ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 17, 1987

DEPARTMENT OF THE 

ARM~’,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 87—38

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

NEIL A. SMART, COLONEL, DISTRICT ENGINEER; APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

THE

PETITIONER.

E. WILLIAM HUTTON APPEARED ON BEHALF CF THE RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 

3.

Marlin):

This matter comes before the Board on a Petition for

Variance (hereinafter cited as Pet.) filed by the Department of

Army (Army) on March 

23,

1967. In response to the Boardts Order

of April 1, 1987 requesting that Army submit additional

information, Army filed an Amended Petition (hereinafter cited as

Am. Pet.) on May 16, 1987 which supplements the March 23

Petition. Army is requesting that it be granted a five—year

extension, with some modifications, of the variance that the

Board granted to Army on October 25, 1984 in PCB 84—86 Army was

granted in the previous proceeding and is currently seeking in

this proceeding variance from 35 Ill. Adrn. Code 304.105,

Violation of ~ater Cuality Standards, as it applies to the

following Sections: 302.203, Unnatural Sludge; 302.206,

Dissolved Oxygen; 302.208, Chemical Constituents only to the

extent it concerns the standards for total lead, total cadmium,

and total hexavalent chromium; and 302.212, Ammonia Nitrogen and

Un—ionized Ammonia The purpose behind the request for a

variance extension is to allow Army to continue its program of

maintenance dredging in portions of Illinois River (River) in

order to ensure that the River remains navigable. By its Order

of July 16, 1987, the Board granted an Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency’s (Agency) Motion to File Agency Recommendation

Instanter. In its Recommendation (hereinafter cited as Ag.

Rec.j, the Agency recommended that a five—year extension of the

variance be granted subject to certain changes in the variance’s

conditions. Army filed a Response to the Agency Recommendation

on July 17, 1987. Since Army waived its right to a hearing and

no person filed an objection to the variance request, no hearing

was held in this matter.

81—257

In its Petition, the Arrr~y requested that the entire record

for two prior variance proceedings concerning Army’s dredging

activities, PCB 63—25 and PCB 84—81, be incorporated by

reference. The Board stated in its Otder of April 1, 1987 that

it would incorporate Opinions and Orders by the Board by

reference but that “if the Army believes there are documents

upon which the Board must rely to make a final determination in

this matter, those documents must be physically submitted in this

proceeding.” Army has supplied information with its Amended

Petition which includes a report that was submitted in PCB 84—

86. However, Army still requests in its Amended Petition that

“material forwarded by Army in PCB 83—25 be incorporated by

reference.” Army has not provided the Board with copies of this

material. Attachment ~l to the Amended Petition in PCB 83—25 was

previously incorporated into the Board’s Order in PCB 84—86. As

a result, the Board will incorporate that Amended Petition, but

the remainder of the record in PCB 83—25 will not be

incorporated.

The need for maintenance dredging was explained by the Board

in PCB 64—86:

Briefly, the Illinois River is a main pathway

for commerce.  when sedimentary material

accumulates en the bottom of the river

navigation may be impeded.  

Unless the

material is removed the build—up of sediment

could stop river commerce.  Dredging to

remove the sediments may be done by

mechanical means, such as clamshell, backhoe

and dragline, or it may be done by hydraulic

means, such as cutterhead pipeline.  The

material dredged from the river (sediments

and water) may then be disposed of in the

waterway (open water disposal), on the shore

(bankline disposal), or  in a confined

disposal area. Both the dredging operation

and the disposal operation may have adverse

water quality impacts. Several factors may

influence  

these  

impacts  

including:

characteristics of the material to be dredged

(sediment and ambient water), method of

dredging, method of disposal, hydrologic and

meterologic conditions. Army contends that

it essentially has no control over when and

how much dredging will be needed to ensure a

safe navigation channel. Army also claims

that if channel obstructions occur movement

of four billion dollars worth of commodities

would be impaired, costing as much as $150

million  

annually  

for

alternative

transportation.

8 1—258

3

60 PCB at 365—66.

There is nothing in the record to suggest that this need for

maintenance dredging has changed since the Board’s Opinion and

Order of October 25, 1986. In the Agency’s Recommendation, the

Agency states:

Dredging  is  essential  to  continued

navigability of the Illinois waterway.

Dredging activity is carried out pursuant to

Agency 401  Certification ~ C—157—82.

however, the quality of sediment at some

locations in the river is such that the terms

and conditions of the certification and the

Board’s water quality standards cannot be

met, necessitating variance relief....

