

32.0

NS

75.0

61.0

58.5

September

63.0

80.0

49.0

70.0

69.0

77.0

79.0

69.0

69.6

December

45.0

70.0

51 .0

49.0

63.0

NS

79.0

58.0

59.5

mean

54.3

lie

54.0

60.3

54.7

77.0

62.5

# Intolerant Taxa (MBI<=5.0)

March

4.0

10.0

9.0

NS

MS

NS

8.0

18.0

7.8

May

9.0

-

14.0

13.0

18.0

11.0

NS

14.0

31.0

13.2

September

13.0

14.0

16.0

21 .0

15.0

21.0

18.0

40.0

16.9

December

9.0

9.0

7.0

12.0

10.0

NS

18.0

28.0

10.8

mean

8.8

11.8

11.3

17.0

12.0

21.0

14.5

% Intolerant Twa

March

25.0

67.0

60.0

NS

NS

NS

47.0

47.0

49.8

May

50.0

67.0

57.0

64.0

58.0

NS

58.0

63.0

59.0

September

54.0

64.0

59.0

64.0

60.0

70.6

56.0

63.0

61.0

December

45.0

64.0

64.0

55.0

67.0

NS

69.0

58.0

60.7

mean

43.5

65.5

60.0

61.0

61 .7

70.0

57.5

Biotic Index (MBI)

March

6.3

4.6

5.0

NS

NS

NS

5.9

5.5

May

5.4

5.1

5.0

4.9

6.2

NS

4.6

5.2

September

5.5

4.8

5.0

5.0

5.0

4.8

4.5

4.9

December

6.1

4.5

4.1

4.6

4 .1

NS

3.8

4.5

mean

5.8

4.8

4.8

4.8

5 .1

4.8

4.7

---

SECTION VII. FISH POPULATIONS

INTRODUCTION

(Matson and Hite, 1987; modified from Weber, 1973 and Karr, 1981)

Fish occupy upper levels of aquatic food chains and are directly and indirectly affected by

chemical and physical changes in the environment . Water quality conditions that

significantly affect lower levels of the food chain will also affect the abundance, species

composition, and condition of the fish community . While use of aquatic

macroinvertebrates and water chemistry are integral components in the assessment of

water quality and documentation of constituents causing impairment, the condition of the

fishery is currently the most meaningful index of water quality to the general public

.

Passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) and more recently, the Water

Quality Act of 1987 (PL 100-4) has emphasized protection and assessment of biotic

integrity in aquatic environments . Use of fish to assess biotic integrity of water resources

has also received increased emphasis in recent years (Karr, 1981 ; Hocutt, 1981, Stauffer

et al., 1976, Karr et al., 1986) .

Karr (1981) listed several advantages for using fish as indicator organisms in monitoring

programs

:

1 . Life-history information is extensive for most species

;

2. Fish communities generally include a range of species that represent a variety of

trophic levels ;

3 . Fish are relatively easy to identify

;

4. Both acute toxicity and stress affects can be evaluated

;

5. Fish are typically present, even in the smallest streams and in all but the most

polluted waters ; and

6. Results of fish studies can be directly related to the fishable waters mandate of the

Congress

.

In recent years the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has also placed greater

emphasis on fish communities as indicators of stream quality and as the primary biotic

metric of the IEPA and Illinois Department of Conservation inter-agency Biological

Stream Characterization (BSC) process (See Section VIII : Biological Stream

Characterization). To facilitate an assessment of biotic integrity and development of BSC

ratings for the Little Vermilion River, fish populations were sampled at seven sites from

September 1-3, 1992

.

22

---

I

1

\J

METHODS

Field Collections

Fish were collected using a 30 ft. A.C. electric seine powered by a single phase, 1600 W

generator. A crew of six people were required, with three netters dipping stunned fish as

the seine was hauled upstream. Block nets were used to define a sampling reach and to

prevent fish from leaving or entering the sample area. Stunned fish collected in the

downstream block net were also added to the sample . Fish were identified to species,

weighed, measured, and released on site. Smaller specimens were preserved in 10%

formalin for later identification. An attempt was made to maintain a standard sampling

time of 30 minutes; however, the variability of physical conditions at each site often

dictated the amount of sampling time required to obtain an adequate fish population

sample .

