BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

iN

THE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR

THE

)

R08-09

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

AND THE

LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

TO

35111.

)

Adm.

Code

Parts

301,

302,

303

and

304

)

NOTICE

OF

FILING

To:

John

Therriault,

Clerk

CLERK

1)

Marie

Tipsord,

Hearing

Officer

CE

James

R Thompson

Center

2

‘?jp

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

ST

100

West

Randolph

Street, Suite

11-500

Poiitdo

1LLINOIS

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

Oard

SEE

ATTACHED

SERVICE

LIST

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE that

I have

filed

today

with

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

Illinois

EPA’s

Pre-Filed

Questions

for

Midwest

Generation

Witnesses,

a

copy

of

which

is

herewith

served

upon

you.

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

BZiV44

Dated:

October

20,

2008

Deborah

J.

‘iJfliams

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

Assistant

Cou’fisel

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

THIS

FILING

IS

SUMBITTED

ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

---

---

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

IN

THE MATTER

OF:

)

)

WATER

QUALITY

STANDARDS

AND

)

EFFLUENT

LIMITATIONS

FOR THE

)

R08-09

F

CHICAGO

AREA

WATERWAY

SYSTEM

)

(Rulemaki4

AND

THE

LOWER

DES

PLAINES

RIVER:

)

PROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTO35III

)

OC

Adm.

Code Parts

301,

302,

303

and

304

)

STATE

OFIL.LIN

POIILJtjofl

Contr

ILLINOIS

EPA’S

PRE-FILED

QUESTIONS

FOR

MIDWEST

GENERAT

ar

WITNESSES

The

Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency

(“Illinois

EPA”

or

“Agency”),

by

and

through

its

attorneys,

herby

submits

its

pre-filed

questions

for

Midwest

Generation

Witnesses

in

the

above-captioned

maffer.

The

Agency

reserves

the

right

to

ask

additional

follow-up

as

necessary.

Questions

for Julia

Wozniak

1.

In

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state

that

part

of

the

responsibilities

of

your

position

at

Midwest

Generation

include

“modeling

the

complex

thermo

hydrodynamics

of

power

plant

and

waterway

interactions”

and

“overseeing

thermal

compliance

monitoring

and

developing

and

running

complex

models

that

are

used

to

optimize

station

loads

during

critical

generation

periods,

while

maintaining environmental

compliance.”

Please

explain

your role

in

these

activities.

What training

have

you

received

related

to

modeling

of

thermo

hydrodynamics?

2.

You

refer

to

the

Joliet

Stations

on

the

study

area

as

Joliet

6 and

Joliet 7

&

8.

Please

explain

the

numbering

system

for

the

Joliet

facilities.

1

---

3.

Which reaches

of the

CAWS

do

the Fisk,

Crawford

and

Will

County

stations

discharge

to?

Which

reaches

do

they

impact?

4.

Please

identify

the

other

2

Midwest

Generation

generating

stations

in

Illinois.

What

type

of cooling

is utilized

at these

2 stations

and

the

Western

Pennsylvania

station?

5.

Why

were

cooling

towers

installed

in 1999

at the

Joliet

7 &

8

facilities?

6.

Explain

how

“The

towers

are

also

used

to

meet

near-field

thermal

standards

during

critical

low

flow

periods

that

occur

in the

Dresden

Pool.

(See

pages

4-5).

What

happens

at

the

other

facilities

during

these

periods?

7.

Who

developed

the

thermal

models

used?

What

are

the

inputs

of

the

model

and

what

data

are

they

obtained

from?

How

are

the

results

of

these

models

tested

against

real

world

conditions?

8.

Where

is

the

26

acre

mixing

zone

applicable

to the

Midwest

Generation’s

CAWS

and

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

facilities

found?

How

is

compliance with

the

Secondary Contact

temperature

limits

measured?

9.

Page

4,

paragraph

2,

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

states,

“Unit

6

The

design

maximum

temperature

rise

in the

circulating

water

is

approximately

10.7°F

...

Units

7&8

... The

design maximum

temperature

rise

in the

circulating

cooling

water

is

approximately

12.4°F.”

Does

this

take

into

account

the

cooling

towers?

Why

are

these

numbers

different

from

the

Board

opinion

AS

96-10,

page

3,

last paragraph, which

states

“The

station

has

two

thermal

discharges

to

2

---

the

Des

Plaines

River;

...

The

maximum

design

temperature

rise

in

the

circulating

cooling

water

is

approximately

9.4°F.”?

10.

Page

4, paragraph

3

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“The

cooling

towers

for

Units

7&8

were

voluntarily

installed

in

1999

at

a

cost

of

approximates

$23,000,000...”

In

the

AS96-10,

Corn

Ed

determined

the

cost

of

cooling towers

to be

$68

million.

Why

the

discrepancy

in

the

cost?

Why

the

change

of

position

in installing

cooling towers

after

you

told

the

Board

it

was

not

economical?

11.

AS

96-10,

March

16,

2000,

page

4,

last

paragraph

states,

“Based upon

the

assurances

of

CornEd

and

Midwest

that

the

management

and

operation

of

the

Generating

Stations

will

continue

unchanged...”

Did

deregulation

change the

operation

of

the

Generating

Station?

12.

You

state

on

page

6 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

“In

1996,

IEPA

did

not

view

the

thermal

discharges

as

limiting

aquatic

diversity

in

the

receiving

waters.” Which

receiving

waters

are

you

referring

to

in this

statement?

13.

You

also

state

on

page

6 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

“the

Agency

ultimately

concluded

as

part

of

the

AS

96-10

proceeding

that

the cost

of

providing

this

cooling

was

not

economically

reasonable....”

Did

you

think

the

cost

of

$23

million

in

1999

to

voluntarily

provide

cooling

at

the

Joliet

7 &

8

units

was

economically

reasonable?

Did

Midwest

Generation

notify

the

Board

of

its

plans

to

install

these

cooling

towers

during

the

Adjusted

Standard

proceedings?

14.

Is

there

anything

in the

Agency’s

proposal

to the

Board

that

would

impact

the

language

of

Midwest

Generation’s

regulatory

relief

at the

1-55

bridge?

3

---

15.

On page

9 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state

“Through

subsequent studies

and

modeling

efforts,

MWGen

determined

that the

Joliet

facilities

(and

not

the

three

CAWS

stations)

had

the

greatest

influence

on

water

temperature

at the

1-55

Bridge.

Therefore,

efforts

by

MWGen

to maintain

thermal

compliance

at

the

1-55

bridge

revolve

mostly

around

the

operations

at

the

Joliet

facilities.”

Are

there

any activities

at

the

CAWS

facilities

that

are

used

to

regulate

temperature

at

the

1-55

bridge

or

is

this exclusively

done

by

the

Joliet

stations?

16.

You

testify

on page

12

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

that

“The

model

has

been

field-verified and

has

been

shown

to

be

accurate

within

2°F

(assuming

that

model

input

parameters

are

also

accurate).”

What

happens

to

the

accuracy

when

model

inputs

are not

accurate?

17.

Please

explain

what

your

mean

when

you

state

on

page

12 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

that

“the

model

has been

field-verified”?

18.

What

values

are

used

in

the

model

for

intake

and

ambient

water

temperatures?

19.

If the

model

can

be

off

by

2°F

when

the

inputs

are

accurate

and

more

than

2°F

when

those

inputs

are

inaccurate,

how

is Midwest

Generation

certain

that

violations

of

the

Secondary

Contract

temperature

standards

have

not

occurred? What

about

the

1-55

Bridge

Adjusted

temperature

standard?

