PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD

35 Iii. Adm. Code 302.206

)

)

)

R04-25

)

)

CLERK’S OFFiCE

AUG 042004

STATE OF ftLINOJS

PoHut~onControl ~3oard

TO: See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

that on Wednesday, August 04, 2004, we filed the attached

Memorandum In Response And Opposition To Motion To suspend Consideration Of

Proposed Amendments To The Dissolved Oxygen Standard Pending Development Of Draft

Implementation Rules with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a copy of which is herewith

served upon you.

Roy M. Harsch

Sheila H. Deely

GARDNER CARTON & DOUGLAS LLP

•191 N. Wacker Drive

—

Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60606

312-569-1000

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

•

•

CLERK’S OFFIQE

AUG 04 2O0~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

PotIut~onControl Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R 04-25

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD

)

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.206

)

MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUSPEND

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN

STANDARD PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RULES

The Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies (“IAWA”), by its attorneys Gardner

Carton & Douglas, responds to the Motion to Suspend Consideration ofProposed Amendments

to the Dissolved Oxygen Standard Pending Development of Drafi Implementation Rules

(“Mot.”) filedby the Environmental Law & Policy Center ofthe Midwest, Prairie Rivers

Network and the Sierra Club (collectively,”Environmental Groups”).

The Environmental Groups have filed their motion to suspend this proceeding based on

the absence ofimplementation procedures submitted as part ofthis rulemaking, a claimed

absence ofurgency in the need to revise the dissolved oxygen standard because federal law

allows standards more protective than the National Criteria Document (“NCD”), a claimed lack

ofreal world effect on permittees from the current erroneous dissolved oxygen standard, and,

finally, a claimed lack of availability or ability to review data and other pertinent information in

a timely manner. Much ofthe objection by the Environmental Groups is based on a claimed lack

ofinformation. In addition, the conditions the Environmental Groups want fulfilled before

proceeding with this rulemaking will take years to complete.

The claimed need to suspend this rulemaking is without merit, and the Board should

proceed to fulfill its legal duty to promulgate scientifically defensible standards in accordance

with the NCD. The Petition for Rulemaking by IAWA has been filed to start what is likely to be

---

a lengthy process ofrevising dissolved oxygen standards. This process has hardly been

undertaken in a hasty manner. Rather, IAWA has taken substantial time and incurred significant

cost to ensure that its proposal is scientifically based and well-considered. Because ofthis work,

the Board will have all the information it needs to engage in careful and considered rulemaking.

During the process, the Board and the Environmental Groups will be in a position to askthe

questions they want answered. IAWA will address each ofthe Environmental Group’s claims in

turn.

1.

Illinois EPA Has Authority Over Implementation Rules, and Discussion on

Those Rules Is Proceeding

Toby Frevert ofIllinois EPA noted at the first hearing in this matter that this proceeding

has been undertaken to determine what should be the general use standard for dissolved oxygen

in Illinois waters. The task before the Board is to identify and promulgate a scientifically

defensible dissolved oxygen standard in Illinois. Counsel for IAWA noted that this rulemaking

is the beginning ofthe process ofbringing the Illinois dissolved oxygen water quality standards

up to date, and it is long overdue. IAWA decided to embark on the process ofreviewing the

current dissolved oxygen standard almost three years ago, and engaged Drs. James Garvey and

Matt Whiles, two accomplished and experienced scientific experts, in 2002. A great deal of

work has gone into this rulemaking, and all interested parties had an opportunity to review and

weigh in on the assessment performed by Drs. Garvey and Whiles well before IAWA filed its

petition.

Notwithstanding IAWA’ s efforts, the Environmental Groups imply that IAWA has

omitted something from its rulemaking petitionto support their claim for suspension: “the

petitioner has not presented even the barest outline ofthe implementation rules that the Agency

2

---

will or should adopt.” The Environmental Groups later contradict this absence of“the barest

outline” by noting the recommendation ofIAWA’s expert, which was presented in IAWA’s

Petition, concerning the implementation rules that JAWA anticipates will be developed by

Illinois EPA, as well as the recommendations ofthe NCD. The Environmental Groups have not

raised a specific concern with how the dissolved oxygen standard will be implemented (apart

from a general parsing and academic inquiry on the meaning ofthe word “should” Mot. 7 n. 1),

but have instead merely used the question of implementation rules to delay this proceeding. The

Environmental Groups claim that if a hearing is held, it should be limited to a presentation by Dr.

Garvey ofexpert opinion on supplemental data that has recently become available. IAWA is

puzzled by this recommendation, for it seems to conflict with the claimed need formore

information on implementation rules. The Environmental Groups state that there is “no need for

the Board to rush to consider this proposed change without having access to information

regarding implementation rules,” but it is the opposite that is true. The Board should not rush to

suspend this proceeding at the behest ofthe Environmental Groups when the process ofrevising

the long-outdated dissolved oxygen, standard in Illinois is only just beginning.

The Environmental Groups’ claim concerning the need for implementation rules will be

addressed in time by the Illinois EPA, and IAWA is confident that Illinois EPA will do so in a

competent manner that allows all interested stakeholders to have a voice in the process. Illinois

EPA made a commitment at the hearing to provide information to the Board on implementation

rules. In addition, Illinois EPA is hosting a meeting on the morning ofthe second hearing to

discuss the implementation rules, and the Environmental Groups have been invited and, given

their concern, will surely be in attendance. The Environmental Groups state without citation that

it is Board practice to establish implementation rules, but this is not the case. The practice is that

3

---

the standard is passed and then the implementation rules are promulgated. Adoption of

implementation rules by Illinois EPA comes after the standard is set. Nevertheless, the Board’s

interest in discussing the implementation rules as part ofthis proceeding and having input from

Illinois EPA will be fulfilled during the course ofthis proceeding. Further, the Environmental

Groups’ comparison ofthe need for implementation rules to be established in this proceeding to

the ammonia proceeding ignores the complicate4 nature ofthe ammonia implementation rules

and thc uncomplicated nature ofthe implementation rules for the proposed dissolved oxygen

standard. For dissolved oxygen, all the implementation rules have to do is determine where and

how often sampling should be conducted. The parameters of implementation rules proposed by

IAWA may be found in electronic correspondence circulated to interested parties, which is

attached as Exhibit 1.

2.

A General Use Standard Should Be General, Not “Nuanced”

The proposed standard will be the general use water quality standard for Illinois waters,

or a default standard in the absence ofmore specific standards. A general use water quality

standard is intended to apply generally to the waters in a state, to “waters for which there is no

specific designation.” Section 302.101. The Environmental Groups challenge the generality of

the proposed general use dissolved oxygen standard, claiming that “it is not nuanced,” and does

not take into account “how exceptional the water body, where the water body is located, the

nature ofthe water body and what species are found in the water.” Mot. 6. The Board has

adopted procedures to allow consideration of the exceptional nature and quality ofa water body,

• where the water body is located to the extent that impacts its quality, and the species found in the

water. The most important procedure, the anti-degradation rules, were promulgated by the Board

at the instigation ofthe Environmental Groups. Section 302.105. The anti-degradation rules

4

---

contain three tiers ofwater quality protection, with the most stringent for waters designated as

“Outstanding Resource Waters,” and the second tier provides for added protection better than the

general use water quality standard for “High Quality Waters.” The rules also contain added

protections for “waters ofparticular biological significance.” Anti-degradation review already

requires a stream study, with information on the species found in the water. There is no need for

“nuance” for a general use water quality standard, when all the tools are already present in the

Board’s rules that provide the type ofprotection forhigher quality waters than the Environmental

Groups seek. The Environmental Groups simply have not used these tools to seek the increased

protection that they desire. IAWA, on the other hand, has committed to studying this issue with

the intent to use the tools to designate waterways that may need more stringent protection.

With respect to the consistency ofthe proposed standard with the NCD’ orthe need to

analyze data, the Environmental Groups’ self-serving allegations and unsupported claims should

be considered in the context ofthis rulemaking. IAWA’ s expert, Dr. Jim Garvey, is prepared to

address these points as necessary at the hearing. The Environmental Groups are free to make

their claims in comments to the Board that can be given their appropriate weight based on the

evidence. It is not appropriate, however, to suspend this proceeding because the Environmental

Groups disagree about what the data shows and what it does not, or whether the proposed

standard is consistent with the NCD, and IAWA believes it is.

3.

Positions Taken by the Environmental Groups in Other Proceedings Show

There Is a Clear Need to Proceed with These Rules

IAWA submitted testimony that the original dissolved oxygen standard was hurriedly

promulgated as part ofa flurry ofstandards over thirty years ago. The NCD was issued in 1986,

The Environmental Groups claim one inconsistency with the NCD in the absence ofa 30-day standard,

but JAWA has already stated that it has no objection to the inclusion ofthis standard.

5

---

and clearly changed the science concerning dissolved oxygen water quality. The Illinois

standards have not, however, been changed since the original promulgation.

While acknowledging that the Board will have to address these issues in the future, the

Environmental Groups argue that there is no urgency for the Board to proceed with changes to

the existing standard. The claimed lack ofurgency is based on purported differences between

the proposed standard and the NCD, claimed irrelevance ofthe proposed dissolved oxygen

standard to nutrient standards, including the proposed phosphorus standard (which, in contrast,

the Environmental Groups claim “are needed as soon as possible”), the unknown schedule for

total maximum daily loads (“TMDL5”) concerning dissolved oxygen impairment, and lack of

detail about permit limits involving dissolved oxygen. These claims by the Environmental

Groups are frankly disingenuous and insincere, for these groups regularly cite the current flawed

and indefensible dissolved oxygen standard in objecting to proposed permits, arguing for

stringent permit limits, and pushing Illinois EPA to proceed with TMDLs. In addition, based

upon the positions ofthese same Enviromental Groups, Illinois EPA is regularly placing

dissolved oxygen limits in NPDES permits, and requiring construction schedules to meet it. Tr.

19.

The Environmental Groups have cited dissolved oxygen impairment in permit

proceedings before Illinois EPA and have pushed Illinois EPA to refrain from granting NPDES

permits to applicants that cannot prove their discharge will not cause or contribute to violation of

dissolved oxygen standards. In a letter to Illinois EPA, counsel for the Environmental Law &

Policy Center stated “the Agency should not be granting NPDES permits for discharges without

proofby the applicant that the discharge will not cause or contribute to violations ofstate

dissolved oxygen standards.” See Exhibit 2, letter signed by Albert Ettinger, Environmental Law

6

---

& Policy Center, Jack Darin, Illinois Chapter Sierra Club, and Jean Flemma, Prairie Rivers

Network to Renee Cipriano and Marcia Willhite, Illinois EPA, dated February 2, 2004. Alleged

dissolved oxygen impairment is the basis for a permit appeal pending before the Board in

Des

Plaines River Watershed Alliance, Livable Communities Alliance, Prairie Rivers Network, and

Sierra Club v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Village ofNew Lenox,

PCB 04-88.

In the Petition for Review filed in that case, the Environmental Groups stated that “members of

Petitioners will be affected adversely when pollution discharged under the permit causes or

contributes to the creation oflow oxygen and offensive conditions in Hickory Creek, the Des

Plaines River and the Illinois River and otherwise injures the ecology ofHickory Creek and

downstream waters as a result ofIEPA’s failure to require protective effluent limits, monitoring,

and a proper antidegradation analysis.” The transcript of the public information hearing,

included in the record of that appeal, elaborates on Petitioners’ dissolved oxygen claims.

See,

e.g.,

Tr. 2 1-25, 28 (testimony ofMs. Beth Wentzel, Prairie Rivers Network), attached as Exhibit

3.

IAWA made the point at the first hearing that dissolved oxygen has already had an effect

through the existing TMDLs that have been developed and will continue to play an important

role as new TMDLs are developed. Tr. 20-22. IAWA believes that Illinois ought to get the

standard on which the TMDLs are based correct, and ensure that both the standard and TMDL are

scientifically supported. The Environmental Groups have themselves directed comments to

dissolved oxygen impairment again and again in response to draft TMDLs that have been

developed, and the comments ofthe Environmental Groups show the broad impact that the

dissolved oxygen standard has on other effluent standards and regulatory issues, ranging from

biological oxygen demand to sediment oxygen demand to ammonia to Combined Sewer

7

---

Overflows to stormwaterrunoffto dam removal to stream aeration. See Group Exhibit 4, letters

from Environmental Groups and NIPC to Illinois EPA. The change ofcourse that the

Environmental Groups have made on the impact of the standard is calculated to their current end.

Whether the dissolved oxygen standard is scientifically based is important not only to

whether a TMDL is developed, but also how it is developed. All the modeling that is done and

all the load allocations for various dischargers to the waterway are based on the dissolved

oxygen standard. The Environmental Groups claim that “it is unknown if any total maximum

daily load studies to be done in the next two years will be affected by the dissolved oxygen

standards,” because we do not know how many waters that are impaired under the current

standard “would pass” under the IAWA proposal. Mot. 13. This is true, but whether a waterway

currently listed as impaired would “pass” or not is beside the point. Mere listing ofa waterway

as impaired is not the source ofcost to wastewater treatment facilities or their taxpayers, or other

public and private entities. It is the load limits and other regulatory restrictions that result from a

TMDL study, and the Environmental Groups entirely ignore this fact. There are 31 waterways

on the Two-Year Schedule for TMDL Development that are impaired for dissolved oxygen, and

the TMDL studies for all ofthese waterways will be based on the existing dissolved oxygen

water quality standard. See Exhibit C to Environmental Group’s Motion.

Among many examples ofthe real world costs presented by TMDLs is a comment by the

Forest Preserve District ofDuPage County concerning the draft Salt Creek TMDL Plan. The

Forest Preserve District appears to have concluded that the TMDL called for one oftwo

alternatives to reduce dissolved oxygen: reduce discharges of CBOD and ammonia at the

wastewater treatment plants within the Salt Creek watershed at an estimated cost of$18 million,

or remove the historic and publicly valuable Graue Mill Dam. See Exhibit

5,

Letter from Brett

8

---

Manning, Forest Preserve District ofDuPage County to Illinois EPA, November 12, 2003.

Either alternative prôsents a real world cost to the public that has not been sufficiently addressed

by the Environmental Groups, who simply prefer more stringent limits.

IAWA’s testimony also included information on the development ofnutrient standards in

Illinois, the need for a determination ofthe concentration ofphosphorus at which the

eutrophication cycle begins to cause problematic dissolved oxygen concentrations, and the

general consensus ofmany professional in Illinois that the current Illinois dissolved oxygen

standard does not represent this critical dissolved oxygen concentration. Tr. 32-35, 38-39. This

was the origin ofIAWA’ s work, as the need was clear to determine the critical dissolved oxygen

concentration before a phosphorus standard could be properly developed, and though Illinois

EPA recognized this need, it did not have the time or resources to undertake the assessment. Tr.