Data Analysis

Fisheries data were evaluated by assessment of community structure with the Index of

Biotic Integrity (IBI). Twelve IBI metrics in three categories were used to assess fish

communities (Table 3). IBI calculations were made on an interactive program written in

BASIC for use on the IBM-PC (Bickers et al. 1988) .

Table 3. Metrics used to assess midwest fish communities (Karr et all ., 1986) .

Category

Metric

Species Richness

Total number of fish species

and Composition

Number and identity of darter species

Number and identity of sunfish species

Number and identity of sucker species

Number and identity of intolerant species

Proportion of individuals as green sunfish

Trophic

Proportion of individuals as omnivores

Composition

Proportion of individuals as insectivorous cyprinids

Proportion of individuals as piscivores (top carnivores)

Fish Abundance

Number of individuals in sample

and Condition

Proportion of individuals as hybrids

Proportion of individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage,

and skeletal anomalies

23

---

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 6950 fish from 50 species were collected at the seven Little Vermilion River

sites on September 1-3, 1997. (Appendix table H). Five of these species, white sucker,

northern hogsucker, golden redhorse, bluegill and longear sunfish were found at all

stations. The bluntnose minnow was the most abundant fish, making up 30% of the total

collection, followed by the longear sunfish and spotfin shiner. The sample included one

bigeyed chub (Hybopsis amblops), an Illinois endangered species which has not been

collected in the state since 1961 . The bigeyed shiner (Notropis boops), an Illinois

threatened species, was collected at all five sites below the Georgetown reservoir .

Biotic integrity of Little Vermilion fish communities was considered good to excellent

based on Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) values which ranged from 44 at station BO-09

(south of Indianola) to 56 at station BO-04 (the Fleirman preserve in Georgetown) (Table

4). The mean biotic integrity for the Little Vermilion River was 52, indicating excellent

stream quality and classifying it as a unique aquatic resource

.

Table 4. Summary of fish community characteristics in the Little Vermilion River,

BO-02

24

5

5

18'

0.7

0.0

35.4

0.0

30.2

27.7

2.6

1 .3

0

0

0

0

1072

694

54

52

Excellent

Excellent

A

A

Sampling stations are listed in upstream to downstream order

1992 .

Community Metric

*Site :

BOOB

BO-09

BO-05

BO-04

BO-06

Species Richness/Composition

Total Species

25

16

29

33

28

Sucker Species

4

4

6

6

6

Sunfish Species

4

4

5

5

3

Darter Species

4

0

5

4

5

Intollerant Species

8

4

13

13

11

Trophic Composotion (%)

Green sunfish

3.1

2 .1

0.8

0.7

0.3

Omnivores

36.6

1 .0

11 .5

16.7

36.7

Insectivorus Cyprinids

37.0

18 .6

4.4

37.5

20.4

Carnivores

0.9

13 .4

2.6

3.3

1 .4

Fish Abundance/ condition

Proportion of hybrids

0

0

0

0

0

Proportion Diseased

0

0

0

0

0

Total no. individuals

3205

97

495

736

651

Index of Biotic Integrity (181)

52

44

52

56

52

Stream Quality Assessment

Excellent

Good

Excellent

Excellent

Excellent

Stream Classification (BSC)

A

B

A

A

A

---

SECTION VIII. BIOLOGICAL STREAM CHARACTERIZATION

INTRODUCTION

(From I Iite and Bertrand, 1989)

Management or protection of any natural resource, either biotic or abiotic, requires that

environmental managers have a detailed knowledge of the resource to be managed and an

awareness of where that resource exists . The understanding of any resource is typically

aquired through an environmental inventory process known as monitoring . Ultimately,

judicious management of a resource usually requires some type of classification system .

In Illinois, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois Department of

Conservation have developed programs to monitor and assess the quality of the state's

rivers and streams

.

Stream Classification

Stream quality varies spatially as a function of physiography, geology, climate, and

anthropogenic features such as land use and wastewater disposal . In Illinois, some

streams are little more than highly turbid, nutrient-laden, channelized ditches conveying

runoff from agricultural fields . Other streams, such as the Middle Fork Vermilion River

in east-central Illinois, and certain streams in the Shawnee National Forest (e

.g.,Big and

Lusk Creeks) in southern Illinois are impressive aquatic resources characterized by

pleasing aesthetic surroundings, clear flowing waters, and diverse aquatic biota. Indeed,

selected reaches of these streams have been designated or nominated for inclusion in the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System or designated wilderness areas

.