20.

You

state

on

page

14 of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

“It

was

not

until

January 2007,

when

IEPA

issued

its

draft

UAA

proposal

that

MWGen

became

aware

of the

intended

thermal

water

quality

standard

values

for the

Lower

Des

Plaines

River.”

Weren’t

two

alternative

thermal

limits

submittal

to

the

4

---

stakeholders

for

review

in

January

2007? Wasn’t

one

of

the

alternatives

submitted

to

the

stakeholders

drafted

by

Midwest

Generation?

21.

You

also

state

on

page

14

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

that,

“The

IEPA

meetings

on

March

20

and

22,

2007,

were

the

first

public

forum

in

which

the

proposed thermal

standards

were

publicly discussed.”

Did

Midwest

Generation

meet

privately

with

Illinois

EPA

to discuss

their

concerns

with

the

thermal

report

prepared

by

Mr.

Yoder?

22.

Do you

believe

the

heat

from

the

Midwest

Generation

facilities

is

having

any

impact

on

the

aquatic

life

in the

CAWS

and

Lower

Des

Plaines

River?

23.

What

experience

and

first

hand

observations

through

the

UIW

studies

helped

you

formulate

your

conclusion

that

the

Adjusted

Standards

provide

an

adequate

level

of protection

for

the

aquatic

community

below

1-55

and

provide

a

more

representative

normal, seasonal

fluctuation

that

either

the

Secondary

Contact

or the

General

Use

numeric

standard?

24.

What

UIW

studies

are

you

referring

to

in

your

pre-filed

testimony?

25.

Please

explain

why

it

is

more

often

than

not

that

Adjusted

Standard’s

compliance

needs

that

dictate

unit

deratings

and

the

use

of

cooling

towers?

26. Specifically

what

data

and

information

are

you

referring

to

on

page

15 of

your

pre-filed testimony?

5

---

Pre-filed

questions

for

Greg Seegert

1.

Please

explain

your

“extensive

experience”

with

the

waters

that

are

part

of

the

Illinois

EPA’s

proposal.

2.

Please

explain

how

you

are

defining

the CAWS

waters

and

the

Lower

Des

Plaines

River.

3.

How

long has

EA been

employed

by

Midwest

Generation?

4.

When

were

you

hired

by

Midwest

Generation

to

specifically

review

Illinois

EPA’s

regulatory

proposal?

5.

What

do

you

mean

when

you say

that

you

have

been

“engaged

by

Midwest

Generation to review

and

analyze

information

and

data

to

assess

the

use

designation

issues

relating

to

aquatic

life

goals

for

the CAWS

and

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

...“?

6.

In your

opinion

how

has the

Illinois

EPA

failed

to

adequately

consider

and assess

the

unique

aspects

of

the

CSSC

and Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

in

determining

whether

these

water

bodies

are capable

of

aftaining

CWA

aquatic

life

goals?

7.

What

would

you

have

done

differently

from the

Agency

when

looking

at

the CSSC

and

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

Is this

reflected

in

the

report

attached

to

your

pre-filed

testimony?

8.

What

do

you

mean

when you

say

“balanced

population”?

9.

What

are

the

“limiting

physical

and biological

conditions

of

these

waters”?

6

---

10.

How

did you

go

about

assessing

the

potential

applicability

of

the

UAA

factors

(excluding

Factor

6)

to

the

CSSC

and

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

with

respect

to

aquatic

life

uses?

II.

Did

you

in

essence

attempt

to

redo

the

UAAs

done

for

these

waters?

Have

you

performed

or

participated

in

other

UAAs?

12.

You

testify

on

page

2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony

that

one

of

your

tasks

for

Midwest

Generation

was

to

conduct

“a review

of

the

aquatic

habitat

suitability

for

the

CSSC

and

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

(“UDP”)

directly

relevant

to

Illinois

EPA’s

Proposed

UAA

rules...”

You

also

title

Exhibit

2

to

your

testimony

Report

on

the

Aguatic

Life

Use

Attainability

Analysis

for

the

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago

River,

the

Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal

and

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool.

Why

do

you

not

mention

the

Brandon

Pool

as

part

of

this

analysis?

a.

Please

define

the

starting

and

ending

point

of

the CSSC.

b.

Please

define

the

starting

and

ending

point

of the

UDP.

c.

Did

you

review

the

aquatic

habitat

suitability

for

the

Brandon

Pool?

d.

Are

your

conclusions

on

the

Brandon

Pool

included

with

your

testimony?

13.

Page

2,

states,

“Due

to

the

limiting

physical

and

biological

conditions

of

these

water

bodies

(conditions

wholly

unrelated

to

thermal

discharges),

the

present

fish

community

in the

CSSC

and

the

UDP

is

limited

in

diversity

and

quality

and

does

not

represent

a balanced

population.

Therefore,

it

is

my

professional

opinion,

based

on

extensive

experience

and

firsthand

knowledge

of

these

waters,

that

the

limiting

conditions

adversely

affecting

them

7

---

preclude

the

attainment

of

CWA aquatic

life goals.”

Did

you

purposely

exclude

the

Brandon

Pool?

14.

Based on

your understanding

of the

Agency’s

proposal:

Is

the

South

Branch of

the

Chicago

River

expected

to meet

the CWA

aquatic

life

goals?

Is

the Chicago

Sanitary

& Ship

Canal expected

to

meet

the

CWA

aquatic life

goals?

Is

Brandon Pool

expected

to

meet the

CWA

aquatic life

goals?

Is Upper

Dresden

Island Pool

expected

to meet

the

CWA aquatic

life goals?

15.

What is

a limiting

“biological

condition”

as you use

that

term

on

page

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony?

16.

Why

do you conclude

that

the

‘limiting

physical and

biological

conditions

of

these

water bodies”

are

“wholly

unrelated

to thermal

discharges.”

See page

2

of

pre-filed

testimony.

17.

On

page

2 of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state “Under

U.S.

EPA’s

rules,

the existence

of any

one of the

six UAA

factors

alone

is sufficient

to

demonstrate

that

a

water

body

is not capable

of meeting

CWA aquatic

life

use

goals.”

a.

Is

it correct

that

you

analyzed

5 of

the

6

UAA

factors

and found

4

of

them

applicable

to the CSSC,

South

Branch

Chicago

River

and

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

b.

Do

you agree

that there

is

no requirement

in

U.S.

EPA’s

rules

to

examine

all

6

factors?

c.

Do you

know if Midwest

Generation

has

asked

someone

else

to

perform

a

Factor

6

analysis?

8

---

d.

Explain

why

Factor

I was

found

to

be

not

applicable.

e.

Explain

in

more

detail

how

you

think the

“natural,

ephemeral,

intermittent

or low

flow

conditions

or water

levels

prevent

attainment

of

the

use?”

Aren’t

the

issues

that

you

raise

under

Factor

2

more

appropriately

reflected

in

Factors

3

or

4?

You

discuss

high

flow conditions

and

their

impact

on

the

aquatic

life.

How

is

this

relevant

to

a Factor

2

analysis?

f.

You

also

state

on

pages

2

and

3

of

Exhibit

2

“Peak

flows,

in

particular,

adversely

affect

certain

fish...”

Explain

where

Factor

2

addresses

high

flow

conditions.

g.

