BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

‘~JU\\

\~)

POLLUTION

I\iln\

CONTROL BOARIS~LERKS

RECEIVED

OFFICE

~\PR1 2 2002

STATE OF IWNOIS

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

Pollution Control Board

)

WATER QUALITY AMENDMENTS TO

)

35

Iii. Adm Code 302.208(e)-(g), 302.504(a),

)

R02-1 1

302.575(d), 303.444, 309.141(h); and

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

PROPOSED

35

Ill. Adm. Code 301.367,

)

301.313,301.413,304.120,and309.157

)

~4,//

cS7

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this date, April 12, 2002, I filed with Dorothy Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph,

Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601, the enclosed

Post-Hearing Comments of Environmental Law and

Policy Center, PrairieRivers Network and Sierra Club

in the above-captioned proceeding.

Albert F. Etting

Albert F. Ettinger, Senior Attorney

Environmental Law and Policy Center

35

East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 673-6500

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOK,~

APR 1 2 2002

PollutionSTATE

OFControlIWNOISBoard

WATER QUALITY AMENDMENTS TO

)

35 Iii. Adm Code 302.208(e)-(g),

302.504(a),

)

R02-1 1

302.575(d),

303.444, 309.141(h); and

)

(Rulemaking-Water)

PROPOSED 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.367,

)

301.313,301.413,304.120,and3O9.157

Introduction

The Board should not adopt the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to

change the cyanide standards and deoxygenating wastes rules based on the current record. Further,

unless the record is substantially supplemented, the Board should reject most or all ofthe Agency’s

petition outright.

The proposed change in the cyanide standard offers no known benefit and may pose a threat

to highly valued fish populations and mussel species already on the verge ofextirpation. The

proposed change in the deoxygenating waste rule should not be accepted by the Board until the

Agency develops implementation rules that will prevent violations ofthe state dissolved oxygen

standard. The other proposed changes in the standards may be acceptable but that is not clear. As

ofthe date of the filing of these comments, the Agency has not shown the Board or the public its

proposed implementation rules although it has stated repeatedly that draft rules would be available

in this proceeding.

At the end ofthe March 6, 2002 hearing, there was considerable discussion ofwhether there

should be an additional hearing in this case prior to First Notice. At that time, Sierra Club, Prairie

Rivers Network and the Environmental Law and Policy Center ofthe Midwest (“Environmental

Groups”) felt that an additional hearing was warranted before going to First Notice. But there is no

way now to know when, if ever, the Agency will provide draft implementation rules. Accordingly,

we now believe that the better practice would be to reject the Agency petition with the exception of

those portions ofthe proposal which the Board is confident there is sufficient existing guidance in

federal rules or elsewhere that state implementation rules are unnecessary.

I

---

I.

The Board Should Require that the Agency Produce Draft Implementation Rules

regarding Hardness, Reasonable Potential Testing, Dissolved Oxygen and the Metals

Translator.

In his pre-filed testimony and at the January 29, 2002 hearing, Robert Mosher on behalfof

the Agency testified at length that the Agency would present implementation rules in this

proceeding and testified of the importance to the Board and the public ofknowing how the Agency

would implement the proposed standards. Specifically, we were told to expect draft implementation

rules regarding hardness factors, reasonable potential and the metals translator. (Mosher Testimony,

Jan, 29, 2002, Transcript at 41-44). The most important ofthese rules would clearly be the

reasonable potential rules about which Mosher testified:

One of the main parts ofthis Agency implementation rule will be how the

Agency will do what is called a reasonable potential analysis to determine if a

certain substance needs to be regulated in that NPDES permit. Is there a reasonable

potential for it to exceed the water quality standard. Ifso, we have to put limits in

that permit for that substance. And that involves a statistical procedure. We intend to

spell all that out and it will take many, many pages to do that. (Mosher Testimony,

January 29, 2002, Tr.43)

We do not know the contents of the draft implementation rules that the Agency has not

made public. We do know that draft “reasonable potential” rules, which were circulated in 1997,

were 21 pages long and were designed “to establish procedures for determining the concentrations

of substances that must be regulated in NPDES permits in order to assure that water quality

standards will be met in the general use waters of the State” and covered hardness and other

matters. (Exhibit 1, the cover letter and three pages of the 1997 draft). Logically, the draft

implementation rules should at least cover reasonable potential testing and other matters relating to

implementation ofthe new proposed standards regarding nickel, zinc, cyanide, dissolved oxygen

and dissolved metals.

It is critical for the Board to see the implementation rules in its consideration of water

quality standards. The implementation rules often make all the difference as to whether a standard

is protective ofaquatic life, overly stringent or useless. Just to discuss hardness as one factor, it can

make a very large difference in the NPDES permit limits for many metals where instream hardness

is measured in the stream to receive the discharge (or sometimes another stream thought by the

Agency to have a similar hardness) and what figure for hardness is used in calculating permit limits

given varying hardness measurements and the number ofdata points collected. (See Exhibit 1 and

35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.504)

In the R94-1(B) ammonia water quality standards proceeding, there was discussion of the

implementation rules regarding “effluent modified waters” (See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.2 13) and a

number ofother issues regarding implementation, but the Agency never showed the Board or the

public a draft ofthe implementation rules it would propose. This resulted in very serious disputes

that led to delay in consideration ofhundreds of permits and much other acrimony. Although filed

years after the Board completed its consideration of ammonia standards in R94- 1(B), the recent

testimony of Mr. Michael Callahan on behalf of the Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies in

2

---

R02-19 is still full of bitterness stemming from the fact that the parties to R94-1(B) came away

from the proceeding without a clear understanding ofthe likely implementation rules to be put in

place by the Agency. (R02-19, Callahan Testimony, March

25,

2002, Tr. 16,

25-8)’

Based on this

bad experience, IAWA properly did not go forward with its new ammonia proposal without being

confident ofthe implementation rules that would be applied by the Agency. (Id.)

Since R94-1(B), the Agency has provided the Board with draft implementation rules in the

only two major water quality standards proceedings of which we are aware, R97-25 (the Great

Lakes standards) and R01-13 (Antidegradation). In both cases, the ability ofthe Board and the

public to understand how the standards would be implemented was critical to the proceeding. In

both cases, the Board saw fit to adopt a portion ofthe draft Agency implementation rules as Board

rules.

Why the Agency has not offered the promised implementation rules in this proceeding is

unclear. Whether the Agency’s failure to provide draft rules is calculated or accidental, the Board

should not

II.

proceed

The

without

Board Should

them.2

Not

Adopt Cyanide Standards That May Not Be Protective

Of Endangered

Species

And Highly-Valued Fish Populations

Among the few things that we know for sure about the proposed change in the cyanide

standard is that there is no reason to adopt it now. The Agency knows of no discharger that would

be helped by the less protective standard. (Mosher Testimony, March 6, 2002, Tr. 61) IEPA knows

ofno mussel data and obtained the new standard by throwing the cold water fish data out of the

mix used by U.S. EPA to establish its criteria. (Mosher Testimony, March 6, 2002, Tr. 68)

Adjusting the national criteria to eliminate protections for species that do not live in Illinois

makes some sense when there is relevant data for all of the more sensitive species in Illinois and

that data shows that the resulting standard would be protective of these species. That is

emphatically not the situation here. The Agency freely admits that there is no data on cyanide

toxicity to mussels and that it is proceeding with this standard without knowing whether it will

protect federal and state endangered mussel species. (Olson Testimony, March 6, 2002, Tr. 59-60)

There is no reason to assume that the endangered mussels are less sensitive to cyanide than the cold

water species that that the Agency tossed out ofits equations. Recent studies cited by the United

States Fish & Wildlife Service indicate that mussels are, if anything, more sensitive to some

pollutants than salmonids. (Exhibit 2)~

To avoid burdening the record in this proceeding with extra paper, the Environmental Groups hereby ask that the

Callahan testimony filed in R02-19 be incorporated by reference into this record. The Environmental Groups will also

spare this record a discussion of what they thought the implementation rules were to be following R94- 1.

2

At the March hearing, there was testimony that the dissolved metals portion of the Agency proposal did not actually

need implementation rules because there exists a detailed federal guidance. Davis Testimony, March 6, 2002 Tr. 80-2.

If this is true, perhaps this portion of the Agency proposal can properly be adopted by the Board.

While perhaps these not yet published studies should not be controlling if there were good reasons to change the

current rule, there are no such reasons.

3

---

Further, no cool water fish (e.g. sculpin) have been taken into account although they are

known to be present in Illinois waters (Mosher Testimony, March 6, 2002, Tr. 140, see also

Skrukrud Testimony, March 6, 2002, Tr. 86)

The Agency’s answer to concern about weakening a standard without information as to

whether the change will affect numerous highly-valued Illinois species is that Illinois can rely on its

newly adopted antidegradation standard to protect against damage to those species. (Mosher

Testimony, March 6, 2002 Tr. 140) That is not quite true, While proper implementation ofIllinois

antidegradation standard should prevent permitting of new cyanide loadings to any water

containing sensitive species, it may not require limits on current dischargers that are newly found to

have cyanide in their discharge.

Following federal regulations, IEPA requires Illinois dischargers to periodically test their

discharge for a wide array ofpollutants. For example, cyanide was found in the discharge of the

City ofAlton in 1998 at levels that might have required a permit limit if Alton discharged into a

small stream. (Exhibit 3) Ifthe cyanide standard is weakened, the Agency may fail to establish a

permit limit that is necessary to protect indigenous species.

Still further, the 1984 federal criteria document relied on by the Agency cites a “Kimball”

study finding the Bluegill cannot reproduce properly even at the current chronic standard

concentration for cyanide (p.8)4 The Bluegill is Illinois’ State Fish voted as such by the children of

Illinois in 1986. (Exhibit 4) While the validity of the conclusions of the Kimball study are open to

question, the safe thing to do would be to wait until more research is done. The Agency has offered

no reason to proceed in the face ofignorance about the effect ofcyanide on endangered species and

the state

III.

fish.5

Deoxygenating Waste Rule Should Be Protective Of Dissolved Oxygen Levels

Much ofthe discussion at the hearings in this case has focused on what testing is best to

determine whether a sewerage treatment plant is operating properly and whether a Dr. John Pfeffer

meant “BOD5” or

“CBOD5”

in his testimony given to the Board in a proceeding decided over 30

years ago. All of this profoundly misses the point. In this proceeding the Board should focus on the

environmental dangers ofproceeding as the Agency is proceeding with regard to implementation of

Illinois’Todissolvedthe

extentoxygenthat thestandards.history6ofthe deoxygenating waste rule is relevant, it is not Dr.

Pfeffer’s intent that is relevant, but the intent ofthe Board. All we know specifically as to the

‘~

Even ignoring the Kimball reproduction study, the USEPA calculates a safe chronic concentration for Bluegill at

13.56

ug/l, only 2.5 parts per billion higher than the proposed standard.

~ The MWRDGC obtained a site-specific standard proving circumstances that are not generally relevant to the rest of

the state. (See R95-14, Opinion of August 24, 1995) The sensitive species that are of concern here are unlikely to reside

in the degraded streams that receive the MWRDGC effluent.

6

The critical issue for the environment is not what test is used to determine whether sewerage treatment plants have

been run properly. A well-run plant that discharges NBOD at levels that harm the receiving water is not the object

here.

4

---

Board’s intent is that it used

“BOD5”

even though it knew the difference between BOD and CBOD

(Opinion of the Board, March 7, 1972, Hearing Ex. 10, p. 15) and was specifically urged by at least

one witness to adopt a definition of BOD5 for the standard as being “carbonaceous BOD only.”

(R71-1, Troempe Testimony, Dec. 7, 1971, Tr.8). Certainly, the position taken by some participants

to this proceeding, that the use by the Board of “BUDS” instead of“CBOD5” was some sort of

typo, is hard to square with the Board’s 1972 decision and impossible to reconcile with numerous

subsequent Board opinions that discuss the difference between BOD and CBOD. (see e.g. decisions

cited in note 8 below).

Much more interestingly, we know that the Board in 1972: (i) adopted a standard based on

what it thought was technologically feasible, (ii) was concerned about the effect of ammonia on

dissolved oxygen levels, and (iii) established a rule that would require that the actual effect of the

discharge on dissolved oxygen levels be determined in most cases through use ofmodeling

techniques. (Hearing Ex. 10, pp.15-6) Further, when the Board revised the rule in 1980 to expand

the “Pfeffer exemption,” it conditioned the change on the Agency doing specific dissolved oxygen

studies. In the Matter of: Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Regulations, R77-12,

(Docket C), 1980 Ill. Env. Lexis 427 (February 211980) slip op. pp. 9-10)~

To the extent that this Board feels it should follow the thinking ofthe Board of 1972, the

true lesson from Board decisions from 1972 (and thereafter) is that the Board should:

-

adopt a rule for deoxygenating wastes that protects dissolved oxygen standards, and

-

should not allow discharges ofdeoxygenating wastes unless such discharge is necessary.

The key finding ofthe hearing is that in many cases the Agency is granting NPDES permits

that are not protective ofthe dissolved oxygen water quality standard because the Agency does not

take nitrogenous oxygen demand (“NBOD”) into account. Everyone, from Dr. Pfeffer in 1971 to

Dr. Skrukrud (Tr.87-88) and Mr. Callahan (Tr. 129-30) at the March Hearing in this proceeding,

has testified that CBOD5 does not measure the total oxygen demand ofthe discharge, which may

be much larger than the total CBOD5.8 There is a sizable contribution to BOD from nitrogenous

compounds, but the Agency admits that it essentially never regulates ammonia discharges to

prevent violations ofdissolved oxygen (“DO”) standards. (Mosher Testimony, March 6, 2002, Tr.

34)

Further, the change to the rule proposed by the Agency would allow discharges that are

technically and economically unnecessary.

~ If these studies were ever done, the results have not been presented in this proceeding. And nobody claims that one

can protect dissolved oxygen levels without controlling for nitrogenous oxygen demand in some manner.

~See also, In Matter of: Site Specific Rulemaking for the Sanitary District of Decatur. Illinois, R85-15, 1987 Ill. Env.

Lexis 424 (Jan. 22, 1987); slip op. 7-11, 18, (Board fmds that CBOD5 is only 61 of BOD5 in that case and that

discharge of 1.5 mg/L anm~oniamay cause DO violation); In the Matter of: Site Specific Exception to Effluent

Standards for the Greater Peoria Sanitary and Sewerage Disposal District, R87-21, 1988 Ill. Env. Lexis 470 (Oct. 7,

1988) (Board discusses components of BOD in decision requiring Peoria to continue ammonia treatment because of

effect of ammonia discharge on DO levels in the Illinois River)

5

---

Waters

A major theme ofthe Agency and the discharger representatives who have testified in this

proceeding is that it is okay that the Agency now generally ignores nitrogenous oxygen demand in

setting limits on deoxygenating waste because the ammonia limits will protect against low

dissolved oxygen. Further, there were many suggestions at the hearings that low dissolved oxygen

levels are just not a problem anymore. We wish this were true. The facts indicate that Illinois needs

more stringent controls on deoxygenating wastes, not weaker controls.