35.

The Environmental Groups work hard to separate the issue ofproperly developed nutrient

standards from the dissolved oxygen standard, but their past positions belie these claims. See

Group Ex. 2, directly linking nutrients with dissolved oxygen impairments. It is impossible to

understand how the Environmental Groups can wish so urgentlyfor the establishment ofnutrient

standards without ensuring that the dissolved oxygen standard is sound and based on science,

and all available data show the current standard is not sound.

Conclusion

There is simply no rationale for suspending these proceedings. The TAWA’s assessment

ofthe dissolved oxygen standard has been in the works for years, and has been subject to

extensive comment by all interested parties. Ifvarious parties have scientifically based

objections, the Board will surely take account ofthem, but it is not appropriate to suspend these

proceedings based on the claims in the Environmental Groups’ motion. Illinois EPA is

9

---

competent to address the implementation rules for the proposed standard and-has -already

promised to provide the Board with the information it needs at the appropriate time. In fact, a

meeting ofthe stakeholders with Illinois EPA is scheduled for the morning ofthe second

scheduled hearing. The Environmental Groups’ claims concerning the lack ofurgency to revise

the existing standard are self-serving, and belied by the positions these same groups are regularly

taking in other forums, which clearly show the need for a scientifically defensible- dissolved

oxygen standard in conformance with the

Roy M. Harsch

Sheila H. Deely

GARDNER CARTON & DOUGLAS LLP

191 N. Wacker Drive

—

Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60606

312-569-1440

CHO2/ 22327598.1

10

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Notice

of Filing

and

Memorandum In Response And Opposition To Motion To suspend Consideration Of

Proposed Amendments To The Dissolved Oxygen Standard Pending Development Of Draft

Implementation Rules

was filed by hand delivery with the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board and served upon the parties to whom said Notice is directed by first class mail,

postage prepaid, by depositing in the U.S. Mail at 191 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois on

Wednesday, August 4, 2004.

CHOI/ 12378267.1

---

Service List

R2004-025

Fred L. Hubbard

415 North Gilbert Street

Danville, IL 61834-0012

Alex Messina

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

3150 Roland Avenue

Springfield, IL 62703

Bernard Sawyer

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

6001 W. Pershing Rd.

Cicero, IL 60650-4112

Charles W. Wesselhoft

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan Avenue

Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60601-7567

Claire A. Manning

Posegate & Denes, P.C.

111 N. Sixth Street

Springfield, IL 62705

Connie L. Tonsor

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Deborah J. Williams

•

•

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Dennis L. Duffield

City of Joliet, Department ofPublic Works and

Utilities

921 E. Washington Street

Joliet, IL 60431

Dorothy M. Gunn

Illinois Pollution Control Boark

100 W. Randolph St.

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Erika K. Powers

Barnes & Thomburg

1 N. Wacker

Suite 4400

Chicago, IL 60606

Frederick D. Keady

Vermilion Coal

1979 Johns Drive

Glenview, IL 60025

•

James L. Daugherty

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District

700 West End Avenue

Chicago Heights, IL 60411

James T. Hanington

Ross & Hardies

150 North Michigan Avenue

•Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60601-7567

Joel J. Sternstein

Office ofthe Attorney General

188 West Randolph

20th Floor

Chicago,, IL 60601

---

Service List

R2004-025

John Donahue

City of Geneva

22 South First Street

Geneva, IL 60134-2203

Jonathan Furr

Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

Ketherine D. Hodge

Hodge Dwyer Zeman

3150 Roland Avenue

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield, IL 62705-5776

Larry Cox

Downers Grove Sanitary District

2710 Curtiss Street

Downers Grove, IL

60515

Lisa Frede

Chemical Industry Council ofIllinois

2250 E. Devon Avenue

•

Suite 239

•

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4509

Margaret Hedinger

2601 South Fifth Street

Springfield, IL 62703

Matthew J. Dunn

Office of the Attorney General

188 West Randolph

20th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

Michael G. Rosenberg, Esq.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Mike Callahan

•

Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation

District

•

P0 Box 3307

Bloomington, IL 6 1702-3307

Richard Lanyon

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

100 East Erie Street

Chicago, IL 60611

Richard McGill

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St.

Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

•

•

Sánjay K. Sofat

JEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Stephanie N. Diers

IEPA

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

• Sue Schultz

Illinois American Water Company

300 North Water Works Drive

P.O. Box 24040

Belleville, IL 62223-9040

L

---

Service List

R2004-025

Susan M. Franzetti

10 South LaS alle Street

Suite 3600

Chicago, IL 60603

Tom Muth

Fox Metro Water Reclamation District

682 State Route 31

Oswego, IL 60543

Vicky McKinley

Evanston Environment Board

•

23 Grey Avenue

Evanston, IL 60202

W.C. Blanton

Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP

2300 Main Street

Suite 1000

Kansas City, MO 64108

CHO2/ 22319597.1

---

in

51

-±

---

Message

Page 1 of 1

çowger, Donna

From:

Cowger, Donna on behalfof Harsch, Roy M.

Sent:

Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:52 AM

To:

‘Amessina©IERG.org’; ‘Deborah.Williams@epa.state.il.us’; ‘Jdonahue~geneva.il.us’;‘lfrede@cicil.net’;

‘Stefanie.Diers@epa.state.il.us’; ‘Toby. Frevert@epa.state.il.us’; ‘Cskrukrud@earthlink.net’; ‘AEttinger~elpc.org’;

‘bwentzel~prairierivers.org’;‘Syonkauski©dnrmail.state.il.us’;‘KHodge~IERG.org’;

‘Richard. Lanyon©mwrdgc.dst. ii. us’; ‘claire~posegate-denes.com’

Subject: DO Proposal

At the first hearing in this matter Toby discussed the IEPAs willingness to discuss this proposal and potential

implementation rules. He has set aside the morning of August 12th fora Stakeholder meeting prior to the afternoon

hearing in Springfield. Below is a list of my thoughts on the items that should be included in the IEPA Implementation

Rules for the DO proposal. These are consistent with comments that Jim Garvey got from Chapman that the first full

paragraph on page 39 of Jim’s report “is a good example of the type of implementation documgntallon that is needed for

adequate application of DO standards”.

1. DO should be measured with continuous monitoring devices or approved methods for instantaneous results. These

would include DO meters and appropriate wet chemistry methods. The rule should cite the applicable USEPA test

method, etc.

2. A

single reading below the proposed daily minimum would constitute a violation.

3.

Values above saturation should be reduced to the DO level at saturation in calculating dafly or long term averages.

4. In streams, DO should be:

a. measured in pool or run habitats not riffles,

b. taken at 2/3 or 67 of stream depth,

c. and not taken at the sediment/water interface.

5. In lakes, DO should be taken one meter below the surface in the limnetic zone above the deepest point of the lake.

Please let me know if you would like to participate in this meeting. My phone number is 312 5691441 and my E Mail

address is rbars~.ct~~gcd

Roy Harsch

Donna M. Cowger

Assistant to Roy M. Harsch

Gardner Carton & Douglas LLP

191

North Wacker Drive

Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60606-1698

(312) 569-1682

dcowger~gcd.com

8/2/2004

---

in

ci

—1-

N)

---

I

ENVIRONMENTAL

L~.w

& Poucy CENTER

ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN MINNESOTA OHIO WISCONSIN

February2,2004

Re~ieeCipriano,Director

•

.

. .

O~IV~O

Marcia Wilibite, ChiefBureau

of

Water

Illinois

E.P.A

1021 N.

Grand

Ave.

East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

illinois

62794-9276.

Dear Renee

and Marcia:

We

sincerely appreciate

the

commitment

of

GovernorBlagojevich and

the Agency to

improve on past

efforts

to address nutrient

pollutionin Illinois waters.

We

feel

strongly that

more mustbe donenow

andin

the future toprevent further

degradation

of

water quality from

nutrieât loading,

and to restore

healthy

conditions In ~aters already

suffering

from

excessive

nutrients. Our hope

that

we

can

agree on a

common strategy with specific

steps to move

forward

and address

the issues on a statewidebasis, rather

than debating

them in thecontext of

individual

permits.

As

we

made clear at ourJanuary

14

meeting,

wedo not

believe

it

is legal

or defensible as

a policy matter

for the Agencyto

continua generally

to

issue NPDES permits without limits

for

phc~sphorusgiven federal

law,

illinois

law,

and

the

facts regarding detriments

to

illinois waters

and

those

downstream. While there was apparently some confusion within the

Agency, we

did

not in

connection

with thesettlement oftheFox

River Water Reclamation District permit appeal

or otherwise

agree

that it

was appropriate

to

issue permits

without nutrient limits for new or

•i~creaseddischarges in the Fox

watershed

or

anywhere

else,

Not to start a legal debate but to make ourposition clear, (EPA

should

be writing nutrient

limits for at leastthree reasons:

1. Section 39(a) ofthe

Illinois Environmental Protection

Act

clearly

places the burden on

theapplicant to offer

“proof’ that its

proposed

permit “will

not

cause the aviolation

of

this

Act

or of

regulations thereof.” Permits that allow discharges that may cause

or

contribute

to

violations of

waterquality standards violate 40 CFR 122.44(d) and

the

illinois regulations that

incoiporatc

those

federal requirements.

35111.

Adm. Code

309.141.

Accordingly,

the Agency

should not be

grantingNPDES permits

for

discharges

without proofby the

applicant

that the

discharge will

not cause or

contribute to violations

of

statedissolved

oxygen

standards. Insofar

35 ~

~

OluvE.

SUITE

1300

CI11cA~o.ILLINOIS

oOoOl-21i0

rHoNE

(312) 6736500

MX 1312)

i~5373O

www.eIpc.org

dpc~eIpc.org

---

as applicants never offer anything like

such proof, the Agency should not be issuing permits

without

nutrient, limits.

2. Similarly,

it

is apparent that many illinois discharges are

causing or contributing to

violations ofstate narrative standards prohibiting creation of “offensive conditions.” Certainly,

dischargers are not offering proof that their discharges will not cause such conditions. 40 CFR

122.44(d) explicitly states that a

permit may

not be

granted

for a discharge that maycause or

contribute to a violation of narrative standards.

3. Under. the antidegradation regulations, lowering ofwater quality mayonly be

allowed

if it is necessary to

accommodate important

economic or social development. 40

CFR

131.12;

35 ifi. Adm. Code 302.105(c). A lowering ofwater

quality

is not necessary if it

can

practicably

be avoided. Given that no one

denies that

it is practicable to treat sewerage effluent to a level of

1

mgfL

phosphorus or lower, no

permit

for a new or increased discharge should be allowed for

more phosphorus

than

that.

Because applicants cannot prove that their discharges will not cause or contribute to

violations of dissolved oxygen or offensive conditions

standards

(or atleast have never tried to

do so), the Agencyshould probably not

grant any

permits involving discharge of nuttients unless

the discharge concentrations are below ambient levels.

Further, there

are

also practical economic reasons for imposing nutrient

limits

now.

Currently

many dischargers

are

building or expanding sewerage treatment

plants and

making

treatment choices that will prove to be unwise if later

nutrient

standards impose treatment

requirements that will require costly retrofitting. More critically, a land, sub-surface or other “no

discharge” alternative that looks more costly now because the Agencydoes not require nutrient

controls will be rejected by,many POTWs in favor ofconventional treatment systems that will be

more costly in a few

years

after nutrient

standards are

developed.

One

may

predict building of a large amount ofconventional treatment capacity in the

next four years without nutrient controls if the Agency continues to

grant

permits without

•nutrient limits. The water quality ofmany

streams

will be severely degraded by discharges from

these plants. When numeric nutrient standards are established, the entities that have

conventional

plants

that cannot economically meet the standards will seek

varianées,

use re-

designations

and

other relief

that,

if granted, would result in

many illinois streams

that could

have been protected or restored if nutrient

limits

decades.

Having stated these legal

and

environmental issues so that you

can

see thebases for our

concern, those joining in

this

letter would

like

to reach a reasonable accord. We know that the

Blagojevich Administration is committed to addressing nutrient pollution in illinois

and

we

sincerely appreciate the time

and effort

you

and

your staff

are

devoting to identifying ways to

move forward. We would welcome a specific commitment to propose a numeric standard to the

IPCB by Spring 2006. For the interim period, attached“Dear Design Engineer” letter, modeled

on a letter sent by the Agencytwo years ago, generally states what we think a reasonable

compromise in

this

situation is for the Agency

and

the environment

and

what we hope the

2

---

Agency will do.

Basically,

we would like to

see discharges

of

nutrients minimized.

We believe

that the highestquality illinois

waters

should not receive new or

increased nutrient discharges.

No

waters,

however, should receivenew or increased discharges with more

than

1

mgfL

of

phosphorus except perhaps in very special cases where economic proofofthe need for such an

exception

can

be adequately demonstrated.

We recognize that

this

is a difficult

situation and are open

forward to talking toyou further about these issues.

Sincerely,

Albert Ettinger

Senior Staff Attorney

Environmental

Law and

Policy Center

Jean Flemma

Executive Director

Prairie Rivers Network

illinois Chapter Sierra Club

3

---

-July l~2O02

R~Rcviiion~In ~ p~1jj~P~d~tbc All New and Expended Sewage T~!ffm~PI*~.

DearDedgn~ngb~r

Thepurposeof

this

l~er

Is~ ~tvsm‘~‘slgnprofrsdoà*Isofrac~t

eh~*iges,,in

NPI)ES

p~nitpro~an~s

admiaisratlofl with~

the DMdcg’g

of Wa~rPoUu~fonContrnl sad bow they relate in spplicad~

do~nisaubinbied. in ~ppextofa p~m~spplioadoa~These d~ingesp

in new

llliacis

Pollution

Cc~olBoaadRegulationsth~phe.spenI~crequir~nentsupontheAg~ioykrias~iceofp~rinfrsthat

authorbasneworIncreaseddIscb~rgsofwastawst~~ w~softhe a~ The Agenay Is adjqath~gha

peemit reviewand ~uiatv!ei~uceea

in comp’ywith these

new ~e~mou~s

wIth mMcm~lidditicas!~um

end bm~desupon both thepennk applicant end Agencys~

Inordxinacc”inpliih

this,

It

Is Impotunt

the

nisgp~i,f~jon~ i~d~in~dthe mportsucn

ofearlyand comprehensive ~cfthy

planning

and ieaadngr~ca~to

diep~intngp~

The

flflno~sPollution Conu’ol Bond adopm4 new and.~de~idthonr~guIidcnson

Febx~azyZt, 2002.

These ~nIesbecame ~#bmtlveon Pe~u~y22, 2002 and am be downloaded from the Board at

~

6619/R, 0l..0Q0221 02 Oninion and Order.pdf

using Mob.

Amobat~.