The hardship resulting from denial of the

variance remains unchanged 

——

the potential

inability to  utilize the river  for

shipping.  Reductions in coal and grain

shipments could have a significant impact on

the state’s economy. Further, the Board, in

PCB 84—86, noted the substantial additional

cost  of  transporting  commodities  by

alternative methods.

Ag. Rec., p. 4).

In its October 25, 1964 Opinion and Order in PCB 84—86, the

Board addressed the environmental impact of past dredging

operations:

Dredging of  the  Illinois River has

historically (1952—1982) occurred along 36.5

miles of the 150—mile length.  The most

relevant water quality monitoring data came

from dredging under variances in PCB 82—136

and 83—25. While water quality violations do

appear in the ãata, it does not appear that

dredging to date has caused or significantly

exacerbated water quality violations (Final

Report in PCB 83—25, Enclosure 2). While

different  dredging  events will  not

necessarily follow this pattern, the data so

far shows minimal water quality impact from

dredging.  

Consequently, on the factual

record presented there, In PCB 84—86 the

Board finds that the anticipated adverse

environmental consequences are outweighed by

the arbitrary and unreasonable hardship that

would be imposed if the Illinois River became

non-navigable to commerce.

81—2 59

4

60 PCB at 366

It is Army’s position that the same conclusions are

currently applicability to the instant variance extension

request. Army claims that this position is supported by results

from tests conducted pursuant to the POE 84—86 variance.

Army states that the test results show that:

a)  Most  sediment samples having high

concentrations of contaminants were fine

grained (greater than 20 percent passing

a ~230 sieve), however, not all fine

grained sediments were contaminated;

b)  Bulk sediment testing often revealed

high concentrations of materials which

did not appear in subsequent elutriate

testing;

c)  Results of  the  elutriate  tests

consistently showed ammonia to be the

single parameter most likely to occur in

high concentrations downstream of the

disposal site, while other parameters

were observed in high concentrations

only sporadically;

d)  No violations of Illinois State water

quality standards resulting from the

disposal of dredge material were

observed during the variance period. On

several occasions, mercury was observed

to exceed the water quality standard

downstream of the disposal site,

however, since the upstream ambient

water also had mercury concentrations in

excess of the standard this violation

can not be attributed to the return

water.

(Pet., p. 5—6)

As enclosure i~l to its Amended Petition, Army supplied the

Board with the underlying sampling and analysis data for these

conclusions.

In its analysis of the Army’s monitoring data, the Agency

claims that Army may have “understated” the adverse environmental

impacts of the dredging activities. First, the Agency states

that the dredging, and corresponding monitoring tests, have been

conducted during periods of high river flows which would provide

81—260

5

for greater dilution of contaminant concentrations. Secondly,

the Agency asserts that a change in methodology in Army’s

conductinq of elutriate tests has resulted in test results that

are not representative of water quality. An elutriate test is

conducted to predict concentrations of contaminants in the water

column after a discharge. The test is performed by mixing a

sample and letting it settle for a period of time. According to

the Agency, the Agency informed Army in 1984 that a settling time

of zero hours (or no settling) would be most representative of a

discharge into the Illinois River. The Agency states that this

methodology was employed for tests conducted in 1984. however,

the Agency asserts that the Army utilized a four—hour settling

period for tests conducted in 1905 and 1986. It is the Agency’s

position that tests conducted in these two years show a “lessened

environmental impact” solely due to the change in methodology.

The Agency claims that “in 1964 all metals except selenium

exceeded water quality standards on at least one occasion and

there were consistent excursions of the lead, copper, and zinc

water quality standards.” Finally, the Agency states that “the

precise adverse environmental impact cannot be determined.”

Despite that pronounceJrent, the Agency concludes that “the

hardship from denial of a variance is so substantial that it

outweighs any adverse environmental impact.” (Ag. Rec., p. 6—7).

One method by which Army could comply with the regulations

at issue would be to dispose of tne dredged material in confined

disposal sites. As enclosure 4~2 to the Amended Petition, Army

submitted cost estimates for long term upland confined disposal

facilities for ten areas that when dredged would cause

violations. Utilization of confined disposal facilities at these

areas would eliminate the violations during dredging. According

to Army’s figures, the total cost for long term upland, confined

disposal for these ten areas amounts to $15,380,000. (Am. Pet.,

enclosure ~2, p. 2).

Also, Army states that the discharge of dredged material at

any given site may or may not meet Certification criteria

depending on hydrologic conditions and the seasonal timetables

when the material originally accretes. Given this uncertainty,

Army maintains that providing long term upland confined disposal

sites for all potential dredging areas would be “unreasonable and

unnecessary hardship”. (Am. Pet., p. 2—3).