As usual, the data is not as complete as could be wished. Still, the existing data shows that

there are continuing serious violations of the dissolved oxygen standards and that discharges from

sewerage treatment plants and other point sources cause or contribute to these violations. The most

recent IEPA 305(b) report shows impairments caused by “organic enrichment/low DO” for

numerous important Illinois waters including the Des Plaines River, the Du Page River, the Fox

River, Salt Creek (Du Page Co.), Lake Kincaid, the Mississippi River and Rend Lake. (Exhibit 5)9

In fact, the Agency states there are 2,687 miles of streams and 86,575 lake acres impaired by low

DO levels. (Id.)

With regard to the Illinois River, the situation is unclear. Because the numeric data taken in

the main channel ofthe Illinois did not find over 11 violations ofthe standards, the Illinois River

is not listed as impaired in the IEPA 305(b) report. However, it is known that historically the

Illinois River has suffered from low dissolved oxygen as a result ofammonia discharges. See e.g.

In the Matter of: Site Specific Exception to Effluent Standards for the Greater Peoria Sanitary and

Sewerage Disposal District, R87-21 1988 Ill Env. Lexis 470 (Oct. 7, 1988) slip op. 17. Published

U.S. Geological Survey data shows at least one violation at Valley City in 1998 (Exhibit 6) and

recent unpublished data passed out by IEPA at a meeting last year shows prolonged and continuous

DO violations in August 2001. (Exhibit 7)

The IEPA 305(b) list and the other published numeric data probably greatly understates the

problem. Recent not yet published studies ofthe Fox River, which looked more carefully at

biological and chemical data for a specific water than is generally done through IEPA monitoring,

found many more impairments than had been found through IEPA monitoring. (Exhibit 8)’°

It is true that in many cases an ammonia limit based on ammonia toxicity will incidentally

provide protection against violations ofthe dissolved oxygen standard. But Illinois cannot rely on

that. As the Board rules make clear, ammonia limits depend on pH and temperature factors that

may not correspond to the danger ofviolations ofthe dissolved oxygen standards. See 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.212. Further, even the 1.5 mg/L to 4.0 mg/L ammonia limits typically provided in

~As to each of these impairments “municipal” point sources are listed as a source of impairment. (Id.) Long reaches of

the Mississippi River are listed as impaired by low DO levels with the source of the impairment identified only as

“unknown”. (Id.)

10

Researchers from the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation report measuring DO levels less than

5

mg/l at 9 out of 11

impoundments studied on the Fox River. In some cases, the standard was violated over a period of 16 hours. IEPA’s

discussion of the Illinois River in its 305(b) report acknowledged that its monitoring did not look at biological data for

rivers in which one cannot wade and that it did not cover the biologically critical side channels and wetlands. (Exhibit

5)

6

---

Illinois NPDES permits may not be protective of DO levels. See In Matter of: Site Specific

Rulemaking for the Sanitary District ofDecatur, Illinois, R85-15, 1987 Ill. Env. Lexis 424 (Jan.

22, 1987); slip op. 7-11, 18 (Board finds that discharge of

1.5

mg/L ammonia may cause DO

violation)

Still further, in many cases, the availability of dilution in the receiving water will cause

there to be no ammonia limit or a very loose one. As the problems ofthe Mississippi River

demonstrate, it is possible to have large dilution and still have a dissolved oxygen problem. This is

because, as is often the case with environmental problems, the cumulative effect of relatively small

sources ofpollution can add up to a big problem. See e.g. Sierra Club v. Penfold, 664 F.Supp.

1299, 1303 (D. Alaska 1987) An example ofthis is the problems of the Mississippi River pool

above the Quad Cities for which U.S. EPA required special BOD limits because ofexisting

dissolved oxygen problems. (Exhibit 9)

The fact that in many cases toxicity-based ammonia limits are protective ofdissolved

oxygen does not mean that the Agency should ignore the cases where such limits are not protective.

Further, it cannot go without being noted that, to the extent the Board loosens the toxicity-based

ammonia standard in R02- 19, the ammonia standard will be less able to serve as an indirect control

on nitrogenous oxygen demand. Finally, we have no idea what effect the Agency’s casual extension

of its CBOD proposal to industrial dischargers will have on the amount of deoxygenating wastes

discharged into Illinois waters.

Component ofBOD.

The Board should not adopt the proposed change in the Deoxygenating Waste rule. Instead,

it should ask IEPA to develop proper methods for protecting DO levels in Illinois waters. Waiting

to change the standard until there are proper DO protections will not as a practical matter affect

NPDES permit limits because the Agency has already shown its vast willingness to issue permits

that contain only CBOD5 limits although the Board rules currently call for BOD5 limits.

The Environmental Groups have not been able to conduct a broad study of how dissolved

oxygen standards are protected in other states. It is known that Michigan for its permits separately

calculates limits on CBOD, nitrogenous oxygen demand and ammonia toxicity. (Exhibit 10)

For most waters, Illinois should use both technology-based limits on BUD that assure

minimum controls

calculate whether any additional requirements are necessary to protect

dissolved oxygen levels. To the extent the Board should allow any change in the minimum control

levels required of dischargers, it should recognize in its rules that CBOD makes up less than all of

the BOD.

In other jurisdictions, in those cases where it is allowed to substitute a CBOD5 limit for a

BOD5 limit, it is not allowed to substitute CBOD5 for BOD5 without recognizing that CBOD is

significantly less than 100 of the BOD. Thus, the federal rule that defines “secondary treatment”

for technology-based limit purposes states that

25

mg/L CBOD5 may be substituted for

30

mg/L

7

---

BUDS. 40 CFR

§

133.102.” Similarly, while requiring an individual calculation for most waters

(NR 210.05(1)(e) (Exhibit 11), Wisconsin allows a CBOD5 limit of12 mg/L to be substituted for

waters where a limit of

15

mg/L BUDS is required and allows

16

mg/L CBOD5 to be used in place

ofa BUDS limit requirement of 20 mg/L. (NR 210.05 (2)(f), (3)(e)) (Id.)

Moreover, there is really no reason to allow a CBOD5 limit of20 mg/L on a widespread

basis. Numerous authorities, including witnesses before the Board in numerous proceedings

beginning in 1971 and continuing thereafter, have recognized that CBOD5 limits of 10 mg/L are

readily attainable by almost all dischargers.’2 As was stated by Mr. Callahan at the March hearing

regarding the 10 mg/L BUDS (or CBODS) standard:

I believe it is economically reasonable --It is readily attainable. I think the industry

has a very high compliance rate with that on zero low flow streams across the state

right now and it seems to be done with moderately appropriate user fees and citizen

tax rates. (Tr. 131)

Thus, even were the Board inclined to adopt a portion ofthe Agency’s proposal

regarding deoxygenating wastes, it certainly should not allow CBOD5 limits to be set under

35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.120(b) above 10 mg/L or, following Wisconsin, 16 mg/L.

CONCLUSION

The Board should not grant the petition based on the current record. Ifat some point the

Agency provides the draft implementation rules and biological studies needed to gauge the effect of

the proposal, the Board can revisit the issue.

‘~F.Etting~~125045~

Counselfor Environmental Law & Policy

Center,

Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club

April 12, 2002

Environmental Law and Policy Center

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60601-2110

(312)

795

3707

IL

The Agency recognizes this requirement in its proposal by generally fhrbiddingCBOD5 limits over 25 mg/L.

12

Among the decisions noting that that it is not difficult to meet the 10 BOD5 standard are In the Matter of: ProDosed

Amendments to 35 III. Adm. Code 304.120. Deoxvgenatin~Wastes Standards, R86-l7(B) 1988 III. Env. Lexis 56 (Oct.

20, 1988) slip. op. 9 (10 mg/L BOD5 standard can be met using land treatment) and In the Matter of Proposed Site

Specific Water Pollution Rules and Regulations Applicable to Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois’ Discharge to Lily

CacheCreek, R8l-l9 1983 Ill. Env. Lexis 278 (May

5,

1983) sip op. 14 (“no question about the technical feasibility of

achieving compliance with 10

BOD5”).

8

---

..J4~CL

&(....‘(.4.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY

1021

North

Grand

Avenue East. P.O.

Box

19276, Springfield. Illinois

62794-9276

November 10, 1997

RE:

Draft Rules

for Determination ofWater

Quality

Based Effluent

Limits

for Discharges

to General

Use

Waters

Dear

Sir or

Madam:

Enclosed

is a draft ofAgency procedures to guide the issuance ofwater

quality

based effluent

limits

(WQBELs) in the NPDES

permit

program.

This draft contains

general procedures for establishing

WQBELs in

permits,

a reasonable potential analysis

method that

allows the-Agency to decide when

a

given

chemical

parameter must be regulated in an NPDES permit,

and

a method for

regulating

substances

that

have water

quality standards

or

criteria which are

more stringent

that analytical

methods

can detect. Additionally,

the draft contains methods that

address

the establishment ofthe

recently

nitrogen

adopted(DecemberIllinois19, Pollution1996)

in

permits.

Control Board water

quality and

effluent standards for

ammonia

We

anticipate that

interested parties will have questions

and

comments concerning

this document.

During the next thirty days we invite comments regarding this draft which will help us decide on a

plan for

future

public information meetings. Please contact Toby Frevert at the above

number

or

Bob Mosher at 217-782-3362

with questions or comments on this draft

by December 9, 1997.

I look

forward to working

with

you in

this

rulemaking process.

S~L~

Bureau ofWater

217-782-1654

Sincerely,

JBP:RGM:djp/amruldis

Prlmtad iii ~scyc1sd

Pipir

EXHIBIT 1

---

November 7, 1997

Environmental Protection

Subtitle C: Water Pollution

Chapter II: Environmental

Protection Agency

Part 353

Determination ofWaterQuality

Based

For Discharges to General Use Waters

Subpart A: Introduction

Section 353.101

Purpose,

Scope

and

Applicability

a)

The

purpose

of

this Part

is to

establish procedures

for determining the concentrations

of

substances that must be regulated

in NPDES permits in order to

assure that water

quality

standards

will be met in the general

use waters

ofthe State. These standards

are

established

by the Pollution Control Board at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302;

Subpart B

and C and

the water quality criteria detennination procedures ofSubpart F.

b)

This Part addresses

the effluent standards of35111. Adm. Code

304.105 and

304.122

which stipulate that effluents must be regulated to assure

that waters

meet water

quality standards

outside ofareas ofallowed mixing,

mixing

zones, zones of

initial

dilution (ZIDs), or areas

designated as

effluent

modified waters (EMWs) as provided

by this Part.

This Part

must

be administered

in accordance

with Part 354,

Determination ofAllowed Mixing, Mixing Zones

and

ZIDs.

c)

All effluents discharged

to

general

use waters

and

public

and

food processing water

supply intakes

are

subject to the

procedures

established in

this

Part. Discharges to

Lake Michigan

or the Lake

Michiganbasin

are subject to the provisions established

at 35111. Adm. Code

Part

352. Site~specificwater

quality

standards of

Part

303 are

to be applied in conjunction

with

the

procedures

of

this Part.

d)

Technology based limits

as required by USEPA or effluent standards found at 35111.

Adm. Code

Part 304 shall

be applied wherever they are more restrictive than the

water quality based

effluent

limits

determined from

this Part.

e)

This Part

provides a methodology to

determine

the

need

for

regulating substances in

an NPDES

permit

when an effluent or

point source

discharge has the

potential to

exceedwater

quality

standards or

criteria. When

a potential to exceed a water

quality

—1—

---

November 7, 1997

Section 3 53.405 Parameters for the Mass Balance

Calculation

a)

QE

-

Discharge Flowrate

-

The discharge flowrate shall be representative of the

maximum expected discharge

during

the term of the permit that coincides with the

critical

stream flow conditions given at 35 Iii. Adm. Code 353.309. Discharge

flowrates to coincide with these conditions will be determined as follows:

1)

for dischargers of treated domestic wastewater, the discharge flowrate will be

based on the average ofthe

lowest three months of effluent flow for the most

recent full calendar year,

unless

the discharger demonstrates

that this

value

does not accurately represent plant low flow discharge. Adjustments will be

made from this value to reflect

any

major change in flow expected during the

term of the permit

(e.g., major sewer

extensions,

an increase in the Facility

Planning Area,

projected development, etc.);

2)

for

industrial dischargers the discharge flowrate will

be based on the

highest

monthly average flow from the previous 5 year

period

unless the discharger

demonstrates that

this value

does not accurately represent

maximum

predicted

flow discharge. Adjustments will be made from

this

value to reflect

any

major

change

in flow expected during the term ofthe

permit

(e.g., change of

processes,

industrial

plant expansions, non-contaminated stormwater).

b)

Q~5

-

Dilution

Flowrate

-

The allowable dilution flow will be determined consistent

with the Agency

rules

for implementation of allowed

mixing and

mixing zones;

Part

354.

c)

C~

-

Upstream concentration

-

This

is the long term average concentration ofthe

substance present in the dilution flowprior to mixing

with

the discharge (e.g.,

Ambient stream

concentration upstream ofthe discharge). Acceptable sources of

data include the Agency’s ambient water

quality

monitoring program, Agency

conducted facility

and stream surveys and discharger

or

third party

collected data if

adequately quality assured.

d)

Standard

-

This

is the applicable water

quality standard

or criterion contained in or

derived from the Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, 35

Illinois

Administrative Code,

Part

302. For

any particular

substance there may be as many

as four applicable

standards

or criterion; e.g., Acute

aquatic

life,

chronic

aquatic life,

human health, and

wildlife. The

mass

balance calculation

and

derivation of a

WQBEL shall be completed for whichever of these criteria “Reasonable Potential”

has

been

established

pursuant

to Subpart B.

—11—

---

November 7, 1997

Section 353.407 Determining Instream Hardness

The toxicity of

several metals is dependent

on the hardness (as CaCO3) ofthe water investigated.

In

formulae,order

toa determinehardness

factor

numeric

is required.

water quality

The

standard

hardness

values

value

from

used

the

shall

water

reflect

quality

the conditions

standards

present in the

stream

once the effluent mixes

with

the ambient

stream

water. Also, the hardness

value

will beusedmoreshallconcentratedreflect

conditionsin

the

of

stream

hardness

during

presenttheseatperiodslow

stream

thus

conditions.

Stream hardness values used to compute values for metals standards shall be taken from the

nearestor the nearest

downstream

downstreamAWQMNAWQMNsamplingstationstation.is notWhenrepresentative

no downstream

of the receiving

AWQMN

water,

station

a

exists

value

from a AWQMN station from an adjacent and similar watershed shall be used. When there is no

AWQMNstations in

station

the basin

on

containing

an adjacent

the

and

receivingsimilar

watershed,

water shall

an

be used.

average

The

of

hardness

values from

values

all

AWQMN

used shall

be determined as follows:

a)

where the

stream

flow at the AWQMN station is measured, the tenth percentile

hardness concentration, expressed as

mgfL

CaCO3 hardness, obtained from samples

collected at the lowest ten percent of

stream

flow will be

used

as the value for

hardness;

b)

where the stream flow at the AWQMN station is not measured,

the 25th

percentile

hardness value will be used;

c)

alternatively, a discharger shall have the option to collect hardness data at a point

downstream

of the effluent discharge representative of complete

mixing and

the

resulting

25th percentile hardness value may be used to compute the pertinent metals

standards.

At

least

26 hardness values must be present in the data set

and

these values

must

be representative of all seasons of the year

and

gathered in a

manner

representative of the sampling period.

-

Section

353.409 Receiving Water

Stream

Flow Conditions

a)

Acute and Chronic water

quality standards and

criteria

and

the other

standards

cited at

35 Ill. Adm. Code 353.301(d),

shall

be applied as

permit limits

according to the

provisions of

this Part using

7Q10

stream

factors.