Primarily, these regulations requtrs

thatthe

Agmey pottrm an anilysis ~x all

cowand expandeddischarges in aur~cew~s(requiringNPDES pennlts). The pelinaq pwpcee ofthe

enj*dati~analy~jsis In~re that ~w (ora~pendod)dlseharEee do not canne degiudation In

the.

w~inrinto wttich discharge

unbar atsoluinly necessary. ft degradadcn Is lihely in occer,

the

de~adatjojimuat be held to die ~alt~amo~

practically *thievabte it’d Snek de~1’~lonmeat be

project

•

•

IA ~à

past, tbe peonit ~ppIicaatand their eagineor htve ~eldedupon the method ofwesinwater

uaannent

in be provided based prImarily on coatand the requfronenle ofdie epp&i”~Review by

the

AgencyInok

pkc~pr~ti&rllya~damiguwascamd (~is~~(

~

W~beingpmvlded

by the Agency) and wan based on wf~bcrornot the proposed i~azm~symain would c~*ulatindymeet

efthatstaudards.

It

Is nO~necnsi~ryf~xthe Agency (sod die public)in

becameInvolved lathe pivoca

• much earlier. The revised

degradatlca regiakti~fbcns less an the ruqufre~naitxn~*s&yin

water quality standarde (although compliance with these ~andaxdsis still n~ry) and mote on what

kind oftreztzent

s~istemam

be designed in havetime leastadv~eimpact on the receiving water.

ILUNOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECrION

217/7~2..0610

1 02i Nomii Cr.,a~oA~iaE*sr,

P.O.

Bce 19276, S~itio’e.o,IuJ~co

R~C~o, Dnscma

C~acaH. Rvm,

COVERN0S

---

C

_‘—~.

P~ge2

Revisions in PennluingProcedures

Any dIscharge

of unmad wastewater to surface waters has the potential to cam~ethe

quality of the

receiving weierto becomedegraded. Thezu~kre,sy~msthat do not discharge should be ounsid~and

must be deemed net ~asible before &

Zm.~h2gsystem am be considered.

Examples of non-

discharging systenis are golfcourse, agricultural land, and other types

ofspray inigatic; seepage fields,

and odmer types

ofsubsurhce discharges. ~

should aLso be on sidered for

munjrie~

so

Potential environmental iw~teshould be ex2’nlned and !ncbmded In

the

preliminary engineering report

(orfacilityplan

if

the project Es to receive flmdlng through the

IEPA loan program, eto.)

~c each

option

considered.

To expedite thereview procees, an NPDES permit ~ppIl~tIonshould be submitted withdie

engineering repor~llityplan in cases

there a

discharging system Is the recomuniended conafruotbon

slrcrua~fvs. Plans and ~pocl&atiocsshould not be prep&~duntil the engineeringrepcrrmcilltyplan

b~u

been approved ~ the

Tue .u~

,.‘~

~

an

grepor~Uftyplan *JmdNPDES panuhappilcation

procedures Into one ~

thatmuar becompletedbefore a s~*uth~zedon-tocans~u~(stats pcruiit)

can be l~~ueLThe itons to be Included hi

the gln

repo facility

plan

e~~Irn&

As

theAgency

hnplemente the Board’santi-degradation regulsticnsj addidonaHtems may cometo Hght.

rogeth~tccmmunft~~apprised ofthese

as

thcy

develop. In

the

~ ofcommenly-etadearrom in theprocessing ofsewage~eut

plant

applications. To emqmedfte the traningofpituzits, the Agency hasincluded these asan tit~cl~m~

in ittis ieusr Easreing timatrwer s~does notmai~any

ofthese

CQmm~~Ie*TOtS on iubmisslous.to dw

Agency should help reducethe burden and time~Itt*IstItheA~~~C7Inreviewthe subniuitaL

The Agency tb~nksyou for yo~continuIng coopcruic~nand .patieuce In this matter as we begin

implementing these new requbementa.

If

you have questions or commanta Cii these cbznges~please

coam~owmimielpeIsag eratthepI’~’~nomberglvenabove~

Peanit Section

Division ofWater P~lInrionCoonut

~‘

~

---

Dear Design Engineer:

Ina letter

ofJuly 18,

2002,

Tom

McSwiggin,

then Manager ofthe

Permit Section

oftheDivision ofWater

Pollution Control, wrote

you

regarding revisions in

the

permitting procedures

for all new

and expanded sewerage treatment plants. That

letter

provided guidance regarding

the

then freshly-adopted illinois Pollution Control Board

anti-degradation regulations. That letter also mentioned that, as

theAgency

implemented

the

anti-degradation regulations, additional items might come

to

light regarding which the

Agency would attempt

to

keep

the

regulatedcommunity apprised. Since

July 2002,

additional matters

have come to light

bearing

on

anti-degradationparticularly with regard

to the

discharge

of

nutrients.

As

you

may

be aware, the Agency is now developing

numeric water quality

standards

for

nitrogen and river and stream standards

applicable to phosphorus. Along

with

other states,

illinois has agreed with

U.S.

EPA

to adopt such

criteria

by the end of

2008 and

to allow

time

for Pollution Control Board

consideration,

the Agency

expects

to

present a proposal

to the

Board in 2006.

- -. •

A serious question has

arisen with

regard to the appropriate effluent

limits

for

phosphorus and

other nutrients as to

permits issued during

the four-year

interval during

which numeric standards are

developed. There

are currently in place numeric standards

for phosphorus in lakes

(35111.

Adin.

Code

302.205),

numeric standards

for

all waters

for

dissolved oxygen

(35

111. Adm.

Code 302.206),

and narrative standards regarding

“offensive conditions”

(35

Iii. Adm. Code 302.203)which include “algal blooms” that

can

be

caused

by excessive

nutrients. When

the

discharge

is to a

lake orreservoir, the

Agency

has

been

imposing permit limits

of 1

mg/L

of

phosphorus

for many

years.

However,neither

permit applicants

nor Agency

permit writers

have found it

practical

to

determine appropriate permit limits regarding nitrogenor phosphorus from

the

dissolved

oxygen or“offensive conditions” standards.

Development ofa proper total

maximum

daily load (TMDL) study

for

impaired

waters may

make this

possible in some

cases in

the future.

While

we

have been urged

by some groups to do so, the Agency does not believe

that

it

should now require permit applicants generally

to

prove under SectIon 3

9(a) ofthe

illinois Environmental Protection Act.tha:.

their proposed discharge of

nutrients

wilinot

Cause a violation ofthe dissolved oxygen or “offeusive conditions”

standards

in order to

obtain apermit.

The Agency

does

believe, however,

that given the anti-degradation

regulations and available technologies

for

phosphorus

removal, a concentration

limit

of

lmgIL phosphorus

should generally be imposed on new

and increased discharges

involving phosphorus.

As was explained

in

the

July 18,

2002 letter,

the

anti-degradation regulations

focus

on

treatment

systems that

can

be

designed

to have the least

impact

on the

receiving

water. In

this

regard, it is clear

that

treatment systems

can

be

practicably designed that

discharge phosphorus atlevels at or below 1

mg/L. Dischargers

to lakes

across

Illinois

---

and dischargers

in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin

and many

other

states

have been

meeting

lmg/L effluent

limits

for years. The practicality ofmeeting

this

effluent

limit

is

confirmed

by

the

recentstudy ofthe illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies.

Accordingly, theAgency believes

that

a discharge ofmore

than I mgIL

of

phosphorus

will generally not be

necessary

to

accommodate

important economic or social activity

and

the Agencywill

normally require

an effluent

limit

ofI

mglL

phosphorus in all

permits

subject to

antidegradation

requirements.

In

summary, until

the development ofnumeric nutrient

standards,

the Agencywill

not generally

require

nutrient effluent limits designed to meet thedissolved oxygen-or

offensive conditions

standards.

An exception here would be the situatiori in which a total

maximum

daily load study shows the

need

for such controls.

On the other hand, an effluent

limit

of 1

mgIL

phosphorus will generally be

imposed on all dischargers to

lakes

or

streams

proposing new or

increased

loadings with

a reasonable

potential

to

discharge

that.1~ve1or more of

phosphorus.

A 1

mgfL

phosphorus limit will be imposed

unless the

discharger

limits its

total loading of

phosphorus to that allowed under a prior permit (in which~casethere is no degradation as

to phosphorus) or the applicant proves that, for reasons particular to it, it is economically

infeasible for it to

limit its

discharge of

phosphorus

to 1

mgfL. Any

applicant considering

offering proofthat

it

canilot feasibly limit its phosphorus discharge

to 1

mg/I.. should

consult the enclosedU.S. EPA Interim Economic Guidance

for Water

Quality Standards.

Sincerely,

---

Exhibit 3

---

;,~~4~rg.txt

5/19/2~O3

1

1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2

DRAFT RENEWAL NPDES PERMIT

)

3

TO DISCHARGE INTO WATERS OF

-:

THE STATE

-

VILLAGE OF

4

NEW LENOX

-

STP #1

5

6

-

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS taken at the hearing

7

of the above-entitled matter, held at 701 West Haven

8

Avenue, New -Lenox, Illinois, beforeHearing Officer

9

Deborah Williams, reported by Janice H. Heinemann, CSR,

10

RDR, CRR, a notary public within arid for the County of

11

DuPage and State of Illinois, on the 24th day of April,

12

2003, commencing at the hour of 7:00 p.m.

13

14

APPEARANCES:

15

MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS, IEPA Acting Hearing

16

Officer, Division of Legal Counsel;

17

MR. ALAN

KELLER, Manager,

18

North~rn Municipal Unit, Permit Section;

19

MR. ROBERT MOSHER,

20

Water Quality Standards Unit;

1

MR. ABEL HAILE,

22

Northern Municipal Unit, Permit Section;

23

MR. JAY PATEL, Fiel4~Operations Section;

24

MR. BILL HANMEL, Office of Community Relations.

---

42403hrg.txt

5/19/2003

21

refer to them now in your comments, the web site and where

we can find the information; but if you wouldn’t mind

sending a printout with

--

MS. WENTZEL: Print it all out.

HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: With comments later.

Do you know how many pages we are talking?

MS. WENTZEL: Depends on the size of the font.

And as long as that is official and if I just prInt them

off myself, that’s fine.

HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Because if there were

to be an appeal or something, I think we would want

to be part of the actual records

and

stuff.

MS. WENTZEL: Okay. Then I will certainly do

14

that.

15

Prairie Rivers Network is concerned that

16

the issuance.of this permit as written would violate

17

applicable state and federal law, specifically the

18

applicant and Illinois EPA have not satisfied provisions

19

of the antidegradation policy. And Illinois EPA has not

20

incorporated necessary water qua~ity-based effluent limits

21

for nutrients and oxygen-demanding waste into the permit.

22

In order to save time this evening, my

23

comments will focus on some of the chemical and physical

24

states of Hickory Creek and the need for water

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

ever

that

H

---

42403hrg.txt

5/19/2003

22

1

quality-based effluent limits, and some of the other

2

presenters will cover antidegradation and value of the

3

creek and many other issues.

4

Illinois EPA is required to develop and

5

incorporate water quality-based effluent limitations for

6

any pollutant parameters if there is reasonable potential

7

that it would cause or contribute to an excursion above

8

any water quality standards including narrative standards.

‘

9

This is required by federal regulations which are

10

applicable to state programs. Substantial evidence exists

11

that there is reasonable potential that Hickory Creekis

12

exceeding narrative and numeric water quality standards

13

due to high levels of nutrients and the resulting impacts

14

on dissolved oxygen.

is

First, Illinois EPA has determined that

16

Hickory Creek was not fully supporting Its designated uses

17

and, therefore, not meeting~water quality standards for

18

~the purposes of the State’s 303(d) list. This is an

19

impaired waters list that the State prepares.

20

The creek is on the draft 2002 list due to total dissolved

21

solids, total suspended solids, nutrients, phosphorous,

22.

inorganic nitrogen, and other parameters as well.

23

Potential sources identified in the list’ include municipal

•24

point sources.

r

---

.42403hrg.txt

.

5/19/2003

-

23

1

While the State has been clear that this

2

does not constitute proof that the water is’violating

3

.

standards, I do feel that it at least constitutes

4

reasonable potential that there are violations of water

5

quality standards and, therefore, water quality-based

6

‘~

effluent limits should be determined for those parameters.

7

Fortunately, there is other evidence

8

besides just the presence on the list that there ‘are some

9

problems out there. There is evidence to suggest that

10

phosphorous concentrations are particularly high in the

11

creek. The U.S.G.S. database that I mentioned earlier

12

indicates that for the period of ‘92 to ‘97, which is the

13

most recent five year period on record, total phosphorous

14

exceeded Illinois’s EPA trigger value for more than

15

20 percent of the samples.

.

16

1 think it’s’ worth nOting thatIllix~ois

-

17

EPA’s trigger is eight times

--

appi”oximately eight times

18

higher than the USEPA’s recOmmended criterion. While’ this

19

is not an adopted standard at this time, it does indicate

20

.

that there is high phosphorous

ih

the stream.

. .

21

. .

Furthermore, datacollected in August 2002

-

22

by the Village of Newt Lènox indicate the total phosphorous

23

instream an that particular day when they sampled was

24

between 1.49 and 1.63 milligrams per liter. These

---

42403hrg.txt

‘

5/19/2003

24

1

concentrations are approximately 20 times the USEPA-

2

recommended criterion and more than twice Illinois EPA’s

3

trigger. If these excessive concentra~tions are not enough

4

to warrant limiting phosphorous to Hickory Creek, we also

5

should look at the impacts that nutrient enrichment has on

6

-

dissolved oxygen for which numeric criteria have been

7

adopted by the State.

8

.

As many of you know, excessive nutrient

9

enrichment causes dissolved oxygen to fluctuate

10

considerably over the course of a day as photosynthesis

11

.

produces oxygen during daylight hours and respiration

12

takes that oxygen back out of the water during dark hours.

‘13

Typically the lowest oxygen concentrations are observed

14

right before dawn. And because sampling is seldom

15

conducted at these early hours, violations of the minimum

16

.

dissolved oxygen criterion often go undetected.

-

17

However, reasonable potential of that

18

dissolved oxygen criteria are. violated is evident in the

19

supersaturation of oxygen in the creek during daylight

20

hours, which demonstrat,es considerable photosynthetic

21

activity. Data fromthat sameU.S.G.S~ database indicates

22

that during the full period of record at.that gauge.

23

station, which was from ‘79 to ‘97., dissolvea oxyge~iwas.

24

supersaturated based on the temperature data that was also

---

.42403hrg.txt

.

5/19/2003

25

1

collected for more than 40 percent of the samples.

2

And

I would like to. ask the Agency if they feel

3

that there is any reasonable cause for this in Hickory

4

-

Creek other than photosynthetic activity.