Army further contends that current Certification standards

are not appropriate for maintenance dredging when considering the

background quality of the River, tributary input, and other

discharges as well the current federal requirements concerning

dredging and disposal in such waters. Army also offers its

assistance to the Agency in determining Certification standards

which would be more appropriate for the River. (Pet. p., 4; Am.

Pet., p. 3).

81—261

Army made a similar contention in its amended petition in

PCE 63—25 when it said at page 13:

It is arbitrary to apply standards for an

NPDES program to the dredging process. The

effects of dredging discharge, which are not

yet proven, are temporary and no new

constituents are added to the system, even

though the discharge does release available

elements. Federal EPA rules recognize this

point and have specific guidelines governing

the discharge of dredged material.

~e would

propose that through a sediment testing

and

dredging

operations

monitoring

program,

conducted during the variance period, the

Rock Island District Corps of Engineers and

the Agency could work together to develop

meaningful standards and guidelines for

dredging operations.

Given the evidence in the record, the Board concurs with the

Agency in finding that the burden on Army and commerce utilizing

the River would outweigh the environmental impact avoided if the

variance was denied. A denial of the variance extension would

constitute an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

Therefore, the Board will grant Army a variance. The

remaining issues to be decided are the conditions of the

variance. Next, the Board will present Army’s proposed

modifications to the conditions of the previous variance as well

as the Agency’s response to those proposals.

Proposed Variance Conditions

In its request for an extension of the PCB 84—86 variance,

Army requests that Paragraphs 

#2,

3, and 9 of that variance Order

be modified.

Paragraph #2 of the previous variance in part provided that

the variance would apply to potential violations from dredging

only within 25 sites on the Illinois River Waterways between

river miles 80.2 and 230.2, as specified in Attachment No. 1 to

the Amended Petition for Variance filed on May 6, 1963, in PCB

8~—25. Army originally requested modifying Paragraph #2 to

include all potential maintenance dred~ing sites in the LaGrange

Pool between river miles 80.2 and 157.9. This request was

withdrawn in the Amended Petition. (Am. Pet, p. 4).

Paragraph 3 of the 1984 variance deals with ~diment samples

that

must be taken prior to dredging in order to determine

whether the dredging would cause violations. Army seeks to

modify this condition by dropping a five—day biochemical oxygen

demand (SOD5) analysis from the list of parameters that the

8 1—262

7

sediment samples are to be evaluated for. In addition, Army

requests that this pre—dredging sampling requirement be deemed

fulfilled if the same site had been sampled previously as a part

of an annual survey conducted pursuant to the requirements of

Paragraph 9(a). (Pet., 

7).

The Agency’s version of Paragraph #3 specifies that sediment

samples are to be sampled according to Paragraph #10 (of the

Agency’s proposed conditions) which requires in part that the

elutriate tests be conducted with a 30 minute mixing period and a

zero (0)—hour settling period. The Agency version of Paragraph

4~3requires analysis of parameters in the sediments the same as

what Army is requesting save for the Agency’s inclusion of grain

size, SOD5, cadmium, chromium and nickel. In short, the Agency

is not requesting any change in the list of parameters trom the

previous variance. The Agency concurs with Army’s modification

that a Paragraph #3 sample is not necessary if the site was

previously sampled in a survey pursuant to Paragraph #9(a).

However, the Agency adds a further condition; the prior sampling

must have been conducted in the last 12 months. (Ag. Rec., p. 9).

Army is also suggesting a new version of Paragraph 9(a).

Sediment samples taken for this annual “survey” are, to be

analyzed for the same parameters as Army requests in its

Paragraph #3. That is, the suggested changes in testing, from

the previous variance, included dropping the tests for grain

size, BOD~,, cadmium, chromium, and nickel. Similarly, Army’s

version of Paragraph 9(a) eliminates the requirement for the

taking of ambient surface and mid—depth water samples at the time

the sediment samples are gathered. Army also wants to add the

provision that elutriate tests be conducted with a 30 minute

mixing period and a four—hour settling period. (Pet., p. 7—8).

The Agency concurs with Army’s request and proposes to

eliminate water sampling when the survey sediment samples are

taken. Once again, the Agency’s version accepts the list of

parameters from the previous variance. Elutriate tests are to be

utilized with this sampling. However, in the Agency’s version of

the variance conditions, all elutriate tests are to be conducted

with a 30 minute mixing period and zero (0)—hour settling period.

