ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 15,
    1976
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—353
    EDWARD H. WEIDE,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    This matter comes before the Board upon the August
    9,
    1976
    Motion by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    for Modification or Alternatively Clarification of the June
    18,
    1976 Opinion and Order of the Board herein.
    In Section
    II of its Motion,
    the Agency complains that the
    Board in one paragraph of the Opinion uses the word penalty instead
    of the more proper word assessment.
    The Board will, therefore,
    amend the first sentence of the second full paragraph of page
    3
    of the Order of June
    18,
    1976 to read as follows:
    Complainant
    asks
    that an
    assessment
    be levied on
    the basis of the reasonable value of the fish
    killed.
    Section
    I of the 1\gency’s Motion
    is the more significant
    section.
    The Agency contends that the sole evidence available
    in
    the record as
    to the value of the fish destroyed by the actions
    of
    Mr. Weide was the testimony and evaluation of Michael Conlin, who
    was at the time of the fish kill employed as a District Fishery
    Biologist with the Department of Conservation.
    Although the Agency
    contends that Mr.
    Conlin’s evaluation procedure was in accordance
    with “Standard Methods” described by the Department of Conservation,
    23—457
    —2—
    no presentation of this “Standard Method” was made at the hearing.
    The only evidence of it was
    the apparent application of the “Stan-
    dard Method”
    to the facts
    in this case.
    Not having this “Standard
    Method” before us,
    the Board is unable to evaluate the reasonable-
    ness of the method.
    The Agency further claims that “Compliance with the Standard
    Method of determining the number and value of fish killed establishes
    a prima fade case for assessment of a penalty
    in the amount deter-
    mined by use of the Standard Method”
    (Agency Memo, page
    4).
    The
    Board agrees that it should utilize the expertise of the Department
    of Conservation concerning the number of fish counted in each test
    area,
    the identification of the fish,
    their weights,
    their individual
    value,
    etc.
    However, Section
    42(b)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act places upon the Board the duty to assess the reasonable value
    of the fish or aquatic life destroyed as a result of any violation
    of the Act.
    Along with that duty goes the right to determine the
    reasonable value of the fish or aquatic life destroyed.
    The unique
    expertise of the Department of Conservation ends with the completion
    of its investigation.
    Statistical evaluation of the Department of
    Conservation’s investigative results
    is not beyond the expertise of
    the Board.
    The Board accepted the data presented by the Department of
    Conservation concerning the fish kill and, upon application of funda-
    mental statistical analysis, found the level of confidence to be un-
    reasonably low for the final dollar evaluation proposed by the
    Department of Conservation.
    The Board determined what it considered
    to be a reasonable level of confidence and adjusted the values indi-
    cated by the Department of Conservation to reflect this level of
    confidence.
    The figure of $2600.00 was the result of this determi-
    nation
    (rounded to the nearest hundred dollars), and that is the
    Board’s estimation of the reasonable value of the fish killed based
    upon the investigative data supplied by the Department of Conserva-
    tion.
    Part
    I of the Agency’s Motion of August
    9,
    1976
    is,
    therefore,
    denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    23
    —
    458
    —3—
    Mr. Zeitlin dissented.
    Mr. Young abstained.
    I, Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution~Control
    tify the above
    Order was adopted on the__________
    Board,
    h
    _________
    day
    ~
    1976
    by a vote of
    .3/
    Christan
    L. Mof
    Illinois Pollution ~o1
    Board
    23—459

    Back to top