5

MR. MOSHER: Well, usually supersaturation is

6

-~

either caused by photosynthetic activity or ‘extreme

7

turbulence.

-

So given the nature of ‘Hickory Creek, it’s

8

very possible that algae saturation photosynthesis had a

9

part in that.

10

MS. WENTZEL: Given that fluctuations between

11

,

daylight hours and dark hours can be as ‘great as

--

have

-

12

been shown to be as great as 6 to 8 milligrams per liter,

13

there is reasonable potential that dissolved oxygen

14

regularly falls below the adopted minimum of 5.0

15

milligrams per liter.

16

-

The data collected by the applicant on

17

August of 2002 ‘also ‘indicates supersaturation of dissolved

18

saturation. And interestingly, on that day the four sites

19

downstream of the facility were supersaturated and the

20

single üps’tream sample that day was not. Supersaturation

21

of’ dissolved oxygen has also been shown to cause gas

22

bubble trbnma in fish and aquatic invertebrates. I don’t

23

know if that is something that has been considered by the

.

24

Agency.

---

42403hrg.txt

~/19/2oo3

26

1

Maybe I should just ask, is that something

2

that has been considered by the Agency with respect to

3

.

this permit or this issue?

MR. MOSHER: I’m going to have to answer that

5

that I’m not aware of any noted gas bubble disease in fish

6

that are routinely collected by either our staff or IDNR

7

staff. If they ever did report that, I’m sure we would

8

definitely take it seriously and conclude from that

9

incidence.

‘ -

10

MS. WENTZEL: Finally, area residents have

11

observed excessive and offensive aigablooms in the creek,

-

12

and this condition violates the State’s narrative

13

criterion prohibiting offensive conditions that is spelled

14

out in the State regulations.

15

So based on these findings,, I feel that

16

there is more than reasonable potential that the creek is

17,

violating water quality standards. So the next question.

18

is will this particular discharge contribute to the’

. , . . -

19

violations, and I ‘will try to wrap up quickly.

.

20

There certainly is evidence that the existing facility and

21

.

the proposed ex~ansioncontribute a substantial load of

, ,

22

nutrients to Hickory Creek. Page 2 of a document

.

23

submitted by EarthTec,,the applicant’s consultant, dated

24’

April 2, 2002, titled “Impact of Proposed Discharge on

-

---

.42403hrg.txt

-

5/19/2003

27

1

Receiving Streams,” concludes that

--

and this is a

2

quote

—-

Based on available data, the effluent from the’

.3

wastewater treatment plant No. 1 has lower concentrations

4

-

for all comparable parameters except for copper.

5

However, notably absent from the comparison

-

6

were nutrients. The applicant sampling conducted in

7

August of 2002 found 2.76 milligrams per ~iter of total

8

phosphorous in the effluent, almost twice the upstream

9

concentration on that day and six times the average over

10

time for that particular stream.

11

The August 2002 sample also indicated

12

considerably higher nitrate plus nitrite in the effluent

13

than at Hickory Creek.’ In large streams with few other

14

discharges dilution of the waste might alleviate problems

15

associated with these high discharge concentrations..

16

However, Hickory Creek is dominated by flow from

-

17

wastewater treatment plants’particularly during low flow

18

periods. These statistical low flow or the 7010 flow

- ‘

19

reported in the fact sheet is 2.4 cubic feet per second.

.

20

.

The discharge from the expanded facility would be 3.9

‘ .

21

cubic feet per second.

‘

22

‘

And because cumulatIve impacts o’f other

‘

‘ ‘

23

discharges must also be considered before permitting a

‘

24

discharge, it is worth noting that according to the permit

---

42403hrg.txt

5/19/2003

28

1

compliance system the sum of average flows from all sewage

2

treatment plants in the upper watershed is over 13 cubic

3

feet per second. So it is certainly an effluent-dominated

4

-

stream.

5

‘

The existing and proposed facility will

6

also discharge other oxygen-demanding wastes, namely BOD,

7

that exacerbates the dissolved oxygen problems previously

8.

mentioned. There is no evidence in the file that,,,,, Illinois

9

EPA conducted any analyses to determine levels ‘of BOD that

‘ -

10

would ensure that dissolved oxygen criteria will be met.

11

Prior to issuance of this ‘permit Illinois EPA must conduct-

12

such an analysis using an established method such as a

13

Streeter-Pheips equation to determine allowable levels of

14

HOD.

.

‘

,

15

To conclude and give somebody else the

16

mike, I just want ,to emphasize that because there’ is

17

reasonable potential that this facility currently

18

contributes and, if it expands, will further contribute to

,

19

water quality standard violations for offensive conditions

20

and dissolved oxygen, Illinois EPA must develop water

‘

21

quality based effluent limits for nutrient and HOD for

22

this facility. and incorporate them into the permit.

23

‘

The development of these water

‘

.

. . ‘

‘

24

quality-based effluent limits should include an assessment

---

Exhibit

4

---

Illinois

Chapter

:

Club”

December 1,2003

200 N. Michigan Ave., Suite

505,

Chicago, IL 60601-5908

(312)251-168Q (312) 251-1780 (FAX)

Bruce Yurdin

Illinois’~P~

,“..‘

. .‘

,. ,

.,

:

,,.

,.‘

Bureau ofWater- Watershed Management.

Section, Planning

Unit

1021’NGrand.Ave. East

. ‘.

:

POBpx’19276

~.

“ .

:,

‘

.:

Springfield,’IL

62794-9276...

‘

.

‘~.

RE: Draft T~~pLsfor

East Branch and

West

BianchDuPage’River aiid

Salt

Cteek

Dear Bruce:

L

The

Sierra

Club, Illinois Chapter welcomes

the draft ThIDLs

for three watersheds ofthe

DuPageRiver.

The development of

TMDLs and

Watershed Implementation

Plans

is an

important step

in addressing~.

water quality issues m these watersheds where many Sierra Club members live SierraClub members

use thàse waterways for activities including fishing, canoeing and

wildlife

viewing and depend on good

water

quality

for such activities. ‘Members ofthe Club’s River

Prairie Group

have

been

monitoring a

suite ofwater

quality

parameters in theEast

and

West branches ofthe

DuPage

River

aiid

Salt Creek

S11ICC 2000.

“

‘

.

‘

.

‘

:

‘ ‘

In this’letter, we

will

offer suggestions for improvements to the Th4DLs

and

Watershed Implementation

Plans (VIP). These

suggestions are

oftwo types: those applicable to all

three TMDLs

and

WIPs, and

rècoinme~ndàtions‘specific to a given

TMDL

and/or plan. Among

ourconcerns are

nutrient pollution

contributions

‘to low dissolved oxygen levels,

the

use’of’chloride as asubstitute for

total

dissolved

solids/conductivity,

and

impairments

not addressed by the

TMDLs and WIPs.

Failure té address

ñütrieift

pollOtión’

‘

‘

‘ .

.

.

.

.

Our greatest coiicern

is

the failure’to address the

role which

nutrients play in

eproblems with’low

dissolved

oxygen levels in the East Branch

and Salt

Creek. The combination ofthe decision to not

develop TMDLs for water

quality

parameters for which there is not an Illinois water

quality standard

and

the

‘limited algal.information

av liable ,for modeling have produced

TM)Ls which

consequently

focus

all

their attention on the reduction ofoxygen demand from other

sources

to resolve thelow

dissolved oxygen problems ofthese waterways. We

are

concerned That

this

will make

the

recovery of

dissorved oxygen levels necessary to

sustain

aquatic

life

more difficult.

‘

‘

.

This

paper was recycledfrom 100 post-consumer waste.

Se~zt

viaf~

to217-785-1225’

---

-‘1

Sierm Club, Illinois Chaptercomments onTMDLs forEast Branch and West Branch

b~Page

River~ndSalt Creek page 2

We support the~recommendationsof

East

Branch and

Salt:

Creek

TMDLS. and W113s to.lirnitthè’.

discharge

of

.deoxygenaling.waste

(BOD)’ and

ammonia irito these waterways-as a component of’the plan

to achieve compliant’ levels ofdissolved oxygen. However, we

are cóncérned that

by not addressing,the”

“role which

ñtitrient-fed à.lgaè’

play, the’scOpe oftheproblem

will

not be addressed: ‘Tiffs is manifested in

various

specific ways in the TMDLs

and WIPs

for both watersheds as described below. For theEast

Branch, the resulting WIP places

its

emphasis on reductions in

sediment oxygen demand

tolevels

that

cannot feasiblyhe reached. Clearly,

in order to develop a workable WIT’ torestore the

East Branch,

fi.irther reductions ÔfBOD from other sources and nutrients from a

variety

ofsources will be necessary.

In the

case

of

Salt Creek,,

it meant

‘thatfuture increases

in wastewater discharge were ignored in the

modeling.

‘ .

‘

~.

.

‘East

Branch

.‘

‘

.

‘

“

In the

case

ofthe East Branch, none ofthe wastewaterplants which discharge to

~the

river

will

need to

reduce BOD oç

ammonia

beyond their

current

loadings So no change in current conditions is required

The WIP also recommends

that

Churchill Woods Lake be aerated

and

organic

mattefgetting

into the

river

from

runoff

be reduced The reduction

in

organic

matter input into the river is aimed at reducing

‘the sOdiment oxygen demand (SOD) to levels as low

as0.02-g/

sq. ft/day insome stream reaches.’

However,

thé

feasibility of

this

is questioned in both the

TMDL and

the \VIP:

Literature values suggestthat the desired

SOD of

0.02

g~-thy

in some reachesis rarelyfound in natural streams

(East Branch TMDL, Sec.

6.4.3)

DO dueto reduction

ofSOD

that derives from this will take an uncertain amoUnt-oftime and its effectiveness will

iniliallybe unknown. (EastBrañchWlP, Sec. ‘U)

.

This leaves the situation

in

which aeration of Churchill Lake is the sole

immediate action to be taken

to

increase dissolved oxygen

levels in the

East ~ranch

Salt Creek

For Sált”Creek, the abs~iiceOf data”

on’macrophyt~es’and attached algae led ‘to aWIP that does

not:

address algae despite thd

finding

of

diurnal

variations in dissolved oxygen levels which couldnot be

modeled solely

with data

on algae in the water

co’lithn.

,

“

...

‘

,‘Cousequentiy,

any DO variation

due to

the’~resènc~

of

Uncroph~á

and attacia

dat~isnot ~flectedin the model

“results.

Therefore, the model,

‘ccii

aftergood calibration for chlorpphyli’à,

is not

.capable’of simulating

thefull’

extent

of

the diurnalvariation of’DO. (Salt Creek TMDI~Sec.

5.3.1)

‘

,

:

Like

forthe East

Branch,

the WIP requires no change.from the

current

levels ofloading ofBOD

and

-

ammonia

from wastewaterdischarges an the creek. The sole immediate change recommended is the

reduction

ofSOD

through

the control ofdeoxygenating s~’asteentering the creekfrom stormwater

runoff

and combined

sewer overflows.

Yet, the efibetiveness ofthis

approach is.questioned..~

.~

In

addition, reduction

ofVSS volatile suspended

solidsj from stormwater and

CSO

sources ~II occur over tune

m

relation

to

nupleinentalion ofthe

Phase

II and WW1P NPDES

permits However,

the

improvement DO dueto

‘reduction

ofSOD that derives

from this will take an uncertainamount oftime’

with

uiicerthun effectiveness. ‘(Sali’

Creek WJP, Sec 42)

As a

52

decrease

in VSS from

these sources

is the

‘projectedneed

torestore

dissolved Oxygenlevelsin

Salt

Creek, the

uncertainty

of

this

approach is troublesome. Still, CSO contributions to low dissolved

---

Sierra CIub,’Illinois Chapterconuneuts

on

TMDLs’for EastBranch and West Branch DuPage.River and Salt Creek

,

page 3

oxygen

levels

In the

creek along with their

other obvious negative

impacts

on the use ofthe

creek

by

area residents’rnake this an

issue

worth

immediate attention.

As

the connection between.nutrient

levels,

.algae and demand

on

dissolved

oxygen was not

considered,,

we have to also,,question,rnodelresults,thatsuggest

that

increases in-point source, disc~argesimprove

mstream DO levels due to augmented flow

This

assumption led to the impacts of

thture

mcreases in

wastewáterdischarge. to the

creek

being ignored in the modeling. (Salt Creek TMDL,

Sec.

6.2)

-‘

In

summary,

our

concern

with

:bgth

the East

Branáh and

Salt

Creek.

TMDLs

is that by

overlooking

the,

rolewhich

nutrients.play in dausing.iow.dissolved. oxygen

levels in

both streams, WIPs hayebeen

produced whicirplace muCh ofthe

burden

to restore

the streatu~

to.h~aithyDO. leve~s’onreducing VSS

in

runoff.

The uncertainty of

this

approach, reiterated in

the

text ofthe

TMDLs and WIT’s numerous

tunes,

does

not bode well for restoration of dissolved oxygen to levels protective of

aquatic

life We are

also

concerned that.flithre

impacts of

increases’inwastewater

discharge have also been underestimated

by this

approach.’

Clearly,,to be.

effective,

the

TMDL must

consider

and

address all water.

quality.

,:,

parameters which

affect

dissolved’oxygCn levels, even tI~osesuch as nutrients for

which Illinois

water..

-

quality

standards currently

do not

exist.

.

.

.. -_

We recommei~d.thatresoui~cesbe put towards’the.eollectioirofiiutrient, diurnal DO, algal (both water

column and,

attached).

and macrophyte dataneóded

to properly model the-role-of

iiutiients

in thOse.

waterways. The control ofnutrients should be included as a component ofthe TMDLs..

T.

Concerns

& Recommendations

regarding

Chloride TMDL

We support the

reductions

in chloride loading prescribed for the

East

Branch (21), West

Branch

(35),

Salt Creek (8)

and

Addison Cteek (41

.),

in the three TMDLs

and WIT’s.

We recom~nendthat’

outreach tolocal

citizens

be employed as one ofthe means tofoster changes in road salt best

management

practices

in theDuPagO River watershed. The

Northeastern

Illinois Planning Commission

brochure

PavementDeicing-Minimizingthe Environmental Impacts

offers a good overview ofthe

impacts of~roadsalt

and alternative

deicing management, methods.

~‘

‘ ‘.

We

are;

hOwever, concerned with

the us~’

of

chloride

as a

substitute

for

total

dissolved solids

(TDS)/conductivity,

a water

quality

parameterfor which there’is a numeric

~tandard.

For example in

Salt Creek, a number øç

stream segments are listed as impaired

for

ThS/conducI~vity~

but not for

chloride (Salt Creek TMDL, Table 2 1) Thswould suggest that the

TDS

violations found m

the

creek

are

not

just

due to chlorides Further explanation is needed to demonstratethat the chloride reductions

called for in the ThIDLs

will

be sufficient ~oaddress

TDS

violations

Issues not Addressed by

the TMDLs and WJPs

I.