The tremendous range in stream types and biotic quality evident in Illinois streams

indicated a need to group or classify these streams to ensure adequate protection and

management. A stream classification system was desirable as a vehicle to place the vast

array of information gained from IEPA/IDOC cooperative basin surveys in a

comprehensible format and to provide both fishery and water quality managers an overall

perspective of the state's stream resources. Classification of Illinois stream resources was

needed to :

l . Facilitate planning and prudent allocation of state resources

;

2. Inventory streams exhibiting a potential for fisheries management or

restoration activities ;

3. Identify stream segments of exceptional quality which warrant special

consideration for protection ;

4. Allocate pollution control resources for attainment of Clean Water Act goals ;

25

---

5. Focus greater emphasis on the importance of valuable stream resources and

awareness of where these resources exist; and

6. Establish a common vehicle for the interpretation, and communication of

aquatic resource values .

In May 1984, IEPA and IDOC biologists agreed to pursue a mutually acceptable

classification system to be developed by a Biological Stream Characterization (BSC)

committee or work group. IEPA biologists proposed a stream classification based on the

type and condition of the fishery and macroinvertebrate community . IDOC Streams

Program personnel had been testing the Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr, 1981) on stream

fisheries data since 1982 and promoted incorporation of the IBI into the BSC

methodology .

METHODS

The Biological Stream Characterization Work Group developed a provisional five-tiered

stream classification in 1984 utilizing two types of biotic data: fish and

macroinvertebrates. However, BSC criteria for the classification of Illinois streams are

based largely on attributes of lotic fish communities with the Index of Biotic Integrity

(IBI) the priority BSC metric. In the absence of suitable fishery data for IBI calculation,

narrative fishery criteria and finally, macroinvertebrate data may be used to derive

selected BSC ratings. If a valid IBI value can be determined for a fish sample, that stream

reach is characterized as one of five stream classes in which IBI values range from about

20 to 60. Values of 51-60 place a stream in the Unique Aquatic Resource or A category

;

41-50 in the Highly-Valued or B category; 31-40 in the Moderate or C category; 21-30 in

the Limited or D category; and values of 20 or less place a stream in the Restricted or E

category (Table 5) .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Little Vermilion River was rated on the basis of fish data evaluated by the Index of

Biotic Integrity. Fish population samples at seven Little Vermilion sites in 1992 yielded

IBI values ranging from 44 to 56

.

Except for a reach south of Indianola, all sites on the Little Vermilion produced IBI

values over 50 with an average value of 52 for the entire basin . Based on the BSC

methodology (Hite and Bertrand, 1989), the stream was classified as a unique aquatic

resource or class A stream . The class A designation is appropriate as a year-round

characterization; however, periodic perturbations, e .g., non-point, or agricultural run-off

events, may cause temporary disruptions of aquatic life uses in some reaches and could

affect BSC ratings .

26

---

The lack of impact due to pollution and geographic location of this basin has resulted in a

stream of unique physical and biological quality that ranks as onee of the best in the

state .

Table 5. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) summary .

Iliotie Resource Quality Description

EXCELLENT. Comparable to the best situations

without human disturbance

.

GOOD. Good fishery for important gamefish

species; species richness may be somewhat below

expectations for stream size or geographic area

.

FAIR. Fishery consists predominantly of bullheads

(Ictalurus spp .); sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and carp

(Cyprinus carpio). Species diversity and number of

intolerant fish reduced. Trophic structure skewed

with increased frequency of omnivores, green sunfish

or other tolerant species .

POOR. Fishery predominantly carp; fish community

dominated by omnivores and tolerant forms. Intolerant

macrninvertcbratcs rare or absent; moderate, faculative

and tolerant organisms dominate benthic community .

Species richness may be notably lower than expected

for geographic area, stream size or available habitat .