-12-

---

UNFTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

S

~

i~i

~ ‘77

~

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD

CHICAGO. IL 60604-3590

~ p~O~

REPLY TO THE

ATTENTION OF:

October 25, 2001

Mr. Toby Frevert, Manager

Division ofWater Pollution Control

1021 North Grand Ave. East

Springfield, Illinois 62702

Toby:

Thank you for the opportunity to review

and comment on the Illinois Association of

Wastewater

Agencies’ (IAWA) proposed changes to Illinois’ water quality

standards

for

ammonia.

The

United

States Environmental Protection Agency, Region

5

(USEPA Region 5)

prepared

the following preliminary comments on the

proposed rule revisions. These comments

do not

constitute

final review

and/or

approval or disapproval ofthe

proposed revisions.

USEPA

Region 5 will

take

final action on

any

changes to Illinois’ water quality

standards

if

and

when the

revisions are adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and submitted to USEPA Region

5

for review

and approval.

The comments below fall into four principle

areas:

the determination ofwhen early life

stages are

absent, the determination of

design

flows, the determination ofdesign pH

and

temperature,

and

theprotection of mussels species. Each ofthese

areas

is discussed in

greater

Making Early Life Stage Absent Determinations

In its 1999 Update ofAmbient Water

Quality

Criteria for

Ammonia

(1999 Ammonia

Update), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends

two

chronic values: one

value when early life stages offish

are

expected to be present

and a second. value

when early life

stages

offish

are expected to be

absent. This is a departure from EPA’s usual practice in which

it recommends a single chronic value that protects both early life

and

adult stages offish. Since

early life stages could

experience chronic

toxicity wherever they

are exposed to levels that are

above the early life stage value, even where such levels

are

below the value for adults, States

and

Tribes should ensure that early life stages of fish

are

not present where the early life stage absent

values

are

implemented. EPA recommends that States

and Tribes

conduct a thorough assessment

across all locations in the state or reservation in determining where

and

during which periods of

the year early life stage absent values could be applied.

flecyclediRecyclablo .Prlnted with Vegetable

ON

Based

Inks

on

100 Recyded Paper (40

Po~consumer)

EXHIBIT 2

---

For larger States, especially for States whose north-south distance is relatively long, it is

likely that the

period

of the year when early life stagesare absent will

vary

with location,

and

it

becomes more difficult to

generalize

about where

and

when early life

stages

are absent. The

larger the area ofconsideration for the early life stage absent values, the greater should be the

extent ofdata collection

and analysis. LargeStates can

ensure protection by applying a

considerable degree ofconservatism in making

an across-the-state determination regarding early

life

stage

absence.

In its proposal, IAWA indicates that April would

be an acceptable starting

point for

assuming

the presence ofearly life stages offish. USEPA Region

5

believes that early life stages

offish are likely to exist in Illinois outside ofthe

period determined by IAWA. A cursory review

ofthe literature on the

spawning periods

offish in

the

Upper Mississippi Basin shows that a

significant number

ofubiquitous species spawn in March,

and

that several species spawn in mid-

February. In addition, there is some information that suggests that several late fall spawners

produce larvae that survive over winter in some locations under ice near the shore.

IAWA addresses this

more localized spawning scenario by stating that, “In water

bodies

that provide habitat for a

period

of

time

other

than

March through October for early life stages

that

are sensitive to ammonia..

.the water body shall meet the summer water quality standard

during

the

period

of

time early

life

stages are present.” This statementgives the impression that

IAWA has not

analyzed all waters in

the

state

where it intends to apply the early life

stage

absent

values.

EPA recommends

that

the analysis of

early

life stage absence occur prior to the

application ofthe absent chronic values to a given waterbody.

In conducting an assessment for determining early life

stage

absence, EPA recommends

the following steps:

Step 1: Identify all

species expected to be present in each waterbody ofthe state,

Step 2: Determine spawning

periods and

waterbody where their early life stages preside,

Step 3: Based on the species

and early

life

stage information, determine when and

where the

early life stage values could be applied. The early life stage absent values should be

applied only in those waterbodies and

for those periods ofthe year where the analysis

shows that no early life stages offish

are

expected to be present.

USEPA Region

5

would like to provide Illinois EPA

with a

more thorough analysis of

the early life stage component ofthe IAWA proposal

and

is aware that IAWAwill offer

testimony at the public hearing regarding

its determination ofwhen the early life stage absent

values should apply in Illinois. However given that IAWA has

not yet provided the

technical

basis for

its

determination ofearly life stage absence, it is not possible for USEPA Region

5

to

provide such a review until IAWA makes

its data and analysis

method available. In addition, it

would be

useful

to ask the Illinois Department of

Natural

Resources the times of the year when

early life stages offish

are likely to

be absent across Illinois.

2

---

DesignFlow

In implementing the freshwater aquatic life CCC (Continuous Chronic Concentrations) in

the 1999 Ammonia Update, EPA recommends a 30-day averaging period,

which is a

departure

from its recommendation of a four-day averaging period for the CCC of

its

other criteria. A 30-

day averaging

period

for the

ammonia

CCC suggests a modification to the procedures in the

Appendix D ofthe

Technical Support Documentfor Water Quality-based Toxics Control

(TSD)

for calculating NPDES permit limits. In addition to the equations (and corresponding “multiplier

tables”) presented in the TSD, which

assume a 4-day averaging period,

EPA recommends that a

long

term

average (LTA) also be evaluated

based

on a 30-day average. Hence, EPA recommends

that three

LTAs be

considered for ammonia (i.e., acute, chronic, and

sub-chronic), instead ofthe

two LTA equations that EPA recommends for its

other

aquatic

life criteria. EPA recognizes that

Illinois’ practice ofpermit derivation may not exactly correspond to EPA’s recommendations in

the TSD, however, Illinois should be able to modify

its

procedure for deriving

ammonia permits

so as to parallel EPA’s recommended modification for

ammonia.

It

appears

that IAWA’s

proposal

would incorporate

this

modification to the TSD for ammonia into its

technical

guidance

for

pennit

derivation, but I have included the following excerpt from the

Ammonia FR Notice so

that Illinois

can compare IAWA’s proposal with

EPA’s recommendation:

In the TSD, the acute long

term

average (LTAU) is determined from the acute wasteload

allocation (WLA,)

using

the equation:

LTAa

=

WLA e

(0.5a~-

zoj

where a2

=

in (CV2

+

1)

The chronic long term

average

(LTAC)

is determined from the chronic wasteload allocation

(WLAC) using the equation:

LTAC

=

WLA~e

0.5o~

-

Z041

vhere o~

=

hi (CV

2/4

+

A comparison

ofthe LTA~

and LTAC is then performed and

the minimum value is selected

(LTA~).The maximum daily limit (MDL) is then calculated from the LTAMJN using the

equation:

MDL

=

LTA~ e

(w

- 0.502

where a~

=

ln(CV2

+

1)

The average monthly limit

(AML)

is calculated from the LTAMJN

using

the equation:

AML

LTA~ e

~°“ -

where c~

=

1n(CV2/n

+

1)

3

---

Since the 1999 Update recommends a 30-day averaging period for deriving the CCC, the

equation for determining the LTAC

an additional LTAC should be calculated as follows:

LTA~

=

WLAC e

(0.5a~~

ZO3~J

where o~

=

in (CV

2/30

+

1)

A

comparison ofthe

LTAa,

LTAC(4), and

the LTAC(30)

is then performed to determine the MDL

and AML

from the LTAMJN.

Design pH and Temperature:

JAWA proposes using

the

75th

percentile ofthe pH

and temperature values (i.e., 75

percent ofthe values are less than the

75th

percentile) in setting

the ammonia permit levels,

unless

the resulting criteria are below 1.5 and 4.0 mg/L for the acute and chronic criteria, respectively,

in which case it will use the

50th

percentile ofpH values. USEPA Region

5

has

concern about

this

approach because there does not

appear to be any xater quality basis for such a practice.

USEPA Region

5

is concerned that the

50th

percentile ofpH (as well as temperature) values

under any

conditions may not reflect an appropriate level ofprotection. In addition, it might be

preferable to use

percentiles that more closely matches the different criteria (acute,

sub-chronic

and chronic). For

example, a higher percentage

(90th)

would be appropriate for the acute

criterion; a

lower percentile (although no lower than the

75th

percentile) may be appropriate for

the chronic criterion.

Protection of Mussels Species

Surveys conducted over the past few decades in Illinois indicate that mussels populations

in many parts of the state are experiencing a substantial decline. The decline is so serious that

freshwater mussels are the most endangered aquatic life group in Illinois, many ofwhich are

Federally-listed as threatened or endangered.

In ensuring that the ammonia revisions under

consideration are protective ofthese declining mussels populations,

Illinois should familiarize

itself

with any

recent ammonia toxicity data on mussels species. For your convenience, I have

attached a draft report by Dr.

Tom Augspurger ofthe U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, which

analyzes recent ammonia

toxicity studies on mussels.’

If, after reviewing this report, as well as

other data on mussels, Illinois were to determine that its mussels species would not be protected

by the proposed revisions to its ammonia criteria, it should modify the ammonia revisions under

consideration. Illinois could do this by using EPA’s recalculation procedure

(Interim Guidance

‘Several ofthe mussels species

considered in the draft report reside in Illinois, including

Utterbackia imbecillis, Pyganodon grandis, Villosa iris, Lampsilis siliquoidea, and Lampsilsis

cardium.

The authors ofthe studies include M. Black

and M. Barfield, 2000, A. Keller 1999,

Wade 1992

(Utterbackia imbecillis);

Scheller et

al. 1996, Scheller 1997

(Pyganodon grandis);

Goudreau et al. 1993,

Scheller et al. 1996, Scheller 1997

(

Villosa iris),

Myers-Kinzie

1998, 1999

(Lampsilis siliquoidea);

and

T.J.

Newton, preliminary

data

(Lampsilsis cardium).

4

---

on Determination and Use of Water Effect Ratiosfor Metals,

February 1994, EPA-823-B94-001)

or other scientifically defensible method to reset the criteria in accounting for the presence of a

sensitive

species. Where specific species residing in Illinois

are

not included in the attached

analysis, USEPA Region 5 suggests that Illinois consider dina from the same genera.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,

EPA consults with the U.S. Fish

and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service when approving new and

revised

water quality standards submissions to determine if-such-new or revised standards would likely

jeopardize the continued existence ofany Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or

destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. Because there are a substantial number of

Federally-listed mussels species in Illinois, EPA recommends that Illinois anticipate the

consultation on the ammonia revisions by reviewing

any toxicity

data on Federally-listed mussels

species prior to the adoption process. Where toxicity data on Federally-listed mussels species are

not available,

Illinois could use, as a surrogate approach, toxicity data from non-listed mussels

species residing in the state.

Thank

you again for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Ifyou have questions

regarding these comments, please have your staff contact Mr. Brian Thompson ofmy

staff. Mr.

Thompson may be reached at 312-353-8640.

Sincerely,

Mary

Pat Tyson

Acting Chief

Water Quality Branch

ç~ki~B

to~as/oi

5

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Review ofAmmonia Toxicity to Freshwater Mussels

-

January 2001 fwmamm2.wpd

Augspurger, T.P., U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC; Black, M.C., University of

Georgia, Athens, GA; Keller, A.E., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA and

Cope, W.G., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Abstract:. Published

and unpublished sources ofammonia toxicity data for freshwater mussels

(Unionidae), a significantly imperilled

taxa, are

summarized. Twenty 24-96 hour LC50’s,

covering eight species in seven genera, were used to calculate genus mean acute values (GMAV)

which ranged

from 0.20 to 0.49 mg/i (un-ionized ammonia)

and

from 3.4 to

7.5 mg-N/I (total

anunonia as N, normalized to pH 8, which

is the basis for the new water quality criteria

calculation). All GMAVs

are less than the lowest GMAV in

the criteria document. By pooling

data, a unionid family

mean acute value (FMAV)

was calculated. The FMAV was multiplied by

0.5 (an empirically derived factor which converts from a 50

lethality concentration to a

minimal-lethality

concentration) to approximate a mussel specific criteria

maximum

concentration guidelines of0.18 mg/i (un-ionized ammonia)

and 2.8 mg-N/I (total ammonia as

N, pH 8). No sublethal chronic endpoints were found. An

acute:chronic

ratio of7.2 (from

two

9-15

day

LC501s with unionids)

was multiplied

by a factor of 2 to approximate an acute:chronic

ratio for sublethal effects. This was used to derive a unionid specific criteria continuous

concentration guidelines

of 0.02 mg/i (un-ionized ammonia)

and

0.40

(total ammonia as N, pH

8). Comparison ofthese values with the recently revised national ammonia water

quality criteria

reveals

scenarios

where the criteria may not be protective. The criteria documents outline

approaches for incorporating concerns with particularly sensitive species, including those that

are

threatened or endangered, which allow for additional protection

through

site-specific

standards

or

adjustments

to the

standards.

These options may be

necessary in waters important

for

unionid

conservation.

Introduction

Many factors

are

cited in the decline of freshwater mussel (Family Unionidae) populations in

North America

and for the listing ofgreater than 70

ofnative unionids as endangered,

threatened, or of special concern (Williams et al. 1993, Neves et a!. 1997). Habitat alteration,

introduction ofexotic species, over-utilization, disease, predation,

and pollution are considered

causal or contributing factors in many areas of the United States (Fuller 1974, Havlik and

Marking

1987). Among North

Carolina’s approximately 70

endemic unionids, five

are

federally

listed as endangered and 13 are recognized

as species ofconcern that may merit similar

protection.

Point source discharges to streams supporting these species are permitted under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Wastes are permitted at levels designed to

maintain water quality at or better than the State’s water quality standards. However, there is

currently no State standard for ammonia. Permit limits are used to control ammonia discharge to

the environment; limits

are based on toxicity information on a variety

of freshwater fauna, but

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

few freshwater mussel toxicity data are in the database currently used for calculation of

standards. Hence, the protectiveness of the current approach, relative to native freshwater

mussels, is not known. Compounding the need to address this issue are two

additional factors:

1) Keller (1993, 1996), Masnado et al. (1995),

and Keller and Ruessler (1997) found the

cladocerans

Ceriodaphnia dubia

and

Daphnia magna

to be more sensitive to the acute effects of

organic chemicals (herbicides, organochiorine insecticides, an organophosphate, and solvents)

and a simulated mine effluent than the freshwater mussel

Utterbackia imbecillis.

However,

information from limited toxicity testing indicates a potential for early lifestages ofmussels to be

among the most sensitive aquatic organisms yet tested for impacts of chlorine (Goudreau et a!.

1993), metals (Keller

and Zam

1991, Jacobson et al. 1993),

and paper mill effluent (Wade et a!.

1993, McKinney and Wade 1996).

2)

Ammonia

is a natural biological degradation produ.~tofnitrogenous organic matter,

and as

such, it is a common environmental contaminant. Significant sources of

ammonia

enrichment

include industrial waste, municipal waste water treatment plants, and agricultural run-off (animal

wastes as well

as chemical fertilizers). In the environment, sediment pOre water concentrations

of

ammonia typically

exceed those ofoverlying surface water. The unionids’ anchorage in the

substrate places

them in the environmental

compartment

where

ammonia concentrations are

expected to be among the highest (Frazier

et a!. 1996).