EachTMDL should explain

why or why, not a

cause

of

impairment listed

in the 1998 3O3(d)

list

for

any wat~rbodyiii

the three

watersheds was,a4dressed,in.the~TMDL.,

For

example,. St..JosephCreek in

the

East Branch. watershed is listed

for

nutrients, chloride and habitat alterations,

yetthe.creek’s

impairments

are

not

considered in

the

EUst Branch TMI)L,

even

though chloride is

one ofthe

parameters that.the TMI)L’ does.address

.

‘.

.

‘ ‘..

‘

,‘

. .

.

~

I’

---

Sierra Club,-Illinàis Cha~tércemments

on

ThIDLs forEsa Bthncli’and West Br ch’DvPge1Threr~andSalt Creek

page 4

Other waterbodies and issues

not addressed include~

:

.‘: ‘

. .

-

.

East

Branch

DuPageRiver

Watershed-

Impairments

in the East Branch due to

nutrientr, siltation,

habitat ‘alterations, pathogensaEd chlOrineare

nOt

addresseciby the

East Branch’ TMDL. In

addition;

the

impairments OfSt;

J.osephCrOek, Lacey Creek

and Hldden’Lake

are

not’

addressed. Which’

i~cptrect-

Table 2-1 Or Figure 2-1? :~‘h~show

a.’different riumber

of

impaired’ se

ient&on~the”EástBranCh ‘and’

its

tributaries.

.

.

“ .‘ ~‘

‘

-.

‘

‘.:; “

. ‘,.

.

‘ ‘‘,.

,..

:‘‘ ‘

West.Branch:Dupage Rh/ar’. Wathrslzed-

Ir~ipairthCnts.in’

the’,1998 ‘3O3(d)

list

include

phosphOrus,

nitrogen,‘nitrate, salinity,~tota1dissOlved solids.’(TDS’ chlorides,. totalsuspended’

solids

(TS

S),’”’

ammoma,

pathogens, siltation, flow

alterations,

and other

habitat

alterations

Salt Creek Watershed-

The 1998 303(d) bst shows Salt Creek as also impaired due to

nutrients, siltation

and

pathogens Busse Woods

Lake

is hsted as

impaired

due to

siltation, dissolved oxygen, suspended

solids

and~noxious

aquatic plants.

“Meacharn Creèkand

Westbury

Lake were also listed a~

‘water.’~

segménts’to be inclUded’in-the’ Salt- Creek

TMDL

‘

:

“‘‘:

‘. ,.‘‘

~‘.

..

‘. ‘. .‘ ‘~

“ ..‘

2.

,

Since’the 303(d)

lIst

has been updated

(in

2002’)

after

the

TMDLs for”the thtee ratersheds.gOt’’.’,

underway, the TMI)L

should

also list”axiy

new

impairtheñts

‘that ‘have been

identifled’and’explain how

these issues will be addressed

in~thethtUre~

‘

“ “ “‘

“ . .

., .

h”’

. , .‘.

General

COmments

,

.

-

.

.

1. ‘Since discharge

mOnitoring reports typically

i~eport’flo*’

data

on‘a

daily

basis, wewonder’~hypOint

discharge daily flow data were not made available tothe modelers to improve the hydrological

simulation of

the

HSPF model

Since point Sourcesare responsiblefora larae portion’of

flow during low-flow periods, thequalitji~

Ofthe point~”

source datais likely leadingto error in the calibmtion and validalion. Since the point-source discharge data were

provided asmonthly values daily point source thschargevariation is not reflected in the snnulatton,

and theeffect of

this monthly datawould be~ltthe strong stduring tow -fl~wperi9ds:~

TMDL, Sec.

5.2.6)

2 We

recommendthat a summary document

be created for each

TMDLwhich briefly describes

the

TMDL

process

and

therecommendations oftheWIP This piecewould be

useful

for SierraClub members to use to

promote thechanges in deicmg

practices

needed m each ofthe 3

watersheds

It could

also explain

the

actions needed

tomeet the

dissolved oxygen standard

in the ‘East

Branch and

Salt Creek.watershed~.

3. We

also

recOmmend

that local watershedcommittees

be

formed

to address theneed to

cut down

on

polluted

runoffin all

3

watersheds.

Local Sierra Club members cen help in

this’wOrk, including steam’

monitOring

to gauge the

success

of

such efforts.

, ,‘ ‘ ‘

‘

‘

“

In.summary, Sierra Club

sees the’.draft TMDLs

for thO East

Branch and West

Branch ofthe’

DuPage River’

and

Salt Creek as’a first step in

addressing

the

problOms

ofthesewaterways. We

support”the’proposals

.fot

limititig BOD

and anunonia loading

into

the

East’Brañch

and

Salt Creek

and

for

reducing

pollution

from

runofl~especially

road

salt, in all

3

watersheds.

However, we

find

the absenceof

any control.’ofnutrient’

pollution into the

East

Branch

and

Salt Creek to be a

serious

omission from tire

cleanup plans. Nutrient

---

Sieim Club, Illinois Chapter.comments on TMDLs forEast Branch and West

Branch

DuPageRiver and Salt Creek

page

5

contributions to algae and aquatic plant growthmust be addressed if

we

are serious about restoring

thelevels

of

dissoived oxygen’inthese streams

to

levels supportive

of

aquatic life.

-

Thank

you for

the opportunity to comment on the draft TMDLs

for ‘the

DuPageRiver basin.

We

look

forward

to

working with the

Agency ‘on

the implementation

-of

the cleanup plans.

Sincerely,

CindySkrukrud~

Ph.D.

-

Clean

Water

Advocate

---

~‘_‘:~‘~

PrOtecting

Illinois” Streams

Network

2. Use ofthe chloride standard as a surrogate for the TDS standard is unjustified.

809 South Fifth Street

Champaign,

IL

61820-6215

www~praixierivers.org

217-344-2371

Fax217-344-2381

In developing the

TMDL

for

total dissolved solids (EDS)‘and chloride,

it

was

assumed

that

if the chloride standard of500 mg/L

is

met, the total dissolved

solids standard of 1000 mgiL will be met. HOwever, the information presented

in‘the

TMI)L document

suggest

that this

is nOt -an appropriate assumption. The

The

Illinois Affiliate

of the

National

Wild4fe

Federation

sprinted

on

December 1,2003

Mr.

Bruce Yurdin

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North GrandAvenue East

P. C’~Box 19~76

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

0EC022003

Watersd

Management

S~tión

BUREAU

OF

WATER

Executive

Director

Jean Flemma

Board of

Directárs

Eric F~eyfogle

President

Urbana

Michael Rosenthal

Secretary

‘Glëncoe

Jon

McNussen

-

Treasurer

Villa Grove

Clark Bullard

Urbana

Ellyn Bullock

Champan

Mercedes Davison

CongerviUe

(regory

Foster

Urbana

Charles Goodail

Side!!

Bruce Harmon

mpaign

Ward McDonald

Mahomet

Virginia

Scott

Springfield

Re: Comments on the Ea~tBranch ofthe

Pupag~Riv~rTMDL

Dear Mr. Yurdin:

On behalfof Prairie Rivers Network, a statewide river conservation organization-

and

the illinois affiliate ofNational Wildlife.Federation, I submit the following

comments

on the

East

Branch oftheDupage River

TMDL

and Implementation

Plan.

We recognize the challenge of cost ‘effectively developing defensible

and

effective TMDLs and appreciate the efforts that have gone into assembling-and

analyzing the information in the document.

While

we believe that this effort

was

a

good start, we ‘feel that significant modifications

are

necessary prior to

finalizing

the TMDL.

1. Several other pollutants

are

listed on

the

303(d) list as causes of

impairment.

What is the state’s projected timeline for completingTMDLs for these other

pollutants?

---

Thst’Branch

DupageRiver-TMDLGómmenis

-

Prairie Rivers NetWork

correlation between chloride and conductivity was estimated for the East Branch stations as

shown on the plot on page 4-4 of the report It was stated that the TDS standard of 1000 mg/L

is equivalentto conductivity of 1667 jimhofcm The plot and equation presented suggest that a

more appropriate target for chiondewould be approximately 400 mg/L

3 Point source contributions to chloride standard violations may have been underestimated

The contribution to chloride loads from point sources was estimated from the measured

concentrations-on September 16, 1997 While the report indicated that CSO discharge data

was unavailable, there are likely combined sewers in the area. Because some stormwateris

routed to and through the sewage treatment plant,

it is reasonable to expect that the road salt

that causes increased chlonde instream during wintermonths could also cause increased

chloride at the sewage treatment plants that receiver stormwater Ifchloride has not been

monitored in the effluent ofthese sewage treatment plants during wintermonths, such

momtormg should be conducted before assuming that the efffluent contributions to chloride

standards violations are minimal

4 Failure to identify maximum nutrient loads is unacceptable

Several pollutants c’oniribute to violations oidissólved oxygen (DQ) standards. One purpose

of the draft TMDLis to identify maximuni loads forpollutants that affect DO to ensurC that

the standards are met at all times: ThOrefore, it is not appropriate to exclude nutrients from

this analysis. It is not necessary to have

adopted, nutiien~standards before determining~

maximum loads for meeting DO standards. There are currently no instrearn water quality

standards for CBOD, but water quality based effluent limits are determined and

enforced to

ensurd that DO standards are met. Nutrients should be similarly limited to ensure that these

standards are met.

Additionally, the largest reduction ofoxygen demand that

is

pràposed iri this TMDL is the

reduction ‘ofsediment oxygen demand (SOD). NOtrients contribute

to water

column algae and

periphyton growth. These organisms eventually die, may settle to the streambottoms, and

decay. This process contributes to sediment oxygen demand. Therefore, to reduce SOD,

nutrients should be limited.

‘

-

5

After

calibrating the model, themodel should be validated using available water

quality data.to

determine

the extent to

which

it

accurately predicts conditions;

2

---

East

Brasich Dupage

River TMDLCo~ninint~

Prairie Rivers

Network

-

_7.

6

Error

analysis should be conducted as a

means ofdetermining an appropriate margin ofsafety

The

margin

of

safety

(MOS) must “take into account

any

lack of knowledgeconcerning the

relationship between effluent

limitations

and water quality

‘~

(CWA §303(d)(l)(C))

Therefore, to set aside an appropriate

margin

ofsafety, either explicitly or implicitly, the

uncertainty

associated with the modeling must

first

be determined It is not clear from the

discussion of MOS

in

the

TMDL

document whether a relatively largeMOS is

assumed

based

on considerable uncertainty or a small MOS is

assumed based

on

less uncertainty

A

TMDL should specjfy the allowable loading and

proposed reduction of SOD

The implementation plan refers to a reduction of YSS in order to achieve the reductions of

SOD However, the

TMDL

document describes no

TMDL

for VSS Additionally, it is not

clear that YSS is the

only

component ofSOD

Because

these

are

not settleable solids

and

would not be expected to settle to the

stream

bottom,

this

relationship between VSS

and

SOD

isparticularlyunclear.

‘

-

-

-

‘

-

8. Estimated

BMPs

that are already in place should be included in the modeling.

-

Oti page 3-13, the report states

that

no BMPs were included in the model because d~ta

regarding thelocation ofthesepractices

was

not available. This assumption represents an

overestimate ofthe contribution from storinwater sources.

-

When these sources

are

overestimated

and

the

model

is calibrated to actual conditions, other sources ofpollutants,

including

point

source contributions, may be underestimated. To the extent possible, the

BMPs that

are

already in place should be estimated and included in themodeling~

9~ The implementation plan does not provide reasonable assurance thatload reductions frpm

stormwaterdischarges will be achie~ied.

-

This TMDL

demonstrates that discharges from MS4s

and

çSOs

are

causing or

contributing

to

violations ofapplicable water

quality standards

for DO

and

chloride Because the general

permit

for MS4s specifically prohibits discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of

standards

and

CSO

permits

typically contain a

similar

special condition, the holders ofthese

pórmits are currently

violating

the

terms ofthe

p’ermits.

Pleaseidentify theMS4 operators

whose

stdrm

sewers discharge to Waters in the

watershed, and

provide more detail on the

measures that

these permittees

must implement as i,vell as the proposed timeline for

3

---

)

East Branch Dupage

RiverITMDL Comments

Praine Rivers Network

-

.

.~-.

.

~.

-

compliance Ifthe terms of the general MS4 permit do not contain provisions specific enough

to comply with water quality standards, please provide a timehne

for

TEPA to develop an

mdividual permit for these discharges

-

*

*-

*

:

~-

r

Prairie Rivers Network hopes to continue to work with the state to ensure that these and future

-:

TMDLs are

as effective

and defensible as possible We would welcome the opportunity to-lscus~

these

comments

further and look forward to yourresponse

-

p

-

—

Sincerely,.

~-, ~.•

~-

:.

M Beth

Wentzel

Watershed Scientist

r

I

:‘~:-~--

---

I

Virginia Scott

Springfield

,~i/•

~

Prairie Rivers

Protecting Illinois’ Streams

Deéember 1,2003

Mr. Bruce Yurdin

-

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Giand-

Avenue

East

:P.0.Box

19276

Springfiôld, IL 62794-9276

Re~

Comments

on thó

SallCrèëk-TMDL

Dear

Mr. Yurdin:

-

Executive Director

Jean

Flemma

Board of

Directors

Eric Freyfogle

-

Président

Urbana

Mithael Rosenthal

Secretary

Glencoe

Jon

MCN1~SSen

Treasurer

Villa Grove

Clark

Bullard-

Urbana

Elyn BullOck

Champaign

Mercedes

Davison

~ongerville

Gregory Foster

Urbana

CharlesGoodall

Sidelt

Bruce Harmon

Champaign

Ward McDonald

Mahomet

-

DEC .0.2 2003

-

—

Watershed Management ~ecflon

-

BUREAU OF WATER

On behalfof Prairie

Rivers Network, -a statewide river conservation organization

and the IllinOis affiliate ofNational Wildlife FederatiOn, I am submitting the

following comments on the Salt Creek TMDL and fmpiementatión Plan. We

recognize the challenge

ofcost effectively developing defensible

and

effective

TMDLs and appreciate the efforts that have gone into assembling and analyzing the

information in the document.

While

we believe

that this.

effort was a good

start,

we

feel that significant modifiôations

are

necessaiy prior to fmalizing the TMDL.

1. Several other pollutants

are listed

on the 303(d) list as causes of

impairment.

pollutants?

2. Use ofthechloride standard as a surrogate for the

TDS standard

is unjustified.