(Ag. Rec., p. 10).

Army’s requested Paragraph 

9(b) essentially modifies the

language of Paragraph 9(c) of the previous variance, which deals

with water quality monitoring requirements during all dredging

events. Army’s list of suggested parameters for testing the

water samples differ from the parameters as prescribed by the

previous variance requirements in that Army no longer wants to

test for total suspended solids, total cadmium, total hexavalent

and total trivalent chromium and total nickel. However, Army’s

request includes that total polychiorinated biphenyls (POE’s) be

analyzed, which was not a requirement of the previous variance.

(Pet., p. 7, 6).

8 1—263

The Agency recommends that the water samples be analyzed for

the parameters as listed in the previous variance. (Ag. Rec.. p.

11).

The next issue concerning these water samples, which are to

be taken for every dredging event, concerns the exact location of

the sampling. The Army requests that the surface sampling, as

required by the previous variance, be eliminated. Also, the Army

requests that each sample consist of three subsamples collected

over a eight—hour period. This procedure was not required in the

previous variance. The previous variance required that four

samples be taken at each sampling point. Although each sample

would consist of three subsamples, Army’s version does not

specify how many samples must be taken.

The Army seeks to collect samples from only two points

downstream of the discharge: one at half the distance to the

periphery of the mixing zone and the other at twice the distance

to the periphery of the mixing zone. The previous variance

required three different points to be sampled downstream,

however, the variance Order only delineated two locations, the

same as specified by Army’s proposal. Army also wishes to sample

only one point representative of the discharge of dredged

material. The previous variance requireã such sampling to be

gathered from three points. (Pet., p. 8—9).

The Agency adopts Army’s position that each sample shall

consist of “three aliquots collected over an eight—hour

period”. Also, the Agency proposal removes the four sample

requirement. However, the Agency’s version retains the surface

sampling requirement. The Agency essentially requests that the

locations for sampling, as specified by the previous variance,

remain unchanged. However, the Agency does add the description

of a third location to the requirement that samples be collected

from three points downstream. The additional location is “at the

periphery of the mixing zone.” (Ag. Rec., p. 11). It is the

Agency’s position that the failure to include this third site

description in the previous variance Order was a clerical

omission. (Ag. Rec., p. 2). The Board agrees.

The final issue regarding the water quality sampling

concerns the frequency with which the samples must be taken given

the differing types of dredges used. Army has requested that the

variance condition concerning this point be modified only to

limit the sampling frequency to no more than five consecutive

days. (Pet., p. 9). The Agency assumes that this request is made

to reflect the fact that Army utilizes a five—day work week. The

Agency concurs with this change. (Ag. Rec., p. 8, 11).

With regard to the Agency’s recommendations, the only

difference between the Agency proposed conditions and the

conditions of the previous variance, which have not already been

81—264

9

discussed, concern modifications of the compliance plan

enunciated in Paragraph #7. The Agency’s version of this

Paragraph includes a specific timetable by which Army must

eventually attain compliance. The Agency’s requested actions and

corresponding deadlines are as follows:

1)  Army must file a Petition for site—specific relief from

the water quality regulation at issue on or before July

1, 1988;

2)  Army must file plans and specifications for the

construction of confined disposal facilities required to

meet 401 Certification #C—157—82 and/or water quality

standards by July 1, 1990, unless Army has already

obtained site-specific relief by that date.

3)  Construction of the combined disposal facility shall be

completed by July 1, 1992.

(Ag. Rec., p. 10)

In addition, the Agency’s Paragraph 4~7 requires that Army

“shall fully cooperate with the Illinois Department of

Transportation” in its compliance efforts. Also, Paragraph #7

includes the provision that the pendancy of a site—specific

rulemaking that was filed before July 1, 1990 does not excuse or

delay the deadlines for compliance by confined disposal

facilities. (Ag. Rec., p. 10).

In its Response to the Agency Recommendation (Response), the

Army states that it will file a petition for site—specific relief

by July 1, 1988. However, Army asserts that “it cannot commit

Congress to authorize or provide funding for the plans and

specifications for the construction of confined disposal

facilities.” Also, Army seems to suggest that it may not be able

to “fully cooperate” with the Illinois Department of

Transportation (IDOT) since Army and IDOT disagree over whether

it is the State’s responsibility to provide land for disposal.

(Response, p. 1—2).

Also, in its Response, the Army states that the Agency’s

proposed conditions of Paragraph #9 concerning the sampling of

the discharge “are not clear, but that resolution of the

technical details can be worked out with the Agency.” (Response,

p. 2).