To address this issue, available published

and

unpublished

ammonia

toxicity data for freshwater

mussels were located and summarized. Existing data for ammonia toxicity to early lifestages of

freshwater mussels were retrieved from the literature (Toxline search)

and by contacting those

involved in mussel toxicity testing. The pooled data were used to derive water quality guidelines

protective of most freshwater mussels which are

then compared to the recently updated national

criteria.

The toxicity of ammonia

varies with temperature

and

pH (which determine the fraction of total

ammonia which exists in the ionized and un-ionized states). Recommended water quality criteria

for ammonia have been presented on an un-ionized ammonia basis (NH3) (USEPA 1985) and

total ammonia as nitrogen basis (NH3

+

NH4~

-

N) (USEPA 1999). In this review, we present raw

data and

recommendations

in both formats; because no cited reports present data on a total

ammonia as nitrogen basis, we used the equations in appendix 3 ofthe USEPA (1999) revised

ammonia criteria document with reported or discerned temperature and pH data to derive this

format.

Results

Twenty-four unionid LC50’s were retrieved, covering nine species in eight genera (Table 1). Two

data points were for adult mussels (which may not be the most sensitive lifestage) and two

additional data points were for subchronic exposures (i.e., 96 hours).

Additional relevant data

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

are

available in Home

and McIntosh (1979) for the genera

Amblema, Utterbackia, Cyrtonaias,

and

Toxolasma,

but those authors tested only one concentration ofammonia 5 mg / 1 total

ammonia as N) and reported lethality from

55

hours to 165 hours (i.e., no 96 hour LC50 available

from this paper).

For early lifestages ofunionids, there were a total oftwenty acute

(~

96 hours) exposure assays,

covering eight species

and seven genera. In general, glochidia were approximately

1.5

to 3.7

times more sensitive than juveniles in the three species for which acute data are available for

both lifestages (Table 2).

To compare these data to that for species considered in the national criteria document for

ammonia

(USEPA 1999), data

are summarized by the methodology of the national numeric

water quality criteria guidelines (Stephan

Ct al. 1985) (Table 2). Tables 3

and

4 present genus

mean acute values for all data combined and for adult and juvenile data only (i.e., excluding the

glochidia.. .an

attempt to address the concerns ofsome over this test procedure, but we feel these

data have merit). In the pooled dataset, genus mean acute values (GMAV, or the geometric

mean ofall LC50’s for ~ 96 hr exposure duration within a given genus) ranged from 4.24 to 8.88

mg-N/i (total ammonia as N,

pH 8) (Table

3). These values are uniformly at the sensitive end of

the range of GMAVs reported in the l~erature. Excluding the more sensitive glochidia from

these calculations affects GMAVs

and

their ranks, but

it does not appreciably change the overall

apparent sensitivity ofunionids relative to other taxa represented in the database (Table 4).

---

Species

_________

Villosa iris

glochidia

Villosa iris

glochidia

Villosa iris

juvenIle

Villosa iris

juvenile

Villosa iris

juvenile

Utterbackia imbecillis

glochidia

Utterbackia imbecillis

glochidia

Utterbackia imbecillis

juvenile

Utterbackia imbecillis

juvenile

Utterbackia imbecillis

juvenile

Goudreau et a!. 1993

Scheller et a!. 1996, Scheller 1997

Scheller et a!. 1996. Scheller 1997

Scheller et al. 1996. Scheller 1997

Scheller et a!. 1996. Scheller 1997

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub. data 2000

A. Keller, unpub. data 1999

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub. data 2000

A. Keller, unpub. data 1999

A. Keller, unpub. data 1999

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Table

1. Toxicity Data

for Ammonia and Freshwater Mussels

Life stage

Duration

I

Reference

°C

22

8.1

20

7.9

25

8.2

25

8.2

25

8.1

25

8

25

25

25

25

8

24-hr

24-hr

96-hr

96-hr

96-hr

48-hr

48-hr

96-hr

96-hr

96-hr

Lc..5o (mg/fl

(Un-ionized)

0.284

0.11

0.62

0.56

0.38

0.33

0.40

0.38

1.28

0.45

k~5o1mg/l)

(Total as N, pH 8)

5.18

2.25

9.44

8.54

5.50

5.12

7.46

5.79

19.67

6.89

Utterbackia imbecillis

juvenile

9-day

24

7.7

0.153

2.83

Wade 1992

---

Draft --Draft--Draft

Pyganodon grandis

adult

96-hr

25 7.5

0.44

8.74

Scheller et al. 1996, Scheller 1997

Pyganodon grandis

adult

96-hr

25 7.7

0.54

9.03

Scheller et a!. 1996, Scheller 1997

Lasmigona subviridis

juvenile

24-hr

25 8

0.43

6.61

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub. data 1999

Lasmigona subviridis

juvenile

24-hr

25

8

0.43

6.61

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub. data 1999

Lasmigona subviridis

juvenile

24-hr

25 8

0.34

5.19

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub. data 1999

Lasmigona subviridis

juvenile

15-day

22

8

0.03

0.57

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub. data 1999

Fusconaia masoni

glochidia

24-hr

25

8

0.34

5.18

M. Black and M. Barfield, unpub.

data 2000

Actinonaiaspectorosa

glochidia

48-hr

25 8

0.25

3.76

A. Keller, unpub. data 1999

Actinonaias pectorosa

juvenile

96-hr

25 8

0.91

14.05

A. Keller, unpub. data 1999

Medionidus conradicus

glochidia

48-hr

25 8

0.28

4.24

A. Keller, unpub. data 1999

Lampsilis siliquoidea

juvenile

96-hr

24 8.3

0.05

0.73

Myers-Kinzie 1998, 1999

Lampsilis siliquoidea

juvenile

96-hr

24 8.3

0.15

2.26

Myers-Kinzie 1998, 1999

Lampsilis cardium

juvenile

96-hr

19

8.2

0.99

21.64

(T. J. Newton, preliminary data, Upper

Midwest Environmental Sciences Center,

---

Etheostoma

Notemigonus

Medionidus

Oncorhynchus

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Table 3. Comparison ofFreshwater Mussel Genus

Mean

Acute Values (all data) for

Ammonia Toxicity to Other Sensitive Taxà, Listed in Order ofIncreasing Sensitivity

Genus

Species Used in GMAV

GMAV

Derivation

(mg/ 1 total ammonia as N. pH 8)

Golden trout

21.95

Cutthroat trout

Pink salmon

Coho salmon

Rainbow trout

Chinook salmon

Orangethroat darter

17.96

Golden shiner

14.67

Mountain whitefish

12.11

Giant floater

8.88

Paper pondshell

Pheasantshell

Green floater

Rainbow

Plain pocketbook

5.26

Atlantic pigtoe

Cumberland moccasinshell 4.24

---

Species Used in GMAV

______

Derivation

Golden trout

Cutthroat trout

Pink salmon

Coho salmon

Rainbow trout

Chinook salmon

Orangethroat darter

17.96

Golden shiner

14.67

Pheasantshell

14.05

Mountain whitefish

12.11

Paper pondshell

Giant floater

Rainbow

Green floater.

Plain pocketbook

5.26

Fatmucket

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Table 4. Comparison ofFreshwater Mussel Genus Mean Acute Values (juveniles and

adults only) for Ammonia Toxicity to Otht~rSensitive Taxa, Listed in Order of Increasing

Sensitivity

Genus

____________________

______

GMAY

(mg/ 1 total ammonia as N. pH 8)

Oncorhynchus

21.95

Etheostoma

Lampsilis

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Derivation ofWater Quality

Guidelines

We next pooled all unionid early lifestage acute data (n

=

20) across genera to derive water

quality guidelines for this family and for comparison to criteria and ambient water

concentrations. The first step was the calculation ofan early lifestage freshwater mussel family

mean acute value of0.36 mg/l un-ionized ammonia and

5.7

mg/I total ammonia as N, pH 8

(geometric mean ofall available short term tests).

The family mean acute values were then multiplied by

0.5

(an empirically derived conversion

factor used in water quality criteriadevelopment which converts from a

50

lethality

concentration to a minimal-lethality concentration) to approximate mussel specific criteria

maximum concentration guidelines of 0.18 mg/I (un-ionized ammonia) and 2.8 mg-N/I (total

ammonia as N, pH 8). These concentrations should not be exceeded in waters important for

unionid conservation.

There were no applicable acute:chronic ratios for sublethal -ammonia-impacts to freshwater

mussels. In order to approximate a freshwater mussel criteria continuous-concentration, the

following values could be used (and debated) for the acute:chronic ratio:

100

from the North Carolina State water quality standards at .0208(a)(l) for

circumstances where an acute:chronic value is lacking

20

from the State’s standards at .0208(a)(l) for circumstances where an acute:chronic

value is lacking and the compound has a half-life ofless than 96 hr

13.3

an ammonia acute:chronic ratio from juvenile

Lasmigona subviridis

studies

based on a geometric mean 24-hour LC~of0.40

mg/I

and the 15-day LC~of

0.03 mg/I; all tests by same researcher in same water (Black and Barfield,

unpub. data)

6.5

based on other data

for freshwater mussels (manganese exposure

to Utterbackia

imbecillis

with a 9-day LC50 of39 mg/l

and

90-day NOEC of6.0 mg/I

(Schweinforth and Wade 1990)

3.9

an ammonia acute:chronic ratio from juvenile

Utterbackia

imbecihis

studies

based on a geometric mean 96-hour LC~of 0.60

mg/I

(various studies) and

the 9-day LC50 of 0.153

mg/I

(Wade 1992)

Because there were no applicable data on sublethal ammonia impacts, we used the geometric

mean (7.2) ofthe two freshwater ammonia acute:chronic ratios based on lethality (13.3 and 3.9)

and multiplied by 2 to approximate a sublethal effects ratio of 14.4. Mussel family mean acute

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

values were divided by this value to derive mussel specifiç~criteria continuous concentration

guidelines of0.02 mg/l (un-ionized ammonia) and 0.40 mg-N/l (total ammonia as N, pH 8). In

waters important for unionid conservation, a 4-day average ammonia concentration should not

exceed these values.

Comparison to Water Quality Criteria

The significance ofthese derivations are illustrated in two ways. First, the early lifestage

freshwater mussel criteria maximum concentration and criteria continuous concentration are

compared to the newly recommendednational criteria (USEPA 1999). These criteria are

expressed as total ammonia as N, and vary 4epending upon PH; the chronic criteria also varies

with temperature (i.e, both national criteria are equation-based to normalize for these

physicochemical parameters). Also, the acute criteria varies depending on the presence or

absence ofsalmonids in the waters to which the criteria is to be applied, and the chronic criteria

varies

depending on whether

ornot early life stages of fish are present. Correspondingly, direct

comparisons require that combinations oftemperature and pH be specified (all values are total

ammonia as N (mg-N/I):

Federal Criteria Maximum Concentration at pH 8

Salmonids absent

Freshwater Mussel Criteria Maximum Concentration Guideline

2.8

Fish early lifestages absent 1.71

Freshwater Mussel Criteria Continuous Concentration Guideline

Summary

Freshwater mussel data are

not included in

the current database for calculation ofthe federal

water quality criteria for ammonia. Recently available datafor this family includes eight

GMAVs which are less than those

in the criteria

document, supporting

the

contention that the

tested mussel species are sensitive to ammonia relative to other invertebrates and fishes. The

current numerical criteriamay not be protective of this taxa,

and other options, such as site-

specific water quality standards and criteria re-calculations should be considered in important

freshwater mussel habitat.

Our approach did not consider additional margins ofsafety that could be recommended for

protection ofendangered species where information is specifically lacking (more of a political

science question than a toxicological one). Because the criteria maximum and continuous

concentration guidelines we derived exceed LC50ts for some species, additional margins of safety

---

Draft --Draft--Draft

are recommended in areas with threatened and endangered species if species-specific ammonia

toxicity testing cannot be accomplished to establish protective limits.

The acute data for freshwater mussels and ammonia are relatively robust and should support

standard setting. Chronic exposure data and sublethal endpoints assessments are generally

lacking and should be initiated.

Ammonia may be a significant limiting factor for unionids given that ambient concentrations

well-above the guidelines we derived have been documented. We have several documents on file

that

can

be supplied to

support this point.

References:

Frazier, B.E., T.L. Naimo

and M.B. Sandheinrich.

1996. Temporal

and

vertical distribution of

total

ammonia nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia nitrogen in sediment pore water from the upper

Mississippi River. Environ. Tox. Chem.

15:

92-99.

Fuller, S.L.H. 1974.

Clams and mussels (Mollusca: bivalvia). In C. W. Hart,

Jr. and S. L. H.

Fuller, eds.,

Pollution Ecology ofFreshwater Invertebrates.

Academic Press, New York, NY, pp.

215-273.

Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves

and R.J. Sheehan. 1993. .Effects of wastewater treatment plant

effluents on freshwater

mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA. Hydrobiologia 252:

211-230.

Havlik, M.E. and L.L. Marking. 1987. Effects of contaminants on Naiad mollusks (Unionidae):

A review. Resource Publication 164. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,

DC.

Home, F.R. and S. McIntosh. 1979. Factors influencing distribution of mussels in the Blanco

River ofcentral Texas. Nautilus 94: 119-133.

Jacobson, P.J., J.L. Farris, D.S. Cheny and

R.J.

Neves. 1993. Juvenile freshwater mussel

(bivalvia: Unionidae) responses to acute toxicity testing with copper. Environ. Tox. Chem. 20:

879-833.

Keller, A.E. 1993. Acute toxicity ofseveral pesticides, organic compounds, and a wastewater

effluent to the freshwater mussel,

Anodonta imbecilis, Ceriodaphnia dubia,

and

Pimephales

promelas.

Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 51: 696-702.

_____

1996. The acute toxicity of malathion to three life stages of unionid mussels. Final report

to the USDA-APHIS. National Biological Service, Southeastern Biological Science Center.

Gainesville, FL. 23 pp.

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

_____

and D.S. Ruessler. 1997. The toxicity of malathion to unionid mussels: Relationship ~o

expected environmental concentrations. Environ. Tox. Chem. 16: 1028-1033.

_____

and S.G. Zam. 1991. The acute toxicity of selected metals to the freshwater mussel,

Anodonta imbecilis.

Environ. Tox. Chem. 10:

539-546.

Masnado, R.G., S.W. Geis and

W.C.

Sonzognt. 1995. Comparative acute toxicity ofa synthetic

mine effluent to

Ceriodaphnia dubia,

larval fathead minnow and the freshwater mussel

Anodonta

imbecilis.

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14: 1913-1920.

McKinney, A.D.

and

D.C. Wade. 1996. Comparative response of

Ceriodaphnia dubia

and

juvenile

Anodonta imbecilis

to pulp

and paper mill effluents discharged to

the Tennessee River

and its

tributaries. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

15: 5 14-517.

Myers-Kinzie, M.L. 1998. Factors affecting survival and recruitment ofUnionid mussels in

small midwestern streams. Doctoral Thesis, Purdue

University, West Lafayette, IN.

_____

1999.

Factors affecting survival

and recruitment ofUnionid mussels in small midwestern

streams. DissertationAbstracts International Part

B: Science and Engineering 59:6181.

Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt

and

P.W.

Hartfield.

1997.

Status

of

mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral ofdiversity. In G.W.