In developing the

TMDL

for

total

dissolved solids (TDS)

and

chlOride, it was

assumed that if the

chloride standard

of500

mg/L

is met, the

total

dissolved

solids standardof 1000

rng/L will

be met. However, the information presented

in the TMDL

document suggest that this is not an appropriate assumption

First,

while

TDS

was

identified

as a

cause

of

impairment

for

several segments

ofthe watershed, chloride

was

identified as a causeof

impairment

for

one

The Illinois Affiliate ofthe National

Wildlife Federation

~prhued

on

recycledpaper

809

South

Fifth

Street

Champaign, IL

61820~6215

~w~prairierivers.arg

217-344-2371

Fax

217-344-2381

---

- -

-

-

Safr-C~reek

TMDL ~ohnithzrs-

- -.

-

-

-

Prafrie Rivers

Nthvo~k.

of

the segments Apparently, several segments currently

meet

standards for chloride, but not

for

TDS.

-~

-.

-

-

-

Secondly, the correlation between chloride

andconductivity was

estimated for theAddison

Creek and Salt Creek stations as shown on the plots on pages 4-7

and 4-8 ofthe report

It

was

stated that the

TDS standard of 1000 mg/L is equivalent

to conductivity of 1667 prnho/cm

The plots

and

equations presented suggest that a more appropriate target for chloride would be

somewhere between 350 and 390

mg/L

3

Assumption

that point sources do not contribute to chlonde

standard violations is unjustified

Section 63 3 ofthe report states

that the pomt sources do not contribute to the

chloride

-

standard violations, because the measured

instream

concentrations during the months ofMay

through November do not exceed standards This

argument

is based on an assumption that the

effluent concentration ofchloride in winter months is essentially the same as that

in

the

-~

summer

months However, elsewhere m the report it is clear that there

are

severalcombined~

sewers in the watershed Because the stormwater is routed to

and

through the sewage

treatrneTnt

plant, it is reasonable to expect

that

the road salt that causes increased chloride

mstream during winter months could also cause increased chloride at the sewage

treatment

plants that receive stormwater If chloride has not been monitored in the effluent ofthese

st,wage treatment

pLants

assuming that the effluent does not contribute tochloride-standarth violations

Secondly, as acknowledged in the report; the- CSO and MS4 discharges to Salt Creek

are

point

sources. These contributions should be identifiedin

the TMDL as part ofthe WLA.

4. Failure to identify

maximum

nutrient Io~dsis unacceptable.

Several

pollutants contribute to violations ofdissolved ox~’gen

(DO)

standards. One purpose

ofthedraft

TMDL

is to identify

maximum

loads for

pollutants

that affect DO to

ensure

that

the standards are

met at all times Therefore, it is not appropriate to exclude

nutrients from

this

analysis As mentioned at thepublic meeting, it is not

necessary

tohave adopted nutrient

standards before deterirumng

maximum

loads for meetingDO

standards

There

are

currently

no

instream

water

quality standards

for CBOD, but water quality based effluent imuts

are

determined

and

enforced to

ensure thai DOstaidards are

met. Nutrients should be

similarly

limited

to ensure that

these standards

are met.

2

---

Salt

Creek TMDL Comments

-

-

Prairie Rivers Nètwôrk

Additionally, the largest reduction ofoxygen demand that is proposedin this IMDL

is the

reduction of sediment oxygen demand (SOD) Nutrients contribute to water column algae and

penphyton growth

These organisms

eventually

die, may

settle to the stream

bottoms,

and

-

decay

nutrients should be limited

5

After

calibrating

the model, the model should be validated

using

available water quality

data

determine the extent to which it accurately predicts conditions

6

Error

analysis should be conducted as a

means

ofdetermining an appropriate

margin

of

safety

~

The

margin

of

safety (MOS) must

“take into account any lack of knowledgeconcerning the

relationship between effluent

limitations and

water quality” (CWA §303(d)(1)(C))

Therefore, to set aside an appropriate

margin

of

safety,

eitherexplicitly or implicitly, the

uncertainty associated

with themodeling must first be determined It is not clear from the

discussion ofMOS in theTMDL document whether a relatively large MOS is

assume~d

based

on considerable

uncertainty

or a small MOS is assumed

based

on less uncertainty.

7: Pkase

clarify the

relationship between the volatile suspended sOlids (VSS) load

and

oxygen demand.

The

TMDL

scenarios proposed both

require

reduction ofSOD below CSO outfalls to be

reduced to that found elsewhere along thecreek. This is expressedin the

TMDL as

52

reduction in the VSS load. Please

describe

the rationale. behind

the

assumption that VSS is the

-

only component contributing to SODbelow CSO outfalls. Because these

are

not settleable

solids,

and

therefore would not be expected fo settle to the

stream

substrate

quiOkly,

-the

relationship is

particularly

unclear.

8. Point sources contribute to sediment oxygen demand,

and

therefore some

portion

~f the VSS

kad or other contributing pollutant to SOD should be identified and regulated as a WLA.

As pointed out elsewhere

in

the

Th1DL

report

and

implementation

plan, many

ofthe

stormwater discharges

are

considered point sources that

are

regulated under the NPDES

programs Therefore, Table 6-3 should be revised to

clarify

which portion of the

TMDL

for

VSS is the

WLA and

which portion is the LA.

3

---

Salt Creek

TMDL

C’omn~nts

-- - - -

-

-

Prairie

Rivers Nerwork

9 The implementation plan does not provide reasonable assurance that load reductions

from

stormwater

discharges will

be achieved

This TMDL

demonstrates that

discharges

from MS4s and CSOs

are

causing or contributing to

violations ofapplicable water quality standards

for DO

and chloride

Because

the

general

permit

for MS4s

specifically prohibits discharges from causing orcontnbuting to a violation of

standards and

CSO

permits typically

contain a

similar special condition,

the holders of these

permits are

currently violating the terms ofthe

permits

Please

identify

the MS4

operators

whose

storm

sewers discharge to

waters

in the watershed,

and

provide more

detail on the

measures that thesepermittees mt~stimplement as well as the proposed tunelme for

compliance Ifthe terms of the general MS4 permit do not contain provisions specific enough

to comply w4th water

quality

standards, please provide a timeline for IEPA to develop an

individual

permit for these discharges

*

*

*

-r

Prairie Rivers Networkhopes to continue to work with

thestate to ensure that these

and future

ThIDLs are as effective and defensible

as possible We would welcome theopportunity to discuss

thee coinnients further and

look forward to your respohse~

-.

Sincerely,

M. Beth Wentzel

-

Watershed Scientist

4

---

-

November28, 2003

222

northeastern

South Riverside Plaza

• Suite

Illinois

•

-Chicago,

Illinois

planning

•

(312)

454-0400

•

Fax

commission

(312) 454.0411

•

www.nipc.org

Bruce Yurdin

-

. - -

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, illinois 62794-9276-

-.

Watershed

Management Section

-

-

Dear M~in:~~~’

-

.::

-

~

OF WATER-

- •-.

-

Thankyou-forthe opportunity to-reviewyour drafireports:

Total-Maximum Daily Loads

-for

Salt

Creek.,

illinois

and

-Salt Creek-Watershed

Implementation

PJan,:bothdated July

-

2003.-The following comments and recomiiiendations wer~deve1o~d-by-staffbasedon

adopted Commission policies and standards and experiencewith

previous

water quality

studies and

modeling.of

Salt

Creek

and similar watersheds.

. .. . -

First~weconu~iend-you On the deve1op~nent:ofleseassessnients and recommendatIons that

are neededto improve water quality and beneficial uses in Salt Creek.

Attached are detailed questions and recommendations on the-draft reports. While we-

-

understand the budgetarylimitations ofthis and otherTMDL studies, weare

concerned

that the describeft approachtiiay ndtadequatcly asses~watërquality impairments and their

causes in Salt Creek. Several specific concerns highlighted.

-

. .

.

-.

1) The selected QUAL2E model

has

admitted

limitatiOns in representing the complex water

quality interactions in Salt Creek Yet it was selected over HSPF which

has greater

representational capabilities

and was applied successfully

in the NIPC’s 208

studies~

-

2) There are

virtually

no references to the complex modeling that

was

applied during 208,

suggesting that

findings and approachesthat ‘~rorkedpreviously may not have even been

-

considered in this

study.

-

- -

. -.

..

. -

-- - .

.

.

-

3) The narrow

TMDL focus-on

chlorides and DO depletion due principally to

WWTP

-

sources

seems to be-misplaced. In-particular, the failure to seriOusly

anal~ze

or niod~l

-.

dissolved oxygen depletion caused by wet-weather sourcOs

and

the

admitted

Inadequate

assessment ofalgal-induced diurnal DO violat~crnsappear to be-aserious shortcomings.

- -

:

-

We would be happy

tç

work with

you

as you-revise-your-draft -reports. Jf~’ouhave any

- -

cpiestions regarding ourcomments, please contact me or Sarah Nereiiberg at (312)

454—

0400~

. -

- - .

:

-

. - .

-

S~i~erely,

-

-

---

:----

-

- -

DennisDreher

- -

-

-

P~cipalWater Resources En~ñeer

cc~

SarahNerenberg

•EXECU11VE COMMIITEE

t~8choeIKSmiTh

Preekienf

Rita P.

Aitros

Mae

Fresldent

Roe RuppSrdr

Sec,etary

EdwardW.

Poesel

Am

L Bennett

Vice

Preside,,? lorPlonningi

James

Vice President

C.Be~

for oierResoc,rces

DwIght A.Magats

AtLarge

Member

MarkRr~rby

At Large Member

Jerry Butler

Post Cmr~r,!~ssionPrn-srCl

en?

tharile

A. Thuaton

Pbs? Camrn&ror’

President

-

Ronald L.lhofnoiAJCP

Execvltre Director

- -

COMMISSIONERS-

-

Appointed

by the Governor

of

IWnols

JomeuC Berg

- -

2.

-- -

Jorephitligas

-

Raymond I? Morcharl

. -

EdwcsdW.Poesel

-

CharlleA.ThUrston

Appointed

by the

Mayor

of

Chicago

4011cr A, Pope.

AkJetrnan

WI!, lMusZ

Chicago

EdH;$n-ttt~Afdersmn

28th Ward Chicago

Mary Ann Smlth,Aidemxrn

48tI~WardChicago

Miguel A.dEscoto.

Commissioner

Depodmentof insportahon

Rita

R. AtLas

DfrectoeofgegloildPtogfornr

Elected

by the

Assembly

of

Mayors

Thomas G.Adorrrs.

Mayor

-

VL’ioge

of

Green

Oaks

Atari LBenhett.

rrusiee

Village

of

EknweodPork

Kevin M. Bruset~

Presjderrt

141/ageofRichmond

PS t,orsofl,Prescient

Wage ot$choumbrsg

Mark

RubS Mayor

VillageofNorth Atsaa

Rae

R~rgpSrcf,,

President

Wage

of

VillaPark

..

-

-

Michael K.Smith.

Pient

ViLlage oft4ewLenpx

-

EdwardJ.Zabocl&Maivf

Villageof linleyPark

Appointed

by

the Courtly

Board

- - -

ChaIrmen

-

Jerry Belles

Member

Cook

nlyboo’dofCo’rrmissronen

Eizabefh

Gormor~

Member

Cock CoArntyBoard

of

Commissioners

Joan P t4jphy

Member

Cook County Boati

of

Commissioners

James 0.1-teoty

Member

DuPoge CounP,rBoard

Don Wolfe,

Member

Kane County

Board

Diana OKety

Member

Lake COUI,ty000si

- -

Ann

GinmMefnber

McHers’y County Board

James Bu1otk~

Member

LWCountysoatd

Appointed by the BOard Of

the

Reglordltansportaflan AuthOtily

Dwight A Magairt

Appointed

by the Boardol

the --

-

t.

-

Chicago Transit Authority

AppoIr~ment~

Appointed by the-BoardofMetro

LowellAnderson

Appointed by the Board ci Pace

RiChard AKwosneskl

-

-

-

Appclntedby the BoordOtthe

MetropolItan Waler Reclornalton

District 01GreaterChicago

Patricia Young

-

-

-

• Appointed by

the Board

at the

Illinois Assoclollonot

Park Districts

Judy

Beck

Appointed

by the Board

Of

the

Chicago Park District

Gerald SiBIenn

Appolnied by the Board Of the

Illinois Association

at

WosluwatsrAgencies

Wallace D.VirrBuren

---

Th s document describes methods

and procedures used

to develop a set of

procedures

for Salt

-

CreekinCookandDuPage

Counties.-

-‘

-

:-:

-- --- -

-- - - - -- - -

--- - - -

-- - -

Cornm~nts

-- ------:- -~ - - -

-

—

-

-

-

-

Sec

3

6- Pomt Sources It

is stated that the dissolved oxygen model

was

setup for

just

dry weather

conditions

This

would seem to be major

shortcoming Our

experience

in

the 208 assessment

and

modeling process

indicated

significant wet-weather dissolved oxygen depletion, including standard

violations, during wetweather DO depletion

was cause by

both nonpomt source

runoffas

well as

combined sewer and

sanitary

sewer overflows, depending on watershed

circumstances There is a

stronglikelihood that such occurrences still continue at thepresent time, but apparently

are

not

being represented in the S.alt--Creek-TM)L model.- Why?

- -.- - -

-

-~ -- - -

- - -, - - - - - -

See. 4;2-

-

Copper;This section-appears to-conclude

that’

copper is noVa problem, based on ambient

-

-

‘watei

quality-monitoring.

However,there is no apparent consideration of-problematic copper

- -

--

concentrations

in sediments.

Based

on reviews of

sediment

concentrations in other

suburban

-

- - - -- - -

northeastern

Illinois

watersheds

where metals

and

other toxic constituents were reported-at-highly

-- - - - - -

elevated

concentrations

m sediments, it is recommended that copper concerns

in

salt creek be

reevaluated.

-

,:

- --

-

- -- -- -

-

-- -, -

-

Sec

4.4

-

Chloride:

It is

reported

that there

were

only limited exceedences ofthe chloride

standard.

- -

However, the limited (monthly) grab sample-methodology utilized in this study is

likely

to

miss

- -- . -

significant

wet-weather, snow melt occurrences in which chloride concentrations

are

likely

to be

- - - -

elevated.

-

--

- - --

__:

-

NORTHEASTERN

ILLINOIS PLANNING COMMISSION

-

-222 South RiversidePlaza, Suite

1800; Chicago,

Illinois 60606

-

---

-- ,-‘

--:

:.

November28, 2003

-

StaffReview Statement

--- -

- -

- - -

Draft

TotalMaximum Daily Loadsfor Salt Creek, illinois

and

Salt Creek Watershed

Implementatlon’Flan,

both‘datedJuly 2003.