Cone 1 us ions

Pursuant to Army’s request and the Agency’s Recommendation,

the Board will grant Army a five—year variance. The Board will

require Army to file a Petition for site—specific relief by July

1, 1988. This will allow the Board to consider whether the

Army’s maintenance dredging operations in the River are entitled

81—265

Iü

to permanent relief and to consider Army’s contention that the

current regulations are inappropriate for dredging activities.

If Army fails to meet this deadline, the variance will terminate

on that date. In the event that permanent relief is denied, the

Board may review this variance.

A variance is a mechanism by

which a person is temporarily relieved from compliance with

regulations or Orders of the Board while that person takes action

to ultimately achieve compliance. Variances are not to be

utilized in succession indefinitely as a means of attaining

defacto permanent relief. In other words, if Army is entitled to

permanent relief it must seek that relief through a site—specific

rulemaking.

The Board will not order actions contingent upon the outcome

of a potential site—specific rulemaking. Instead, in Paragraph

#7 of the Order, the Agency will be required to submit to the

Agency by December 1, 1990 plans and specifications for

compliance. The Board will not specify confined disposal

facilities at this time as an alternative may yet be

discovered. Action on a rule change may make the filing

unnecessary. It is also possible that unforeseen events may

cause this Order or its timetables to be modified in the future.

The Board fully realizes that Army cannot commit Congress to

an appropriation of funds for the construction of confined

disposal sites. The Board, though, may condition variances on

the implementation of a compliance plan. It is up to the Army to

resolve any difficulties in carrying out that plan. Army also

asserts that it cannot cooperate “fully” with the IDCT due to a

differing legal opinion concerning the procurement of land

intended for confined disposal sites. The only legal

interpretations that the Board could order Army to accept would

be interpretations by the Board itself, and this Opinion does not

address the propriety of IDOT’s position. However, full

cooperation does not mean blind acceptance of all IDOT

positions. Yet, it is the Board’s belief that cooperation with

IDOT would be fruitful for Army in achieving compliance.

The previous variance, granted in POE 84—86 conditioned the

variance on dredging operations which could violate water quality

standards that were conducted at twenty—five (25) sites between

river mile 80.2 and 230.2. The Board’s Order in PCB 84—86

incorporated by reference the specific locations of those sites

as described in Army’s Amended Petition, Attachment #1 which was

filed in PCB 83—25 on May 6, 1983. The Board will again

incorporate by reference Attachment #1 to Army’s Amended Petition

in POE 83—25 since it was previously incorporated in the Board’s

Order in POE 84—86. The four pages listing the sites will be

attached to the Order accompanying this Opinion.

With regard to the methodology that must be utilized during

elutriate testing, the Board agrees with the Agency and will

require a 30 minute mixing period followed by a zero (0)—hour

81—266

settling period. Similarly, the Board will accept the Agency’s

recommendations with regard to the types of analysis conducted on

sediment as well as water samples. In addition, any parameters

which the Army recommended testing for but which the Agency

failed to address will also be included as part of a sample

analysis (e.g. total POE in a water quality monitoring for all

dredging events). The location and frequency of samples as

requested by the Agency will also be adopted as conditions to the

variance. In general, the Agency’s recommendations seek to

maintain the conditions of the previous variance. Army has not

sufficiently demonstrated, in accordance with its own requests,

the necessity for modifying the conditions of the previous

variance. Certain modification requests by the Army have been

agreed to by the Agency, in those instances, the Board has

accepted the modifications.

In reaching its conclusion in this matter, the Board makes

no finding as to the actual economic efficiency of water

transportation vis a vis other modes. The Board also notes that

this variance is based on the water quality considerations in the

record. 

rfl)e

record gives little indication of impact of var ious

dredging and disposal alternatives on other environmental

concerns such as backwater and side channel habitat, sediment

deposition, and long term impacts. It is possible that some

other method of addressing the dredge disposal problem could

better address the long term needs of the river system. These

broader areas should be addressed in any potential rule change

proceeding. There has also been little consideration of the

appropriate depth or frequency of dredging. The Board takes no

position in this matter beyond finding that granting the variance

with the stated conáitions is appropriate at this time.

The Board finds that a denial of a variance would impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship. The Board hereby grants Army

a variance subject to conditions.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The Board hereby grants the Department of Army, Rock Island

District, Corps of Engineers (Army) variance from 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 304.105, Violation of Water Cuality Standards, as it applies

to the following Sections: 302.203, Unnatural Sludge; 302.206,

Dissolved Oxygen; 302.206, Chemical Constituents only to the

extent it concerns the standards for total lead, total Cadmium,

and total hexavalent Chromium; 302.212, Ammonia Nitrogen and Un-

ionized Ammonia.