You

state

on

page

3

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

that

“Similarly,

low

flow

regulation,

which

is

controlled

by

the

U.S.

Army

Corps

of

Engineers

in

anticipation

of flooding,

can

also

adversely

affect

fish

by

exposing fish

nests

and

eggs

to

ambient

air

and

causing

stranding

in

shallow areas,

which

leads

to

increased

predation

on

fish.”

Please

provide

an

example

of

this

phenomenon

on

the

CAWS

or

Lower

Des

Plaines

River.

h.

Can

you

compare

environmental

flow

characteristics

in

the

CAWS

with

that

of

other

regulated

rivers

in the

Midwest?

Have

you

examined

specific

variables

of

flow

(e.g.,

The

Nature

Conservancy

IHA

variables)

and

are

these

significantly

different

than

other

regulated

rivers

that

perform

in

a

way

to

minimally

meet

CWA

objectives?

How

would

you

describe

the

gradient

of flow

conditions

9

---

as you

pass

from

the

CSSC

to

the

UDP?

Do

you

have

any

direct

evidence

of

nest

abandonment

or

nest

stranding

due

to

flow

variation

in

the

CSSC

or

UDP?

Are

variables

such

as flashiness

of

flow

less

severe

in large

vs. small

waterways

because

of

volume?

18.

In describing

the

applicability

of

factor

2 you

only

reference

conditions

in the

CAWS.

Is

it your

testimony

that

factor

2

is

applicable

to

the

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

also?

19.

Please

explain

how

high

flow

affects

aquatic

life?

And

for low

flow?

20.

Do

you

have

data,

from

the waters

addressed

in this

rulemaking,

showing

that these

flows

adversely

affect

fish

by

causing

nest

abandonment

and

displacement

of

recently

hatched

fish

and

by

causing

sediment

deposition

that

buries

and

suffocate

eggs?

21.

How

high

does

the

flow

need

to

be

to

cause

these

problems?

22.

How

low

does

the

flow

need

to be

to

cause

these

problems?

23.

Do

you

have

any

data,

from

the

waters

addressed

in

this

rulemaking,

showing

that

“barges

produce

wakes

or

waves

that

push

water

into

the backwater

channels,

causing

rapid

changes

in the

water

levels

and

stirring

up

harmful

sediment”?

24.

What

“extensive

studies”

are

you

referring

to

on

p.

4 of

your

pre

filed

testimony

with

respect

to sediments?

25.

What

“higher

quality

fish”

are

you

referring

to

on

P.

4

of your

pre

filed

testimony?

10

---

26.

How

did

you

come

to

the

conclusion

reached

on

P.

4

of your

pre

filed testimony

that

the

removal

of

one

limiting

factor,

such

as

sediments

would

not

improve

aquatic habitat?

How

many

factors

would

need

to

be

eliminated

before

one

sees improvements

in

aquatic

habitat?

27.

What

areas

were

sampled

in

2003

that

helped

you

come

to

the

conclusion

that

sedimentation

was

moderate

to

severe

in

70%

of

the

area

where

QHEI

scores were

assessed?

28.

What

was

the

percentage

of

sedimentation

that

was

moderate

or

severe

for

2008?

29.

What

“extensive

studies”

are

you

referring

to

on

P.

5 of

your

pre

filed

testimony

with

respect

to

contaminated

sediments?

30.

Do

you

know

why

contaminated

sediments

are

predominantly

found

in the

side-channels

and

backwater

areas?

31.

It

is your

professional

opinion

that

the

sediments

will

not

improve

in

these waters?

32.

On

P.

8

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state

“most

experts

conclude

. .

.“,

what

experts would

disagree

with

Mr.

Rankin

that

streams

with

QHEI scores

60

or greater

are

generally

capable

of supporting

a

balanced

indigenous

fish

population

that

are

consistent

with

the

goals

of

the

Clean

Water

Act?

33.

Why

do

you

not

sample

the

navigational

channels?

34. How

are

you

defining

“viable

population”

as

used

on

p.

12

of

your

pre-filed testimony?

11

---

35.

Please

explain

your

conclusion

that

the

Upper

Dresden Island

Pool

has

far more

in common

with

Ohio’s

modified

warm

water

use

designation

than

with

Ohio’s

warm

water

use

designation.

36.

Besides

Midwest

Generation,

what

other

industrial facilities

has

EA

conducted

aquatic

studies

for?

37.

What

Ohio

streams

has

EA

reviewed

with

respect

to

use

attainment

and

non-attainment?

38.

You

testify

on

page

4

about

heavy

barge

traffic.

Are you

testifying

that

barge

traffic

is

a ‘protected

use’

or

a

‘limiting

factor’

to

aquatic

life

or

both?

a.

If barge

traffic

is a protected

use,

what

standards

are

necessary

to

protect

that

use?

b.

If

it

is

a

limiting

factor,

are you

saying

it is

a

human

caused

condition

or

source

of

pollution

pursuant

to UAA

factor

3?

If

so,

would

it cause

greater

environmental

harm

to

remove

this

factor

or

leave

it

in

place?

39.

Why

do

you

consider

sedimentation

in the

CAWS,

particularly

the

UDP,

“unpreventable”

and

“irreversible”?

Do

you

have

data

to support

this?

40.

You

mention

that

contaminated

sediments

exist

in

all

three

navigational pools;

do

you

have

evidence

that

more

recent

sediment

that

is

being

deposited is more

or

less contaminated?

Were

the

samples

collected

randomly

throughout the

pools

or

were

they

targeted

to

areas

of

depositional

sediment?

41.

You

testify

that

“the

fine,

silty,

and

organic

nature

of

sediments

in

the

CSSC

and

LDR

are

not

suitable

for

many

higher

quality

fish species

which

12

---

require

hard,

clean

substrate

for spawning

and

reproduction.”

Isn’t

it true

that

many

natural

waterbodies

have

this

same

condition

of

silty

sediments

not

suitable

for

certain

species of

fish?

42.

Please

define

“excess sediments”

as

you

use

that

term

near

the

bottom

of

page

4

of

your

testimony.

43.

You

state

on

page

4

of your

testimony

that

“Studies,

including

those

conducted

by

Mr.

Chris

Yoder,

have

documented

that

streams

in

highly

urbanized

areas

typically

do

not

achieve

CWA’s

‘fishable/swimmable’

goals

due

to

the

multiple

stressors

and

physical

limitations.”

Which

studies

are

you

referring

to?

Why

do

you

mention

Mr.

Yoder

specifically

here?

44.

Do

you

mean

to

indicate

the

urban

areas

have

a

harder

time

meeting CWA

recreational

use

goals?

45.

On

page

4-5

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“Even

the

removal

of

one

limiting factor,

such

as

sediments,

would

not

improve

aquatic

habitat,

as the

urban

nature of the

CAWS

and

the

many

sources

of

pollutants

would

continue

to

cause

additional

fine,

silty

sediments

to

be

deposited,

thus

preventing

the

improvement

of

aquatic

life

habitat.”

You

say

“such

as

sediments”,

so

does

your

conclusion

in

this

statement

apply

to

every

limiting

factor?

Is

“urban nature”

the

only

relevant

limiting

factor?

Do

you

mean

that

no

streams

in

urban

areas

are

capable

of meeting

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life

goals?

46.