- -, --

- - - - -- - --

-- - - -- - --~ .- -

-

Background: -The following

comthents.and—reconimendations-were -developed by staffbased

on

-

adopted- Commission policies-and standards:and, in

particular,

related

water quality modeling, and

-assessments performed

by

Commissionstaff and its consultants. Iii partien1ar~these comments

consideredthe COmmissiOn’s‘Strategic Plan fdr’Water’Résour~OManageñieiit, the

Areawide Water

Quality

Management

Plan

(208

Plan), and experience from

the

water quality thodeling work.that~

advised the

recommendations

of

the

Areawide -Water

Quality

Management

Plan.

-

- -

- — - -

Comments on

Total

Maximum Daily

Loadsfor Salt Creek, illinois

---

4.5

-

Total.Phosphorus: it

is

reported

that phosphorus concentration appear to be dropping in recent

years and that “appropriate mea~uresmayhave already been taken”

to address phosphorus related

water quality problems. First, it is possible’‘(likely?) that obsen ed phosphorus changes could be

explained by changing weather and/or algal uptake occurrences. Second, while “appropriate’

- - -

measures” are alluded-to, there is no:discussion-~f what suchmOasures -may--have been. Since there

is little point source input above Busse Lake, it is hard to-imaginethat unknown remedial nonpoint

source cqntrols have been implemented- to cause such a change.

-

- --,. - -

4.6

-

Dissolved Oxygen:

-Althougb

it is noted-that-both

wet-weather and summer,

low-flow-

-; - -

conditions are potentially contributing

to dissolved oxygen

~mpa~nn-ent,

for unexplained reasons it

is

concluded that “the

DO problem”-is assoeiated,with the latter

cfrcurnstances and only summer;

low-flow

conditions will

be modeled

This

decision seems to be very lmutmg, particularly

considering that making-this,

determination essentially

rules

out’wet-weather/nonpoiut source runoff

from further assessment

and Consideration.

- -

-

- -

-

- - -‘

- - - -

5

2 6

-

Salt Creek Hydrologic’Validation In this section,

and preceding discussions ofthe HSPF

hydrologic modeling

and

calibration, reference is made to the calibrations performed byPnce for

Dui’age

County.

This is a vOry

useful and importantpoint

ofreference. However, no reference is

made-tp;prcvipus.208

hy~ro1ogic

an• water qualitymodeling ofSaltçreek.

This

seems

like a

-

senous oversight, particularly because the 208 modeling focused heavily on the accuracyoflow-

--

flowmodeling, ~whereas-themore -repent

modeling (Price) is

focused,

principally on high flow (wet-

weatber)conditions.-More,specifically,- it is~notedthat,monthly

point

sourcO flow data

were-used,

resulting in an inability to represent daily discharge vanauons This is a shortcoming in both model

calibration

and

eventual simulation As noted previously in this chapter

(5

2 4), monthly treatment

plant flows are

much higher, on average, than daily low flows due to the effects ofinfiltration

and

inflow. In addition,

it is

kiiow that even—diurnal treatment plant discharge variations are very

substantial

and can

effect both calibration

and simulation results Considering this,

it

is unclear why

-

daily

flow

data were

~iot-obtáinedfrqm

treatment, plant operators.

Further,

HSI~Fallows

-

-

-

representation of-diurnal

v,ariability

in-point

source

flows, based.on:actual observations.- It is

our

recollection that both types offlowvariability were incorporated into the previous 208 modeling

wOrk,

and

we suggest, should have been-incorporated

into the TMDL

study.

---

- -

-- -

- -

5.2.7

-

ChlorideCajibratiomThe report concludes-that -the,model is adequately

calibrated

for

-

chloride concentrations. However, the,,~ghestconcentrations

reported

in grab samples

are

not even

-

closely apprOached in the simulation, suggesting a possible.problem.

This

maybe explained by the

complexityof

representing

road salt application.

While

‘the model apparently assumes a -regular,

predictable buildup/washoff

function,

in reality salt is applied on a very irregular, concentrated

basis

in response to snow

and

ice events. Therefore, it is probablyno-surprise that therather basic

model ~eprcsentationmaybe un4er-simulating’extreme salt concentrations occurringduring

meWrunoff-cvcnts.

Similarly, themodel would normáUy represent snow melt

based

on

natural

-

phenomena-—i.e.,-

temperature

and

solar raclialion. However, salt-induced ~now-inejtduring sub-

-

freezing conditjpns maybe

causing

some ofthemost concentrated chloride conditions

instream

—

i.e., very concentrated

runoffoccurring

during yery low dilution conditions.

Are

these lattersalt-

induced conditions represented in

any

way in themodel?

-

-

-

-

- -

---

-::-5.3 --Modeling-Dissolved Oxygen

Using

QUAL2E: Several

cOmments are

noted-for

this’section~

c-First, Whul6

it is noted that-lISP-F ‘esn

represent

DO over’a wider range Of-dynamic’cohditiofis~

than

the

narrow-nearly-steady state-range representCd-by

QUAL2E, there is ‘little di~cussionas to why

HSPF :is’not

-used

instead.

-This -decision- eliminates the abilityto represent potential wet-weather

-

DO problems and—also

limits- the ability

to represent

variable

DO conditions during’iower flow

—

-

periods intervening

between’wet-*eather; It”also;elimina~esthe relatedrepresentation ofthe-,

complex conditions of

variable

algal concentrations that’respond to

variability

in’ flows temperature,

and

cloud cover and, in turn, affect DO

concentrations.

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

It is noted that model representations of

Salt

CieCk-’and

Spring

Brook

began, respectively,

-

~dawiistre~ni-

ofBtisse

Lakè’añd

Lake

Kadijah.

ThiS’seéms

problematicfrom the’perspectiveof’a

complete

and adequate

‘dissolved oxygen,represeiitation, particulatlythe’diurnal

-effects-

caused by

alg~1concentrations

which tend to be much moreprominent (and potentiallyproblematic)

in

‘-iinpôunde’d’-reaches.

Why’were

the

lakes and upsfreath reaches

nOt -represented?

:

-

-:‘:

- - - - -

-

It is noted in the report that sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is “found

through

mOdel

- - -

calibration:” This approach seems problematiC,

particularly

considering that SOD is measurable

andmeasured rates- would

provide a much more reliable’point ofreference versus

-bàckiiig

into

-

assumed levels-through

model

~alibritioti.-Durii~ig-

the previously me’ntioned 208’modeling project,

an extensive SOD monitoring study

was

done by the illinOis-State Water-Survey (alongwith’ the-

Metropolitan’Water

ReclamationDistr

Ct)’-At a

minimum,

those

measured

càncentrations -should

be used as ‘a

point-

ofreferenCe in ‘establishing SODrates in

thO-Th1DL-stud~’While-the ISWS SOt)

--

report

is

listed

as a refurence, there is-_no -indicatioh how that ~

used iii the

TMDL’-anaiysis. Having-sound, meàsitred

SODnuinbOrS

provides much-n~io~’Oreliability iE~

-

calibrating

realistic

oxidation and

nitrification

rates,~aMgreatly reduCea the jossibility’of a--false

conclusion

in detenmmng the relative sources ofoxygen demand, such as represented in figure

5-6

~5.3.1’- Diurnal VariatiOn-of-DO Due tO

Algae and

Photosynthesis: The report nOtes that QUAL2~E

‘:c~Otrepresent

time-varying

flow:

and

pollutant-loads. It nOtes several

oilier

shortcomings,

-

including th&saniple period tthed for

diutnal

calibration’(e.g:,, significant flow

variability during

the

period,

‘inabilityto represent

attaChed-

algae). It ends tip concluding-thatthe m del is not capable of

simulating

the full-extent ofthediurnal variation OfDO.-As previously pointed’out, it is puzzling

whyHSPF

was

not

used

instead’. In partieular,--HSPF does-not--have

the

limitations of-QUAL2E in

representing diurnal and flow-varied changes in

DO

and

algal concentrations,

can also

represent

attached-algae, and was successfully ap~liédto Salt Creek

axtda.’range

of

Otherstreani’and river’

-

condifion~

during--the

208 process. A-consequenceOf

limitations-Of

the selectedmodel maybe mis-

-

i~eprCsentation-of-critical-factors, such as phosphorus

and

othpr nutrients, that

àoutribute

to observed

DOproblems.’

- “‘

- - -‘

-

•‘ --

- - - -

-“

- - —

.- - ‘---

-

‘~--. -‘

‘‘

‘

--:

-6.2:--

Future

Growth: several concerns are- raised

iii this

section.

- - - - - -- - ‘ - ---

-

-

The-report notes ‘that-summer low-flOw condition

are

the

‘critical

condition for DO

-impairment.

While -this-may

be

true, and-presuming-that this

-10w-flow

inipainnetit ~anb~-elithinated~thCre

remains’the Concern’that wet-weather

impairments (even

if less’severe

than

low-flowimpairments)

will- Continue

into -the

future

unabated. The

report also

tiotes

that

point source

-‘contribution

has-the

most significant

impact

undercurrent conditions

and will

continue-under

future coiiditions. -This

mayormaynotbethecase.

-

- -- - -

- -:

-

- --

‘

--

- -

---

-‘ -

Future- population, change in.the watershed

was

apportioned very crudely based on

county totals

forDuPage and Cook. A1ter~iative-ly,population change could easilyhave been estimatedmere

-

accurately,by overlaying GIS-based quarter-section orcensus tract forecastinformation on top of

watershed and ‘sub-watershed boundaries. This approach is commonly applied by NIl~Cin its-

--

routine

-

It is reportedwatershedthatplanninga future-conditionswork.

-

model runwith- increased point source loadings-shows

-

-‘ -

improved DO ‘conditions in the creek.’-This mo4e1~esult,and it~explanation

-~

“flow

augmentation”

—

seem countenntuitive and inconsistent with previous modeling results (e g

,

NIPC

-

and others)~It also raises further

questions

regarding the previously mentioned relationships

-

betweem

SOD,

instream

BOD-

and ammonia,

and

diurnal algal effects, -and

-the adequacy oftbeir

representation in a model that is admittedly constrained in its ability to represent-compiex~instream

-

phenqmena.

6.3.2

-

Chloride Margin ofSafety: The referenced “conservative” chloride assumptions really don’t

appear

“conservative.”

Tn-light of

measuredconcentrations that ônoccasion greatly exceeded 500

mg/I -which were not approachedby model

calibration results, and the previous comnents

on the

complexity ofsimulating-road s-alt runoffand resultant chloride levels, it is suggested,that a

significant additional margin ofsafety is needed in setting the TMDL, at least from- the nonpoint

source

side.

--

--

‘ - ‘

-

-

-‘ -

--

--

6.4

-

Dissolved Oxygen: This sectionnotes that chlorophyll a concentrations in Salt Creek, “did.not

show any obvious, eutrophication problem?’ It-is therefOreconcluded that the

steady-state-

QTJAL2E

model

was,appropriate

fordeveloping,the DO ,1IvIDL.This seems to directly contradict-both the

ObsCrved significant diurnal

variations in D.O

(figure 4.4)

and the sin-itilated diurnal

variability’

(figure

5.8),

albeit with a model that admittedly has limited ability to represent actual diurnal

variations. As a

rOsult,

any results coming out ofsuchsteady state modeling that doesnot. represent

algal-induced-

diurnal variations is suspect, at,best, and likely-to subst~ntially’underestimatethe

-

actual- degree

Ofdissolved oxygen violations

in.the

creek. It also

leads directly

to

a likely errpneous

conclusion that there is no need to evaluate factors (i.ç., phosphorus) ,that contribute to algal

:

growth.

‘ -

6.4.1-- Margin-ofSafety.forDO: Most ofthe assui~ipfionsreferenced in this section seem

reasonable

and

appropriately conservative.

Howe,vçr, the assumed summer temperature range

(74-

77 degrees F) based

on a

Ji~ine1995

mothtorii~gpetiqd~loesnot seem conservative, and-water/air

temperature are critical factors influencing low dissolved oxygen. What is the actual range of

summer, low-flowwater temperatures seen in Salt Creek? In particular, .what was the air

temperaturerange during theJune27, 1995-sample period?

- -

6.4.2

-

DO LA

and WLA:

It is

stated

that nonpoiñt contributions ofCBOD

andamn~nia

do not

require any Co4trol because

DO

standards are

not violated

during high

flow. As noted previously n

these

comments,

thebasis of

this conclusion-does ~Otappear

to-be

valid. First, while the limited-

wet-weather monitoring data available

for Salt Creek

probablyis not adequate

to

make a firm

conclusion, -regional observations would certainly suggest

the

likelihood ofwet-weather

DO.

problems. Secondly, the chosen modeling approachin this

study does-not have

the capacityto

represent wet-weather DO conditions.

- - -

‘

‘

-

-

-

- - -

---

6~4.3-Implementation Considerations: Reference is made-to possible- dam removal as-ar”option for

TMDL implementation. It is -strongly recothrtiended-’that this optioii--be 1’urther

evàlüat&1

and

--

pursued. No only would dam removal help achieve DO’standarda, -it-also,wbuld contribute-’

- - --

significantly to improved aquatic

habitat, -fishmovement, and recreational boating access.”-

References: There are no references -to previous-modeling-and water quality anaIyse~performed

during the NIPC 208~study.-This

isbothpcrplexing-and’troubling.

While conditions have obviously

-

changedduring the thtervening’years~the

dynamic—water

quality

modeling

‘performedduring 208,

and subsequent ~ollew-upapplications on the DuPage River, are still the definitive applications Of

stat&of-the-art, dyflamic water quality niodelitig ‘for Salt-Creek and- siniilai’streams in this region.

Comments on

Salt

Creek

Waters/tedImplementation Plan

-

-

I ‘—Scope: As previOusly noted in

cOmments

on the TM-DL-feport, ‘we have concerns that the-

-

TMJ)Lis limited to-justchlOride and DO (from point sOurCes and VSS contribüted’b-y nOnpoint

sources and CSOs)~-Other cOnstituents reconiniCnded for serious evaluation; aiid possible TMDL

setting,-include:

- --

-

,:

-

:-

-

‘:

- - -

-

- -.

-

- -

-

:

-,

‘.

- --‘

-

nutrients as a causative factorfor algal growth that creates problematic djurnal DO swings-

‘-- -

- -

nonpoint source runoff, CSOs, and sanitarysewer overflows as likely contributors to wet-~weather

-

‘DOviOlations.

-

-

-‘‘

- -.