1.  This variance will expire on September 4, 1992, or upon

the date on which Army achieves compliance with

applicable water quality standards.

81—267

2.  This variance will apply only to violations of water

quality standards that may occur as a result o~

discharge of dredged material coming from maintenance

dredging of sediments not meeting Illinois EPA 401

certification ~ C—l57—82, and only within the 25 sites

on the Illinois River Waterways between river miles 80.2

and 230.2, as specified in Attachment No. 1 to the

Amended Petition for Variance filed on May 6, 1983, in

POE 83—25 which is incorporated into this Order. The

four pages listing the sites are also attached to the

Order. For purposes of this Order dredging activities

of this type, shall be known as Paragraph No. 2 dredging

events.

3.  Prior to beginning any aredging event, Army shall obtain

sediment core samples at locations and depths within the

reach of the proposed dredge cut which are

representative of that cut, for the purposes of

determining whether such cut is a Paragraph No. 2

dredging event based upon an elutriate test performed in

accordance with Paragraph 10. Sampling and analysis of

the sediments shall include analysis for parameterm

listeã in Paragraph 9(d). This requirement will be

fulfilled if the site has previously been sampled as

pursuant to Paragraph 9(a) within the 12 months prior to

the dredging event.

4.  Army shall conduct a Paragraph No. 2 dredging event only

where necessary to ensure safe navigation, and the

length, width and depth of any such event shall be

reduced as much as feasible, consistent with providing

safe navigation.

5.  For any Iaragraph No. 2 dredging event, Army shall

consider and evaluate the use of mechanical dredging

with backline disposal, as opposed to hydraulic

dredging, for any such event under which less than

50,000 cubic yards will be dredged.

6.  For any Paragraph No. 2 dredging event, Army shall use

all reasonable efforts, other than upl~nd confined

disposal, to reduce the volume and character of

discharges which might cause water quality violations.

Open water disposal is prohibited.

7.  Petitioner shall ~ile with the Board a Petition for

site—specific relief from the above water quality

standards on or before July 1, 1986. Failure te file

the petition will result in immediate termination of

this variance. By December 1, 1990, the Army shall

submit to the Agency plans and specifications for

achieving compliance with the applicable regulations.

81— 268

13

8.  In advance of any necessary Paragraph No. 2 dredging

event, Army shall notify the Agency of the day tnat the

dredging project is scheduled to begin.

9.  Army shall conduct sampling and testing as follows:

a)  On an annual basis, a survey of existing sediment

quality at the 11 sites identified in Attachment #1

to the Amended Petition for Variance in POB 83—25

with a historical dredging frequency average of

once every ten years or less. No less than three

sediment core samples shall be taken from each of

the sites in the areas and to the depths most

likely to be dredged; the actual number of core

samples to be obtained shall be determined by the

Army and the Agency based on the size and shape of

the

area to be dredged; sediment samples shall be

analyzed for grain size, and an elutriate

test,

performed in accordance with Paragraph 10, shall be

employed to analyze for parameters listed in

Paragraph 9(d).

b)  The sampling and testing requirements of Paragraph

3 of this Order.

c)  During and dredging project, whether a Paragraph

No. 2 dredging event or not, water quality impacts

and discharge character shall be monitored as

follows:

1)  Army shall sample the following parameters at

all sampling points listed under Paragraph

9(c)(4): specific conductance; turbidity, oil

and grease; dissolved oxygen; total suspended

solids; total dissolved solids; volatile

suspended solids; total ammonia nitrogen an N;

pH; water temperature; lead (total); zinc

(total); arsenic (total); barium (total);

cadmium (total); chromium (total hexavalent

and total trivalent); copper (total); mercury

(total); nickel (total); selenium (total; and

total polychlorinated biphenyl.

2)  Sampling at the sampling points listed in

Paragraph 9(c)(4) shall be at surface and mid—

depth elevations between mid—channel and the

bank on which disposal occurs, or at point

representative of the discharge. Each sample

shall consist of three aliquots collected over

an eight hour period.

8 1—269

3)  Sampling at the sampling point listed in

Paragraph 9(c)(4) shall be done:

A)  On two consecutive days per week if a 12—

inch dredge is used;

B)  Daily, but not to exceed five consecutive

days per week, if a 20—inch dredge is

used;

C) For use of any other size dredge,

sampling shall be performed at a

frequency in proportion to the amount of

the discharge, but not less than two

consecutive days per week nor more than

five consecutive days per week.