Benz and

D.E. Collins, eds.,

Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective.

Special Publication 1,

Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Designs and Communications, Decatur,

GA. pp 31-

85.

Scheller, J.L. 1997. The effect ofdieoffs ofAsian clams

(Corbiculafluminea)

on native

freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, Blacksburg, VA.

_____

M.M. Yeager and D.S. Cherry. 1996. The impact ofammonia produced during die-offs of

the Asian clam

(Corbiculafiuminea)

on freshwater mussels. Poster P0636 presented at 17th

Annual Meeting of SETAC, Washington, DC, November 17-2 1.

Schweinforth, R.L. and

D.C. Wade. 1990. Effects

from sub-chronic 90-day exposure ofan in

vitro transformedjuvenile freshwater mussel

(Anodonta imbecillis)

to manganese. Presented at

11th Annual Meeting ofSETAC, Arlington, VA, November 11-17.

Stephan,

C.E.,

D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A. Brungs. 1985.

Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection ofaquatic

organisms and their uses. USEPA, ORD, Washington, DC.

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

USEPA.

1985.

Ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. Office

ofWater Regulations

and

Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. EPA 44O/5~85:O01.

_____

1999. 1999 Update of

ambient water quality criteria for ammonia. Office of Water. EPA

822-R-99-0 14.

Wade, D.C. 1992. Definitive evaluation of Wheeler Reservoir sediments toxicity using juvenile

freshwater mussels

(Anodonta imbecillis

Say). Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Resources

Division. TVAIWR-92/25.

_____

R.G. Hudson and

A.D.

McKinney.

1993.

Comparative response of

Ceriodaphnia dubia

and juvenile

Anodonta imbecilis

to selected complex industrial whole effluents. In K.S.

Cummings,

A.C. Buchanan

and

L.M. Koch, eds.,

Conservation and Management of Freshwater

Mussels. Proceedings ofa UMRCC Symposium,

12-14 October 1992,

St. Louis, MO. Upper

Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL. pp. 109-1

12.

Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Hams and R.J. Neves. 1993.

Conservation

status of freshwater mussels of the United States and

Canada. Fisheries. 18: 6-22.

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Table 2. Species mean and genus mean acute values for unionids and ammonia. Relative sensitivity ofunionid glochidia and

juveniles to ammonia are available for the

Villosa, Utterbackia, and Actinonajas.

Species

Lifestage

Duration

Temp

pH

Total ammonia

(total N ~ pH

8)

Species mean

acute values

Genus mean

acute values

Villosa iris

glochidia

24 hr

22

81

5.17

.

glochidia

24 hr

20

7.9

2.25

.

juvenile

96hr

25

8.2

9.44

.

juvenile

96hr

25

8.2

8.54

juvenile

96 hr

25

8.1

5.50

5.53

(all data)

3.41 (glochidia)

7.63 (juvenile)

5.53

(all data)

3.41 (glochidia)

7.63 (juvenile)

Utterbackia

imbecillis

glochidia

48 hr

25

8

5.12

,

glochidia

48 hr

25

8.1

7.46

juvenile

96hr

25

8

5.79

juvenile

96hr

25

8

19.67

juvenile

96 hr

25

8

.

6.89

7.86 (all data)

6.18 (glochidia)

9.22 (juvenile)

7.86 (all data)

6.18 (glochidia)

9.22 (juvenile)

juvenile

.

9 day

24

7

2.83 (enough

data present to

caic

FCV)

Chronic

chronic

.

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Pyganodon

grandis

adult

96hr

25

7.5

8.74

adult

96 hr

25

7.7

9.03

8.88 (all adult)

8.88 (all adult)

-

Lasmigona

subviridis

juvenile

24hr

25

8

6.61

.

juvenile

24hr

25

8

6.61

.

juvenile

24 hr

25

8

5.9

6.10 (all juvenile)

6.10 (alljuvenile)

juvenile

15 day

22

8

0.57

Chronic

Chronic

Fusconaia

masoni

glochidia

24 hr

25

8

5.18

5.18 (glochidia)

5.18 (glochidia)

Actinonaias

pectorosa

glochidia

48 hr

25

8

3.76

juvenile

96hr

25

8

14.05

7.27 (all data)

3.76 (glochidia)

14.05 (juvenile)

.7.27 (all dath~)

3.76 (glochidia)

14.05 (juvenile)

Medionidus

conradicus

glochidia

48 hr

25

8

4.24

4.24 (glochidia)

4.24 (glochidia)

Lampsilis

siliquoidea

juvenile

96 hr

24

8.3

0.73

juvenile

96 hr

24

8.3

2.26

1.28 (juvenile)

Lampsilis

cardium

juvenile

96 hr

19

8.2

21.64

21.64 (juvenile)

5.26 (juvenile)

---

Draft

--

Draft

--

Draft

Notes:

3.39

final chronic value forjuvenile

Utterbackia imbecillis

based on the 9-day geometric mean ofNOEC and LOEC (Wade 1992)

ACR calculations:

7.86 (all data)/3.39

=

2.32

9.22 (juvenile)/3.39

=

2.72

Data to determine FCV for Lasmigona subviridis is available (Black and Barfield, unpublished data).

---

Illinois

Association of Wastewater Agencies

SANGAMON TOWERS 0 SUITE 1000 424 NORTH FOURTH

STREET

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 627020 217-523-1814 0 FAX: 217-544-0086

WEBSITE: www.ilwastewater.org

President

TN UITI

Fox

Metro

Wat~

Reclamation District

Oswego. Ilioois

Vice President

-

Adninistration

INN $TNT

Urbanaand Chan~ai~

Sanitary

District

Urbana, Illinois

Vice President- Technical

flINT CUVU

Wheiton Sanit~yDistrict

Wheaton, Illinois

Menler-at-Large

NUN U~UR

City

of Ekidttxst

Ein~vxst.~ois

Member.att.arge

lUllS lU~EiI

Cityof

Joket

Joliet, Illinois

Es-Officio

—

UNUNTY

Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District

Chicago Heights. Illinois

Executive Director

WILMU

F.

ULLJI~

January 18, 2002

Mr David Pfeifer WI-I 5J

Life Scientist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77W. Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

Dear Mr. Puffer,

I am writing you concerning the present effort underway in Illinois by the

Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies (IAWA) to request that the

Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) adopt an ammonia nitrogen water

quality standard as prescribed by the USEPA 1999 Ammonia Guidance. I am

the current President ofthe LAWA and as such wish to outline to you and

your staff the present IAWA understanding ofdiscussions to date between

your office and various representatives ofIAWA in this matter. Further, I

wish to thank you and your staff for your consideration ofthe IAWA position

in these proceedings.

During the summer of 2001, the IAWA and the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (LEPA) jointly composed a draft ofthe proposed

regulation which was sent to you for review. While this rulemaking effort is

solely undertaken and funded by the IAWA, the IAWA has requested that

IEPA review and comment on all work in the development ofthe regulation

such that the proposal ultimately presented to the Board is a proposal IEPA

can comfortably support. This draft proposal was sent to your office several

months ago. A return comment from your office was received by IEPA and

discussed with IAWA.

Mr. Mike Callahan, Chairman ofthe IAWA Ammonia Water Quality

Subcommittee, met with you in November and discussed the comments made

by USEPA. During the November meeting you suggested that IAWA

representatives contact Mr. Brian Thompson ofyour office to address several

---

of the technical issues involved with the draft proposal. The IAWA has retained Dr. Robert

Sheehan ofthe Southern Illinois University Fisheries Research Laboratory as a technical

consultant and advisor in this matter. During December, 2001, Dr. Sheehan discussed the

proposal several times with Mr. Thompson, and, upon Mr. Thompson’s recommendation, with

Dr. Brooks Burr also of SIU. The issues discussed and Dr. Sheehan’s interpretation of their

resolution follow.

Early Life Stage Determination: the IAWA proposal considers the month ofMarch to

be the advent of the early life stage season throughout Illinois. This month was selected,

by Dr. Sheehan in consideration oftwo main issues. First, waters in the southern part of

the state obviously warm earlier in the spring than those in the northern portion of the

state. Consequently, many ubiquitous species in Illinois could readily begin the spawning

season earlier in the spring in southern Illinois than in northern Illinois and therefore would

need earlier seasonal protection in that area, Secondly, northern Illinois contains a

significant population ofnorthern pike not found in southern Illinois. The northern pike

begins spawning at colder water temperatures than most other indigenous Illinois species.

These water temperatures favorable to northern pike spawning can be realized in northern

Illinois in March. These two early life stage scenarios involve different considerations but

both indicate that March should be considered as the beginning ofthe early life stage

statewide.

Species Distribution: This consideration was not directly referenced as an issue in the

USEPA comment on the draft proposal, but has been discussed among Mr. Thompson,

Dr. Sheehan and Dr. Burr during their consideration ofthe early life stage timing. Two

species considered indigenous to Illinois were thought to be conceivably not protected by

the early life stage season ofMarch through October. These were the burbot and the

cavefish. Dr. Sheehan is unaware of any spawning populations ofburbort outside ofLake

Michigan in Illinois. The proposed ammonia nitrogen water quality standard does not

affect Lake Michigan and would therefore not impact the burbot. The cavefish is very

limited in distribution in Illinois and is found in areas that are extremely unlikely to realize

elevated concentrations of ammonia nitrogen. However, in consideration of the unlikely

occurrence of either ofthese species in waters which might be affected by the proposed

water quality standard, the IAWA has included an extra degree of protection in the draft

proposal which allows for IEPA to apply early life stage ammonia nitrogen protection

during winter to waters which may contain these species or any others found to need

additional protection.

Dr. Burr indicated he believes he may have observed fry of the redfln shiner, spotfin shiner

and the mottled sculpin through stream ice cover in November. While the possible

presence ofthe early life stages ofthese species is considered by Dr. Sheehan and Dr. Burr

to be minimal, Dr. Burr has indicated he believes some research into the extent ofthe

percentage ofeach ofthese species populations present as fry in November might be

appropriate. Again, as discussed with the burbot and the cavefish in the preceding

paragraph, the special protection afforded by the draft proposal is applicable to these

---

DATE:

05-Jun-98

TO:

FROM:

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

Reasonable Potential to Exceed Standards

--

Need for Further Analysis

DISCHARGER

City otAlton

ILOO

~7464

UPSTRM 7010

J 21490 Jcfs

STP DAF

10.5

JMGD

HARDNESS

226

mg/I as CaCO3

SIP LO FLO ~

5.92

1MGD

WQ STATION

1 84

DILUTION

2345.0

PERMIT EXPIRES

10/31/98

ANALYSIS NEEDED BY

Calculated

PARAMETER

MAX. EFF

CONC.

NO. OF

SAMPLES

MULTIPLY

BY

(

95

WATER QUALI~YSTANDARDS

~OTENTIAL

I

ACUTE

CHRONIC

(304)

LIMITS

FURTHER

ANALYSIS

~RSENIC

0.004

2

3.8

0.0152

0.36

0.19

0.25

No

BARIUM

0.6

3

3.0

1.8

*

5.0

2.0

No

CADMIUM

0.005

3

-

3.0

0.015

0.0244

0.0022

0.15

Yes

CHROM (Hex)

0.005

3

3.0

0.015

0.016

0.011

0.1

Yes

CHROM (Total)

0.03

2

3.8

0.114

3.3860

0.4036

1.0

No

CN (Dissoclable)

0.007

2

3.8

0.0266

0.022

0.0052

Yes

CN (Grab 24 hr)

0.01

3

3.0

0.03

*

*

0.1

.

No

COPPER

0.02

3

3.0

0.06

0.0382

0.024

0.5

Yes

FLUORIDE

1.24

- 1

6.2

7.688

*

1.4

15.0

Yes

IRON

0.1

3

3.0

0.3

1.0

2.0

No

-

LEAD

0.05

3

3.0

0.15

0.10

*

0.2

Yes

MANGANESE

0.015

1

6.2

0.093

*

1.0

1.0

No

MERCURY

0.0002

2

3.8

0.00076

0.0005

0.0005

Yes

NICKEL

0.04

0.0

0

*

1.0

1.0

No Data

OIL & GREASE

2

0.0

0

*

15.0

No Data

PHENOL

0.01

3

3.0

0.03

*

0.1

0.3

No

SILVER

0.01

3

3.0

0.03

*

0.005

0.1

Yes

ZINC

0.1

3

3.0

0.3

*

1.0

1.0

No

Notes:

C:\SPREADSH~CALC\METALS1.WBI

---

~linois State Fish

Page 1 of 2

The bluegill

(Lepornis macrochirus)

is a very common fish throughout the state. It is most abundant

in clear lakes with large amounts of aquatic vegetaion. However, it occurs in a large variety of

habitats including pools, overflow ponds, oxbows, swamps, and man-made impoundments. They

often occur in small loose schools that have up to 20 to 30 individuals in them.

They are generally small to medium-sized fish. The largest one reported from Illinois weighed 1.6

kilograms (3 lb. 8oz.). More typically, one would weigh about 0.3 kilograms (12 oz.) and would be

about 24 centimeters

(9.5

in.) long.

Bluegills are generally carnivorous. They mainly eat aquatic insects and insect larvae; in addition,

they eat smaller fish, crayfish, and snails. When other food is in short supply, they will also eat algae.

In the summer male bluegills build nests in water less than about 60 centimeters (2 ft.) deep). These

nests are shallow, circular depressions and are frequently in areas with gravel bottoms. Often many

males build nests in a small area. Females lay eggs in the nests. The males then guard the eggs until

they hatch.

These ~ç~rences have more information on bluegills.

If this interested you, you might be interested in these other Internet resources on fish.

How did it become a state symbol?

EXHIBIT 4

State Fish

--

About the symbol

http://www.museum.state. il.us/exhibits/symbols/fish. html

4/8/02

---

~linois State Fish

The State Fish was selected by schoolchildren in 1986.

Page 2 of2

http ://www. museum.state.il. us/exhibits/symbols/fish.html

4/8/02

---

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

-

- IEPA/BOW/00-005

Bureau of Water

P.O Box 9276

Spnnglield. Illinois 62794-9276

April 2000

-

Illinois Water Quality Report

Bureau of Water

EXHIBIT

5

---

(not supporting) their designated uses. Overall use, which is equivalent to aquatic life use since

aquatic life is considered to be the best measure of ecosystem health and integrity, was fully or

partially attained on 98.6 percent of all stream miles assessed (Figure 1-1). The major causes

(pollutants or stressors) of less than full support include habitat and flow alterations, nutrients,

organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, siltation, metals, and suspended solids. The major

sources include agriculture, habitat modification, point sources, resource extraction and urban

runoff.

Illinois River and Backwater Lakes

The Illinois River and its backwater lakes are an extremely important water resource system,

providing recreation, transportation/navigation, public water supply, flood control, wildlife habitat

and other beneficial uses. The protection and restoration ofthis resource is a complex task, made

more difficult since the Illinois River watershed encompasses nearly one-halfofthe state. Because

ofits importance to the state, this system is the object of numerous local, state, and national efforts

to protect and restore its quality for future generations.

In reviewing Figure 1-1, it should be noted that the vast majority of the mainstem river (from its

origin at the confluence of the Des Plairies and Kankakee Rivers to the Mississippi River) has been

assessed in this report as having “good” overall quality (fully supporting designated uses) based on

chemical water quality parameters measured. Part 3 ofthis report describes the niethodologies used

by the Agency to assess rivers and streams in the state, taking into account the type, quantity and

age of data available. In the case of the Illinois River mainstem, only chemical water quality data

are available forassessment purposes. Data collected over the past three year period were compared

to the general use water quality standards, as required by Section

305(b).