-_,- 1,’

‘ -

- -

-

“-

-

-; ‘

‘

-

Copper as

a’

potential-contributor

to water cOlumn and -sediment ‘toxicity pi~oblCms

-- ‘ ‘- ‘- - -

-

-Vprious other constituents ~thetals,’pestieidés~’o~gaimics)for-their cOntribution to-‘elevated

-

-

concentrations-oftoxic coz!stitaents.in,the sediment

—- -

-. -

‘-

-

- -

‘,‘:,

-“ -

-

“-2.1

-

Point Sources—Stormwater: -It is -stated thatstomiwater-related allocations will’be’

implemented as’point ~iOrcecontrols uiiderNPDES Phase-li However,-it appears that’NPDES’

-

Phase II

as currentlybeing

enforCed in illinois will,’at best,

address prevention’of

problems-

-

associated with new;developmentbut~wil1not provide for effective

r~mediatiön-

ofC~isting

stormwater loads.

. - - -

2.4- Reasonable Assurance:-’ltis noted that stormwater contrOl forMS4s wili’be”acôomplished

-

through the “NPDES Phase II general penmt “How will this happen9 Does

an existing general

permit call for basin wide-remediation

-Ofexisting-stormwater discharges?

-

‘,

-

-. -.

3.L1

-

General BMPs forRoad Deicing:It

is suggested that a•recomtiieiidationbe

added for ahti-

icing as an additional BMP that can reduce the use ofroad salt~

-

- “

“

- - -

-‘ -. -

3.1.3”.: Recommended ManagementActions for Chloride: The recornmehded actions-for road

deicing in this section ~eethto be -very vague. HOwwill specific

recommendatioi s

be mcmi~o±ed

and enfotced to-ensure that salt- redu~tiOns’willaCtually take place?’

“,

‘

. - --

-

3.2~i

..

kec4~thmendedManagement.áctions for DO’: Ti e-rec~ommetidationsforVSS reduction -fOr

stonn’v~ater:presumethat Phase II stormwater

remediation will occ~ur“Ovei.time.’! What

—

— - -

thechaiiisms

are in

place to

ensure

that

this

will

happen?

- ‘

-

-

.

-

---

3.2.3

-

Cost Considerations: The estimated cost foi~WWTP improvements is estimated at about $18

million. However, the cost for

dam removal which could achieve

similar benefits is not estimated.

It is strongly recommendedthat this estimate be provided. Even if only crude cost estimates are

-

available, it

seems very likely that the dam removal cost would be much less than the $18 million

for WWTP improvements.

-

---

m

Oi

--

---

‘—7-

Forest Preserve

District

of DuPagé-C-ôunty

3 S~580 Naper-ville Road

•

Wheaton,

IL 60187-8761

630.933.7200

Fax

630.933.7204

•

1T(

800.526.0857

November12, 2003,.

-

-

-

- -

-

—

. -

-.

-

--.

-

-

---

-.

---

Mr. BruceJ., Yurdin, Manager

--. -

-

-- -.

- --

- - ‘--

- -

-- -

Watershed Mainagement Section, Bureau ofWater

-

-,

, , -

NOV,1. 72003

‘llhitiOi’~~

eiitarPfOteotion

A~eñ~y

- ,~‘ - -“

-

-

a,-’

‘ -. -

P.O.Box 19276.-

- - --

‘-:,‘

-

‘

- --

.

-

-

-

Springfield,’:IL 62794-9276-’

- - -

- -. -

-

-

- ,-

-. -

.BURE,~uoF

j

RE:

-.

.DRAFF SALT CREEK TflvIDL PLAN

-

.

..

.

--FtJLLERS-BURG WOOtS CORRE-SPOND~NCEFILE Z-l20-OQZ

-

,, -

DearMr~Yurdin:

-

-

-

:

-

- ,

- -

- -,

- -

.‘

-

Ihank you.for.the opportunity -to review and

cpmment

on- the draft,

report

titled

Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)-for

Salt

Creek.

The:Forest’ Preserve’District

of DuPage.

County (the “District”) fully supports the goal of the TMDL program, which is to improve

water quality in our lakes, streams and rivers. Organizationally, ~manyof the District’s

policies emphasize

the importance--of controlling and eliminatingpollution in our waterways.’

Our ‘Land Management-Policy- states

“Rivers

and.

streams

w~tliinDistrict

boundaries shall be

left in anatural state. Winding courses, eddies, riffles, rapids or falls, shaded banks, -vegetated,

banks,.oxbows and-backwaters,

all

contribute to a-diverse and-healthy stream.”

- -

-

However, we also have a Policy on the Development, Preservatio,n and Operation of Historic-

&ructures, which states our support for the preservation of “... structures connected with

events

-

important’

tQ.

the patterns of’history; -structures connected with regionally important

people; structures that represented community

evelopment or were instrumental

-

to-

settlement of an area; and structures that are essentially intact or undisturbed.” The Graue

Mill Dam at Fullersburg Woods Forest Preserve, which is owned by the District, clearly falls

into this catego~yofbeitig an important historic structure.

-

- -

A--dam--has- existed at -this -site-- since- at--lea~tl852,to supplya

source

of waiterpower fo a

gristmill constructed by Frederick Graue, one of DuPage County’s earliest settlers. The

-

existing dam ,was constructed in 1934 by the Civilian Conservation Corps, as part of the

Works Progress Administration. The Graue Mill is a National Historic Landmark, and one of

DuPage County’s most popular tourist destinations. Visitors are -able to-see -the mill

operate

virtually the same way that it did 150 years ago. It is my understanding that the Grauè Mill

hasthe only operable millrace powered waterwheel in the State ofillinois.

-

So, admittedly, the District has conflicting policies regarding the Graue Mill Dam at

Fullersburg Woods. Withotit- the historic significance of the structure,’ and its critical

importance

in the overall operation and interpretive programs at the Graue Mill, ourexisting

-policies would seem to lead us to support the recommended removal of the dam. We agree

that the dam does create some negative impacts on water quality and the overall ecological

O4l20021~AH/cmg

Mailing

Address: P.O. Box 5000

•

Wheaton,

IL 60189.5000

•

www.dupageforest.com

---

-‘

Mr.

BruceYurdin

,

-

,

-

- ---

:

-:

--

‘Salt

CIeekTMDL

Plan-

‘ - —~

~“

.: -

:-:~

- -

Page--2of2

-

-----

‘-

-

-

‘

:

:~‘

~-

-

health

of Salt Creek. However, the historic importance of the dam cannot be ignore& as

the-

draft version ofthe

TMI)L

report has done.

-

:

“

- -

It

-

appears to us

that

the draft Salt

Creek Watershed Implementation Plan

offers

two basic

alternatives

with respect to

the TMDL for dissolved oxygen: 1) Reduce;the average

monthly-

allowable- pollutant concentrations of CBDO5’

and :ammditia

-to-

-5.0’mg/L-and”l.O” mWL,

-

respectively, at the wastewater treatment plants within the

-

-Salt-Creek ‘watershed,--or 2).

-

remove the Graüè Mill

Dam at Ftlhiersburg Woods. if we understandthe report- correctly,

thel

- -

~ost’~fthe’ &st’ alternative is, estimated to

be $18 million, on a

waite~ahed~widé

basis~while’

‘the cost for the

dam removal option

has not been calculated.

My

main purpose in writing this letter is to emphasize --the ‘important bisturical and societal

‘aspe~ts-of the

Graue

Mill -Dam. ‘that .havá

hot

been

addressed- in- the draftTMDLrepóit

Any

serious proposal to remove the Graue -Mifi Dam

will undoubtedly be

highly controversial.

and many local

residents, homeowners associations, and a

variely oforganizations will Object

to the proposal. Quite

frankly, I am not sure how the Board of Commissioners

of the Forest

Preserve District

would

react

to’ such a’proposai, if-IEPA selects the

damremoval alternative

as the recommended Salt Creek

TM)L

for dissolved oxygen

Befere ‘:I would even consider

asking

‘àur Board’

to make

-

such-’ a decision, much more

additional, technical -research and’ public

input

would’ be’

xequired.

‘The ‘draft

TMDL report tells

us that water

quality

in: Salt Creek ~would.improve:ifthe- daim is removed, but--dOesn’t tell us-

how the upstream sediirtent would:be dealt with’ or how much-the project ‘would cOst, or who

would pay for the project. In addition, we feel that the IEPA-

should

cOnstllt-with-the-fflinois

Historic

Preservation

Agency regarding the acceptability ,of the dam removal optiOn, given

the classification’ ofthe Graue~Mill--as

a

National Historic-Landm~rk.

- - -- . ‘~‘

Will-’iEPA bC addressitlg’any- of-these types of issues bef~refinalizing the -Salt-Creek TMDL

Plan?--

-

,

- -

-- -

-

“

-, - --,

‘.~-“-.:

--

-‘. ,“

.:.

- - -

.:- -

- .

—‘.

.,

- ,- ‘- . -

Sincerel~~

~

Director-

- . -- - -

-

‘:

-

-

- --

- --

cc:

- ‘

Dewey’ ero

President’-

-

-. ‘- -:

-.

-

‘

O4l2002RAHJcmg

---

~~~rg.txt

-

5/1912003

1

1

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2

IN THE

MATTER OF:

DRAFT RENEWAL NPDES PERMIT

)

3

TO DISCHARGE INTO WATERS OF

THE STATE

-

VILLAGE OF

)

4

-

NEW LENOX

-

STP #1

-

)

5

‘

-

6

-

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS taken at the hearing

7

of the above-entitled matter, held at 701 West Haven

8

Avenue, New Lenox, Illinois, before Hearing Officer

9

-

Deborah Williams, reported by Janice H. Heinemann, CSR,

-

‘ -

10

RDR, CRR, a notary public within and for the County of

11

DuPage and State-of Illinois, on the 24th day of April,

12

2003,’commencing at the hour of 7:00 p.m.

- -

13

-

14

APPEARANCES:

-

15

MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS, IEPA Acting Hearing

16

Officer, Division of Legal Counsel;

‘

-

17

-

-

MR.

ALAN

KELLER, Manager,

-

--

-

18

North~rn Municipal Unit, Permit Section;

19

-

MR. ROBERT MOSHER,

20

Water Quality Standards Unit;

-

.21

-

MR.

ABEL

HAILE,

-

22

Northern Municipal Unit, Permit Section;

23

MR. JAY PATEL, Field, Operations Section;

:

24

MR. BILL HAMMEL, Office of Community Relations.

---

-

~-424O3hrgtxt

5/19(2003

-

21

1

refer to them now in your comments, the web site and where

2

we can find the information;

but if you wouldn’t mind

3

sending a printout with

--

4

-

MS. WENTZEL:

Print it all out.

-

5

HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS:

With comments later.

6

-

Do you know how many pages we are talking?

7

MS. WENTZEL: Depends on the size of the font.

8

And as long as that

is official and

if I just print them

9

off myself, that’s fine.

10

HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS:

Because if there were

11

ever to be an appeal or something, I think we would want

-

12

that to be part of the actual records and stuff.

13

MS. WENTZEL: Okay.

Then I will certainly

do

14

that.

15

-

Prairie Rivers Network is concerned that

16

the issuance of this permit as written would violate

17

.

applicable state and federal law, specificalLy the

18

applicant and Illinois EPA have not satisfied provisions

19

of the antidegradation policy.

And

Illinois EPA has not

20

-

incorporated necessary water quality-based effluent limits

21

for nutrients and oxygen-demanding waste into the permit.

22

In order to save time this-evening, my

23

comments will focus on some of the chemical- and physical

24

states of Hickory Creek and the need for water

---

12403hrg.txt

5/19(2003

-

23

1

While the State has been clear that this

2

does not constitute proof that the water is’violating

3

standards, I do feel that it at least constitutes

4

-

reasonable potential that there are violations

of water

5

quality standards and, therefore, water quality-based

6

-

effluent limits should be determined for those parameters.

7

Fortunately,

there is other evidence

8

besides just the presence on the list that there are some

9

problems out there. There is evidence to suggest that

-

10

phosphorous concentrations are particularly high in the

11

creek. The U.S.G.S. database that

I mentioned earlier,

12

indicates that for the period of

‘92 to ‘97, which is the

13

most recent five year period on record, total phosphorous

14

exceeded Illinois’s EPA trigger value for more than

15

-

20 percent of the samples.

16

-

I think it’s worth noting that Illinois

17

EPA’s trigger is eight times

--

approximately eight times

18

higher than the USEPA’s recommended criterion. While this

19.

-~

is not an adopted standard at this time, it does indicate

20

that there is high phosphorous in the stream.

21

Furthermore, data collected in August 2002

22

by the Village of New Lenox indicate the total phosphorous

23

instream on that particular day when they sampled was

24

between 1.49 and 1.63 milligrams per liter. These

---

?~2403hrg.txt

5/19/2003

-

.

25

1

-

collected for more than 40 percent of the samples.

2

And I would like to ask the Agency if they feel

3

that there is any reasonable cause for this in Hickory

4

-

Creek other than photosynthetic

activity.

5

MR. MOSHER:

Well, usually supersaturation

is

6

—

either caused

by photosynthetic activity or extreme

7

turbulence.

-

So given- the nature of -Hickory Creek, it’s

8

very possible that algae saturation photosynthesis

had a

9

part in that.

10

MS. WENTZEL:

Given that fluctuations

between

11

daylight hours and dark hours can be as great as

--

have

-

12

been,shown to be as great as 6 to

8 milligrams per liter,

13

there is reasonable potential that

dissolved oxygen

14

regularly falls below the adopted minimum of 5.0

15

milligrams per liter.

16

The data collected by the applicant on

17

August of 2002 also indicates supersaturation

of dissolved

18

‘saturation.

And interestingly,

on that day the four sites

‘

19

downstream of the facility were supersaturated and the

20

single upstream sample that day was not. Supersaturation

21

of dissolved oxygen has also been shown to cause gas

22

bubble trauma in fish and aquatic invertebrates. I don’t

-23

know if that is something that has been considered by the

24

Agency.

-

-

---

112403hrg.txt

-

5/19/2003

27

1

-

Receiving Streams,” concludes that

--

and this is a

2

quote

--

Based on available data, the effluent from the

.3

wastewater treatment plant No. 1 has lower concentrations

4

-

for all comparable parameters except for copper.

‘

5

However, notably absent from the comparison

-

6

were nutrients. The applioant sampling conducted in

7

August of 2002 found 2.76 milligrams per liter of total

8

phosphorous in the effluent, almost twice the upstream

9

concentration on that day and six times the average over

10

time for that particular stream.

11

The August 2002 sample also indicated

‘

12

considerably higher nitrate plus nitrite in the effluent

13

than at Hickory Creek. In large streams with few other

14

discharges dilution of the waste might alleviate problems

15

associated with -these high discharge concentrations.

16

However, ‘Hickory Creek is dominated by flow from

17

wastewater treatment plants particularly during low flow

18

periods. These st~atistical low flow or the 7Q10 flow

19

reported in the fact sheet is 2.4 cubic feet per second.

20

The discharge from the expanded facility would be 3.9

21

cubic feet per second.

22

-

And because cumulative impacts of other

-

23

discharges must also be considered before permitting a

24

discharge, it is worth noting that according to the permit