Explain

your

statement

on

page

5

of

your

pre-filed

testimony

where

you

state

that

“Deleterious

sedimentation

in

the

CAWS

is

both

unpreventable

and

13

---

irreversible

and

will remain

a major

impediment

to

biological improvements.”

What

makes

it

unpreventable?

What

makes

it

irreversible?

Where

is the

deleterious

sedimentation

coming

from?

Can

you

quantify this

sedimentation?

Do

you

agree

the

deposition

of

new

sediments

has

decreased

over

time?

Do

you

agree

this

has

resulted

in aquatic

life

improvements?

What

amount

of

sedimentation

would

lead

you

to conclude

the

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life

goals

could

be

met?

47.

You

state

on

page

5

of

your

testimony

that

“extensive

studies

have

found

that

contaminated

sediments

occur

in

all three

navigational

pools

(Brandon, Dresden,

and

Lockport),

but

predominantly

in

the side-channels

and

backwater

areas.”

Please

identify

the

extensive

studies

you refer

to.

Please

identify

the

side-channels

and

backwater

areas

where

these

studies

sampled

sediment. Which

of

these

studies

addressed areas

included

in

the

Upper

Dresden Island

Pool

aquatic

life

use

designation?

48.

Your

conclusions

are

stated

with

regard

to

the

CSSC,

South

Branch

Chicago

River

and

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool.

Do

you

think

factor

3

is

met

in

the

Brandon

Pool

also?

49.

Do

you

see

a difference

in

the

impacts

of impoundment

on

the

habitat

quality

of

the

Brandon

Pool

from

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

Doesn’t

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

have

more

habitat

variety

and

fewer

areas

impacted

by

the impoundments?

50.

On

page

6 you

state

that

“extensive

studies

of the

nearby

Fox

River,

funded

in

part

by

U.S.

EPA,

documented

significant

and widespread

14

---

adverse

impacts

on

the

aquatic

communities

due

to

the

effects

of

impounding.”

Is

it

your

testimony

that

these

‘extensive

studies’

concluded

these

impacts

are

irreversible?

Should

Illinois

be

promoting

dam

removal

as

you

point

out

on

page

12

of

Exhibit

2 which

is

occurring

in Wisconsin

and

Michigan?

What

about

fish

ladders?

51.

You

testify

that

the Brandon

Pool

is

100%

impounded

and

the

Dresden

Pool

is

93%

impounded.

Are

Upper

and

Lower

Dresden

included?

Where

did

these

figures

came

from?

52.

Explain

why

you

conclude

on

page

7 that

the

impacts

on the

CSSC

and

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

from

dams

is

irreversible?

53.

Have

you

sampled

impounded

waters

elsewhere

where

fish

communities

are

able

to

“minimally”

achieve

CWA

goals?

54.

Have

you

concluded

that

Factor

5

applies

throughout

the

CAWS

and

Lower

Des

Plaines

River?

55.

Based

on your

conclusion

that

Factors

2,

3,

4

and

5

apply

to

the

CSSC,

South

Branch

Chicago

River

and

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool,

which

of

these

factors

apply

to

the

Brandon

Pool?

Why?

56.

Did

you

rely

on

any

data

to conclude

that

Factor

5 is

applicable?

57.

Do all

“natural”

large

rivers

have

riffle/run

segments

in

each

sampling

reach

or are

some

rivers

predominated

by pool

and

other

non-riffle

habitats? Are

these

pool

and

other

non-riffle

habitats

and

factors

such

as

cover

then

the

determining

factors

for

fish

species

diversity?

Could

enhancement

of

15

---

such features result

in creating

habitat

for sensitive species

characteristic

of

warmwater

rivers capable

of attaining

the CWA

aquatic-life goal?

58.

Could

you

foresee

some

limited restoration,

short

of

removing

the

locks

and dams

that could

enhance

the UDP? For

example

could restoration

of

littoral

areas

increase habitat

heterogeneity

and create

habitat that could

support

some

of the species

associated with

waters that “minimally”

attain

the CWA

aquatic-life goal?

59.

Based

on your

extensive

experience with

the

Lower

Des Plaines

River, please give your

professional

opinion on the

highest

attainable

aquatic

life

use

for the CSSC.

For the South

Branch Chicago River?

For the

Brandon

Pool?

For

the Upper

Dresden Island Pool?

60.

Page

8,

states,

“In 1993

and

1994,

QHEI

scores were derived

at

169

locations in the Lockport,

Brandon

Road, and Dresden

Pools, and

were

on

average, found to

be low (mean

scores in the 40s),

demonstrating

that habitat

generally

was of poor quality.

a.

Why did

you

lump

the

data from

these 4 stretches

to be included

in the

average?

b.

What was

the average

(and highest and lowest

values)

of the

different

segments

at

Lockport,

Brandon

Road

and Dresden Pools

(above

and

below

1-55)?

61.

Are

the habitat

data collected

by EA

Engineering

in 1993-1 994

part

of the Lower

Des Plaines UAA

report

and

the

record of this

proceeding?

What

about the

data collected in 2003?

16

---

62.

How

can

the QHEI

scores

from

1993

and

1994 be

from

169

locations,

but

the

total

sites

were

“over

100”?

63.

Please

explain

what

you

mean

by

a

“low”

QHEI

score?

64.

You testify

on

page

8

that

QHEI

scores

were

below

60 in most

of

the

Dresden

Pool.

Where

there

any

above

60?

65.

You

testify

on

pages

8-9

that

“These

low

scores

are

a strong

indication

that

the majority

of the

habitat

in the

UDP

is not

sufficient

to

support

CWS

aquatic

life goals.”

How

much

good

quality

habitat

is required

to

support

a

balanced

aquatic

life

population

in

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

66.

You

call habitat

in

the UDP

“less

poor”

but

aren’t the

scores

you

generated

generally

considered

“fair”

in a

narrative

sense

as

stated

in

the

QHEI

manual?

67.

You state

that

the

habitat

quality

in the

UDP

was

poor

— but

weren’t

a

moderate

number

of

these sites

in

a range

that

might

be considered

“fair”?

For

example

later

on page

8

you

describe

habitat

as

being

on average

between

45-

50 in

the

UDP

isn’t this

considered

fair?

68.

You

also state

that

cover

was

a limiting

factor

in the

UDP,

is this

correct?

What

did

cover

scores

average

in the

UDP?

Of

all of

the

habitat

components which

metric

would

you

consider

to

be the

most

amenable

to

enhancement? If

cover

scores

average

less than

10

and

enhancement

could

boost

scores

to

14-15

in

the

UDP

would

that

increase

QHEI

scores

toward

to

the

upper

range

of habitat

that

has the

ability

to support

CWA

goals

in the

UDP?

17

---

69.

Do

you

have

a

citation

for

your

statement

on

page

10

regarding

“the

45-point

cutoff

that,

under

Ohio

EPA’s

use

classification

protocol,

would

automatically

qualify

the UDP

as

a limited

or

modified

use

category...”?

What

do

you

mean

by

“automatically

qualify”?

70.

On

Page

10,

you

state

“the

vast

majority

of

habitat

in UDP

is

poor

or occasionally

fair.”

What

is

a

vast

majority? Is the

vast

majority

poor

or

is

the

vast

majority

poor

or fair?

71.

Please

explain

where

you

got

the

following

numbers:

the

navigational

channel

makes

up 50%

of

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

and

that

it

would

have

scored

well

below

45

had

it been

evaluated?

Would

that

be

true

of

all

navigational channels

in

large,

navigable

rivers?