VERY POOR. Few fish of any species present; no

sport fishery exists. Intolerant macroinvertebrates

absent; benthic community consists of essentially tol-

erant forms, or no aquatic life may be present. Species

richness may be restricted to a few oligochaete or

chironomid taxa.

27

Stream

Class

13SC C aicgory

AIIIII

Range

-

Mill

Rangq

A

Unique Aquatic Resource

51-60

N/A

R

I lighly Valued Aquatic

Resource

41-50

N/A

C

Moderate Aquatic

Resource

31-40

N/A

D

Limited Aquatic

Resource

21-30

7.5-10.0

1 :

Restricted Aquatic

Resource

< 20

> 10.0

---

SECTION IX. AQUATIC LIFE USE SUPPORT

INTRODUCTION

the stated objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1987 (PLIOO-4) is to "restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and ecological integrity of the nation's water". To

accomplish this objective, an array of legislation, policies, and comprehensive programs

for water pollution control have been established at both federal and state levels . One

such provision of the federal CWA (Section 305(b)) requires each state to submit a

biennial report to the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency detailing "the extent to

which all navigable waters of such state provide for the protection and propagation of a

balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allow recreational activities in and

on the water". The extent to which pollution control programs are successful in meeting

CWA goals and the extent to which designated uses are met in Illinois waters are assessed

in part through an evaluation of aquatic life use support . Aquatic life use support in

streams is determined through an assessment of the biotic integrity and composition of

fish and macroinvertebrate communities .

METHODS

Four levels of aquatic life use support were assessed for the Little Vermilion River using

both biotic and abiotic data along with field observations and professional judgement

.

The four use support categories included : 1) full support, 2) partial support/minor

impairment, 3) partial support/moderate impairment, and 4) nonsupport . Fishery data

were evaluated utilizing the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Table 6) . Physical habitat

metrics were used to predict biotic potential (PIBI) in the form of IBI values generated

from a regression equation. Stream sites were usually considered attaining full use

support where the IBI value was near the PIBI value and water quality did not appear

limiting. A partial/minor impairment designation generally was made when the IBI value

was below the habitat assessment value and/or water quality was limiting . Partial

support/moderate impairment was designated where the IBI value was significantly

below the habitat assessment value and/or water quality was limiting. A stream site was

considered to be in the nonsupport category if its IBI value was substantially less than the

habitat assessment value and/or water quality was extremely limiting (IEPA 1990b)

.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Physical, chemical, and/or biological attributes were assessed at 7 Little Vermilion River

sites in 1992 with use support criteria developed for the CWA 305(b) report . All 7 sites

displayed full support (Table 7)

.

28

---

I

Table 6. Summary of

use

support

assessment criteria for Illinois streams

(IEPA,1990) .

Table 7. Assessment of use support for the Little Vermilion River basin, 1992 .

2 9

USIPA

FULL SUPPORT

PARTIAL SUPPORT

NOW

SUPPORT

MINOR

MODERATE

GENERAL STREAM/WATER

Excellent

Very Good

Fair-

Poor

Very

QUALITY CONDITIONS

Good

Poor

IEPNIDOC BIOLOGICAL

Unique

Highly

Moderate

Limited

Restricted

STREAM CHARACTERIZATION (BSC)

Aquatic

Resource

Valued

Resource

Aquatic

Resource

Aquatic

Resource

Aquatic

Resource

FISH

Index of Biotic

Integrity (IBI/AIBI)

51-60

41-50

31-40

21-30

<20

BENTHOS

Macroinvertebrate

Biotic Index (MBI)

<5.0

5.0-6.0

6.0-7.5

7.5-10.0

>10.0

WATER

CHEMISTRY

STORET Water

Quality Index (WQI)

0-10

10-30

30-50

50-70

>70

WATER

CHEMISTRY

Total Suspended Solids

(TSS/mg/I)