4)  Sampling shall be done at the following

points:

A)  At a point upstream of the influence of

the dredging, but no more than one—half

mile;

B)  At a point within tributaries entering

the dredge cut, if any, upstream of

backwater effects but as close to the

confluence as possible;

C)  At three points downstream of

discharge: 1) at half the distance to

the periphery of the “mixing zone”, 2) at

the periphery of the “mixing zone”, and

3) at twice the distance to the periphery

of the “mixing zone”. The “mixing zone”

shall be defined as an area equal to 25

percent of the cross—sectional area of

the stream or the area of a circle with a

radius of 600 feet, whichever is less;

and

D)  At three points representative of the

discharge of dredged material.

d)  Sediment samples taken under Paragraph 9 shall be

analyzed for the following parameters with the

results of all chemical analyses being expressed on

a dry weight basis: grain size (based on a U.S.

#230 sieve), oil and grease, total volatile solids,

ammonia nitrogen, five—day biochemical oxygen

demand, total polychlorinated biphenyl, arsenic,

barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel,

lead, selenium, and zinc.

81—270

15

10) All sampling and analytical methods to be employed

during the variance period shall follow procedures

established by Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition and Chemistry

Laboratory Manual for Bottom Sediments and Elutriate

Testing, March 1979. In addition to the above

requirements the elutriate test shall consist of a 30—

minute mixing period with a zero (0)—hour settling

period. Army in its discretion may also analyze

additional samples utilizing a longer settlng period.

Both sampling and laboratory analyses shall provide for

replicate testing. Field analyses shall be performed by

trained personnel under direct supervision; laboratory

analyses shall be performed by Agency certified

laboratories.

11) By February 1, 1988, and annually thereafter for the

duration of the variance, Army shall submit to the

Agency the results of sampling under Paragraphs 3 and 9,

the results of any evaluation under Paragraph 5, and the

steps taken to comply with Paragraph 7.

12) Within forty—five days of the date of the Board’s Order,

Army shall submit

the

following Certification

Acceptance to:

DWPC/Cornpliance Assurance Section.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794—9276

CERTIFICATION

I, (We), ____________________________/ having read and

fully understanding the Order in POE 87—38, hereby accept that

Order and agree to be bound by all of its terms and conditions.

Peti tioner

Authorized Agent

Title

81—271

16

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED.

J.D. Dumelle concurred.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev.

Stat. 1985 ch. 111 ~ par. 1041, provides for appeal of final

Orders of the Board within 35 days. The Rules of the Supreme

Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the /7~ day of 

1967, by a vote

of

~

7/

~

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

8 1—272

LF.CENI) FOR. 

flREDr,ING STJHHARY ANT (I1AT~TS

H ISTOR IC

J’ER 

I rM)

OF

S

UMIIARY

‘~‘

J— I 9”?

~~arof_Drecig

lag_Boent loan:

Column A

Map

Key.

Number annignerl to

~red~~e

area

mapa.

Column

B

River

Mile of maintenance 

dredgIng 

arean, perIod 

of r”corvl, me.in,,red In mIIc~’;

ahour. 

the

confluence of tilinoti

and

~Iinntnntppt

tUvern.

Column C 

Local

SIte 

Nnme(n).

Name 

uned

Corpn

pernonnel, 

tnwT~nnt

pilote, etc. to ldr.ntlfy area.

Column U Average 

Volume

per

Job.

Total 

volume 

of

tnnterlat .Iro~I;~”~I‘hirIng the

hlntnrtc pc’rtod d1vtde~T by

the number of timen dredged ntated 

cubIc

yar(ln.

~ Column E Avernge 

Volume 

per

Year. Total volume of materIal 

dr igeil

d~irtnp~

the

hintoric

perIod 

dtvtd”d

by the number of yearn In the )Itntortc period, ntatel In cubic y;trlr~.

Column P 

Frejuency_of 

Dred~ln~.

Hintorlcni frequency average for probability of

being dredr,ed in a

given year expres~e~lan 

1—5 once every

5

yenri;.

Column C Year Lant Dredge!. The latent year in 

the

ht~torLc period dredging wan 

ncron~plInhed.

Column II  Sediment Annlynin. Staten the yearn that nediment 

nnalynin wan performed 

at the atte. If 

none

is indicated, no known nediment analynis work ban 

been done.