For each parameter

measured,the percentageofviolations ofeachstandard were calculated and compared to established

assessment criteria (see Table 3-2). In summary, standards violation rates were less than 11 for

each parametermeasured. Therefore, from a chemical water quality perspective, the majority ofthe

Illinois River is rated as “good.”

Nearly 30 years ofpoint source pollution control efforts, and more recent efforts to reduce nonpoint

source pollution, have demonstrably improved water quality on the Illinois River mainsteni.

Indicative ofthis success are the professional fishing touniaments being held up and down the river.

By comparison, such events were unthinkable due to poor water quality 25 years ago.

(While

this

is good news, the reviewer and users of this report are cautioned to re~neinber

f/wi

assessment data.

and overall assessment results, can change fromn one reporting period to the next. The ti/ne, place,

tipe. and amount of data collected are ever—changing;

thus,

overall assess/ne/it results (i.e.. good,

fair, poor.~can also change /i~omone reporting cycle to the next.)

Limited data have been collected by the Agency on Illinois River backwater lakes. Data that are

available are now considered too old for proper assessment purposes (i.e.,

15

years). Therefore.

use support attainment assessments have not been made for the vast majority of these resources.

However, excessive sedimentation is known to exist in portions ofthe n1ainstenl river (i.e., Peoria

Lake) and the majority ofthe backwater lakes and tributary streams. Information provided by the

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) show that both the rate of sedimentation and

---

volume lost due to sedimentatioti are severely Impacting the ability of these shallow, nutrient-rich

resources to support recreation, flood control,

aquatic

life and other beneficial uses. Figure 1-2

depicts impairnient due to excessive sedimentatioti in portions of the Illinois River mainstem and

backwater lakes as specifically docUmented by IDNR (Bhowmik and Dcniissie, June 2000).

The Lieutenant Governor’s Office has taken the lead role in recent years to address continuing

concerns over excessive sedimentation in parts of’the Illinois River system. “Illinois Rivers 2020”

is a bold, new, voluntary, incentive-based initiative that builds upon the success ofthe Illinois River

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Illinois Rivers 2020 utilizes existing

agencies, programs and delivery mechanisms in the federal Farm Bill and Clean Water Act (CWA)

programs, and seeks special consideration under the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).

This comprehensive program is the next logical step for restoration of the Illinois River Basin and

its backwater lakes.

Lakes

More than 3,000 lakes (six acres or more in size) covering nearly 250,000 acres exist in Illinois.

Like rivers and streams, inland lake resources are a vital component ofthe economic and social

well-being of the state. Some 90 million visitor days of general lake recreation generates an

estimated S 1.78 billion annually to the state’s economy.

Most publicly-owned lakes with 20 or more surface acres were assessed for this report, along with

public and non-public lakes monitored in conjunction with illinois EPA’s Volunteer Lake

Monitoring Program.

As shown iii Table 1-2, like rivers and streams, the monitoring of inland lake resources increased

substantially from the 1986 through the 1988 reporting periods, resulting in a sevenfold increase in

lake acres assessed. Prior to the 1988 report,only monitored assessments were made. Water quality

assessments were based on Agency collected data(Ambient Lake Monitoring Program, Lake Water

Quality Assessment Program and Federal/Illinois Clean Lakes Program) no older than five years.

In 1988, U.S. EPA changed their 305(b) guidance to include evaluated assessments. Evaluated

assessments included those that were based on Agency collected data that is greater than five, but

less than 16. years old, data collected through the Volunteer Monitoring Program or best

professional judgement. Since 1988, total lake acreage assessed for each reporting period has

continued to increase through the 1999 report. Note, however, that totai lake acreage reported in

the 1990 and 1992 reports was falsely elevated. A database counting error resulted in reporting

2 1 ,640 more lake acres thati were actually assessed. The error was subsequently corrected in the

1994 report.

For this 2000 report, a total of 154,795 acres (62.2 percent oftotal lake acreage) were assessed for

degree ofuse support, a reduction of33,689 acres from the 1999 report. The reduction in acreage

is due to eliminating waterbody assessments that were based solely on best professional judgement,

a single sampling event, or on data collected prior to 1983. Because 305(b) information is used to

determine 303(d) list eligibility, evaluated assessments were included in the 2000 report only when

monitoring data to support the assessment were available and no more than I 5 years old.

---

Causes

of

Less Than Full Support

Causes of use impairment for rivers and streams not fully supporting uses are summarized below

in Table 3-11.

Table 3-11. Statewide Causes

-

Rivers and Streams (miles).

Causes Category

Total Impact

Ammonia

(unionized)

88

Cause Unknown

175

Chlorine

14

Cyanide

123

Excessive Algal Growth/Chlorophyll a

58

Flow Alteration

431

Habitat Alterations

(other than flow)

2.8

16

Metals

1.634

Nutrients

3.2 10

Oil and Grease

20

Organic EnrichnientlD.O.

2.687

Other

Inorganics (Fluoride)

44

Pathogens

37

PCBs

96

pH

589

Priority Organics

643

Salinity/TDS!Chlorides

704

Siltation

2,330

Sulfates

349

Suspended Solids

1,492

Thermal Modification

22

43

---

Causes of Less Than Full Support

Table 3-29. Statewide Causes

-

All Lakes.

65

I

Causes of use impairment for all lakes not fully supporting uses are summarized below (Table 3-

29).

Causes Category

Total

Impact

Number

Acres

Piiority Organics

36

31.776

PCBs

8

15.682

Metals

13

13,199

Unionized Ammonia

10

4,368

N~utrients

148

126,797

pE-~

17

3,951

Siltation

129

118,761

Organic Enrichment/Low

D.O.

45

86,575

Salinity/TDS/Chlorides

26

Thermal Modification

2

6,007

Habitat Alterations

2

1,968

Pathogens

3

6,096

Suspended Solids

92

111,903

Noxious Aquatic Plants

95

71,618

Excessive Algae Growth/Chlorophyll

a

112

54,150

Exotic Species

9

541

Pesticides (half life ?90days)

I

4,040

---

(9)

Designated Uses

-

Use Support and Designated Uses are identified by the following numeric codes:

Use Support

is identified by a letter code attached to the corresponding designated use code.

F

=

Full

I

=

Threatened

P

=

Partial Support

N

=

Nonsupport

X

=

Indicates that a particular designated use was not assessed

Designated Uses

are identified by the following numbers:

I (old Code 0l)=Overall Use

20 (old Code 04)

=

Aquatic Life

21 (old Code 02)

=

Fish Consumption

42 (old Code 05)

=

Swimming

44

(old

Code 06)

=

Secondary Contact

50 (old Code 07)

=

Drinking Water Supply

(10)

Causes ofImpairment

-

indicates causes ofimpaired uses from the codes below. Also indicated is

the magnitude to which the cause contributes to the use impairment (H

=

high~M

=

moderate; S

=

slight).

0000

=

cause unknown

0300

=

priority organics

0410= PCBs

0420

=

dioxins

0500

=

metals

0510

=

arsenic

0520

=

cadmium

0530=copper

0540

=

chromium

0550

=

lead

0560

=

mercury

0570

=

selenium

0580

=

zinc

0600

=

ammonia (unionized)

0700

=

chlorine

0720

=

cyanide

0750

=

sulfates

0800

=

other inorganics (fluoride)

0900

=

nutrients

0910

=

phosphorus

0920

=

nitrogen

0930

=

nitrates

1000

=

pH

1100

=

siltation

1200

=

organic enrichment/low DO

1300

=

salinity/TDS/chlorides

1400

=

thermal modification

1500

=

flow alteration

1600

=

habitat alteration (other than flow)

1700

=

pathogens

1900

=

oil and grease

2100

=

suspended solids

2200

=

noxious aquatic.plants

2210

=

excessive algal growth/chlorophyll a

2600

=

exotic species

3000

=

pesticides (half life

?

90 days)

3100

=

atrazine

3200

=

cyanazine

3300

=

alachlor

3400

=

metolachlor

3500

=

metribuzin

3600

=

trifluralin

3700

=

butylate

---

(Ii)

Sources of Impairment

-

indicates the sources that contribute

to

the causes listed above. Also

indicated is the magnitude to which the source contributes to the use impairment (H

=

high; M

=

moderate, S

=

slight).

POft4T SOURCES

0100 : industrial point sources

0200 : municipal point sources

0400 : combined sewer overflows

0500

: collection system failure

0800 wildcat sewer

0900 : domestic wastewater lagoons

NONPOINT SOURCES

1000

Agriculture

6000

1050 : Crop Related Sources

1100:

nonirrigated crop

production

1200:

irrigated crop production

1300:

specialty crop production

(e.g., truck farming and orchards)

1350 : Grazing Related Sources

1400:

pasture land

1500:

range land

1600: feedlots

-

all types

1700: aquaculture

1 800 : animal holding/management areas

1900 : manure lagoons

7000

2000

Silviculture

3000

Construction

3 100 : highway/road/bridge

3200: land development

Land Disposal

(runoff/leachate from permitted areas)

6100 : sludge

6200 : wastewater

6300 : landfills

6350 : inappropriate disposal/wildcat

dumping

6400: industrial land treatment

6500 : on-site wastewater systems

(septic tanks, etc.)

6600 : hazardous waste

6700 : septage disposal

H ydrologic/Habitat Modification

7100 : channelization

7200 : dredging

7300 : dam construction

7350 : upstream impoundment

7400: flow regulation/modification

7500 : bridge construction

4000

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

5000

Resource Extraction

5100: surface mining

5200: subsurface mining

5300 : placer mining

5400 : dredge mining

5500 : petroleum activities

5600 : mill tailings

5700: mine tailings

5800: acid mine drainage

5900 : abandoned mining

7550

Habitat Modification

7600 : removal ofriparian vegetation

7700 : streambank mod ./destabi lization

7800 : draining/filling of wetlands

Atmospheric Deposition

Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks

Highway Maintenance and Runoff

Spills (Accidental)

Contaminated Sediments

Natural Sources

Recreation and Tourism Activities

Salt Storage Sites

Source Unknown

8100

8200

8300

8400

8500

8600

8700

8900

9000

---

-w~.

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE DESPLAINES RIVER WATERSHED, 1998.

Waterbody ID,

Segment ID:

Catalog Unit

Segment Name

Size in

Cycle

Key Sample

Assessment

Designated

Causes of

Sources of

Miles

Year Date

Type/Methods Uses

Impairment

Impairment

ILGO1

G 01

07120004

DesPlaines R.

2.405

2000 01/01/1998 M/ 860

N21,P1,P20

410,500,530,540,

100,200,4000,7000,

560,900,910,920,

7100.7400.8500

1500,1600

ILGO1

G 12

07120004

DesPlaines R.

9.4

2000 01/01/1989 E 1150

N21,P1.P20,X44

410,500,530,540,

560,900,910.920,

1500,1600

100,200,4000,7000,

7100,7400.8500

ILGO1

G 24

07120004

DesPlainesR.

4.185

2000 01/01/1994 M/ 300

N21,P1,P20

410,500,540,560,

900,910,920,1500,

1600

100,200,4000,7000,

7100,7400,8500

ILGO1

GD

07120004

Cedar Cr.

7.95

2000

E /

X1,X20

ILGO8

G 08

07120004

DesPlaines R.

0.98

2000 01/01/1998

M/ 230,700,

860

F1,F20,F21,P42

ILGO8

G 25

07120004

DesPlainesR.

6.92

2000 01/01/1997 M/ 700,860

P1,P20,X21

1100

3000,3200,4000

ILG11

G 03

07120004

DesPlainesR.

8.575

2000 01/01/1998 M/ 200,700,

860

P1,P20,P21

300,720,900,910,

920.1200,1220,1300,

200,4000,7000,7100,

7400,8500

.

1320.1500,2100

ILG11

G 11

07120004

DesPlainesR.

3.18

2000 01/01/1998

M/ 230,700,

N21,P1,P20,P42

300,720,900,910,

200,4000,7000,7400,

.~

860

920.1200,1220,1300,

1320,1500,2100

8500

ILG11

G 39

07120004

DesPlainesR.

15.97

2000 01/01/1998 MI 230,700,

860

N42,P1,P20

300,720,900,910,

920,930,1300,1320,

1330,1500,2100

200,400,4000,7000,

7400,8500

1LG23

G 23

07120004

DesPlaines R.

3.165

2000 01/01/1998

M/ 230

N21,P1,P20,P44

.

410,500,510,530,

540,550,560,580,

720.900,910,920,

1200,1220,1500,1600,

2100

100,200,400,4000,

7000,7100,7400,8500

ILG3O

G 07

07120004

DesPlaines R.

10.28

2000 01/01/1998 M/ 230,700,

860

F1,F20,F21,N42

ILG3O

G 15

07120004

DesPlainesR.

3.49

2000 01/01/1998 M/ 230

F21,N42,P1,P20

900,910,920,930,

1200,1220,1300,1320,

2100

200,400.3000,3200.

4000,8300

ILG3O

G 22

07120004

DesPlaines R.

4.12

2000 01/0111998 M / 230

F1,F20,P42

Page 1 of7

---

GBKAO1

GBKBO1

GBL 02

GBL 05

Sources of

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE DESPLAINES RIVER WATERSHED, 1998.

Waterbody

ID:

Segment ID: Catalog Unit

Segment Name

Size

in

Cycle Key Sample

Assessment

Designated

Causes of

Miles

Year Date

Type/Methods

Uses

Impairment

Impairment

ILGBKO5

3.55

2000 01/01/1987

E

I

150

N1,N20

500,530,720,900.

910,930,1300

200

ILGBKO5

7.28

2000 01/01/1977

E / 150

X1,X20

ILGBL1O

8.89

2000 01/01/1997 MI 300,420,

700,860

F1,F20,X21

ILGBL1O

3.17

2000 01/01/1997

M / 300,420

P1,P20,X21

900,910,920,930,

1200,1220,1300,1320,

1600,2100

200,3000,3200,4000,

7000,7100

ILGBL1O

GBL 08

07120004

E Br. DuPage R.

6.41

2000 01/01/1997 MI 300,420

P1,P20.X21

720,900,910,920,

1100,1200,1500,1600,

2100,2210

200,3000,3100,3200,

4000,7000,7100,7350,

7400

ILGBL1O

GBL 10

07120004

E:Br. DuPageR.

4.65

2000 01/01/1998 M/

230,300,

420,700

N42,P1,P20

900,910,920,930,

1100,1200,1300.1600,

2100,2210

200,3000,3100,3200,

4000,7000,7100

GBL 11

07120004

E. Br. DuPage R.

3.88

2000 01/01/1991

MI 300,420

P1,P20,X21

900,910,930,1600

200,3000,3200,4000,

7000,7100.7600,7700

GBLA

07120004

PrentissCr.

3.96

2000 01/01/1997

E / 170

X1,X20

GBLBO1

07120004

St. Joseph Cr.

4.28

2000 01/01/1997 MI 300,420

P1,P20

1200,1600,1900,2100,

2210

200,3000,3200,4000,

7000,7100,7550,7600,

7700,9000

GBLC

07120004

LaceyCr.