<10

10-25

25-80

80-400

>400

STREAM

HABITAT

STREAM

SEDIMENT

Potential Index of

Biotic Integrity

IEPA Stream Sediment

Classification

51-60

Nonelevated

41-50

Nonelevated

-Slightly

31-40

Slightly

Elevated

<31

Elevated

-Highly

Extreme

Elevated

Elevated

Station

Degree of

Code

Waterbody Name

Reach Index

Length

Use Support WQI

MBI

AIBI PIBI

60-07

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

19.74

Full

19.2

4.5

52

44

B0-02

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

2.35

Full

4.8

54

47

80-06

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

1 .84

Full

5.0

52

45

60-04

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

0.94

Full

5.0

56

45

BO-05

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

3.54

Full

5.0

52

47

80-09

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

5.34

Full

4.8

44

45

BO-08

Little Vermilion River

05120108-023/on

16.24

Full

5.5

52

42

---

SECTION X. LITERATURE CITED

Bickers, C.A., M.H. Kelly, J.M. Levesque, and R.L. Rite. 1988. IBI-AIBI Version 2.01

a BASIC Program for Computing the Index

of

Biotic Integrity With the

IBM-PC. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Staff Report . Marion,

Illinois .

Brigham,A.R.,W.U. Bringham, and A. Gnilka, eds. 1982. Aquatic Insects and

Oligochaetes of North and South Carolina . Midwest Aquatic Enterprises

.

Mahomet, Illinois . 837pp .

Burks, B.D. 1953. The Mayflies, or Ephemeroptera, of Illinois .

Illinois Natural History

Survey, Bulletin 26-I . Urbana, Illinois. 216pp .

Ettinger, W.H. 1989. An Intensive Survey

of

the Embarras River Basin, 1987 . Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency . Division of Water Pollution Control

. Central

Monitoring. Springfield, Illinois .

Frison, T.H. 1942. Studies of North American Plecoptera With Special Reference to the

Fauna

of

Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey . Bulletin 23-1

. Urbana,

Illinois. 355pp .

Gorman, O.T. and J .R. Karr. 1978. Habitat Structure and Stream Fish Communities .

Ecology 59:507-515

.

Haedrick, R.L. 1975. Diversity and Overlap as Measures of Environmental Quality .

Water Research 9: 945-952

.

Healy, R. W. 1979. River Mileages and Drainage Areas for Illinois streams

- Volume 1,

Illinois Except Illinois River Basin. United States Geological Survey

. Water

Resources Division. Champaign, Illinois .

Hem, J.D. 1970. Study and Interpretation

of

the Chemical characteristics of water. U.S .

Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1473. Washington, D.C .

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams,

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No . 132, Madison, Wi

.

Hite, R.L. and B.A. Bertrand. 1989. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) : a

Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality

.

Special Report No . 13

of

the

Illinois State Water Plan Task Force. Printed by Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency. Springfield, Illinois .

3 0

---

Elite, R.L.,M.R. Matson, C.A. Bickers, and M.M. King. 1991. An Intensive Survey of

the Big Muddy Main Stem from Rend Lake to the Mississippi River, 1988

.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . Division of Water Pollution Control .

Southern Monitoring. Marion, Il .

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press .

555pp .

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1982 . .Manual of Laboratory Methods,

volume 1 . Division of Laboratories . Springfield, Illinois .

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . 1987. Quality Assurance and Field Methods

Manual: 1987 Revision. Division of Water Pollution Control

.

Springfield,

Illinois .

Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1990. Title 35 : Environmental Protection, Subtitle C

:

Water Pollution, Chapter 1, Rules and Regulations . Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency . Springfield, Illinois

.

Karr, J.R. 1981 . Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities

. Fisheries

6(6):21-27 .

Karr, J.R., K.D. Faush, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I .J. Schlosser . 1986. Assessing

Biological Integrity in Running Waters, a Method and its Rationale .

Illinois

Natural History Survey Special Publication No . 5. Champaign, Illinois .

Kelly, M .H. and R.L. Elite. 1984. Evaluation of Illinois Stream Sediment Data, 1974-

. 1980. IEPA/,WPC/84-004. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency .

Kruse, K.C. and J.E. Ebinger. 1988. A biological assessment of the proposed Little

Vermilion Lake at Georgetown, III . Unpublished report

.

Charlestown,

Ill. 51pp

.

Leopold, L.B. 1974. Water: A primer. W.H. Freeman and Company . San Francisco,

California.

Matson, M.R. and R.L. Hite. 1987. An intensive survey of the Eagle Creek Basin in

Saline and Gallatin Counties, Illinois. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

.

Southern Monitoring. Marion, Illinois

.

Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation

.