Charta

Symbol  Uencriptton:

lndtcntaa approximate reach of channel 

which 

ban had dredgIng

requl rr’mentn d’irtng 

the

hiatorical period. Symbol placement

doen

not tndi.cnre 

c(’,~t,~rL111oor 

width

of dredge cut, 

only

lineal length.

SUMMARY OF’ DREIXflNC

UATA

ILLINOIS t~1VEI~MILg

80.0 TO 230.0

ROCK 

ISLANI) ULSIR 1CT 9—FOOT CHANNEl, PROJEr;’r

195 1—19(32

C

Local

Site

flnme(n) 

and

County(n)

LaGrange

Daymark

Brown E, Cana Count ten

Mouth

of Sangnmon River 

An

Cane (~Schuyler Count ten

Sugar 

Inland

Cans F~ Schuyler Countien

Browning 

Landing

Schuyier E. Mnnnn Count ten

Grand Is.

Fulton fi

Mason Countten

Matnnzas flay

Fulton & Mason Countien

Quiver 18.

Fulton & 

Manoti 

Counties

Big Sister Creek

Fultori & 

Mason 

Countten

A

B

Map

1

2

7

8

River

Mile

80.0—B! .0

88.5—89.5

96.0—95.2

97.0—9~L0

110.0—113.0

113.0—115.0

120.0—123.0

125.5—126.1

Avg. Vol.

(‘or 

.Ini,

J’”r Y”ar

I~ttYir

F’re~-jiirncy

Dredging

Probability

Year

J,ant

Dred~r.d

Serhlmet”

Anal y~i

Yetr(’,

13,000

‘.01)

1—3()

1958

ttclpnted

SIte—No

Act Ivity

‘luring Summary

Period l~’s9

26,500     

H0O

1—30

1962

62,000    

2,80()       

I—IS     

1963

410,700

13,70(1

1—30

1962

211,600

7,300

1—30

1953

165,300

33,100

1—5

1917

22,900     

800

1—30     

1967

AB

C

I)

F

C

S~nnte Island

Fultan & Tazewell Co~tntten

Copperan Creek

Peoria & Tazewell 

Co~,ntIen

Kingston Landing

Peoria & 

Tazewpll

Co,tntteq

Mackinaw River

Peoria F.  Tazewell Co’int ten

LaMarab Cr. 

—

Pekin Rend

Peoria F.  Tazewell Counties

Lick Creek

Peoria &

Tazewell.

Counties

Below Peoria Lock

Peoria & Tazewell. Counties

Above 

Peoria Lock

Peoria 

&

Tazeweil Counties

Kickapoo Creek

Peoria & Tazewell Countien

Peoria Bridges 

—

Farm Creek

Peoria & Tazeweil Coiintte~

Ten Mile Creek

Peoria & Woodford Counties

Blue Creek

Peorl;L F.

Woodiord Countien

9  132.5—134.5

tO  136.0—137.5

11

143.0—146.8

12   147.0—148.0

13  148.0-152.0

154.0—156.6

15

156.6—157.7

16  157.9—158.1

17  159.0—160.0

18  161.0-163.0

19   166.0—168.4

20  172.5—175.0

100,1,00     

6,700     

1—IS     

1972

100,100    

16,600      

1—6       

1979

112,900    

11,100      

1—10     

1982

Ii7,80()

/~1,20()      

1—3      

1982

(,3,20()     

12,600      

1—S      

1979

34,700    

11,600      

1—I       

190?

61,600    

8,300     

1—5      

1982

15,300     

1,500      

1—10     

1979

76,600    

5,100      

1—15     

1962

38,800    

3,800

1—3      

1979

41,200    

1,1.00       

1—30     

1969

126,00(1     

‘.,200      

t—30     

195°

1979, 

‘8!

1979, 

.8~ ,‘P.

1979. ‘81

1981. ‘82

1982

197’l

1979

‘81

1981

0’

21  175.0—178.0

22  180.8—181.0

23  196.0—191.0

24  218.5—220.6

25  224.0—227.0

AB

C

1)

E

F

C

H

Ro~ne Light          

109,532    

10,300

1—30

1955

Peoria 

Woodford Counties

Sennchwine Creek       

49,400    

6.600     

1—7       

1973

Peoria F. Woodford Counties

Sandy Creek

Anticipated S1tp—~o Ac’lvtty ‘luring

Summary

perIod 1948

Marshall County

Spring Cr., — Muse Slough

7(1,200

9,/.0()

1—7

1971

LnSal.le County

taSalte 8end

Anticipated Site—Uo Activity

during

Summary PerIod 1952

LaSalle County

1981

1981