3.76

2000 01/01/1995

E / 170

X1,X2ci

GC 02

07120004

Jackson Cr.

10.55

2000 01/0111991 E/ 150

F1,F20

GC 03

07120004

Jackson Cr.

14,4

2000 01/0111997 MI 700

Fl,F20,X21

GCAO1

07120004

ManhattenCr.

8.33

2000 01/01/1997 M/

F1,F20,X21

GCB

07120004

Jackson Br.

8.96

2000 01/01/1991

E / 150

P1,P20

900,910,930

200

GF 01

07120004

Sugar Run

6.58

2000 01/01/1983

E / 150

P1.P20,X21

500,510,900,920,

1000,1100,1200,1220

1000,1100.3000,3200,

4000

GG 02

07120004

Hickory Cr.

9.95

2000 01/01/1998 MI 230

N42,P1.P20

900,910,920,1300,

1320,1500,2100

200,400,3000,3200,

4000.7000,7400

Page

4

of7

---

900,910,920,930,

1200,1220,1300,1320,

1600,2100

720,900,910,920,

1100,1200,1500,1600,

2100,2210

900,910,920,930,

1100,1200.1300,1600,

2100,2210

900,910,930,1600

1200,1600,1900,2100.

2210

900,910,930

500,510,900,920,

1000,1100,1200,1220

200,3000,3200,4000.

7000.7100,7550.7600.

7700,9000

200

1000,1100,3000,3200,

4000

200.400,3000,3200,

4000,7000,7400

Waterbody ID:

ILGBKO5

GBKAO1

07120004

ILGBKO5

GBKBO1

07120004

ILGBL1O

GBLO2

07120004

ILGBL1O

GBLO5

07120004

Spring Brook

Kress Cr.

E. Br. DuPage R.

E. Br. DuPage R.

Size in

Cycle Key Sample

Miles

Year Date

3.55

2000 01/01/1987

7.28

2000 01/01/1977

8.89

2000 01/01/1997

3.17

2000

01/01/1997

Assessment

Designated

Type/Methods Uses

E

I

150

N1,N20

E 1150

X1,X20

M/ 300,420, F1,F20,X21

700,860

M/ 300,420

P1,P20,X21

Sources of

Impairment

200

GBLO8

07120004

E.Br.DuPageR.

GBL1O 07120004 E.Br DuPageR.

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE DESPLAINES RIVER WATERSHED, 1998.

Segment ID: Catalog Unit Segment Name

Causes of

Impairment

500,530,720,900,

910,930.1300

200,3000,3200,4000,

7000,7100

ILGBL1O

200,3000,3100,3200,

4000.7000.7100,7350,

7400

ILGBL1O

200,3000,3100,3200,

4000,7000,7100

LGBL1O

200,3000,3200,4000,

7000,7100,7600,7700

ILGBL1 0

~ ILGBL1O

6.41

2000 01/01/1997 MI 300,420

4.65

2000 01/0111998

GBL 11

GBLA

GBLBO1

GBLC

GC 02

GC 03

GCA 01

GCB

GF 01

07120004

07120004

07120004

07120004

07120004

07120004

07120004

07120004

07120004

ILGBL1O

ILGCO2

ILGCO2

ILGCO2

LGCBO1

ILGFO1

tLGGO2

E. Br. DuPage R.

Prentiss Cr.

St. Joseph Cr.

Lacey Cr.

Jackson Cr.

Jackson Cr.

Manhatten Cr.

Jackson Br.

Sugar Run

3.88

3.96

4.28

3.76

10.55

14.4

8.33

8.96

6.58

2000 01/01/1997

2000

01/01/1997

2000 01/01/1997

2000 01/01/1995

2000 01/01/1991

2000 01/01/1997

2000 01/01/1997

2000 01/01/1991

2000 01/01/1983

M/ 230,300,

420,700

M / 300,420

E / 170

M

I

300,420

E /170

E /150

M / 700

MI

E /150

E / 150

P1 ,P20,X21

N42,P1 P20

P1 ,P20,X21

X1,X20

P1 P20

X1,X20

F1,F20

F1,F20,X21

Fl ,F20,X21

P1,P20

P1 ,P20,X21

GG 02

07120004

Hickory Cr.

9.95 2000 01/01/1998 M/ 230

N42,P1,P20

900.910,920,1300,

1320,1500,2100

Page 4 of 7

---

APPENDIX TABLE A-2. WATERBODY SPECiFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE DESPLAINES RIVER WATERSHED, 1998.

Causes of

Impairment

900,910,920,930,

1300,1320,1600

300,410.900,910.

920,930.1200,1220,

1300,1320,1600,2100

300,410,900,910,

920,930,1300,1320.

1500,2210

900,910.930,1300,

1320,1500,1600

300,410,500,720,

900,910,930,1200,

1220, 1600,2100

300,900,910.930,

1100,1200,1220,1500,

1600,2100,2210

1200,1220,1500

300,500,540,900,

910,920,930,1200,

1220,1300,1320,1330,

1600,1900,2100,2210

300,410,500,530.

900,910,920,930,

1200,1220,1500.1600,

2 100,2210

900,910,920,1300,

1320

300,900,920

Sources of

Impairment

200,3000,3200.4000,

7000,7100,7550,7700

200,400.500,3000,

3200,4000,7000,7100

8500

200.400,500,4000,

7000,7350,7400,850C

200,4000,7000,7100,

7350,7400

200,400,3000,3100,

4000,7000.7100,850

200,4000.7000,7 1 OC

7350,7400,8500

4000,7000,7400

200,400,4000,7000,

7100,7350,7550,7600,

7700,8500

200,4000,7000,7100.

7350,7400,7550.7600,

7700,8500

200,4000

200,3000.3200,4000,

8500

Segment ID: Catalog Unit Segment Name

GJ 01

07120004

Sawmill Cr

GK 03

07120004

Flag Cr.

GL

07120004

Salt Cr.

GL 03

07120004

Salt Cr.

Assessment

Designated

GL 09

07120004

Salt Cr.

Size in

Cycle Key Sample

Miles

Year Date

6.37

2000 01/01/1998

7.75

2000 01/01/1989

11.2

2000 01101(1975

10.44

2000 01/01/1995

11.8

2000 01/01/1998

3.68

2000 01/01/1995

3.09

2000 01/01/1995

3.28

2000 01/01/1995

Waterbody D

ILGJOI

ILGKO3

ILGLO9

ILGLO9

ILGLO9

ILGLO9

ILGLOS

)LGLO9

ILGLO9

ILGLO9

ILGLAOI

ILGLAO1

ILGOO1

LGUO2

GL 10

07120004

Salt Cr.

GL 19

07120004

Salt Cr.

GLO 01

07120004

Spring Brook

Type/Methods

M /

300

E / 150

E / 150

M / 300.700,

860

M / 230,300.

420,700.

860

M / 300,420,

700

M / 300,420,

700,860

M/ 300,420

M / 300,420

E

I

150

M / 230,300,

420

GLBO7

07120004

Spring Brook

4.41

2000 01/01/1995

GLBA

07120004

Meacham Cr.

2.88

2000 01/01/1987

GLA 02

07120004

Addison Cr.

6.65

2000 01/01/1998

Uses

F1,F20

P1,P20

Xl ,X20,X21

P1 ,P20,X21

N42,P1 ,P20,X21

F21,P1,P20

P1 ,P20,X21

P1 P20

Fl ,F20,X21

P1,P20

N42.P1 P20

P1,P20

P1 P20

P1 ,P20,X21

GLA 04

07120004

Addison Cr.

GO 01

GU 02

07120004

07120004

4.72

2000 01/0111995 MI 300,420

Willow Cr.

Indian Cr.

7.69

2000 01/01/1983

10.67

2000 01/01/1997

E /150

M/ 700,860

Page 6 of 7

---

I-

ILDT38

1L0T38

ILDT38

ILDT38

ILDT38

ILDT38

ILDT38

ILDT38

1L0T38

•~- ILDT46

ILDT46

ILDT46

ILOT46

ILDT46

ILDT46

ILDT46

1L0T46

M / 700,860

E/

M / 230

F1,F20

X1,X20

Fl ,F20,F21 ,F42

Fl ,F20,X21

Fl,F20

Fl ,F20,P42,X21

X1,X20

X1,X20

APPENDIX TABLE A-4. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE LOWER FOX RIVER WATERSHED, 1998.

Waterbody ID

Segment

ID Catalog Unit Segment Name

Size

in

Cycle Key Sample

Assessment

Designated

Causes of

Sources of

Miles

Year Date

Type/Methods Uses

Impairment

Impairment

DT 03

07120007

FoxR.

5.84

2000 01/0111996 MI 700,860

F1,F20,F21,N42

DT 09

07120007

Fox R.

6.655

2000 01/0111998 MI 230.700.

F21,P1,P20,P42

300,600.900,920,

200,400,4000,7000,

860

.

1200,1220,1500,2100

7400.8500

DT 38

07120007

FoxR.

12.135

2000 01/01/1998 MI 230

F1,F20,N42,X21

DT 58

07120007

FoxR.

4.285

2000

E/

Fl,F20,X21

DT 69

07120007

Fox R.

4.65

2000 01/01/1996 MI 700,860

F21,P1,P20

300,900,920,1200,

200,4000,7000,7400,

1500,.

8500

DTP 01

07120007

Whites Cr.

1.34

2000

E /

X1,X20

DTZJO1

07120007

Morgan Cr.

8.23

2000 01/01/1988

E 1150,860

P1.P20

0

9000

DTZNO1

07120007

Norton Branch

4.55

2000

E /

DTZOO1

07120007

Brewster Cr.

5.82

2000

E /

DT

01

07120007

Fox R.

2.89

2000 01/01/1998

M

I

230

DT 02

07120007

FoxR.

11.22

2000

E /

F1,F20

DT 11

07120007

FoxR.

3.595

2000

El

F1.F20

DT 36

07120007

FoxR.

2.595

2000 01/01/1996

DT 41

07120007

FoxR.

12185

2000

DT 46

07120007

FoxR.

4.495

2000 01/01/1998

DTZA

07120007

O’Neill Branch

4.72

2000

E

I

DTZC

07120007

Brumbach Cr.

8.8

2000

E /

Page 1 of4

---

_

4

APPENDIX TABLE A-16. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NORTH CENTRAL

WATERSHED, 1998.

Waterbody

ID:

Segmenl ID: Catalog Unit Segment Name

-~ ~

Size in

Miles

Cycle Key Sample

Year Date

Assessment

Type/Methods

Designated

Uses

Causes of

Impairment

Sources of

Impairment

ILLDDO1

ILLDDO1

LDD-C3

LDD-C3a

07080104

07080104

Cedar Cr.

Cedar Cr

3.05

2.55

2000 01101/1994

2000 01/01/1994

M/ 300

M/ 300

Pl,P20

P1,P20

410,900,910,920,

930

410,900,910

200,400,1000,1800,

4000,8500

200,400,1000,8500

ILLDDO1

ILLDDOI

LDO-C6

LODA

07080104

07080104

Cedar Cr

Johns Cr.

5.62

8.53

2000 01/01/1994

2000

MI 300

E

I

Pl,P20

Xl,X20

410,900,910,920.

1100

1000,7000,7550.7700,

8500

ILLDDO1

LOOM

07080104

DavidsCr.

11.69

2000

E /

Xl,X20

ILLODO1

LDDB

07080104

TalbotCr

9.77

2000

E /

X1,X20

ILLOOCO1

ILLDEO1

LDDC

LDEO1

07080104

07080104

Markham Cr.

N. Henderson Cr.

5.75

30.78

2000 0110111994

2000 01/0111994

M/ 300

M/ 700

P1,P20

F1,F20

900,910,920,1100,

1200,1300

200

~

ILLOEO1

ILLDEO1

LDEA

LDEC

07080104

07080104

Snake Cr.

Goose Run

4.42

5.74

2000

2000

EI

E

I

Xl,X20

Xl,X20

ILLDGO1

LOG 01

07080104

Middle Henderson Cr.

14.26

2000 01/01/1994 MI 700

Pl,P20

900,930,1100

1000,7000

ILLDGO1

LDGA

07080104

Toms Cr.

6.48 2000

E

I

X1,X20

ILLDHO1

LDH

07080104

S. Henderson Cr.

11.7

2000

M

I

Xl ,X20

ILLEO1

LE 03

07080104

Pope Cr.

24.01

2000 01/0111991

E/ 150

F1,F20

ILLEO1

LE 04

07080104 Pope Cr.

7.31 2000 0110111991 E / 150

F1,F20

ILLEO1

LE

05

07080104

Pope Cr.

25.03 2000

0110111991 E /150

F1,F20

ILLEO1

LEA

07080104

Mad R.

7.38

2000

E /

X1,X20

ILLEO1

LEB

07080104 Wildcat Cr.

6.42

2000

E /

X1,X20

ILLEO1

LEO

07080104

Pike Run

6.99

2000

El

X1,X20

ILLEO1

LEE

07080104

Dugout Run

4.21

2000

E

I

Xl,X20

Page

4 of6

---

Causes of

Impairment

Sources of

Impairment

ILKO1

K 09

07110004

Mississippi R.

6.21

2000 01101/1998

E / 190

P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO1

K 98

07110004

Mississippi

R.

29.3

2000 01/01/1998

E / 190

P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO1

TK 07

07110004

Mississippi R.

7.29

2000 01/0111998

E

I

190

P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO2

KE

07110001

Curtis Cr.

6.58

2000

E

I

X1,X20

LKO2

TK 12

07110001

Mississippi R.

10.96

2000 0110111998 E / 190

F50,P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

LKO2

TK 13

07110001

Mississippi R.

5.54

2000 01/0111998 E / 190

F50,P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO3

KZQ

07110001

ShuhartCr.

5.86

2000

E /

X1,X20

~

I~)

ILKO3

LKO3

ILKO3

1K 15

TK 16

TK 17

07110001

07110001

07110001

Mississippi R.

Mississippi R.

Mississippi R.

2.51

14.62

3.95

2000

2000

2000

01101/1998

01/01/1998

01/01/1998

E/

E/

EI

190

190

190

F50,Pl,P20,P21

P1,P20,P21

F50,P1,P20,P21

300,1200

300,1200

300,1200

9000

9000

9000

ILKO6

K 02

07110004

Mississippi R.

32.13

2000 01/0111998 E / 190

P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO6

KZF

07110004

West Point Cr.

3.1

2000

E I

Xl,X20

ILKO6

KZN

07110004

Indian Cr.

3.3

2000

E /

X1,X20

ILKO6

1K 01

07110004

Mississippi R.

2.37

2000

01/01/1998

E

I

190

P1,P20,P2l

300,1200

9000

ILKO7

K 14

07110004

Mississippi R.

11.94

2000 01/01/1998

E / 190

P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO7

TK 04

07110004

Mississippi R.

23.31

2000 01/01/1998

E

I

190

P1,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

ILKO7

1K 06

07110004 Mississippi R.

0.43

2000 01/01/1998 E I 190

Pl,P20,P21

300,1200

9000

LI~CO1

l~C01

07110004

The Sny

12.65

2000

E /

Xl,X20

L~’.CO1

F~LK

07110004

Fox Cr.