Jefferson City, Missouri. Reid, G.K. 1961. Ecology of Inland Waters and

Estuaries. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.

---

Ross, Herbert H. 1944. The Caddisflies, or Trichoptera, of Illinois . Illinois Natural

History Survey. Bulletin 23-1 . Urbana, Illinois. 326pp .

Schwcgman, J .E. 1987. Natural Divisions . pp. 28-31 in Neely, R.D. and C.G. Heister

comps. The Natural Resources of Illinos, Introduction and Guide

.

Illinois

Natural History Survey . Spec. Publ. 6

.

Simpson, Karl W. and Robert W. Bode. 1979. Common Larvae of Chironomidae

(Diptera) from New York State Streams and Rivers . New York State Education

Department. Albany, New York. 105pp .

Singh, K.P., G.S. Ramamurthy, and I.W. Sec. 1988. Seven-day, Ten-year Low Flows of

Streams in the Kankakee, Sangamon, Embarras, Little Wabash, and Southern

Regions. Illinios State Water Survey. Champaign, Ill

.

United States Department of Agriculture

.

1991 . Little Vermilion River Agricultural

Nonpoint Source hydrologic Unit Area. Champaign, Edgar, and Vermilion

Counties, Illinois .

United States Geological Survey. 1976. Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations

.

Book 3, Chapter 8. Arlington, Virginia

.

Wangsness, D.J. and others. 1983. Hydrology of Area 30, Eastern Region Interior Coal

Province, Illinois and Indiana. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources

Investigation 82-1005. Indianapolis, Indiana .

Wiggins, Glenn B . 1977. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera) .

University of Toronto Press. Toranto and Buffalo. 401pp .

Wilhm, J.L. 1975. Biological indicators of pollution

.

Pages 375-402 in B .S. Whitton,

editor. River Ecology. University of California Press . Berkley, California .

3 2

---

i

C C C C C C C CC

C C C( C C

C C((

C C C

C C C C C C(

C C

K

C C

---

((( ('( C( C(

:(

C C C

*

I.E

.P

.A

. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network Site

** Only sampled during fish round in

September

C ( C

Appendix Table A

. Description of 1992 IEPA

- IDOC sampling stations on the Little Vermilion River Basin

.

All sites were monitored for water and sediment chemistry, macroinvertebrates, fish,

and habitat metrics

.

IEPA

USGS

Station

Number

Stream

River

Mile

Stream

Order

County

Latitude

Longitude

T

R S

Description

Topographic

Quad-Map No

.

BO-08

Little Vermilion R

.

42

.1

4

Vermilion

39°55'12'

87°48'16'

17N

13W NE22

0

.75 mi NE Sidell

Co

. Rd

. #23 at RR

.

Sidell-151a

80-09

Little Vermilion R

.

36

.9

4

Vermilion

39°54'52'

87°43'58'

17N

12W SE20

0

.75 mi SE Indiianola

Co

. Rd

. #16 Bridge

Georgetown-150b

BO-05

Little Vermilion R

.

29

.6

4

Vermilion

39°57'37'

87°38'23'

17N

11W SE6

0

.5 mi SW Georgetown

II RL 150 Bridge

Georgetown-150b

80-04

Little Vermilion R

.

28

.6

4

Vermilion

39°57'55'

87°37'46'

17N

11 W NWS

SE edge of Georgetown

Flierman's Nature Preserve

Georgetown-150b

BO-06

Little Vermilion R

.

27

.4

4

Vermilion

39'58'11'

8r36'55'

18N

11 W SW33

0

.5 mi SE Georgetown

Humrick Rd

. Bridge

Humrick-150a

BO-02'-

Little Vermilion R

.

24

.3

4

Vermilion

39°57'51'

87°34'22'

17N

11 W NW2

.

-

3

.0 mi ESE Georgetown

end of township Rd

.

Humrlck-150-a

Wr

BO-07-

Little Vermilion R

.

21

.9

4

Vermilion

30°56'29'

87°33'05'

17N

11 W SE12

Steel bridge 1

.5 mi

.

north of Humrick

Humrick-150a

---

Appendix Table B. Summary of habitat characteristics in the Little Vermilion River,

September, 1992.

"

Gravel = fine, medium, and course gravel