72.

You

state

at

the bottom

of

page

10 that

“Balanced

indigenous

fish

populations that

are

consistent

with

CWA

aquatic

life goals

must

have

suitable

habitat, including,

for example,

sufficient

riffles,

boulder/cobble

substrates,

and

fast

water

areas

to spawn

and

reproduce.”

Do

all

large

rivers

have

typically

these

attributes? What

about

the Fox

River,

Mississippi

River,

Illinois

River,

Kankakee River,

etc.?

Are

you

saying

that

a

water

body

must

have

the

characteristics

of a

small

stream

to

be

capable

of

attaining

CWA

aquatic

life

use

goals?

73.

You

state

on

page

11 that

the

adverse

effects

of dams

on

aquatic

life

in

river

systems

are

well

documented.

Do you

believe

these

adverse

effects

always

result

in

the

inability

to

attain

the

Clean

Water

Act

Aquatic

life

use

goals?

18

---

Are

you

suggesting

we

should

downgrade

the

large

rivers

in Illinois

that

have

dams

from the

General

Use

category?

74.

Explain

why

the

habitat

limitations

you refer

to

(page

12)

are

permanent

and

irreversible?

75.

Why

do you

conclude

the

population

of minnows,

darters

and

suckers

in the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

is not

balanced?

76.

Do

you make

a

distinction

between

UDI

Pool’s

ability

to

support

“habitat

specialists”

and

UDI

Pool’s

ability

to support

viable

populations

of

“habitat

specialists”?

77.

You

testify

on

page

13

with

regard

to errors

in

IBI

scores

by

MBI

that

these

errors

“call

into

question

the

reliability

of

MBI’s

lBl scores

and

incorrectly

portray

a

higher

biological

integrity

than

actually

exists

in

the

UDP.”

Assuming

this

statement

is

true

and

the scores

portray

higher

biological

integrity

than

actually

exists

in

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool,

doesn’t

that mean

that

the

disparity

between

what

is

existing

and

what

is attainable

is

that

much

greater?

Doesn’t

this

bolster

the Agency’s

conclusion

that

controls

must

be

placed

on

temperature

discharges

to allow

the

aquatic

community

to attain

its

biological

potential?

78.

Please

explain

your

understanding

of

how the

Agency

relied

on

IBI

data

generally?

Please

explain

your

understanding

of

what

sources

of IBI and

QHEI

data

the

Agency

relied

on?

Didn’t

the Agency

rely

on [as

much/more]

data

collected

by

EA than

collected

by

MBI?

(page

13)

19

---

79.

Please

provide

a

reference

for

your

statement

on

page

14 that

Illinois

EPA

is

“contending

that

the

UDP

shares

characteristics

with

Illinois

General

Use

wasters

that

enable

it

to attain

CWA

aquatic

use

goals.”

80.

You

state

on

page

14 that

“General

Use

waters

do

not have

the

combination

of channelization,

impoundment,

commercial

navigation,

irregular

flows,

and

significant

inputs

from urban

storm

water

and

wastewater

discharges

that

characterize

the

UDP.”

What

is the

basis for

this

statement?

Don’t

General

Use

waters

have

each

of these

characteristics?

Aren’t

there

three

General

Use

segments

in

the study

area?

81.

Are

you

recommending

that

Illinois

EPA

adopt

Ohio’s

use

classification

system?

Should

this

apply

state

wide?

Is it

appropriate

to base

a

statewide

use

classification

system

based

on

the

CAWS

and Lower

Des

Plaines

River?

82.

Please

explain

how

Ohio defines

“Limited

Warm

Water”?

Modified

Warm

water?

Impounded

(I)

subclassification?

Do

you agree

that

“Warm

Water”

is

a

misleading

and

outdated

terminology?

Which

Ohio

EPA

use categories

represent

attainment

of

Clean

Water

Act

goals?

Do any

impounded

waters

fit

into

these

categories

in

Ohio?

83.

Please

explain

what

use

classification

under

the

Ohio

system

you

would

give to

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

Brandon

Pool?

Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal?

South

Branch

Chicago

River?

What

temperature

standard

would

apply

to

each

of these

waterbodies

under

the

Ohio

regulations?

20

---

84.

Please

explain

your

statement

on

page

15

where

you

state

that,

“Despite

agreeing

with

Mr.

Rankin’s

conclusion,

the

Agency

without

explanation

has

completely

ignored

Mr.

Rankin’s

recommendation

and

instead

determined

that

UDP

can

attain

the

CWA

aquatic

life

goals.”

Should

the

Agency

have

ignored

the

conclusions

in

the

Lower

Des

Plaines

UAA

regarding

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool’s

ability

to

attain

the

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life

goals?

Why?

85.

You

mention

Mr.

Rankin’s

suggestions

about

the

UDP

as

a

potential

“Modified

Impounded”

use.

Did

Mr.

Rankin

make

this

suggestion

based

on

habitat data

alone?

Does

Ohio

consider

the

biota

the

“ultimate

arbiter”

of

aquatic

life

use

potential?

Did

he

imply that

his

conclusion

was

preliminary

given

that

he

did

not

assess

biological

data

in his

study?

86.

On

page

17

you

title

section

5

of

your

testimony

“Extensive

Fish

Surveys Confirm

that

the

CSSC,

Including

the

UDP,

is Dominated

by

Pollutant

Tolerant

Species, Reflecting

Degraded

Habitat

Conditions.”

Are

you

now

trying

to

say

that

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

is

part

of

the

Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship

Canal?

87.

Do

you

know

if

water

quality

criteria

may

differ

between

an

Ohio

“Impounded”

vs.

a

CWA

goal

stream

(i.e.,

Ohio

warmwater).

Would

a

modified

use

be

closer in

intent

to

a

“Limited”

or to

a

“Warmwater”

use?

88.

Where in

the

CAWS

has

EA

conducted

fish

surveys

since

1980?

(page 17).

How many

of

the

3,159

collections

have

been

in

the

Lockport

Pool?

Have

you

collected

samples

in

the

CAWS

upstream

of

the

Lockport

Pool?

21

---

89.

Do you

agree that

bluntnose minnow

are very common in

the

areas

you have collected

fish samples?

(page 18).

Do

you agree

that

temperature

standards

throughout

the CAWS must

be protective

of this common

species?

90.

Page

19

of your

pre-field

testimony

you

state,

“The fish

communities

in the

Upper Dresden

Pool and the five

mile

stretch,

Dresden

Pool

downstream

of the Kankakee

River,

and downstream

of

the

Dresden Lock

and

Dam

were relatively

similar to each

other and

noticeably

better than those

upstream

of Brandon

Lock and

Dam.”

What

conclusion

do you draw by

these

comparisons

between

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

and the

General Use

waters

downstream

of it?

91.

Page 19 of

your pre-filed testimony

you state

“Results

at thermally-

influenced sampling

stations

were

comparable

to those

at other stations.”

What

do you

mean

by

comparable? How

did

you determine

which

sampling

stations

were thermally-influenced?

Can we identify

this in your report?

92.

Please provide

a citation for

the

following

statement “For

large

rivers

like

the UIW

[Upper

Illinois Waterway],

any site

with

>3%

DELT

[deformities,

erosion,

lesions, and tumors]

anomalies

receives

the

lowest

possible

IBI metric score.”

Do you

have DELT

scores more recent

than the

1990’s?

93.

On

page 21

of your pre-filed

testimony

you discuss the

fish

sampling

conducted

following the

AS96-10 Adjusted

Standard

opinion.

Do

you

agree

that fish

diversity and

balance

has

increased since the

earlier

sampling?

22

---

94.

Page

21

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

state,

“And

although

there

has

been

a modest

improvement

in the

UDP

in

terms

of

fish abundance

since

1993,

the

same

ten

species

continue

to dominate

the

community

of

the

UDP

and

the

5-mile

Stretch

and

remain

unchanged

since

before

the Adjusted

Standard

went

into

effect.”

a.

Define

modest.

b.

Are

there

any

new

species?

c.

Has

the

habitat

improved

since

1993?

d.

Has

the

sediment

improved

since

1993?

e.

Is

this

a

one

time

improvement

or

is

it still

improving?

f.

What

was

the

percent

improvement

in

fish

abundance?

g.

Have

fish

abundances

improved

since

cooling

towers

were

installed?

95.

Would

reduction

of

pollutant

loads,

reductions

in

sedimentation,

and

even

moderate

enhancement

of habitat

features

result

in

some

recovery

of

fish

assemblages

in the

UDP?

Couldn’t

this

be

sufficient

to minimally

meet

CWA

goals?

Wouldn’t

such

a

use

provide

better

recreational

activities

in the

UDP

and

better

protect

downstream

waters

(Illinois

River)?

96.

on

page

22

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you state

that MBI

QHEI

scores

do

not

fall within

an “acceptable

range

of

difference

compared

to

the

EA

QHEI

score.”

What

is

considered

an

acceptable

range?

97.

On

page

24

of your

pre-filed

testimony

it appears

you

claim

that

the

difference in the

QHEI

scores

between

the

summer

and

spring

seasonal

variation

23

---

would

only

count

for,

at most

3 points.

Is

this

for

every

season?

Do

you have

any

data

to

support

this

claim?

If

yes, please

provide

that data.

98.

You

state on

Page

29

of

Exhibit

2,

“...General

Use

waters

in

Illinois

do not

have

the

combination

of

...

a much

altered

winter

temperature

regime

because

of

those

wastewater

inputs...”

a.

Are

the wastewater

inputs

the only

reason

for

the

much

altered

winter

temperature

regime?

b.

Do

the MWGen

facilities

add

excess

heat

in the

winter?

99.

With

respect

to the

QHEI

scores

it seems

that

you have

Des

Plaines

283.0

LB,

Under

Substrates,

Quality,

(-2+1

)/2=-0.5

and

not

-1

repeated

twice.

Therefore

shouldn’t

the

QHEI

should

be 50.5

and

not

49.5?

Questions

with

respect

to

Exhibit

2

100.

On

page

2 of Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

the

present

fish

community

in

Lower

Des Plaines

River does

not

represent

a

balanced

population.

Do you

include

the

Des

Plaines

River

downstream

of

the

Interstate

55

bridge

in this

opinion?

101.

With

respect

to balance,

what

is the

future

attainable

condition

of

the

fish

community

in Lower

Des

Plaines

River?

.

. .in Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

• . .in Lower

Des

Plaines

River

downstream

of the

Interstate

55

bridge?

102.

Please

explain

the

statement

on

page

3 of Exhibit

2

that

“Urbanization. ...

leads

to

a

variety

of

factors

that

are not

well

understood

but

whose

collective

influence

is

widely

accepted.”

24

---

103.

on

page

3 of

Exhibit

2 (last

paragraph)

of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

does

not resemble

an Illinois

General

Use

water

because

General

Use

waters

do

not have

the

combination

of

the

following

features

that

exist

in Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool:

commercial

navigation,

receipt

of wastewater,

altered

winter

temperatures

due

to

wastewater

inputs,

extensive

urbanization,

reversal

of

flow,

periodic

but

irregular

flow

alterations,

an electric

barrier,

extensive

sedimentation,

and

“...an

almost

complete

loss

of

riffles

and fast

water.”.

For each

of these

features

that

you

identified,

what direct

comparisons

have

you made

that

indicate

the

extent

to

which

the

feature

differs

between

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

and

General

Use

waters

of Illinois

or between

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

and

waters

across

the

U.S.

that are

designated

for aquatic-life

uses

consistent

with

the Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal?

104.

Do

reversal

of

flow

and an

electric

barrier

exist in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

Where

and

at

what

times?

105.

Has

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

portion

of

Des

Plaines

River

almost

completely

lost riffles

and

fast

water

due

to the

effects

of

Dresden

lock

and

dam

and

Brandon

lock

and

dam?

On

what

information

do

you base

your

answer?

106.

On Page

4

of Exhibit

2 you state

that

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool “clearly

does

not

have the

extent

of

good

or

great habitat

that is

characteristic of General

Use

Waters.

.

.“ What

do you

base

this

characteristic

on?

Aren’t

the General

Use

waters

merely

defined

as

those

wasters

not

25

---

classified

as

Secondary

Contact

and

Indigenous

Aquatic

life?

Is

it your

testimony

that

all

General

Use

waters

have

good

or

great

habitat?

107.

You

testify

in Exhibit

2 that

you

identified

several

surveys

that

have

documented

direct

mortality

of fish

as

a result

of

propeller

strikes.

Are

you

referring

to

the

one

study

cited

on

page

8 of

Exhibit

2?

This

study

was

not

conducted in the

waters

subject

to

this

rulemaking

was

it?

Do

you

think

there

are

more

or

fewer

fish

in

the

UAA

area

than

in

the

area

where

this

study

was

conducted?

Is there

more

barge

traffic

in

the

UAA

area

than

in the

area

where

this

study

was

conducted?

108.

Do

you consider mortality

from

propeller

strikes

to be

a significant

source

of

mortality

in the

CSSC?

If yes,

has

this

been

shown

to limit

aquatic

life

use

attainment

in other

rivers

with

ship

traffic

(e.g.,

Ohio

or

Mississippi

Rivers??)

109.

You

state

on

page

4

of

Exhibit

2

“In

this

regard,

the

Ohio

EPA’s

use

classification

approach of describing

categories of streams,

such

as

“Limited

Warm

Water”,

“Modified

Warm

Water”

and

its

use of

subclassifications,

such

as

“Impounded”, for

streams

like

the

CSSC,

is a

more

workable

and

clearer

approach

to

establishing

a multi-tiered

use

classification

under

state

water

quality

regulations.”

Are the

water

quality

standards

that

Ohio

EPA

uses

for

these

classifications

also

appropriate

for

these

waters?

110.

You

state

on

page

4 of

Exhibit

2,

“Also,

to

the

extent

that

there

\

are

those

waterways

in

the state

that

may

share

these

same

stream

characteristics,

an

approach

that

describes

categories

and

subcategories

of use

classifications would

allow

similar

waterways

to

be

similarly

classified,

thereby

26

---

eliminating the

need

or risk

of

having

to

continually

develop

new use

classification

categories

because

the

Illinois

EPA’s

currently

proposed

aquatic

life

use

designations

are

effectively

site-specific

use

descriptions

rather

than

classifications

of

aquatic

life uses.”

Are

the

current

water

quality

standards

“effectively

site-specific

use

descriptions”?

Do

you

believe

that

this

waterway

should

be

grouped

with

other

waterways

in

the

state

that

share

these

same

stream

characteristics?

Ill.

On

page

5 of

Exhibit

2

(first

full

paragraph)

of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

impoundment

is the

main

factor

preventing

attainment

of Clean

Water

Act

goals

in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

and

that

remediating

the

impounded

nature

of

the

waterway

would

require

removing

or

greatly

modifying

the

locks

and

dams

now

present.

In this

context,

when

referring

to

Clean

Water

Act

goals,

are

you

referring

to

the Clean

Water

Act

interim

goal

for aquatic

life?

112.

In

a

waterbody,

if impoundment

is

the

main

factor

that

is

preventing

aquatic

life

from

reaching

a more

natural

condition,

is removing

or

greatly

modifying

the

impoundment

structure

the

only

way

that

aquatic

life

can

attain

a

more

natural

condition?

113.

Can

flow

in

a

river

impounded

by

lock

and

dam

structures

be

altered

without

removing

or

greatly

modifying

those

structures?

Short

of

removal

or

greatly

modifying

the

lock

and

dam

structures,

are

there

alternative

ways

to

operate

these

structures

that

can

result

in differences

in

the extent

of impacts

on

aquatic

life?

27

---

114.

Do

you

know

if the current

operation

of

the

locks

and

dams

in

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

accounts

for various

alternative

operating

strategies

based,

in part,

on

the

potential

effects

of each

strategy

on

the

biological

condition

of the

river?

115.

In

the context

of attainability

of

Clean

Water

Act goals,

on

page

5

of

Exhibit

2 (second

full

paragraph)

of your

pre-filed

testimony

you

mention

the

potential

for

instream

habitat

improvements

that

could

improve

the

biological

potential

of Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool.

You

state

that

for such

improvements

to

have

a

measurable

effect

on fish

populations

and

species,

they

would

have

to

occur

on

an

unprecedented

scale.

Do you

know

how much

habitat

improvement

would

be

necessary

to

have a

measurable

effect

on fish

populations

and

species

in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

116.

Do you

know

how

much

habitat

improvement would

be necessary

to

have a

measurable

effect

on

aquatic-life

populations

and

species,

other

than

fish,

in Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

117.

To

determine

the

appropriate

aquatic-life

use

for

a waterbody,

is it

first necessary to prove

that

effects

of

potential

habitat

improvement

on fish

populations

and species

must

be

measurable?

118.

Referring

to

conditions

in Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool on

page

5

of

Exhibit

2

(second

full paragraph)

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you state

that

“. .

. lack

of

riffles,

fast

water,

clean

cobble/boulder

areas,

and

impoundment...”

prevent

“...the

species

that

depend

on

such

areas

from establishing

viable

populations.”

28

---

Do

you

mean

lack

of

fast water

and

lack

of clean

cobble/boulder

areas

and the

presence

of

impoundment?

119.

Is the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if

viable

populations

of

species

that

depend

on riffles,

fast

water,

and

cobble/boulder

areas

are

absent?

120.

On

page

5 of Exhibit

2

you state

that

“Here,

the

main limiting

factor

in this

waterway

system

is the

impoundments.”

Similarly

on page

10

of Exhibit

2

you

state

“It

is

the

impounding

effect

caused

by these

dams

that

has

the

greatest

effect

on the

fish

community.”

Please

explain

what

the

“main”

limiting

factor

is

in

your

view?

121.

Do

you

agree

temperature

is also

a limiting

factor?

122.

How

many

limiting

factors

can

there

be at one

time?

123.

On

page

6 of

your

report

(Exhibit

2)

you

state

“It was

agreed

that

the adverse

effects

of

such

extreme

variations

in

water

level

on

habitat,

by

disrupting

fish

spawning

and

feeding,

are

greater

than

the

potential

effects

of

temperature (UAA

hearing

1/31/08

at

p.

227).”

Please

identify

where

this

is

found

in

the

transcript

page

cited?

Do

you

agree

that this

statement

in

your

testimony incorrectly

characterizes

the

testimony of Mr.

Yoder

on

page

227?

124.

Referring

to conditions

in Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

on

page

7

of

Exhibit

2

(middle)

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you state

that

the

unnatural

flow

conditions

will prevent

establishment

of

a

community

consistent

with

the Clean

Water

Act

aquatic-life

goals.

Is the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if

flow

is

unnatural?

29

---

125.

On

page

8

of

Exhibit

2

you

state

“there

are

no

known

plans

for

reducing

sedimentation

in

either

waterbody

and

the

contributing

sources

will

continue

to add

sediment

to

the waterway.” Are

you familiar

with the

Tunnel

and

Reservoir

Project?

Won’t

that project

result

in a significant

decrease

in

sediment

loading

to

the waterway?

126.

On

page

9 of

Exhibit

2 you

state

again

“The unpreventable

and

irreversible

accumulation

and physical

quality

of the

sediments

that

will

always

be

present

in

the system

is

limiting

further

biological

improvements

in the

CSSC

and UDP,

with

existing,

depositional

area

sediment

contamination

exacerbating

the fundamental

siltation

problem.”

Why

is the

accumulation

and

physical

quality

of the

sediments

unpreventable?

Why

is it

irreversible?

127.

On

page

9 of

Exhibit

2

(top) of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that the

presence

of barges

located

near

the stream

bank

has

adverse

effects

on

fishes.

You

cite the

photographs

in attachment

2a.

How

do these

photographs

indicate

adverse

effects

of

barges

on

fish?

128.

How

many

barges

over

what

length

of

stream

bank

are

required

to

determine

that

a stream

is

unable

to

attain

the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-

life goal?

129.

On

page 9

of

Exhibit

2

(first

full paragraph)

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

the sediments

in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

are

not

suitable

for

many

higher

quality

fish

species.

Is

the

Clean

Water

Act interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if

the

stream

bottom

is not

suitable

for

many

higher

quality

fish

species?

30

---

130.

At the

top

of page

10 of

Exhibit

2

you

discuss

sediment

data

ratings

in the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool.

You

state

that

in 2003,

23

of

34

sites

had

moderate

to

severe

sedimentation

and

in

2008

the

figure

was

33

sites

out

of

50.

How

many

sites

in

each

year

were

moderate?

How

many

were

severe?

131.

You

state

on

page

10

“Based

on

the observations

of

EA

field

crews

during

the

2003

and

2008

Upper

Dresden

Pool

field

surveys,

sedimentation

appears

to

have

gotten

worse

over

the

past

5-10

years

in

some

areas

(e.g.

DuPage Delta).”

How

does

this

compare

to

results

from

the

1990’s?

Have

the

results

also

improved over

the

last

5 years

in

other

areas?

Is the

DuPage

River

delta

part

of the

waters

addresses

in

this

rulemaking?

132.

On

page

10 of

Exhibit

2

(middle)

of your

pre-filed testimony,

you

state

that

in Lower

Des

Plaines

River,

flow

is

controlled

entirely

by

Lake

Michigan

diversions, effluents from

large

POTWs,

and

water-level

manipulation

to

accommodate

barge

traffic.

You

also

state

that

only

1 mile

of

Dresden

Island

Pool

is

not

impounded.

Are

you

saying

that the

entire

flow

of

Lower

Des

Plaines

River

is

accounted for

by

these

three

factors?

133.

On

page

11

of

Exhibit

2

of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

impoundment

effects

in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

eliminated

or greatly

reduced

large

groups

or classes

of

fishes,

including

all

that are

obligate

riffle

dwellers

and

other

species

that

spend

much

of

their

life in

fast

water

over

hard

substrates.

What

obligate

riffle

dwellers

and

other

species

of

fish

that

spend

much

of

their

life

in

fast

water

over

hard

substrates were

eliminated,

from

the

part

of

Des

Plalnes

31

---

River

that

is now

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool,

by

creation

of the

Dresden

and

Brandon

locks

and

dams? On

what

information

do

you

base

your

answer?

134.

Is the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if

fish

species that

are

obligate

riffle

dwellers

are

absent?

135.

On

page

14

of

Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

the

dams

prevent

the

attainment

of

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life

goals

in

the

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

because

dams

have

changed

the

system

from

a

river

to

a

series

of lakes. What

criteria

did

you

use

to

determine

that

Dresden

Island

Pool

is

a

lake?

136.

On

page

14

of

Exhibit

2

of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

the

dams

prevent

the

attainment

of

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life

goals

in the

Upper

Dresden Island

Pool

because

dams

have

eliminated

riffles,

except

in

the

Brandon

tailwaters.

Is

the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if riffles

are

absent?

137.

On

page

14

of

Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed testimony,

you

state

that

the

dams

prevent

the

attainment

of

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life

goals

in the

Upper

Dresden Island

Pool

because

dams

interrupt

fish

migration.

Is

the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if fish

migration

is interrupted?

138.

Do

dams

interrupt

migration

of

aquatic

life,

other

than

fish,

as

much

as

they

interrupt fish

migration?

139.

On

page

16

of Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

fishes

identified

as

simple

lithophils

by

Ohio

EPA

require

cobble/boulder

32

---

substrates

to

spawn.

Does Ohio

EPA’s

definition

of simple

lithophil

include

the

requirement

of cobble/boulder

substrate

for

spawning?

140.

You

state

on page

16

of

Exhibit

2, “Some

may

contend

that

because

these

studies have

shown

the presence

of

spawning

activity

in the

CSSC

and UDP,

this

translates

to the

conclusion

that

better

water

quality

conditions

in these

waters

will result

in an

aquatic community

that attains

the

Clean

Water

Act

aquatic

life goals.”

Do

you

agree that

the

Clean

Water

Act

requires

protection

of

early

life stages

of species

where

attainable?

Do

you

agree

that

where

early life

stages

are an existing

use

that

they

are

an

attainable

use?

What are

the

dissolved

oxygen

requirements

of the

early

life

stages

you

have found

in

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool?

141.

What

is the lWBmod

criteria?

(Page 17

of Exhibit

2).

142. “The

fact that

the

same 10

species dominated

the area

before

the

current

ComEd/MWGen

Adjusted

Standard

went

into effect

as

have

dominated

after it went

into

effect

indicates

that

the

slightly

higher

thermal

standards

allowed

by the

Adjusted

Standard

did not

affect

fish

populations.”

What

do

you

mean

by

“slightly

higher

thermal

standards”?

Do

you

have

any data

comparing

the

ambient

temperatures

of

the Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool, Brandon

Pool

or

the

CAWS before

and

after

AS96-1

0 took effect?

143.

You state

on

P. 18 of

Exhibit 2,

“Ohio

EPA (1987,

plus 2006

update)

classifies

fish

based on

their tolerance

to

environmental

perturbations

such

as

decreasing

water

and

habitat

quality.

How are

these classifications

related

to thermal

impacts?

33

---

144.

On

page

18 of

Exhibit

2

you

testify

regarding the

number

of

tolerant,

moderately

tolerant

and

intolerant

fish

species

found

in the

Dresden

Pool.

What

source

or

sources

did

you

look to

for classification

of these

species?

Why

do you

conclude

on page

18 that

“The

preponderance

of

moderately

tolerant

and

highly

tolerant

fishes

reflects

the

degraded

habitat

of

Dresden

Pool.”?

How

do you

know

it’s not

because

of the

thermal

pollution?

Or

low

dissolved

oxygen

levels?

145.

On page

18 of

Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you state

that

the

present

fish

assemblage

in Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

is

more

abundant,

has

more

species,

and

has

higher

scores

for

the modified

Index

of

Well-Being

(“lWBmod”)

than

in

1993-1995.

You

also

state

several

times

throughout

your

testimony

and

associated

documents

that

physical-habitat

factors

related

to

impoundment

currently

are the

primary

limiting

factors

to

fish in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool.

In

1993-1

995,

was

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

impounded

and

subject

to similar

impoundment-related

physical-habitat

factors

as occur

presently?

146.

On

page

19 of

Exhibit

2

of

your pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

attainment

of Clean

Water

Act

goals

in

upper

Dresden

Island

Pool

will

not

occur

absent

removal

of locks

and

dams

and

cessation

of

barge

traffic.

Is

the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal

not

attainable

if locks,

dams,

and

barge

traffic

are

present?

147.

On page

20

of

Exhibit

2

you

state

‘When

Mr. Rankin,

the

developer

of

the

QHEI,

visited

the

area

in

2004,

he

concluded

that

the

appropriate

34

---

classification

for

the

UDP

would

be

‘Modified

Warmwater Habitat,

Impounded.”

Do

you

agree that

a “visit”

to

the

area

is sufficient

basis

to

make

a

use

classification

recommendation

that

is other

than

a

preliminary

at

best?

148. On

page

21

of

Exhibit

2 of

your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

a

QHEI

score

of

45

is

the

cutoff

that

automatically

pushes

an

area

into

Ohio

EPA’s

limited

or

modified

use

category

that

is

intended

for

waters

that

cannot

attain

the

Clean Water

Act

aquatic

life

goal.

Are

all

Ohio

waters

that

have

QHEI

scores

less

than

45

designated

for

an

aquatic-life

use

less

than

the

Clean

Water

Act

interim

aquatic-life

goal?

149.

You

state

on

p.

22

of Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony

that,

at

RM

279.5

in

July

2008,

EA

did

not

observe

aquatic

macrophytes.

Referring

to

RM

279.5,

you

state

that

“..

.this

area

does

not

have..

.aquatic

macrophytes.”

Why

does

the

QHEI

fieldsheet

(in Attachment

2E to

your

pre-filed

testimony)

of EA

observations

at this

site

(RM

279.5)

in July

2008

indicate

the

presence

of

aquatic

macrophytes

for

the

“Cover”

metric?

15Q.

If

two

trained

QHEI

observers

are

scoring

the

“Cover”

metric

in a

section

of

river,

which

of

the

two

following

scenarios

is

more

likely:

One

observer

misses

seeing

one

or

more

cover

types

that

are

actually present

(and

were

noted

by

a

second

observer),

thus

resulting

in

an

underestimate

of

the

correct

“Cover”

metric score;

or

one

observer

imagines

seeing

one

or

more

cover

types

that

are

actually

not

present

(and

were

not

noted

by

a second

observer),

thus

resulting

in

an

overestimate

of

the

correct

“Cover”-metric

score?

35

---

151.

On

page

23

of Exhibit

2

of your

pre-filed

testimony,

you

state

that

the

QHEI

score

determined

by

MBI

in year

2006

is “too

high”

at River

Mile

279.5

of

Des

Plaines

River

(in

Upper

Dresden

Island

Pool).

On

page

22, you

provide

two

columns of

QHEI

metric

scores

for

comparison.

For

the

second

column

of

metric

scores

on this

page,

which

you

identify

as

EA’s

metric

scores

observed

at

“RM

279.5,”

why

do

these

metric

scores

differ

from

the

metric

scores

on

EA’s