5.92

2000

E

I

Xl ,X20

~~TTTiiITf

~‘caterbcd~ID

Segment

ID Catalog Unit Segment Name

APPENDIX TABLE A-19. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CENTRAL WATERSHED,

Size in

Cycle Key Sample

Assessment

Designated

Miles

Year Date

Type/Methods Uses

Page 1 of 4

---

APPENDIX TABLE B-26. WATERBODY SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR LAKES IN THE BIG MUDDY RIVER WATERSHED, 1998.

Assessment

Designated

Type/Methods

Uses

M/

205

F20,N1l,P1,P21.

P42 ,X50

F20,F50,N21 ,P1,

P11,P42

F20,P1 ,P1 1 P42,

X21 ,X50

F20,F42,F50,N21,

F20,N42,Pl P11,

X21 ,X50

Fl ,F20,F21 ,F50,

Pl1,P42

F20,F50,P1 P11,

P42,X21

Fl Fl 1 ,F20,F42,

X21 ,X50

Fl ,F1 1 ,F20,F42,

X21 ,X50

Fl ,F20,F21 ,F50,

P1l,P42

F50,Pl P1 1 P20,

P42,X21

Xl Xli ,X20,X21,

X42,X50

Causes of

Impairment

300,410,900,910,

920,1100,1200.2100,

2210

500,560,900,910,

920,1100,1200,2100,

2210

900.910,920,1100,

1200,22 10

300,500,560,900.

920,1100,1200

900,910,920,2210

300,900,910,920,

2210

300,900,910,920,

1100,1200,2100,2210

Sources of

Impairment

1000,1050,1100,1350,

1400,6000,6600,7550,

7700,8500,8700,8930,

8960

200,1000,1050,1100,

1350,1400,4000,5000,

5100,5200,5500,5700,

7550,7700,8300,8500,

8700,8960

200.1000,1050,1100,

1350,1400,7550,7700.

8500,8600.8700,8960

1000,1350,1400,7550.

7700,8940,8960

1000,l050,1l00,1300,

1350,7550.7700,8500.

8600,8960

1000,1050,1100,6000,

6500,8960

1000,1050,1100,1350,

1400,8500,8960

1000,1050.llOO,6000,

6500.7550,7700,8960

Size in

Acre

6965

Segment ID: Catalog Unit Segment Name

RNA

07140106

CRAB ORCHARD

07140106 REND

07140106

KINK.AID

Cycle Key Sample

Year Date

2000 05101/1997

Waterbody ID

ILRNA

ILRNB

ILRNC

ILRND

ILRNE

ILRNG

‘~

ILRNI

ILRNJ

ILRNK

ILRNL

ILRNM

ILRNN

18900

2000 05/0111995

3475

2000 05/01/1997

143

2000 05/01/1997

1800 2000 0510111997

F21,F50,P1,P1 1,

900,1100,1200.2100,

P20,P42

2200

RNB

RNC

RND

RNE

RNG

RNH

RNI

RNJ

RNK

RNL

RNM

RNN

07140106

07140106

07140106

07140106

07140106

07140106

07140106

07140106

07140106

MURPHYSBORO

CEDAR (JACKSON)

DUQUOIN

PINCKNEYVILLE

CARBONDALE CITY

DEVILS KITCHEN

LITTLE GRASSY

MARION

WASHINGTON CO.

M

I

869

M

I

205

M / 205

M

I

205

E

I

814

M

I

205

M I 205

M / 205

M I 205

M / 205

M

I

205

El 811

244

165

135.6

810

1000

220

295

2000 05101/1998

2000 05/01/1997

2000 0510111997

2000 0510111997

2000 0510111997

2000 0510111997

2000 05/0111998

07140106

MOSES

169.6

2000 05/01/1978

Page 1 of 3

---

05586100 DATA: Chemical and Microbiological Tables, 1998

Station list

Available data

05586100 ILLINOIS RIVER AT VALLEY CITY, IL

Page 1 of3

DIS-

PH

OXYGEN,

AGENCY

AGENCY

CHARGE,

NUMBER

SPE-

WATER

DIS-

COL-

ANA-

INST.

OF

CIFIC

WHOLE

SOLVED

LECTING

LYZING

CUBIC

SAM-

TEMPER-

CON-

FIELD

OXYGEN,

(PER-

SAMPLE

SAMPLE

GAGE

FEET

STREAM

PLING

ATURE

DUCT-

(STAND-

DIS-

CENT

DATE

TIME

(CODE

(CODE

HEIGHT

PER

WIDTH

POINTS

WATER

ANCE

ARD

SOLVED

SATUR-

NUMBER)

NUMBER)

(FEET)

SECOND

(Fl)

(COUNT)

(DEGC)

(US/CM)

UNITS)

(MG/L)

ATION)

(00027)

(00028)

(00065)

(00061)

(00004)

(00063)

(00010)

(00095)

(00400)

(00300)

(00301)

JUL

07... 1250

81700

80020

14.98

50400

800

07... 1251

81700

9720

--

--

--

21...

1400

81700

80020

10.12

35400

800

21... 1401

81700

9720

--

AVG

04... 1510

81700

80020

3.05

9680

700

04...

1511

81700

9720

--

--

-.

12... 1750

81700

80020

7.20

21500

800

18... 1230

81700

80020

3.82

12400

800

18...

1231

81700

9720

--

--

--

EXHIBIT 6

ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN

LOCATION.--Lat

39°42’12”,long 90°38’43”,in SE1/4NW1/4 sec.34, T.15 N., R.14 W., Scott

County, Hydrologic Unit 07130011, on upstream side of Norfolk & Southern Corporation Railroad

bridge at Flints Creek, 0.4 ml east of Valley City, 1.8 mi downstream from Mauvaise Terre Creek,

and at mile 61.3.

DRAINAGE AREA.--26,743 mi2, does not include diversion from Lake Michigan through the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which has occurred since Jan. 17, 1900.

PERIOD

OF

RECORD--Water-quality records, water years

1975

to 1993, 1996 to current year.

WATER-QUALITY DATA,

WATER

YEAR OCTOBER

1997

TO SEPTEMBER

1998

OCT 1997

21... 1310

81700

80020

2.00

6630

700

10

6.3

735

78

93

95

NOV

18... 1330

81700

80020

2.47

8280

660

10

5.!

776

7.7

12.5

98

DEC

16...

1320

81700

80020

3.22

10900

700

tO

2.3

826

8.1

14.4

lOS

JAN 1998

13... 1450

8I700

80020

10.25

39300

900

tO

2.0

720

77

2.8

93

FEB

04... 1330

81700

80020

7.77

27300

800

0

3.5

762

8.0

127

96

MAR

0. .

1530

81700

80020

12.08

39900

800

10

4.5

598

8.1

I2.3

96

APR

MAY

JUN

01..

1600

81700

80020

1843

69600

1000

14...

1250

81700

80020

1783

59100

1200

28 .

1220

81700

80020

1455

46000

1Q00

12...

1250

81700

80020

17.46

69300

2000

27...

1240

81700

80020

16.98

61300

2000

09... 1830

81700

80020

10.39

32800

900

18... 1330

81700

80020

14.01

49800

900

23... 1350

81700

80020

17.80

63900

2000

10

13.6

594

10

13.3

610

10

5.2

699

7.8

8.8

85

7.9

9.4

90

8.3

10.3

102

10

19.6

574

8.0

8.6

94

10

21.4

519

7.5

5.9

67

10

19.3

688

10

22.8

491

10

24.7

491

7.9

7.4

81

7.5

6.7

78

7.5

6.0

72

10

27.8

623

7.8

5.7

72

10

30.1

574

7.7

5.2

69

10

27.6

669

7.9

7.5

96

10

28.4

630

7.7

4.9

63

10

28.6

621

7.5

5.3

69

file://D

:\data\swl98\05 5861 00.htm

4/9/02

---

05586100 DATA: Chemical and Microbiological Tables, 1998

Page 2 of 3

SEP

01... 1230

81700

80020

3.20

10200

760

01... 1231

81700

9720

--

--

--

IS... 1230

81700

80020

2.17

6600

680

IS... 1231

81700

9720

10

27.0

659

tO

24.7

685

7.9

5.4

68

7.8

6.4

78

ALKA-

CAR-

BICAR-

SOLIDS,

MAGNE-

POTAS-

LINITY

BONATE BONATE

CHLO-

FLUO-

SILICA, RESIDUE

CALCIUM SlUM, SODIUM,

SlUM,

WATDIS WATER WATER

RIDE, SULFATE RIDE.

DIS-

AT 180

DIS-

DIS-

DIS-

DIS-

TOT IT

DIS IT

DIS IT

DIS-

DIS-

DIS.

SOLVED

DEG. C

SOLVED

SOLVED

SOLVED

SOLVED

FIELD

FIELD

FIELD

SOLVED SOLVED SOLVED

(MG/L

DIS-

DATE

(MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L MG/L AS MG/L AS MG/L AS (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L

AS SOLVED

AS CA)

AS MG) AS NA)

AS K)

CACO3

CO3

HCO3

AS CL)

AS SO4)

AS F)

S102)

(MG/L)

(00915)

(00925)

(00930)

(00935)

(39086)

(00452)

(00453)

(00940)

(00945)

(00950)

(00955)

(70300)

OCT 1997

63

25

51

5.2

192

66

27

54

4.8

196

73

30

56

4.4

200

69

28

38

3.7

178

77

32

40

3.4

208

63

28

23

2.9

160

58

24

27

3.0

158

63

26

24

2.8

176

75

30

29

2.7

212

57

25

19

3.2

178

53

22

15

3.3

156

68

30

28

3.3

212

50

22

15

3.9

142

48

21

13

3.6

144

64

26

2I

3.5

202

58

26

21

3.5

176

0

239

77

82

o

244

85

81

0

217

75

58

0

254

73

72

0

195

51

56

0

193

52

46

0

215

45

54

10

239

57

65

0

217

36

48

0

190

29

41

o

259

46

60

O

173

27

37

0

176

24

35

0

246

39

50

O

215

35

45

.45

5.7

488

.41

5.3

509

.30

8.4

430

.30

8.2

478

.23

6.6

374

.28

7.4

352

.26

7.1

373

.25

3.9

432

.24

4.7

340

.22

7.8

315

.31

6.0

410

.29

8.0

286

.21

7.2

317

.32

7.2

367

.29

6.6

360

.36

6.1

371

.44

6.1

377

.39

7.2

360

.37

5.3

402

.49

4.3

410

NITRO- NITRO- NITRO- NITRO. NITRO-

PHOS-

GEN.

GEN, GEN.AM- GEN,AM- GEN,

PHOS-

PHORUS

MANGA-

CARBON.

AMMONIA NITRITE MONIA + MONIA + NO2+NO3 PHOS- PHORUS ORTHO, IRON.

NESE, ORGANIC

DIS-

DIS-

ORGANIC ORGANIC

DIS-

PHORUS

DIS-

DIS-

DIS-

DIS-

DIS.

SOLVED SOLVED DIS. TOTAL SOLVED TOTAL SOLVEDSOLVEDSOLVED SOLVED SOLVED

DATE (MG/L

(MG/L

(MG/L

(MG/L

(MG/L

(MG/L (MG/L (MG/L

(UG/L

(UG/L

(MG/L

AS N)

AS N)

AS N)

AS N)

AS N)

AS P)

AS P)

AS P)

AS FE) AS MN)

AS C)

(00608)

(00613)

(00623)

(00625)

(00631)

(00665) (00666)

(00671) (01046)

(01056)

(00681)

OCT

1997

21...

.137

.061

.55

1.2

1.93

.453

.274

.225

3.0

3.5

4.4

NOV

8...

.187

.047

.62

.86

4.05

.435

.395

.341

3.0

2.5

4.3

DEC

16...

.020

.097

.56

.69

3.82

.436

.383

.291

tO

4.0

4.3

21...

234

78

81

.51

3.4

446

NOV

I 8...

DEC

16...

JAN 1998

13...

FEB

04...

MAR

10...

APR

0 I...

14...

28...

MAY

2...

27...

JUN

09...

18...

23...

JUL

07...

07,..

21...

21...

AUG

04...

04.

2..

18...

18...

SEP

0I...

01...

IS...

15...

63

29

30

3.5

210

0

256

46

57

52

22

39

4.4

154

0

188

53

61

54

23

33

4.7

170

0

207

51

58

57

26

38

4.4

182

0

222

58

63

54

25

46

5.0

172

0

210

69

68

file://D:\data\sw198\05586 1 00.htm

4/9/02

---

r—Doconc

Temp

—Sat.1

—~

35

30

25

20

15

-

10

5

0

—DO

Conc

Temp —

Sat.

140

120

-

100

-80

-

60

-40

-

20

-0

Illinois River (Aug. 7

-

Aug. 12)

35-

.

140

30-

120

25

100

5

-~-—-----~--~--

~-

~—~----~--——

-_-

-~-——--

~

20

0

I

III

~ o c

o c o c’~ o c c~

cD

C\J

cI

C\J

c

C\J

c

C’I

C

C\J

0

(“I

Salt Creek (Aug. 13

-

Aug. 18)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

‘-

0

0

‘-

C

‘-

C

‘-

‘-

C

0

‘-

1~

0

~

0

0

~

0

~

~-

0

‘-

0

o

C’J

0

C’J

0

(NO

(NO

(NO

(N

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

U

Middle Fork Vermillion (Aug. 13

-

Aug. 18)

~

EXHIBIT

7

---

FOX

RIVER

NEWJ

•O~’er400lakes

• +5 dams

• 214,000 people

depend on the Fox

River for drinking

water

Over 150

state-threatened

& endangered

species within

the Watershed

Sampling for

the study took place during summer

low-flow conditions at

40

sites

located

in free-flowing

river areas directly below dams, impounded river

directly above dams, and free-flowing or impounded

mid-segment areas between dams. Results convinc-

ingly showed that dams are having a detrimental

effect on

the

Fox River

by

reducing biodiversity of

fishes and altering macroinvertebrate communities.

Dams appeared to influence these aquatic

organisms by degrading

habitat and water quality

conditions and fragmenting the river

by acting as

barriers to fish movement.

By Guest Columnist

Victor J. Santucci, Jr.

Research Biologist

Max McGraw

Wildlife Foundation

Dundee, Illinois

Following are highlights of the study results, or ten ways

dams are impacting the Fox River.

~tij2~

Dams adversely affect fish communities. Based

on fish community index values, free-flowing river

reaches (below dam or mid segment free-flowing

stations) averaged a “B” rating or highly valued aquatic

resource, whereas impounded reaches (above

dam

and

mid

segment impounded stations) averaged a

“D”

ratin$or

limited

aquatic resource.

~J~j

Free-flowing reaches supported more abundant

sport fish communities than impounded reaches.

?‘

Dams were found to restrict distributions of

30

species of fish.

Dams alter and degrade macroinvertebrate

communities. Stations

within free flowing reaches of

the river

had

an abundance of mayflies and caddis flies

whereas impounded stations

had high

proportions

(95) of tolerant midge larvae (chironomids) and

benthic worms (oligocheates).

~,

Dams may be preventing freshwater mussel

recolonization of improved sections of river because

mussel larvae use fish as a means for dispersal and dams

block fish migrations.

The

Fox

River Ecosystem

Partnership’s newsletter for the Fox River Watershed community

WINTER 2002

Fox River Fish Passage Feasibility Study

Our partnership

is known

as

FREP

The Fox River

Watershed lies

mainly within the

counties of:

Cook

DeKaIb

DuPage

Kane

Kendall

Lake

LaSalle

McHenry

Fox River

Watershed Facts: