RECEIVED

CLERK~SOFFICE

JUL 2 1~2004

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARTh-ATE

Pollution

OF

Control

ILLINOIS

Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD

35 ILL ADM. CODE 302.206

)

)

R2004-025

)

Rulemaking

—

Public Water

)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Environmental Law & Policy Center, Prairie Rivers

Network and Sierra Club have filed MOTION TO SUSPEND CONSIDERATION OF

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD PENDING

DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RULES and MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUSPEND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD PENDING

DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RULES.

Respectfully submitted,

Policy Center and counsel in this matterfor

PrairieRivers Networkand Sierra Club

~ertF. Ettingéi

Senior Staff Counsel, Environmental Law &

July 21, 2004

---

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JU~212004

STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN

THE MATTER OF:

Pollution Control Board

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R2004-025

DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD

)

Rulemaking

-

Public Water

35 ILL ADM. CODE 302.206

)

)

)

IMPLEMENTATION RULES

The Environmental Law & Policy Center ofthe Midwest, Prairie Rivers Network and the

Sierra Club hereby move that the Board suspend consideration ofthe proposal to loosen

dissolved oxygen standards until the Board is presented with the details regarding the

implementation rules that the proponents expect will be adopted to implement the proposed

standard. In support ofthis motion, movants state:

1. Intheir petition, pre-filed testimony and testimony given at the hearing held June 29, 2004,

the petitioner Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies (“IAWA”) makes frequent

reference to implementation procedures to be adopted by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency that are to complement the proposed standards changes and provide

protections to Illinois Waters and aquatic life that are not present in the proposed standards.

The testimony ofIAWA’s principal witness, Professor James E. Garvey, explicitly proposes

recommendations regarding monitoring times, locations and methods that can only be made

enforceable through adoption ofimplementation rules by IEPA. Two sentences in the

proposed standards appear to anticipate adoption of implementation rules that will require

1

---

certain monitoring, but these sentences stating how certain monitoring should be done do not

provide any ofthe necessary details and would not have the force oflaw.

2. Particularly given the misunderstanding that arose from~theadoption in 1996 of ammonia

standards without the Board having specific knowledge ofimplementation procedures that

would be adopted by the Agency under those standards (R94-01), the Board has required the

Agency to present evidence in the standards proceeding ofany implementation rules to be

adopted. This is very sound policy as the environmental and economic effects ofproposed

standards revisions can be markedly affected by the implementation rules adopted under the

standards.

3. In this case, the petitioner has not presented even the barest outline ofthe implementation

rules that the Agency will or should adopt. As ofJune 29, there apparently had not even been

serious discussions by the petitioner with the Agency regarding rules regardingmonitoring or

how the monitoring that the petitioner’s proposal presumes will occur could be done orpaid

for.

4. There is no need for the Board to rush to consider this proposed change without having

access to information regarding implementation rules. First ofall, no standards changes can

go into effect until they are approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Alaska

Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. EPA. 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11144, 27 ELR 21330 (W.D.

Wash. 1997) Under 40 CFR 131.6(f), U.S. EPA cannot consider approval ofIllinois

standards until presented with “information on general policies applicable to state standards

2

---

which may affect their application and implementation.” Thereis then no advantage in the

Board racing through to a decision on a standards revision withoutknowledge ofthe

implementation rules. The standards revision cannot go into effect without development of

the implementation rules.

5.

Moreover, there is no urgency for making the proposed change:

a. Illinois is allowed to have dissolved oxygen standards that are more protective than the

existing federal National Criteria Document (Hearing Exhibit 2). Anyway, the current

Illinois standards are not, in fact, more protective than the NCD.

b. There is no evidence that any total maximum daily load studies to be done in the next two

years will be affected by the dissolved oxygen standard.

c. Development ofnutrient standards would not be facilitated by adoption ofrevised

dissolved oxygen standards. Nutrients cause impairments ofIllinois waters that are not

directly related to minimum oxygen levels.

d. It is unclear that any treatment costs are now being increased as a result ofthe current

dissolved oxygen standards. Ifthere are such costs, they should be examined on a case-

by-casebasis. They cannot properly be used as a justification for a precipitant change in

statewide dissolved oxygen standards.

6. A hearing in this matter is currently scheduled for August 12, 2004, in Springfield. It is not

an economical use ofthe time and resources ofthe Board or the participants to hold the

hearing as scheduled. In addition to the lack ofany information as to implementation rules,

3

---

basic information regarding the U.S. Geological Survey dissolved oxygen studies, on which

the JAWA relies in its petition, has only very recently been made available to the parties. The

data produced by those studies is complex and will require weeks to analyze properly.

Moreover, data collected by Professor Garvey and some ofhis students in Ohio River

tributaries, on which Professor Garvey has relied in formulating key portions ofhis opinions,

has still not been made available to the movants.

7. Movants will certainly not be readyto offer testimony regarding the proposal on August 12

given the lack of:

—

information about implementation procedures,

—

the lack oftime to identify and analyze the dissolved oxygen data on which the IAWA

relies,

—

the need to identify the range of aquatic life present in the waters beingused by Dr.

Garvey as representative ofall Illinois waters, and

—

the need to identify all ofthe Illinois aquatic life that may be affected by the proposed

weakening ofstandards.

8. Ifthe hearing is held in this matter on August 12, it should be limited to presentation by

Professor Garvey ofhis expert opinions as supplemented by study ofthe data provided by

USGS and the Ohio River tributary dataof Dr. Garvey and his students. Any further hearing

should not be scheduled until such time as specific information is provided about the

implementation procedures to be used, including data on how the Agency would find the

resources needed to follow them. Preferably this information regarding implementation

4

---

procedures will come in the form ofdraft rules that have been accepted as workable by

Illinois EPA.

9. A memorandum in support ofthis motion is being filed with this motion.

WHEREFORE, Sierra Club, ELPC and Prairie Rivers Network move that the Board

order that consideration ofthe petition be suspended until suchtime as the petitioner presents

evidence as to the specific implementation rules that it is expected will be adopted to implement

the proposed standards and the numerous recommendations regarding monitoring that are made

by its expert in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

Albert F. Ettinger

Senior Staff Counsel, Environmental Law &

Policy Center and counsel in this matter for

Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club

July21, 2004

5

---

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

JUL 2 12004

Pollution Control Board

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

R2004-025

DISSOLVED. OXYGEN STANDARD

)

Rulemaking

-

Public Water

35 ILL ADM. CODE 302.206

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUSPEND CONSIDERATION OF

DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RULES

The petition for changes to the dissolved oxygen (“DO”) standards filed by the Illinois

Association ofWastewater Agencies (“JAWA”) is not ripe for consideration by the Board.

IAWA with its petition has raised important questions; some ofwhich will have to be

addressed in the coming years by the Board. Also, IAWA is to be commended for enlisting

Professor James Garvey who has presented interesting studies and scientific hypotheses.

However, the basic studies on dissolved oxygen levels in Illinois waters on which the JAWA

petition and Professor Garvey rely, have not been adequately analyzed and have not been

available to the public long enough to allow a scientifically sound review process. More

critically, implementation rules that are presupposed by the petition and that are necessary for

allowing any amendments to Illinois dissolved oxygen standards have not even begun to be

formulated.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center ofthe Midwest, Prairie Rivers Network and the

Sierra Club are open to discussions ofthe Illinois dissolved oxygen standards. But revisions

1

---

should not be considered by the Board until after the necessary implementation rules have been

developed and the critical scientific data has been collected and analyzed.

Ifthe Board follows its own sound past practices with regard to this petition, it will

suspend consideration ofthe petition to allow development ofimplementation procedures. This

would also allow proper development and analysis ofthe evidence regarding Illinois dissolved

oxygen levels and their effect on all the state’s aquatic life.

There is no reason to consider changes to the dissolved oxygen standards before the

necessary implementation rules have been developed and there has been adequate time-to

analyze the data on which the petition rests. Federal law does not require or even encourage

Illinois to weaken its current dissolved oxygen standards. There is no reason to believe that

adopting dissolved oxygen amendments now, even if that could be done in a scientifically sound

manner, will aid in developing nutrient standards. It is unclear~that amendments to the dissolved

oxygen standards will affect development oftotal maximum daily load (TMDL) studies required

by 33 U.S.C.

§

13 13(d) or their implementation and therehas been no specific testimony

indicating that any NPDES permit limits are now being affected by the current dissolved oxygen

standards.

I.

Implementation Rules Before Considering this Proposed Amendment to Standards

In its petition, pre-filed testimony and testimony given at the hearing held June 29, 2004,

the IAWA makes frequent reference to implementation procedures to be adopted by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”). The IAWA proposal itself alludes to these

procedures with two provisions regarding the forms ofdissolved oxygen monitoring that

“should” be done. These implementation procedures are to complement the proposed standards

2

---

changes and provide protections to Illinois waters and aquatic life that are not present in the

proposed standards. See Hearing Exhibit 1 pp. 4, 38- 40.

Testimony given in response to questions asked at the June 29 hearing further shows that

the petition and IAWA’s principle witness, Professor Garvey, presume that implementation

procedures will be adopted that will render the standards proposal more protective of Illinois

aquatic life. Asked about certain monitoring proposals he made, Dr. Garvey testified as follows:

Dr Garvey: In our report we recommend taking the oxygen measurements at the

place where the midges would be, not where the mayflies would be, which we

would consider the most conservative place to measure oxygen.

Mr. Ettinger: Okay. You recommend that. How do you expect that

recommendation to be implemented?

Dr. Garvey: I hope the Illinois EPA will basically adopt that in their

implementation guidelines. I mean, that’s not my job. It’sjust a recommendation

that Dr. Whiles and I made.

Mr. Ettinger: But you hope the Illinois EPA will do that?

Dr. Garvey: Well, if they’re going to follow our report sure. (Tr. 118)

Later, in response to a question by Ms. Alisa Liu it was confirmed that IAWA expects

Illinois EPA to write implementation procedures, but that drafting ofimplementation procedures

has not progressed beyond the stage of“hoping”:

Ms. Liu: I noticed that although you recommended those things, theydidn’t

actually show up in the proposal. Is that something that you’re planning to

propose to the EPA to put into their implementation procedures?

Dr. Garvey: You know, Matt Whiles and I talked about this. I think

—

our

understandingis and that’s obviously, something to be discussed here is

—

the

belief would be that that would end up in the implementation ofthis, you know,

when IEPA is figuring out how to do this. So ourhope would be that this would

be included.

Ms. Liu: Is it IAWA’s intent to propose something to the agency in terms of

implementation procedures or are you relying on the agency to come up with

—

Mr. Streicher: No. We were hoping to work with the agency when they

developed those implementation procedures.

3

---

Later, Mr. Roy Harsch, IAWA counsel, testified that it is anticipated that a process will

begin in the next few months that will lead to the development ofimplementation rules. (Tr. 200)

Unless the Board intends to buy “a pig in the poke” it really should not adopt standards

that presume the adoption ofimplementation rules without obtaining clear evidence as to the

rules that will be adopted, or what theywill accomplish. Recent history makes clear the

importance ofthe Board seeing proposed implementation rules when considering standards.

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

implementation procedures regarding “effluent modified waters” (See 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.2 13) and a number ofother issues regarding implementation, but the Board and the public

were not shown a draft ofthe implementation rules prior to adoption ofthe standards

amendment. This resulted in serious disputes that delayed consideration ofhundreds ofpermits.

In R02-19, Mr. Michael Callahan on behalf ofthe IAWA testified regarding the serious problems

which resulted from the parties to R94-1(B) coming away from the proceeding without a clear

understanding ofthe likely implementation procedures for the new standards. (R02-l9, Callahan

Testimony, March 25, 2002, Tr. 16,

25-8)

Based on this bad experience, JAWA did not go

forward with its 2002 ammonia proposal without being confident ofthe implementation rules

that would be applied by the Agency. (Id.)

After R94-1(B), the Agency provided the Board with draft implementation rules with

regard to two waterquality standards proposals, R97-25 (the Great Lakes standards) and RO 1-13

(Antidegradation). In both cases, the ability ofthe Board and the public to understand how the

standards would be implemented was critical to the proceeding. As was stated by IEPA’s Toby

Frevert in RO1-13 in describing the draft Agency implementation procedures that were submitted

in that proceeding with the Agency antidegradation standard proposal:

4

---

The Agency has attached as an exhibit to this rule making its proposed procedures

to implement the Board’s standard during Illinois EPA’s administration ofthe

permit programs.

We believe it is important to identify up front how the Agency intends to operate

this administrative responsibility. And that proposed set ofprocedures is there to

make available to permit applicants and other interested parties the process that

we think we would follow. (R0l-13, proceedings ofNovember 17, 2000, Tr. 20-

1)

In R02-11 the Board did decide to send to First Notice certain water quality standards

although the implementation procedures had not been presented to the Board. The Board

explained this decision in an Opinion and Order of June 20, 2002, stating:

In general, the Board agrees that seeing implementation procedures for the water

quality standards is important. The Board’s hearing officer strongly urged the

Agency to provide the Board with copies ofthe implementation rules as part of

the Agency’s comments. Tr.2 at 149 The Agency chose not to do so. While it

would be helpful to know the implementation procedures in developing

comprehensive water quality regulations, in this proceeding the Board believes

that the Agency has sufficient federal guidance and expeiience to develop

implementation procedures which ensure that water quality standards are

protective ofaquatic life.

In this regard, the Board notes that the Agency has been issuing permits

implementing the General Use Water Quality Standards, including standards

based on hardness for a number ofyears. Further, the Agency has already

developed detailed procedures for implementing the Lake Michigan Basin Water

Quality Standards that address reasonable potential determination.

See 35

Iii.

Adm. Code 352.

The situation in which the Board allowed a standards change to go to First Notice without seeing

implementation procedures in R02-1 1 could hardly be more different from the situation

presented to the Board in the instant proceeding. Here, everything strongly supports following

the Board’s general practice ofrequiring submission ofimplementation procedures before

considering amendments to standards. No federal guidance or other information has been

presented with the petition to show what the implementation procedures would be like. No one

5

---

suggests

that IEPA has any experience in performing dissolved oxygen monitoring ordeveloping

permit limits in a way that would follow Professors Garvey and While’s recommendations.

Indeed, IEPA indicated at the June 29 hearing in this proceeding that it had no idea how IAWA’s

proposal might be implemented. Regarding how IEPA might implement the IAWA proposal,

Mr. Frevert testified:

•

We’ll get to that and help you deal with that later, but I’m not prepared to go into

any detail today. My eyes are rolling and I’m thinking we’re speculating about all

sorts ofexotic, expensive monitoring requirements and permitting conditions and

other things that have incredible secondary and tertiary impacts, so don’t askme

to answer today. (Tr. 144)

Certainly it would not be prudent for the Board to adopt standards amendments based on

the assumption that they will be implemented with the monitoring and permitting procedures

recommended by Dr. Garvey. Our only hint as to what the Agency thinks of the Garvey/While’s

recommendations is that they make “eyes roll” and may be too “exotic” or expensive to use.

As noted by Board staff(Tr. 139), IAWA’s proposed dissolved oxygen standards do not

provide forthe monitoring that IAWA’s expert recommends for the implementation ofthe

standards. Further, the IAWA proposal is not nuanced. It reduces the minimum to 3.5 mg/L in

every waterbody in the state except for Lake Michigan no matter how exceptional the water

body, where the waterbody is located, the nature of the water body and what species are found

in the water. Within waterbodies, the proposal does not differentiate between samples taken in

riffles and the bottom ofreservoir pools. It alludes to implementation procedures by indicating

6

---

how certain monitoring “should” be done, but the likely effect ofthese provisions is anything but

clear.’

IfIAWA is bent on going forward at this time, it could propose implementation

procedures itself and ask that theybe adopted as Board rules.2 However, if IAWA wants to work

out implementation procedures with IEPA and other parties, it should come back to the Board

after it has done so.3 It should not ask the Board to adopt standards on the assumption that

implementation procedures will be adopted without giving the Board and the public a realistic

idea ofwhat those implementation procedures will look like.

In addition to the lack ofimplementation rules, there are a host of other reasons why

more time is needed before the Board can judiciously consider changes to the dissolved oxygen

standards. Time is needed to analyze the data and science alleged to support the IAWA proposal.

At the time ofthe hearing, neither IAWA’s expert nor anyone else had had time to consider the

Fox River data or United States Geological Service data that is alleged to support the proposal.

(Tr. 177) The Ohio River tributary data collected by Professor Garvey’ s students on which he

relies has not been processed or subjected to peer review. (Tr. 87, 114-15) Data has not been

1

Just what is the legal effect ofsaying in a standard that certain monitoring “should” be done in

a particular manner? Does that somehow compel the databe collected in that manner? Ifa

violation is found in a manner that does not comply with the manner that “should” be used, does

that meanthat the violation does not count and everyone can go on polluting as if the violation

was not found?

2

In the Great Lakes Water Quality Standards proceeding and the antidegradation proceeding,

language originally proposed for Agency implementation procedures was adopted as Board

regulations.

~No standards changes can go into effect until they are approved by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Alaska Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. EPA, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11144, 27

ELR 21330 (W. D. Wash. 1997) Under 40 CFR 13 1.6(f), U.S. EPA cannot even consider

approval ofIllinois standards until presented with “information on general policies applicable to

state standards which may affect their application and implementation.”

7

---

collected on the fish assemblage for the limited number ofwaters for which there is dissolved

oxygen data (Tr. 182) although IAWA proposes to amend statewide standards based on scientific

II.

conclusions

There

drawnis

no

from

urgency

the apparently

for making

healthy

the proposed

fishery in

change

those few waters.4

JAWA offers a number ofpractical reasons for the Board to amend Illinois’ dissolved

oxygen standards. None ofthese reasons support going forward to consider a petition without the

Board being able to review the necessary implementation procedures and scientific data.

A.

Federal law does not forbid Illinois having dissolved oxygen standards more

protective than the federal National Criteria Document and, in any event, the

current standards are not more protective than the NCD.

Mr. Harsch at the hearing suggested as a reason for adopting the proposal that, “Under

the Clean Water Act, Section 33 U.S. Code 1331(c): States are required to revise water quality

standards within three years ofthe adoption ofnational criteria by USEPA.” (Tr. 10) Mr. Harsch

then made statements that could have been understood to mean that the current dissolved oxygen

standards should have been revised within three years ofthe issuance ofthe April 1986 U.S.

EPA National Criteria Document (“NCD”) to conform to that document. (Id.) Whatever Mr.

Harsch intended to say, the Board certainly should not race to adopt new standards based on a

misunderstanding offederal requirements.

~ In fact, there is a host of other studies and data that should be collected before Illinois dissolved

oxygen standards are weakened. As stated by Dr Garvey, there is currently no region specific

data for Illinois (Tr. 46), there is very little pre-dawn data (Tr. 84-5), studies that might be

relevant to endangered species have not been assembled (Tr. 92), riffle DO levels have not been

measured although that needs to be done (Tr. 93), and there are no studies ofthe chronic effects

of low DO levels on aquatic life that can bç trusted. (Tr. 114)

8

---

First, 33 U.S.C.

§

13 13(c) does not require Illinois to conform to the 1986 NCD. Section

13 13(c) ofthe Clean Water Act requires states to adopt criteria “for all toxic pollutants listed

pursuant to section 131 7(a)(1) for which criteria have been published

...“

But dissolved oxygen

is not a priority toxic pollutant subject to Section 13l7(a)(1); it is not a toxic pollutant at all.

Illinois is certainly not prohibited from having dissolved oxygen standards that are stronger than

the NCD. Apparently every state in the region has standards as stringent as Illinois’ with the

debatable exception ofOhio. (Tr. 164-5)~

More critically, Illinois’ current dissolved oxygen standards conform to the NCD; the

JAWA proposed standards do not. The 1986 NCD provides for standards identical to the current

Illinois dissolved oxygen standards of6.0 mg’L for the 7 day average and 5.0 mg/L minimum for

all periods of the year in which early life stages are present. This includes all embryonic and

larval stages and all juvenile forms up to 30 days following hatching. (IAWA Ex.2 p.34)6 The

NCD provides for less stringent standards during periods in which early life stages are not

present but limits this provision with a very important condition:

The flexibility afforded by such a dichotomy between early life stages and other

periods in criteria carries with it the responsibility to accurately determine the

presence or absence ofthe more sensitive stages prior to invocation ofthe less

stringent criteria. Such presence/absence data must be more site-specific than

national in scope so that temperature, habitat or calendar specification are not

possible this document. In the absence ofsuch site-specific determination the

default criteria would be those that would protect all life stages year-round

(Hearing Exhibit 2. pA) (emphasis added)

~Ohio’s standards, unlike the IAWA proposal, do not violate the 1986 NCD because Ohio has

apparently done the site specific identification ofexceptional waters and sensitive periods that it

is necessary to do under the NCD if it is intended to adopt standards that do not protect early

development stages for the whole year.

6

The IAWA proposal does not even provide for a 30 dayjuvenile period for the federally

endangered pallid sturgeon. (Tr. 174)

9

---

Professor Garvey has repeatedly acknowledged that site-specific data is not available for

Illinois and that the IAWA is not proposing site-specific standards. (Tr. 51, 58, 133-4)

Accordingly, the criteria recommended by the 1986 NCD are essentially Illinois’ current criteria.

Certainly, the IAWA has offered no site-specificjustification that would allow Illinois to claim

the more lenient standards for the entire state and for more than the period November through

February that was proposed by IAWA and Dr. Robert Sheehan in R94-01 as the period when

sensitiveIflifethe stagesobject areis

tonotconformpresent.Illinois’7

dissolved oxygen standards to federal criteria, Illinois’

standards should be left alone.

B.

Proper development of nutrient standards would not be assisted by adoption

of a revised dissolved oxygen standards because nutrients cause impairments

ofIllinois waters that are not directly related to minimum oxygen levels.

Another consideration IAWA submits to support adoption now ofless stringent dissolved

oxygen standards is the fact that nutrient standards are now being developed for Illinois. See

Testimony ofMichael Callahan. (Tr. 31)8 Actually, dissolved oxygen standards may be largely

irrelevant to the development ofnutrient standards. Nutrient standards and controls on nutrient

pollution are needed as soon as possible in order to control unnatural algal blooms and plant

growth no matter what is ultimately decided regarding dissolved oxygen standards.

U.S. EPA has described the damage caused by excess nutrients,, stating:

‘~

Still further, the IAWA proposal does not have the 30-day minimum average present in the

NCD.

8

Illinois currently has a standard forphosphorus of0.05 mg/L for lakes of sufficient size

(302.205) and a drinking water standard for nitrate of 10 mg/L. (302.34) Illinois does not have

nutrient standards that protect streams or rivers (including impounded rivers) and does not have

standards to protect downstream waters such as the Mississippi Riveror the Gulfthe Mexico.

10

---

Human health problems can be attributed to nutrient enrichment. One serious

human health problem associated with nutrient enrichment is the formation of

trihalomethanes (THMs). Trihalomethanes are carcinogenic compounds that are

produced when certain organic compounds are chlorinated and bromated as part

ofthe disinfection process in a drinking water facility. Trihalomethanes and

associated compounds can be formed from a variety oforganic compounds

including humic substances, algal metabolites and algal decomposition products.

The density ofalgae and the level ofeutrophication in the raw water supply has

been correlated with the production of THMs.

Effects directly related to nutrients can also resuli in human health’problems.

The USEPA has an established maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L because

nitrates in drinking water can cause potentially fatal low oxygen levels in the

blood when ingested by infants. Nitrate concentrations as low as 4 mg/L in

drinking water supplies from rural areas have also been linked to an increased risk

ofnon-Hodgkin lymphoma.

**

*

Nutrient impairment can cause problems other than those related to human health.

One ofthe most expensive problems caused by nutrient enrichment is the

increased treatment required for drinking water... Adverse ecological effects

associated with nutrient enrichment include reductions in dissolved oxygen (DO)

and the occurrence ofHABs (harmful algal blooms). High algal and macrophyte

biomass maybe associated with severe diurnal swings in DO and pH in some

waterbodies. Low DO can release toxic metals from sediments contaminating

habitats oflocal aquatic organisms. In addition, low DO can cause increased

availability oftoxic substances like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, reducing

acceptable habitat formost aquatic organisms, including valuable game fish.

Decreased water clarity (increased turbidity) can cause loss ofmacrophytes and

creation ofdense algal mats. Loss ofmacrophytes and enrichment may alter the

nativeIn

addition,compositionnutrients,andparticularlyspecies

diversityphosphorus,ofaquaticcan

causecommunities.high pH9levels which

themselves can be harmful to aquatic life. Walter K. Dodds, Freshwater Ecology, Academic

Press (2002) p. 34 1-42. Bringing this home, there are recent studies showing that algal blooms

are causing violations ofpH standards in dammed pools in theFox River. See Victor Santucci Jr.

and Stephen R. Gephard, Fox River Fish Passage Feasibility Study,

~U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nutrient Criteria, Technical Guidance Manual, Rivers

and Streams, EPA -822-B-00-002 (July 2000) (pp. 4-5, citations omitted).

11

---

http://www.co.kane.il.us/kcstormldams/fishpssg/final.pdf., pp. 42-54. (Exhibit A to this

memorandum) Earlier with regard to the Fox River, the Illinois Natural History Survey wrote of

the effect ofelevated phosphorus levels on the Fox:

High nutrient inputs and still-water environments created by the numerous

channel dams situated

along the entire main stem of the Fox

Riverin Illinois

promote excessive algal growths. Veryhigh phosphorus levels appear to promote

and sustain massive algal blooms along the Fox River.....

Pronounced algal growth will continue to produce fluctuating DO levels behind

theIn

short,low

channelby

creatingdamsalgalunlessbloomssignificantand bloomsreductionofcyanobacteria,in

phosphorusnutrientslevels occurs.cause10a

host of

problems for Illinois drinking water, recreational uses and aquatic life, only some ofwhich

problems relate directly to dissolved oxygen.” Nutrient pollution is known to cause violation of

at least three

Illinois water quality standards:

302.203 which states that “Water ofthe State shall be free from sludge or bottom

deposits, floating debris,

visible oil, odor, plant or algal growth, color or turbidity

ofother than natural origin,”

302.204 which provides that pH shall be within the range of

6.5

to 9.0 except for

natural causes,

and

302.206 Dissolved Oxygen.

Hasty adoption ofamendments to the dissolved oxygen standards will not make it any

easierto determine the levels ofphosphorus and nitrogen that cause unnatural plant or algal

growth orviolations ofpH standards. The fact ofthe matter is that it is going to be very difficult

‘o

Illinois

State Water Survey, Considerations in Water Use Planning for the Fox River, Contract

Report 586 (September 1995) pp. 100, 104, 113, 120,122.

12

---

to establish predictive scientific relationships between-nutrient levels and dissolved oxygen

minimums, particularly in rivers and streams. (see Garvey testimony Tr. 77-8) The focus ofthose

that have been trying to develop nutrient standards has been to discover the relationship between

nutrient levels and unnatural plant or algal growth. Walter K. Dodds and Eugene B. Welch,

Establishing nutrient criteria in streams, J.N. Am Benthol Soc., 2000, l9(1):186-l96.

Illinois’ dissolved oxygen standards will figure prominently in the calculations ofthe

Illinois’ nutrient standards only in the improbable event that proper science concludes that to

avoid violating the Illinois dissolved oxygen standards theremust be a lower nutrient level than

that required to prevent unnatural plant or algal growth. It is now expected that decisions on such

questions will be needed in 2007 or 2008. (Callahan Testimony Tr. 64) This leaves plenty of

time to develop well considered dissolved oxygen standards supported by practical

implementation procedures.

C.

It is unknown if any total maximum daily load studies to be done in the next

two

years will be affected by the dissolved oxygen standards.

IAWA has presented testimony that hundreds of TMDLs must be done because of

dissolved oxygen impairments and argues that this is a reason to amend Illinois standards. (Tr.

40) But we do not know the number ofdissolved oxygen TMDLs that could be avoided if the

weaker standards IAWA proposes were adopted because we do not know how many ofthe

waters that are impaired under current standards would pass under the IAWA proposal. (Tr. 195)

~ In addition, Illinois nutrient

pollution is contributing to hypoxia in the Gulf ofMexico and

current U.S. EPA policy requires that Illinois standards protect downstream waters including the

Gulf.

13

---

We do know that waters on the TMDL list are placed there using biological testing and

criteriato

identify impairments and that Dr. Garvey favors the use ofthese methods. (Ex. 1 p.

33) We do know that the dissolved oxygen violations found were based on measurements taken

during daylight hours, when dissolved oxygen concentrations are higher, rather that pre-dawn

because IEPA has only recently had access to early morning data.

(Tr.84-5)

We also know that

the E. Branch ofthe Du Page River and Salt Creek TMDLs, which were the subject oftestimony

during the hearing (Tr. 20-1), would have had to be done for dissolved oxygen even if the IAWA

standards were adopted. Both ofthese waters had dissolved oxygen levels that fell below 3.5

mg/L or fell below 5.0 mg/L during the March to

Juneperiod.

(Portions ofthe Draft TMDLs for

Salt Creek and East Branch DuPage River, Exhibit B to this memorandum)

We also know that IEPA has proposed to do TMDLs involving dissolved oxygen for less

than thirty water segments over the next two years. (Draft Illinois 2004 Section 303(d) List pp.

13-7, Exhibit C) Of these 30 potential TMDLs, it is unknown

if

any ofthe waters would have

avoided dissolved oxygen TMDLs under the proposed IAWA standards.’2 Given that each of

these waters were found to have violated current dissolved oxygen stan4ards from infrequently

taken samples taken during the daytime, it is very likely that all ofthese waters would be found

to have significant dissolved oxygen problems even if Dr. Garvey’s recommendations were

accepted.

12 Ifthere are scheduled TMDLs for dissolved oxygen for which the watersegment involved

would not have violated DO standards under the IAWA proposal, ELPC, Sierra Club and Prairie

Rivers would agree to have them delayed pending resolution ofthe questions relating to

dissolved oxygen standards. After all, there are hundreds ofother impaired waters in the queue

waiting for TMDLs to be done.

14

---

dissolved oxygen standards, they should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

It is also unclear that any permit limits

are being affected by the supposed stringency of

the current dissolved oxygen standards. Illinois permit writers do not use modeling to set NPDES

permit limits for CBOD or BOD to avoid

violations ofdissolved oxygen standards as permit

writers in

neighboring states do (e.g. Michigan, Exhibit D), Illinois permit writers simply apply

the cookie cutter effluent limits set forth in

35

Ill. Adm. Code 309.120 which do not involve

any

referenceThereto thehasdissolvedbeen

testimonyoxygenthatstandards.recently13 some sewerage dischargers have been asked to

maintain a minimum dissolved oxygen level of6 mg/L in their discharge to ‘prevent violations of

the current dissolved oxygen standards (Tr. 63) but no details have been provided. We have no

idea how muchmoney would be saved by disehargers if the Board adopted the IAWA standards.

Additionally, we do not know if there are substantial costs to meet current standards, whether

some sort ofvariance or site specific relief would be appropriate. Certainly, alleged increased

wastewater treatment costs cannot properly be used as a justification for a precipitant change in

the statewide dissolved oxygen standards without real evidence, supported by cost figures,

showing that

dischargers are now being asked to spend substantial sums for water treatment that

they would not have to pay under the proposed standards.

‘~

The East Branch Du Page and Salt Creek TMDL implementation plans might

potentially affect

permit limits for discharges to

those two waters

if that is found to be necessary after IEPA tries a

number of other steps to meet

standards.

15

---

II.

CONCLUSION

Neither the science nor the necessary implementation procedures have been considered

and developed sufficiently to allow amendments to Illinois dissolved oxygen standards to be

considered properly. The Board should order that consideration ofthe petitionbe suspended until

such time as the Petitioner presents evidence as to the specific implementation procedures that it

is expected will be adopted to implement the proposed

standards.

Respectfully submitted,

dF.Ettinge~~

Senior Staff Counsel, Environmental Law &

Policy Center and counsel in this matterfor

Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club

July21, 2004

16

---

Final Report

Victor J. Santucci, Jr. and Stephen R. Gephard

Principal Investigators

Submitted to:

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

C2000 Ecosystem Program

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702

April 2003

Max McGraw

Wildlife Foundation

Dundee, Illinois 60118

EXHIBIT A

---

A

.r~.

..

QHEI

score

I

II

•.• •.

r0.69

• •

F=

0

20

60

100

140

SHAP

score

•

600

450

300

0

C)

U)

C-)

600

450

300

150

0~

—

20

B

S.

•

r

=

0.89

150

~

r

=

0.84

P

=

0.001

., .

•~

P

=

0.001

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

QHEI

score

D

S.

• •‘:

•I

•

.~.

$

r=0.74

•

P=0.001

I

•

I

‘

I

•

I

60

100

140

180

SHAP

score

Figure 10. Relationships between (A) the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) and the Index of

Biotic Integrity (IBI), (B) QHEI and the MacroinvertebrateCondition Index (MCI), (C) the Stream

Habitat Assessment Procedure (SHAP) and IBI, and (D) SHAP and MCI. Fish and macroinvertebrate

communities and habitat were assessed at 40 stations on the Fox River between McRenry and

Dayton, Illinois during July through early September 2000.

Water Quality

Dissolved oxygen varied on a daily basis at all stations such that concentrations increased

during the day and declined at night (Table Dl). However, the magnitude ofthese daily

fluctuations was substantially higher at impounded stations than free-flowing stations (Figure

11). Dissolved oxygen concentrations in impounded areas were as high as 17.8 mg/L (200

saturation) and as low as 2.6 mg/L (Table 19). With few exceptions, dissolved oxygen in free-

flowing areas varied between

5

and 10 mg/L. On average, maximum dissolved oxygen

concentrations were higher for impounded stations than free-flowingstations (13.8±0.8vs.

9.8±0.4mg/L; repeated-measures ANOVA,

P

=

0.001) and minimum concentrations were lower

in impoundments (4.2±0.7vs. 5.7±0.7mg/L;

P

=

0.02).

Although daily extremes in dissolved oxygen varied between free-flowing and impounded

portions ofriver, mean concentrations were similar between habitat types (repeated measures

ANOVA,

P

=

0.40; Table 20). Likewise, mean values ofother water quality parameters were

•

.

60

50

0

C)

U)

m

30

20

60

50

I-

0

C.)

U)

30

20

42

---

a)

C

a)

~..._

8/06/01

.

Free-flowing

0

-

1600CST

—Impounded

-

0

10

20

30

4

Time (hours)

.g.

CC

~12

o

0

-a

-a.

06

U)

a

0

10

20

30

40

0

10

20

30

40

•

Time (hours)

Time (hours)

Figure 11. Dissolved oxygen concentrations at free-flowing and impounded stations in four segments of the

Fox River, Illinois. Dissolved oxygen was measured at each station with continuous recording Datasondes

over a 40-hour period in August 2001. The horizontal line represents the 5-mg/L ambient water standard

for dissolved oxygen (Illinois EPA).

similar at

free-flowing and impounded locations

(F

0.13). In contrast, sampling time had a

significant effect on mean values for 9 of 16 parameters (Table 20). Dissolved oxygen and seven

additional parameters were 1~iigherduring p.m. than a.m. sample periods

(P

0.03) and

nitrate/nitrite nitrogenwas lower during p.m. sampling

(P

=

0.01). Seven parameters did not

vary with time period

(F

0.08). The significant habitat x time interactions observed for

dissolved oxygen concentration and

saturation resulted because differences in dissolved

oxygen between a.m. and p.m. sample periods were greater for impounded stations than free-

flowing stations.

Comparisons ofwater quality data to recommended guidelines showed that the Fox River was

nutrient enriched and supported high algal biomass (Tables 9 and Dl). We present means of

samples from above and below dam stations and a.m. and p.m. time periods fortotal phosphorus

and nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and turbidity because these parameters either were similar between

habitat type and time period (nutrients and turbidity; Table 20) or differences were small relative

to the degree that concentrations exceeded guidelines (chlorophyll a; Table Dl). Total

phosphorus was near the recommended guideline forPhosphorus Zone 4 Midwestern streams at

Algonquin

—

Carpentersville

...~/..\........

a,

E

C

Time (hours)

North

Aurora

—

Stoip Island

Montgomery

—

Yorkville

Free-flowing

— Impounded

........

~.....

8/13/01

1600 CST

43

---

Table 19. Mean (minimum

-

maximum) temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, andpH for free-flowing and impounded

habitats in 11 segments of the Fox River between McHeniy and Dayton, Illinois. Data were collected from August 6-17, 2001 with continuously

recording Datasondes and by point sampling at the beginning, middle, and end of each 40 h monitoring period. Sondes were set mid channel 1-

1.5

ft.

offbottom andpoint measurements were made at the surface, mid depth, and bottom of mid channel, left-of-center, and right-of-center

locations along cross channel transects that included the sonde location. Battery failure reduced the number of sonde readings for the

Carpentersville andDayton above dam stations.

Segment and station

Habitat

River

mile

Number of

readings

Temperature

(

C)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mgfL)

Dissolved

oxygen

( saturation)

Specific

conductance

(1is/cm)

pH

(Units)

Stratton

-

Algonquin

Stratton below dam

Free-flowing

98.77

173

29.6 (28.8

-

30.7)

6.9

(5.7

-

8.8)

92.5 (76.6

-

119.7)

656 (648

-

731)

8.5 (8.4

-

8.7)

Algonquin above dam

Impounded

82.64

182

29.2 (28.4

-

30.2)

5.8 (3.3

-

11.8)

77.3 (44.5

-

160.9)

777 (709

-

802) 8.3 (8.1

-

8.6)

Algonquin

-

Carpentersville

.

Algonquin below dam

Free-flowing

82.51

175

29.3 (28.4-30.2)

7.4 (5.3

-

11.7)

99.7(70.5-

154.6)

895(716-993) 8.3 (8.1

-8.5)

Carpentersville above dam Impounded

78.27

98

29.4 (28.0 -30.7)

5.5

(2.6

-

11.3)

74.1 (33.9

-

154.0)

840 (770- 873) 8.2 (7.5

-

8.6)

Carpentersville

-

Elgin

Carpentersville below dam Free-flowing 78.11

172

29.9 (27.2-31.1)

7.3 (4.8 -9.5)

99.3 (62.7- 131.6)

852(730-901) 8.3 (8.0-8.7)

Elgin above dam

Impounded

71.99

180

29.4 (27.6

-

32.7)

•5.4 (3.2

-

15.8)

73.4 (42.9

-

224.4)

909 (812 -979) 8.4 (8.1

-

9.0)

Elgin

-

South Elgin

Elgin below dam

Free-flowing

71.57

174

29.7 (27.8 -31.3)

7.2

(5.4

-

9.7)

98.6 (71.1

-

135.6)

887 (684- 926) 8.4 (8.2

-

8.7)

South Elgin above dam

Impounded

68.31

188

29.2 (27.5 -32.0)

7.7 (3.3

-

14.5)

103.7 (43.2 -242.0)

938 (846-980) 8.4 (8.1 -9.0)

South Elgin

-

St. Charles

South Elgin below dam

Free-flowing 68.08

156

23.4(21.9-24.9)

6.9 (5.9 -8.3)

83.7 (71.6- 103.0)

861 (833 -883)

8.2(7.0-8.5)

St. Charles above dam

Impounded

60.69

181

23.5

(21.8-25.5)

9.5 (6.1

-

15.7)

114.7 (71.8- 195.2)

•

863 (784-873) 8.7(7.9-9.0)

Geneva

-

North Batavia

Geneva below dam

Free-flowing 58.56

179

23.4(21.8-24.7)

8.0 (6.8

-9.5)

95.9 (81.0- 116.4)

877 (819-903) 8.6 (8.2-8.8)

North Batavia above dam Impounded

56.49

189

23.4(21.9-29.9)

6.0 (2.8

-

13.3)

72.1 (34.1

-

178.3)

857(820-903) 8.6(8.4-9.0)

South Batavia

-

North Aurora

South Batavia below dam Free-flowing

54.75

175

27.4 (25.7 -29.3)

7.2 (4.7

-

10.1)

94.4

(59.5

-

135.4)

831 (798

-

850)

8.9 (8.8

-

9.0)

North Aurora above dam

Impounded

52.69

180

27.0

(25.1

-29.5)

5.6

(2.8

-

11.1)

72.7

(35.5

-

144.8)

832 (815

-

848) 8.9 (8.7 -9.0)

North Aurora

-

Stolp Island

.

.

..

North Aurora below dam Free-flowing

52.52

175

27.3 (25.1 -29.9)

7.7 (6.1 -9.4)

99.7(75.7- 127.7)

826(804-847) 8.8 (8.7-9.0)

Stolp Island above dam

Impounded

49.03

180

26.9 (24.8 -30.4)

6.2 (2.9- 14.4)

80.4 (36.6- 197.3)

853 (821

-

879) 8.8 (8.5 -9.1)

Hurds Island

-

Montgomery

Hurd’s Island below dam

Free-flowing 48.32

182

23.0(21.5-24.3)

6.8(5.8-8.2)

81.5(69.5-99.6)

874(789-895) 8.5 (8.3-8.8)

Montgomery above dam

Impounded

46.85

190

23.0 (21.4 -24.6)

7.2 (5.2

-

9.2)

85.8 (59.8

-

109.6)

926 (867

-

953)

8.4 (8.2

-

8.7)

Montgomery

-

Yorkville

•

•

Montgomery below dam

Free-flowing

46.76

181

25.5

(24.2 -26.9)

7.5

(6.3 -9.8)

93.5 (78.2

-

112.4)

871 (859

-

887) 8.8 (8.7 -9.0)

Yorkville above dam

Impounded

36.56

186

24.0 (21.7-27.6)

9.1 (4.2

-

16.8)

112.5(50.0-214.9)

905 (861 -934) 8.9(8.6-9.4)

Yorkville

-

Dayton

Yorkville below dam

Free-flowing 36.41

183

25.2(22.5-27.7)

9.6

(6.6- 12.7)

119.5

(80.1

-

158.6)

853 (819-933) 9.0(8.8-9.3)

Dayton above dam

Impounded

5.80

32

25.6(24.4-27.2) 13.2 (10.0- 17.8) 166.9 (121.7

-225.2)

839 (828-854)

9.3 (9.2-9.4)

44

r~i

- .—~--

-

-

--.-...

---

Table 20. Water quality parameter means (±1standard error) and results of repeated-measures ANOVA

examining the effects of habitat type, time period, andhabitat x time interactions onwate tuality in The Fox River

between McHeniy andDayton, Illinois. Water sampleswere collected from August 6-17, 2001 in free-flowing and

impounded habitats during am. (0613

-

0940 hours) andp.m. (1830 -2242 hours) time periods.

P

~ 0.05 indicates

significance.

Parameter

Habitat type

P

Time period

P

Habitat x Time

interaction

Free-flowing Impounded

a.m.

p.m.

P

Temperature(~C)

26.2±0.6

26.2±0.6 0.98

25.3±0.6

27.1±0.6 0.001

0.92

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

7.4±0.3

8.0±0.8

0.40

5.9±0.3

9.4±0.6 0.001

0.01

Dissolved oxygen ( saturation)

93.2±4.3

101.8±10.1 0.33

73.4±3.9

121.6±7.1 0.001

0.02

Specific conductance(jiS/cm)

818.2±15.4 835.2±11.0 0.53

830.0±14.4 823.3±12.6 0.25

0.61

pH(units)

8.6±0.1

8.7±0.1

0.54

8.5±0.1

8.8±0.1

0.001

0.56

Turbidity (NTU)

43.2±1.5

40.5±1.7

0.30

42.4±1.5

41.3±1.8

0.61

0.90

Total suspended solids (mgfL)

46.5±2.5

42.1±1.4 0.20

41.8±1.8

46.8±2.3 0.04

0.56

Total organic carbon (mg/L)

12.8±0.5

12.4±0.4

0.62

11.9±0.3

13.2±0.5 0.001

0.53

Chlorophyll a (jig/L)

136.0±9.0

148. 1±9.7 0.40

127.5±6.3 156.6±10.9 0.02

0.53

Total phosphorus (mg/L)

0.42±0.03

0.42±0.03 0.96

0.42±0.03

0.41±0,03 0.37

0.34

Total dissolved phosphorus (mg/L) 0.19±0.02

0.19±0.02 0.90

0.19±0.02 0.19±0.02 0.78

0.90

Total nitrogen (mg/L)

2.83±0.12

2.74±0.12

0.69

2.86±0.12 2.7 1±0.12 0.09

0.09

Total Kjeldahlnitrogen (mg/L)

2.22±0.05

2.14±0.05 0.39

2.17±0.04 2.19±0.06 0.60

0.02

Amnionia nitrogen (mg/L)

0.11±0.01

0.07±0.01 0.14

0.10±0.01

0.09±0.01 0.47

0.72

Unionized ammonia (mg!L)

0.019±0.002 0.016±0.002 0.26

0.014±0.002 0.021±0.002 0.01

0.94

Nitrate/nitrite nitrogen (mg/L)

0.61±0.09

0.59±0.10 0.94

0.69±0.10 0.51±0.09 0.01

0.40

Stratton Dam (0.11 mg/L), increased to the 90th percentile between Stratton and South Elgin

(0.54 mg/L), and remained elevated at all downstream stations (Figure 12). A modest decrease

in phosphorus concentrations was evident between the: Yorkville and Dayton dams, a reach of

river with over 26 uninterrupted miles offree-flowing habitat. Total nitrogen followed a pattern

similar to total phosphorus except that peak nitrogen concentrations were near the 50th percentile

forNitrogen Zone 2 Midwestern streams (4.0 mg /L) and the decrease in nitrogen at the

southernmost stations was more substantial (Figure 12). Total Kjeldahl nitrogen was above the

25th percentile guideline at all sampling stations whereas ammonia nitrogen, unionized ammonia,

and nitrate/nitrite nitrogen remained at low to moderate levels throughout the study area (Tables

20 and Dl). Like Kjeldahl nitrogen, chlorophyll a concentrations and turbidity were high at all

sampling stations relative to recommended guidelines (Figure 13). High organic nitrogen

(compared to free ammonia and non-organic forms), chlorophyll a, suspended solids, and

turbidity were indicative of the extremely high algal biomass that we observed in the Fox River

during summer and fall 2000 and 2001.

Standard violations for dissolved oxygen andpH were widespread and of long duration in

impounded reaches throughout the study area, but they occurred infrequently and for shorter time

periods in free-flowing habitats. Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations were below the5-

mg/L standard at 8 of 11 impounded stations during the first sampling event (Figure 14) and all

45

---

0.7

-J

C)-

~O5

U)

I-

0

.z

a.

U)

0

a.

~0.1

F-

-J

~ 40

0

I-

1.0

Figure 12. Mean concentrations of (A) total phosphorus and (B) total nitrogen measured at 15 dams on the

Fox River between McHenry and Dayton, Illinois. Samples were collected during the early morning and

evening at above and below dam stations in August 2001. Percentile guidelines are based on data from

over 100 Midwestern streams (Robertson et al. 2001). Vertical lines represent 1 SE.

0.3

0.2

0.0

Dam

46

---

300

0)

c~200

~

a.

o

0

I-

100~

C.)

0~

I-

~40

~

0

.0

20

I-

Figure 13. Mean concentrations of (A) chlorophyll a and (B) turbidity measured ati5 dams on the Fox River

between McHenry and Dayton, Illinois. Samples were collected during the early morning and evening at

above and below dam stations in August 2001. Percentile guidelines are based on all season data from

Level III ecoregion VI streams (U.S. EPA 2000). Vertical lines represent 1 SE.

four impoundments monitored during the second event (Table D2).

When substandard

conditions existed in impounded areas, they

typically lasted for more than 8 hours

in a 24-hour

period (15 hours at two stations; Table 21). In contrast, dissolved oxygen dipped below the

standard at only 2 of 11 stations in the free-flowing river andthese conditions lasted for only a

short time (2 hours). Maximum pH was above 9.0 units in the Stolp Island, Yorkville, and

Dayton impoundments and nearviolation in impounded areas from Elgin to North Aurora

(maximum pH

=

9.0; Figure 14). These maximums tended to occur during p.m. sampling when

oxygen concentrations were at highly supersaturated levels. The duration of elevated pH ranged

from less than 1 hour at Stolp Island to 11.75 hours in Yorkville and 24 hours in Dayton. The

A

+1

+

1jf

I

+

I

+

I

S

B

ff

I

I

0

Dam

•

47

---

11-

A

• Free-flowing

A

0)

E

A

Impounded

0

d

E

•

•A

~5

A

A

AA

A

AAA

2~

U)

I

a.

E

E

//

~

~

.~0.

Figurc 14. Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations (A) andmaximum pH values (B) for free-flowing and

impounded stations in the Fox River between McHenry and Dayton, Illinois. Parameters were measured at

each station with continuous recording Datasondes and by point sampling over a 40-hour period in August

2001. Standard lines represent Illinois EPA ambient water quality standards for each parameter..

Yorkville below-dam station was the only free-flowing station with apH standard violation,

although it lasted for 13 hours in a 24-hour period (Table 21).

Substandard oxygen conditions were widespread throughout impoundments monitored

during the second sampling event. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations began in the uppermost

reaches of impounded areas and, except for the St. Charles pool, continued downstream to the

dams (Figure 15). Minimum dissolved oxygen levels dropped below

5

mg/L in the upper

B

AA

A

.

AA

.

.

.

River segment

48

---

Table 21. Duration of below standard dissolved oxygen concentrations

(5

mgfL)

and above standard pH levels (9.0 units) for free-flowing and impounded habitats in 11

segments of the Fox River between McHenry and Dayton, Illinois. Data were collected

from August 6-17, 2001 with continuously recording Datasondes and by point sampling

at the beginning, middle, and end of each 40 h monitoring period.

River

Duration (hours in 24 h period)

Dissolved

Segment and station

Habitat

mile

oxygen

pH

Stratton

-

Algonquin

Stratton below dam

Free-flowing

98.77

0.00

0.00

Algonquin above dam

• Impounded

82.64

15.00

0.00

Algonquin

-

Carpentersville

,

Algonquin below dam

Free-flowing

82.51

0.00

0.00

Carpentersville above dam

Impounded

78.27

9.25

0.00

Carpentersville

-

Elgin

Carpentersville below dam

Free-flowing

78.11

1.00

0.00

Elgin above dam

Impounded

71.99

15.50

0.00

Elgin

-

South Elgin

Elgin below dam

Free-flowing

71.57

0.00

0.00

South Elgin above dam

Impounded

68.31

1.50

0.00

South Elgin

-

St. Charles

South Elgin below dam

Free-flowing

68.08

0.00

0.00

St. Charles above dam

Impounded

60.69

0.00

0.00

Geneva

-

North Batavia

.

Geneva below dam

Free-flowing

58.56

0.00

0.00

North Batavia above dam

Impounded

56.49

8.25

0.00

South Batavia

-

North Aurora

.

South Batavia below dam

Free-flowing

54.75

1.75

0.00

North Aurora above dam

Impounded

52.69

12.75

0.75

North Aurora

-

Stoip Island

.

North Aurora below dam

Free-flowing

52.52

0.00

•

0.00

Stolp Island above dam

Impounded

49.03

13.50

5.25

Hurds Island

-

Montgomery

Hurd’s Island below dam

Free-flowing

48.32

0.00

0.00

Montgomery above dam

Impounded

46.85

0.00

0.00

Montgomery

-

Yorkville

Montgomery below dam

Free-flowing

46.76

0.00

0.00

Yorkville above dam

Impounded

36.56

3.75

11.75

Yorkville

-

Dayton

,

Yorkville below dam

Free-flowing

36.41

0.00

13.00

Dayton above dam

Impounded

5.80

0.00

24.00

reaches of the St. Charles impoundment, but they remained high (8 mg/L) in the lower reaches

throughout the 16-h sampling event. Comparisons of horizontal andvertical samples at

impounded and free-flowing stations showed mean dissolved oxygen concentrations were similar

among horizontal locations (left, mid, and right channel; repeated-measures ANOVA,

P

0.07;

Table 22). Dissolved oxygen also was similar among vertical locations (surface, mid depth,

bottom) in free-flowing areas (F 0.10), but it decreased from surface to bottom in impounded

areas

(P

=

0.001). Other variables showed patterns similar to dissolved oxygen when

comparisons were made among horizontal and vertical locations at free-flowing and impounded

49

---

52

51

50

49

Miles above mouth

~,21

E

C

0

a)

0

0)

0

U)

‘1,

ci

Figure

15.

Mean, maximum, andminimum dissolved oxygen concentrations at free-flowing and impounded stations

in four segments of the Fox River, Illinois. Dissolved oxygen was measured in each segment with continuous

recording Datasondes (four stations) and by point sampling (6-9 transects) over a 16-hour period in August and

September 2001:

stations (Table 22). The location x time period interaction was not significant for any measured

variables

(F

0.28).

Stable low flows in combination with warm water temperatures were necessary for

substandard oxygen and pH conditions to occur in Fox River impounded areas. Extremes in

measured water quality parameters existed at the St. Charles above dam long-term monitoring

station during early August 2001 when flows were stable between 350 and 500 cfs (as measured

at the Algonquin gage; Figure 16). Increases in flOw above 500 cfs between day 16 and 28

resulted in decreases in water temperature, specific conductance, and

pH to more moderate levels

and reductions in the magnitude ofdiel oxygen extremes. Stable low flow conditions between

days 28 and 36 again resulted in elevated water quality measures after which measures declined

with increased flows on day 36 (Figure 16). Historic flow data suggest that conditions favoring

poor water quality may occur annually from mid July through mid October.

12

9

.

Algonquin

Carpentersville

Dam

Dam

I

Impounded

—+.

U

Flow

•

U

•

U..

6

3

S

S

S

••••

A

,,—~“—•••~•—-~••—-~•————

AAAA

AA

.

-

82

81

80

79

78

Miles above mouth

0)

C

0

a,

0

0U,

(.1

ci

0)

E

C

0

a)

0

0

0

U,

U,

ci

South Elgin

St. Charles

Dam

~

Dam.~J

Impounded

I

—*.

.

15

Flow

.

U

9

3

U

S

•

~

AA

68

66

64

62

6~

Miles above mouth

Montgomery

Yorkville

~

Dam~J

Imp. I

——

Flow

•

S

-I

12

North Aurora

Dam

~~tow~r~g

Stolp Island

Dam

lmpounded~9

—*-•

U

Flow

. U

9

6

3

••

•

S..

5

~

AAA

~21

E

C

‘5

U Maximum

•

Mean

46

44

42

40

38

36

Miles above mouth

A

Minimum

50

---

Table 22. Mean (±1standard error) temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH andresults of repeated-measures ANOVA

examining the effects of vertical and horizontal sampling locations for free-flowing and impounded habitats in the Fox River between McHenry and

Dayton, Illinois. Water samples were collected from August 6-17, 2001 during a.m. (0613

-

0940 hours) and p.m. (1830 -2242 hours) time periods.

P

~ 0.05 indicates significance.

.

Habitat and parameter

Vertical sample location

P

Horizontal sample location

Surface

Mid depth

Bottom

Left of center Mid channel Right of center

P

Free-flowing

.

Temperature (CC)

26.2±0.6

26.2±0.6

26.2±0.6

0.10

26. 1±0.6

26.2±0.6

26.2±0.6

0.17

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

7.4±0.3

7.3±0.3

7.3±0.3

0.14

7.3±0.3

7.4±0.3

7.3±0.3

0.29

Dissolved oxygen ( saturation)

94.2±4.1

93.0±4.1

92.3±4.12 0.001

92.6±4.2

93.7±4.4

93.2±4.0

0.65

Specific conductance(jtS/cm)

822.0±14.6 821.4±14.7 820.7±14.7

0.63

813.0±16.5 818.1±15.4 833.0±13.5

0.10

pH(units)

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

0.11

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

0.62

Impounded

Temperature(~C)

26.2±0.6

26.1±0.6

25.9±0.6

0.12

26.0±0.6

26.0±0.6

26.1±0.6

0.31

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)

8.2±0.8

7.7±0.7

7.2±0.7

0.001

7.7±0.7

7.4±0.7

7.9±0.8

0.08

Dissolved oxygen

(

saturation)

104.0±10.2 97.8±9.4

90.7±8.8

0.00 1

98.1±9.4

94.5±9.2

99.9±9.7

0.07

Specific conductance(j.tS/cm)

834.2±10.8 836.0±11.0 838.5±11.0 0.03

•

834.4±11.0 837.4±11.0

837.0±10.9

0.37

pH (units)

.

8.7±0.1

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

0.004

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

8.6±0.1

0.28

51

---

C-,

E

w

I-

-J

C)

ci

Day

Figure 16. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and pH for the St. Charles above dam station (US

IMP) in the Fox River, Illinois. Water quality variables were measured at a depth of 6.5 ft. with a continuous

recording Datasonde from August 1 through September 10, 2001. Flow was recorded at the Algonquin gage

(USGS 2002).

0

0

E

C.,

Cl,

C-

Cl,

ii

0

C)

x

C

C

U)

C

I

0

8

16

.

24

32

40

52

---

12

10

P=0.95r=0.02

d8

E6

.

E4

0

12

18

Impoundment length (mi.)

10

•

E6

•

.

24

~

2

•.

5

7

9

11

Impoundment depth (ft.)

12

2

r=0.86

10

p=o.ooi

I

o

8

E 6

.

•

E4

2

~

10

20

30

Free-flowing length (ml.)

Figure 17. Relationships between minimum dissolved oxygen concentration and impoundment length,

impoundment maximum depth, and length of upstream free-flowinghabitat for 11 Fox River segments

between McHenry and Dayton, Illinois.

Hydrologic conditions appeared to have a greater effect on the occurrence of substandard

dissolved oxygen than impoundment morphology. We found no relationship between minimum

dissolved oxygen concentration and impoundment length (Pearson correlation,

r

=

0.02,

P

=

0.95) or impoundment depth

(r

=

-0.02,

F

=

0.56; Figure

17). Likewise, no relation was

observed for duration of oxygen standard violation and impoundment length or depth

(r

0.32,

P

=

0.35). In contrast, length offree-flowing habitat above impounded areas was positively

correlated with minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations

(r

=

0.86,

P

=

OMO1; Figure 17).

53

---

33

0)

a,

E

C

E

C

16

C)

C)

~12

o

0

0

U)

0

U,

ci

O

40

0

10

20

30

40

Time (hours)

Time (hours)

18

22

2

0)

3

~l8

EE

C12

~,14

o

0

a

10

o

U,U)

U,U,6

ci

a

2

0

10

20

30

4U

0

10

20

30

40

Time (hours)

Time (hours)

Figure 18. Dissolved oxygen concentrations at upstream impounded and downstream free-flowing stations for

four dams in the Fox River, Illinois. Dissolved oxygen was measured at each station with continuous

recording Datasondes over a 40-hour period in August 2001. Upstream data has been transformed based on

point sampling to reflect surface dissolved oxygen concentrations.

While these data suggest longer free-flowing reaches above impoundments may improve

dissolved oxygen conditions in downstream impounded areas, this result must be regarded with

caution due to the predominance of short free-flowing reaches within our study area.

Above dam-below dam comparisons showed that dams releasedoxygerrtG1heiatmosphere

during the day and added oxygen to the river at night (Figure 18). For example, water flowing

over the Algonquin Dam lost about

5

mgIL of dissolved oxygen at 2000 CST on August 10 and

gained about 1 mg/L at 0400 CST on August 11 (Figure 18). We used surface estimates for

these comparisons because dissolved oxygen concentrations differed between surface and near-

bottom impounded locations (Figure 19) and the timing ofpeaks in the diel oxygen cycle

suggested that surface water flowed over dams during the low flow conditions that we

monitored. Peaks in dissolved oxygen concentrations occurred at the same time for above-dam

surface and below dam locations whereas above-dam near-bottompeaks lagged behind surface

peaks by about 2 hours (Figure 19). The amount ofoxygen added to the river or lost to the

atmosphere by dams appeared to be related to the degree ofoxygen saturation in upstream

impounded waters and the physical aeration capabilities ofeach dam. During the day, oxygen

Elgin Dam

.

— Upstream

~

Do wn atream

~ 1600 CST

10

20

30

— Upstream

Downstream

North Aurora Dam

8/~

1600 CST

— Upstream

Downstream

Yorkville Dam

.~

........

-.~

•......

.......•....

.,...

~._

8/13/01

1600 CST

54

---

-J

0,

C

U)

C,

x

0

0

0

U)

U)

Figure 19. Dissolved oxygen concentrations for depths of 1.0 and

6.5

ft. at the St. Charles above dam station (US

IMP) in the Fox River, Illinois. Dissolved oxygen was measured with continuous recording Datasondes set

simultaneously for a 48-hour period in September 2001.

was released to the atmosphere as supersaturated water from the impoundments flowed over the

dams. Conversely, when oxygen concentrations were low in impoundments at night, oxygen

was added to water as it plunged into the river below each dam. The overall effect ofwater

flowing over dams during a 24-hourperiod was a net loss in oxygen from the river (see area

between upstream and downstream curves; Figure 18).

Macrohabitat Quantity

Fifteen mainstem dams impounded 47 ofthe 100 miles ofriver between Pistakee Lake

and Dayton, Illinois (Table 23). As a result of these dams, 55 of the river’s 4,665 acres was

classified as impounded habitat. Impoundments ranged in size from 6 to 856 acres and the

largest ones formed behind the Algonquin, Stratton, St. Charles, and Dayton dams.

Impoundments averaged 250 to 620 ft. in width and typically were less than double the width of

free-flowing areas. Free-flowing habitat did not exist above the Stratton Dam, ranged in area

from 11 to 179 acres (0.3 to 3.6 mi.) between Stratton and Montgomery, and was most abundant

in the lower river below the Montgomery Dam (Table 23).

The distribution ofmacrohabitat features varied over the river’s length, among river

segments formed by dams, and between free-flowing and impounded areas. Major tributaries

were absent from 7 of 15 segments and occurred most frequently in the lower river below

Yorkville (Table 24). No major tributaries were available to fish in the middle portion ofriver

between St. Charles and Montgomery because 6 of7 segments lacked tributaries and access to

Mill Creek (South Batavia-North Aurora segment) was blocked by an insurmountable dam

—

Surface

Deep (6.5 ft.)

Time (hours)

55

---

Draft Report

Total Maximum Daily Loads

for the East Branch of the

DuPage River, Illinois

Submitted to

~

~

l I

I~’O

.‘~1t’~

P.O. Box

19276

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

December 2002

Prepared by

CH2MHILL

CH2M HILL Inc.

13921 Park Center Road

Suite

600

Herndon, VA 20171

In association with

Applied Environmental Engineering, LLC and

AQUA TERRA Consultants

EXHIBIT B

---

4—ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY DATA AND TMDL APPROACH

FIGURE

4-7

Diel Data Collected at Many East Branch of the DuPage River Sites on June 24—25, 1997,

and the Water Quality Standards

for DO

The

analysis

of

East Branch

DO

and

its potential sources provided key information

necessary to identify the modeling needs and selecting an appropriate model. DO TMDL

evaluations

for

East Branch

will be

developed using

the

QUAL2E model. The DO problem

has been

characterized as one associated with low- to medium-flow conditions in the

summer months.

The

QUAL2E

model

can adequately simulate DO and other water quality

constituents (e.g., BOD, nutrient) contributing to DO problems under a given flow

condition.

After being calibrated using diel sampling data, the

model

will be used

to

develop the DO

TMDL using acritical

low-flow condition.

4.5 Summary

Table 4-2 summarizes all the pollutants listed on the 303(d) list for East Branch. Also listed

are any WQS/TMDL endpoints, other supporting data, and potential sources.

15

-J

C)

E

C,

C)

,

x

0

.a,

C,

.~5

0

U,

‘I,

0

0

5

10

15

Distance from the confluence with

20

25

DuPage River (mile)

WDC023080001 .ZIP/TAF

4-8

---

Draft Report

Total Maximum Daily Loads

for Salt Creek, Illinois

Submitted to

F:nr’~u;~~

~

ri~~n ~ ~

P.O. Box 19276

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

July 2003

Prepared by

CH2MHILL

CH2M HILL Inc.

13921

Park Center Road

Suite 600

Herndon, Virginia 20171

In association with

AQUA TERRA Consultants and

Applied Environmental Engineering, LLC

---

4—ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY DATA

AND

TMDL APPROACH

FIGURE

4-13

Monthly DO Data at the Addison Creek Site (station 05532000) by Sample Date and the Water Quality Standards for DO

Data collected during daytime hours.

22

20

-

18

• Observed DO at Addison Creek site (05532000)

—DO Standard for 16 consecutive hours

L —DO Standard - Absolute Minimum

•

16

14

12

.

••

•

•

4

4

.

w

4

-•

•

•4•

.

,

4

•

:.. :~

~• 4.:,

Al

,

.

FIGURE 4-14

Diel DO Data Collected at 16 Salt Creek Sites on June 27 and 28, 1995, and the Water Quality Standards for DO

-J

C)

E

C,

C

0

C.)

C

C,

C)

~

0

x

C,

0

U,

U,

01/01/1991

01/01/1992 12/31/1992 12/31/1993 12/31/1994 12/31/1995 12/30/1996 12/30/1997

12/30/1998

Date

15

-~

io

0

U)

‘I,

0

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Distance

from the confluence with Des Plains River (mile)

WDC023080001 .ZIP/TAF

4-15

---

S—MODELING APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS

FIGURE

5-5

Observed and Modeled Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations at Different Locations in Salt Creek (June27 and 28, 1995)

Salt Creek Water Quality Modeling Results (Jun27-28,

1995)

0800-1400 hr

•

1400-2000 hr

A

2000-0200

hr

D 0200-0800 hr

—Simulation of observed condition.

-

Point

Sources

-I-

C50

~ Dams

.

D~Q.

.~

a.

~2

~U)

C,)

i-co

~

.~

u,.~

~

~a.

~

(VU,

Ui

we,,

-~.

0

o~ ~

~~C)

~O

.~

~C

~

.~.-.

.c :~o 0~

(~

iii~

~

i_i__i~~ti~____~__i’

~*$

—

~

~D

A

Figure 5-5 shows the observed DO concentrations at each sampling time interval as points

and the simulated DO concentration as a solid line. The simulated DO concentrations were

based on the steady-state modeling originally done by the USGS (1996). The horizontal axis

in the plot shows the distance upstream from the confluence of the Salt Creek with the Des

Plaines River. A set of points at a given distance represents the observed concentrations at

different times of the day. Location of the point sources, dams, and CSOs are shown

along

the top horizontal axis.

The DO concentrations (Figure 5-5) violated the WQS (5 mg/L minimum)

at 1.1 to 4.5

miles

and 11.5 to 23.1 miles. The DO concentrations between 11.5 to 23.1 miles were less than

6 mg/L in all samples, indicating a potential violation of the 16-hour average DO standard of

6 mg/L. Low

DO concentrations (the

minimum observed DO concentration of2.84

mg/L at

20.1 miles) in nighttime samples are believed to be caused by high BOD and low DO

concentrations in point source and/or St. Charles Road CSOs discharges. Monitoring data

revealed that the St.

Charles

Road

CSO was flowing under dry

weather conditions. The

discharge from the CSO contained high BOD concentrations (e.g., 444 mg/L of CBOD).

12

i~10

C)

E

C,

C)

0

C,

0U)

U)

62

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Distance

WDC023080001

.ZIP/TAF

5-13

---

-

IThis document is formatted for double-sided printing I

Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency

IEPA!BOW/04-005

DRAFT

Section 303(d) List

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

Bureau of Water

Watershed Management Section

Bureau of Water

P0 Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

April 2004

EXHIBIT C

---

Table 4. Tentative Long-term

TMDL

Year

Scheduled for TMDLs

2003

-

2004

21

2004

-

2005

25

2005

-

2006

25

2006

-

2007

27

2007

-

2008

27

2008

-

2009

27

2009-2010

27

2010-2011

22

2011-2012

22

2012-2013

22

2013-2014

22

2014-2015

22

2015-2016

22

2016-2017

16

12

April 2004

---

Table

5.

Two-Year Schedule for

TMDL

Development

0

Segn~nt

D

e

se

a1

oteati

ce

t

0713001201 ILDAO4

RDG

CARLINVILLE

168

*___T~Ao~

~IRDH

BEAVER DAM

156 5

~-P,20-F, 21-F, 42P, 910,2210,9910

1000,1050 1100, 8960

!44-P,5o-X

-~

•

JILDAO4

!SDT

GILLESPIE OLD 71

j1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,

595,

910,

2100,2210,9910

1000, 1050, 1100,

7550,

7700,

9000

-

ILDAO4

ISDU

GILLESPIE

~207

1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P, 1910,2100,2210,9910

11000, 1050, 1100,

7550,

7700,

NEW

i44~50-F

I

8960

IILDAO4

~Th~*

MacoupinCr

1973

20 P,21 F,42-N

595,

1100 1220 1710,9910

1000,5000,7000 9000

*

-

AO4DA 05

Macoupm Cr

143 89 120P 21-F

*

59~

925, 1220, 150C~9910 Thoo 1000 1050 1100 5000,

1

1

7000,7400,7550

~ioo,

o7~~~-—

0512011105

~

IILBMO2

~RBL

PARIS TWIN

U62.8

11-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P, 910,2100, 2210,9910

7550,

7700, 8700, 8930, 8960

EAST

~~~P,50-F

ILBM02

RBX

PARTS TWIN

~56.7

l1-X, 20-P, 21-F, 42-P, 910, 2100, 2210,9910

17550, 7700, 8930, 8960

ST

I

4~ so-F

I

*

~ILBM02fiL~Mo2

1~iR52

IBM 02

SugarSugar

Cr.çr

J12

12.95

~J20F20-P 42-~j

1710900,

1100, 1220, 1500

~9000200,

7000, 7400

*

0713000405 ~ILDK17

SDA

EVERGREEN

1700

1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-F,

910, 2100

tl000, 1050, 1100, 8700, 8960

•

k4-P, 50-F

0714020205 1m50F

SOF

Kinmundy New

107

11-F, 20-F, 42-F, 44-F,

595

9000

ILSOI

SOT

PATOKA OLD

6

i-X, 20-X, 21-X, 42-X,

595

9000

44-X,50-P

~•

tILSOB

ISOB

FARINA

J4

1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-F, 1500, 530,

595,

900, 910

8951, 9000

.1

•

-50-P

~•

•

I

ILROZY

ROZY

KINMUNDY

20

Il-X, 20-X, 21-F, 42-X,

595

19000

~

1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P,

595,

910, 2100,2210,9910

144-P.

50-P

1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,

8700, 8960, 9000

1ILS0J

SOJ

PATOKA NEW 6

1-X 20-X 2 1-X 42-X

595

19000

•

13

April 2004

---

-ILSOG

:soG

Kinmundy

5

1-F, 20-F, 42-F,

44-F,

595

9000

Borrow Pit

50-P

ILOKOI

:0K 01

E.

Fk. Kaskaskia 17.13 20-P, 42-P

1220, 1710, 9910

1000, 1050, 1100, 9000

•R.

-

ILOKAO1

OKA 02

N. Fk. Kaskaskia 15.31 20-P, 50-P

594,

595,

1000, 1220, 9910

1000, 1050, 1100, 5000, 9000

R.

-

ILOKAO1

OKAO1

N Fk Kaskaskia 1025 20P 21-F 42F 50-P 594

595

1000 1220

9910

1000 1050, 1100, 5000 9000

•

R.

1

I

0512011205 ILBEZXO1

:P.BP

OAKLAND

23.4

•1-P,20-P,2l-F,42-N, 595,910,llOO,2100,2210,

1000,1050,1100,7550,7700,

•

•

44-N,

50-P

9910

8960, 9000

ILBEZXO1

RBK

WALNUT

58.7

1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P, 900, 910, 930,

1100,

1220,

1000, 1050,

1100, 8500, 8960

-

POINT

:

44-p,

50-X

2100, 2200, 2210

ILBE14

BE 14*

Embarras R.

5.56

20-P, 21-X, 42-N

925,

1000,

1100, 1220, 1710, 1000, 1050, 1100, 1600, 9000

2100, 9910

0714020404 ILODLO2

I

F

ROZA

HIGHLAND

I

550

-

1-P,

20-P,

21-P, 42-P,

595,

910, 1100,

1220, 2100,

1000, 1050,

1100,

1350, 1400,

SILVER

I

44-N, 50-P

2210, 9312, 9318, 9910

8500, 9000

0512010906 ILBPJO3

I

RBO

HOMER

:80.8

l-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,

910, 2100, 2210, 9910

1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,

44-P,

50-X

8960

ILBPJO3

BPS 03

Salt Fk.

~9.97 •20-P, 2l-X, 50-P

594, 925, 930, 1730,

2100,

200, 1000, 9000

VermilionR.

9910

ILBPJO3

BPJ

09*

SaltFk.

-

13.62 20-P, 21-X

610, 925, 1000, 1730, 2100, 200, 1000

VermilionR.

-

9910

ILBPJO3

BPS 10

Salt Fk.

13.6 20-P, 50-P

610, 925, 930, 1000, 1730,

200, 1000, 9000

Vermilion R.

2100, 9910

ILBPJ03

BPS 08

Salt Fk.

3.17 20-P, 50-P

594, 610, 925, 930, 1000, 1730,200, 1000, 9000

VermilionR.

-

2100, 9910

-

•ILBPJO3

BPS 12

Salt

Fk.

3.07

20-P,

21-X

610,

925,

1000, 1730, 2100, 200, 1000

~•

Vermilion R.

9910

0512010904 ILBPJO3

BPJO9

SaltFk.

13.62

20-P,21-X

610,925, 1000, 1730,2100, 200, 1000

-

Vermilion R.

9910

ILBPJDO2 BPJDO2

Spoon

Br.

13.71 20-P

1220, 1610

1000, 7000

14

April 2004

---

C:,

‘.?,‘

.—.

.,‘J.

~

qLDDO4

SDL

MAUVAISSE

172

.1-P, 20-P, 21-F, 42-N, 7550, 7700, 8700, 8960, 9000

595,

910, 930, 2100, 2210, 9910

TERRE

.

44-N,50-P

ILDDO4

DDC

N. Fk. Mauvaise 14.03 20-P

595, 925, 1220,2100

1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 9000

Terre C

ILDDO4

DD 04

Mauvaise Terre

36.55

R.

I

20-F, 21-F, 42-N

1710

9000

I

1LB007

RBS

GEORGETOWN 46.1

1-X, 20-F, 21-X, 42-N,

44-P, 50-X

910, 1620, 2100, 2210, 9910

100, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7550,

7700, 8960

ILBOO7

-

BO 07

Little Vermilion

R.

5.11

20-F,

42-N

1710

9000

I

I

1404 ILC19

:C 19*

Little Wabash R.

35.89

20-P, 21-F, 42-P, 50-P

595,

1000, 1100, 1220, 1510,

1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7300,

•

ILC21

C 21

Little Wabash R.

‘

1710, 2100, 3100, 9910

9000

31.11 ‘20-F, 21-F, 42-F, 50-P

595

9000

ILRCF

RCF

MATTOON

1-F, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,

1000, 1050, 1100,

7550,

7700,

76544-P, 50-F

910,2100,2210,9910

‘8700,8960

PARADISE

ILRCG

RCG

(~OLES

1-P, 20-P, 21-F, 42-P, 900, 910, 925, 1000, 1100,

.200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000,

17644-P, 50-F

2210

7400, 8960

;

ILRCE

RCE

SARA

:1-F, 20-F, 21-X, 42-F,

76544-P, so-P

595,910,2100,2210

9000

IILCSBO7

CSB 08

E. Br. Green Cr.

5.63 20-P

595, 1220, 9910

1000, 1100, 1600

ILC21

‘c 21*

LittleWabashR.

31.1120-F,21-F,42-F,50-P 595

9000

1LCSBO7

CSB 07

E. Br. Green Cr.

-

3.2320-P

1100, 1220, 2100, 9910

1000, 1050, 1100, 1600

1402 ILCPO1

CP-EF-C2

Salt Cr.

ILCPO1

~CP04

SaltCr.

2.3320-P

925, 1220, 9910

200,1000, 1050, 1100, 4000

l.88~20-P,2l-F

1100,2100,9910

~1000,1050, 1100

ILCPO1

CP-EF-C4

Salt Cr.

1.7620-P

925,

9910

200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 4000

ILCPDO1

CPD 03

Second Salt Cr.

1.3820-P

597, 1100 1220 2100, 9910

1000 1050, 1100 160Q, 9000

Saline Br.

320-P

1593, 610, 925, 1610, 1730,

200, 1000, 7000, 7100, 8500,

12100, 9322, 9326, 9339, 9910 39000

15

April 2004

I-.~

---

ILCPO1

CP-TU-C3 Salt Cr.

0.8120-P

595,

9910

200, 1000, 1050, 1100

1ILCPDOlJCPDO4SecondSaltCr

~

~

1ILCPC01

!CPC-TU-C1 First Salt Cr.

1.44120-P

1595, 1220, 9910

1200, 1000, 1050, 1100

~

~c

0713001202 11LDA~1 ISDZF

IHETTICK

1110

11-P. 20-F, 21-F, 42-P, 900, 910, 1220,2210

11000, 7000, 7400, 8960

±J_

~44-P,50-X1__~_~

i~A~oi RDF

OTTER

T65

1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P,

595,

2210

200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000,

ILDAGO1

IRDZP

~

PALMYRA-

~

I1-P, 20-F, 21-X, 42-P,

595,

1000, 1220,2210

200, 1000, 1050, 1100, 7000,

MODESTO

I

44-P 50-P

-

7400, 8700, 8960, 9000

I1LDAGO1

DAG 02

Hodges Cr

10 69 120-P

1220

9000

1

~

~

~

!~1~

• ~

0714020302 ILOILO1

IROL

GLENN

~1350 1-F,20-F,21-F,42-P, 910,2100,2210,9910

1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700,

SHOALS

44-P, 50-F

8700,8960

ILOILO1

ROT

HILLSBORO

lfö8.7 11-P,20-F,21-X,42-P,

595,

910,2100, 2210, 9910

18700, 8960, 9000

• OLD

44-P, 50-P

uuuiui NIIiiUllti

aii~i~i’

tiv~ai~i~u~su liis~.trnr*uirmu

0512010909 ILBPGO9

RBD

VERMILION

608

1-P, 20-F, 21-F, 42-P, 900, 925, 930, 1100, 1220,

1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7400,

~

ILBPGDO1 IBPGD

uHoopeston Br.

4.72

20

925, 1220, 9910

Ji00, 200,400,7000

•

*

i~BPG1~i~PG10IN. Fk. Vermilion i24.2i~~ö-P,21-X

925, 1610

200, 1000, 7000

IILBPGO9

BPG

09

IN. Fk. Vermilion 5.91

120-F, 42-N

1710

9000

-

.

~ILBPG09

IBPG

05

IN. Fk. Vermilion 19.81

120-F, 50-P

1930

9000

0512011506

III~UI~Ia~IIII

ILRCT

IRCT

.i1IIIN111IV.~j.

WAYNIECITY 18

1-P,20-F,42-P,44-P,

~I••~•IIII•••••~1

595,2100,2210,9910

IS~TMUIIT~•~.

1000, 1050, 1100,9000

1

1

5CR

I

J50-p

1

IILCAO3

ICA 03

SkilletFk

718

120 P 21-P,42 N

595, 1000, 1100, 1220, 1610,

iooo, 1050, 1100, 7000 7100,

1

1710,2100,3100,9410,9910 19000

IILCA03

ICA 05

SkilletFk.

(10.96 120-P,21-P,42-F,50-P

595,

1000, 1100,1220,1610,

1000, 1050, 1100, 7000, 7100,

:~J~I.L2i0~3100,941090o0

0512011502

J~LRCD

*

~CD

STEPHEN A

~25~i

P 20-F 21-F 42P, 910,2100,22109910~1~501100,7550,7700,

16

April 2004

I

I•••

---

-

3(d)

e entiDS

ame

-

esi

ted

s

e

ur

s

ed

FORABES

44-P, 50-X

8700, 8960

ILRBF

RBF

SAM DALE

194

1-P, 20-F, 21 -X, 42-N, 910, 2100, 2210, 9910

1000, 1050, 1100, 7550, 7700

44-P, 50-X

ILCAO6

CA 06

SkilletFk.

‘16.63

20-P, 2l-P, 42-F

595,

1000, 1100, 1220, 2100,

1000, 1050, 1100, 9000

3100, 9410

-

--

ILCAWO1

CAW 04

Dums

Cr.

25.38

20-P

1220

1000, 1350, 1400, 1600

ILCAO6

CA 09

SkilletFk.

19.77 20-P, 21-P

1220, 9410

~9000

ILCARO1

CAR 01

Brush Cr.

21.27

20-P

595,

1220

1000, 1600, 9000

0512011503 ILCANO1

CANOI

Horse Cr.

28.21 20-P,2l-F

595,

1220

1000, 1600, 9000

Note: Although all causes for which impairment has been identified are shown in this table, TMDLs are currently done

only

for

causes for which a water quality standard exists.

17

April 2004

1~

••~

—*

I

—

—.-

—

---

Table

5

includes the TMDL watersheds in progress. It is anticipated that TMDL development foreach

watershed will be completed approximately two years

from the

initiation date. Stage 1 is scheduled to

take a maximum

of

nine months. Stage 2 is optional and the time frame will depend on the type

and

quantity ofadditional data required. Stage 3 has a maximum time frame of 18 months. To date,

contractors are doing all TMDL development workfor Illinois EPA.

B. TMDL ImplemeiEation Status

The Illinois EPA views TMIDLs as a tool for developing water quality based solutions that are

incorporated into an overall watershed management approach. The TMDL establishes the link between

water quality standards attainment and water quality based control actions. For these control actions to

be successful, theymust be developed in conjunction with local involvement, which incorporate

regulatory, voluntary andincentive-based approaches with existing applicable laws andprograms. The

Four programs that have provided funds for implementation of TMI)L watersheds are: the Illinois

Nonpoint Source Management Program, the Illinois Clean Lakes Program (ICLP), the Priority Lake and

Watershed Implementation Program (PLWIP) and the ConservationPractices Program (CPP).

The Illinois EPA administers the Illinois Nonpoint Source Management Program, the ICLP andthe

PLWIP. The Illinois Nonpoint Source Management Program was developed to meet the requirements of

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act(CWA). Section 319 projects can include educational programs and

nonpoint source

pollution controlprojects such as Best Management Practices (BMPs).

-

The ICLP is a

financial assistancegrant program that supports lake owners’ interest and commilment to long-term,

comprehensive lake management and ultimately results in improved water quality and enhanced lake

use. The PLWIP supports lake protection/restoration activities at “priority” lakes where causes and

sources ofproblems are apparent, project sites are highly accessible, project size is relatively small, and

local entities are in a position to quickly implement needed -treatments~Table 7 includes past and present

projects in

TMDL watersheds funded under these programs.

Beginning

in July of

2002, the Illinois Department ofAgriculture (IDoA) began shifting a portion ofits

Conservation Practices Program (CPP) funds to Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) to more

directly address water quality concerns within TMDL watersheds. This program gives incentive

payments to landowners/operators within that watershed to promote the use ofmanagement practices

that reduce/control the movement of pollutants causing the water quality impairment.

19

April 2004

---

Metals

(statistical guideline)

9510

=

arsenic

9520

=

cadmium

9530

=

copper

9541

=

chromium (total)

9550

=

lead

9560

=

mercury

9580

=

zinc

9591

=

barium

9594

=

iron

9595

=

manganese

9596

=

nickel

9597

=

silver

Conventional Pollutants and Stressors

-

0600

=

ammonia (unionized ammonia)

0610

=

ammonia nitrogen (total

ammonia)

0700

=

chlorine

0720

=

cyanide (as free cyanide)

0750

=

sulfates

0800

=

fluoride

0810

=

asbestos

0910

=

total phosphorus (numeric

standard)

9910

=

total phosphorus (statistical

guideline)

0925

=

total nitrogen as N

0930

=

nitrate nitrogen

0940

=

nitrite nitrogen

0950

=

nitrate/nitrite (nitrate + nitrite

asN)

1000 =pH

1100

=

sedimentation/siltation

1220

=

dissolved oxygen

1320

=

total dissolved solids (TDS)

1330

=

chlorides

1400

=

water temperature

1500

=

other flow regime alterations

1510

=

fish barriers (fish passage)

1610

=

habitat assessment (streams)

1620

=

habitat assessment (lakes)

1710

=

total fecal colifonn bacteria

1720

=

Escherichia coli

1730

=

fish

kills

1900 oil and grease

2100

=

total suspended solids (~FSS)

2200

=

aquatic plants (native)

2210

=

excess algal growth

2500

=

turbidity

2610

=

non-native aquatic plants

2620

=

non-native

fish/shellfish/zooplankton

Pesticides

3100

=

atrazine

3200

=

cyanazine

3300

=

alachlor

3400

=

metolachior

3500

=

metribuzin

3600

=

trifluralin

3700

=

butylate

10) Potential Sources of

Impairment

-

Indicates the potential sources that contribute to the potential causes listed above.

POINT SOURCES

-

100: industrial point sources

200 : municipal point sources

210 : major municipal point sources

400 : combined sewer overflows

500 : collection system failure

800 : wildcat sewer

900

: domestic

wastewater lagoons

*

T

-1~

~

—-----

---—----

---

Biochemkal Oxygen

Demand

Page

1 of

3

-

Surface Water Quality Division

-

Permits

Section

Biochemical

Oxygen Demand (BOD)

-

Biochemical Oxygen Demand, or BOD, is a measure of the quantity of oxygen consumed by

microorganisms during the decomposition of organic matter. BOD is the most commonly used

parameter for determining the oxygen demand on the receiving water of a municipal or

industrial discharge. BOD can also be used to evaluate the efficiency of treatment processes,

and is an indirect measure of biodegradable organic compounds in water.

Imagine a leaf falling into a stream. The leaf, which is composed of organic matter, is readily -

degraded by a variety of microorganisms inhabiting the stream. Aerobic (oxygen requiring)

bacteria and fungi use oxygen as they break down the components of the leaf into simpler, more

stable end products such as carbon dioxide, water, phosphate and nitrate. As oxygen is

consumed by the organisms, the level of dissolved oxygen in the stream begins to decrease

Water can hold only a limited supply of dissolved oxygen and it comes from only two sources-

-

diffusion from the atmosphere at the air/water interface, and as a byproduct of photosynthesis.

Photosynthetic organisms, such as plar~tsand algae, produce oxygen when there is a sufficient

light source. During times of insufficient light, these same organisms consume oxygen. These

organisms are responsible for the diurnal (daily) cycle of dissolved oxygen levels in lakes and

streams.

-

If elevated levels of BOD- lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen in a water body, there is a

potential for profound effects on the water body itself, and the resident aquatic life. When the

dissolved oxygen concentration falls below 5 milligrams per liter (mg/I), species intolerant of low

oxygen levels become stressed. The lower the oxygen concentration, the greater the stress.

Eventually, species sensitive to low dissolved oxygen-levels are replaced by species that are

more tolerant of adverse conditions, significantly reducing the diversity of aquatic life in a given

body of water. If dissolved oxygen levels fall below 2 mg/I for more than even a few hours, fish

kills can result. At levels below 1 mg/I, anaerobic bacteria (which live in habitats devoid of

oxygen) replace the aerobic bacteria. As the anaerobic bacteria break down organic matter, foul-

smelling hydrogen sulfide can be produced.

BOD is typically divided into two parts- carbonaceous oxygen demand and nitrogenous oxygen

demand. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) is the result of the breakdown of

organic molecules such a cellulose and sugars into carbon dioxide and water. Nitrogenous

oxygen demand is the result of the breakdown of proteins. Proteins contain sugars linked to

nitrogen. After the nitrogen is “broken off” a sugar molecule, it is usually in the form of

ammonia, which is readily -converted to nitrate in the environment. The conversion of ammonia

litip

-

~ ww .deq.statein~.us/swq/pcrmils/p~

EXHIBIT D

-

-

Department of

Environmental

Quality

---

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

-

Page 2 of

3

to

nitrate requires more than four times the amount of oxygen as the conversion of an equal

amount of sugar to carbon dioxide and water.

-

When nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate are released into the water, growth of aquatic

plants is stimulated. Eventually, the increase in plant growth leads~toan increase in plant decay

and a greater “swing” in the diurnal dissolved oxygen level. The result is an increase in microbial

populations, higher levels of BOD, and increased oxygen demand from the photosynthetic

organisms during the dark hours. This results in a reduction in dissolved oxygen concentrations,

especially during the early morning hours just before dawn.

In addition to natural sources of BOD, such as leaf fall from vegetation near the water’s edge,

aquatic plants, and drainage from organically rich areas like swamps and bogs, there are also

anthropogenic (human) sources of organic matter. If these sources have identifiable points of

discharge, they are called point sources. The major point sources, which may contribute high

levels of BOD, include wastewater treatment facilities, pulp and paper mills, and meat and food

processing plants. -

-

Organic matter also comes from sources that are not easily identifiable, known as nonpoint

sources. Typical nonpoint sources include agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and livestock

operations. Both point and nonpoint sources can contribute significantly to the oxygen demand

in a lake or stream if not properly regulated and controlled.

-

- Performing the test for BOD requires significant time and commitment for preparation and

analysis. The entire process requires five days, with data collection and evaluation occurring on

the last day. Samples are initially seeded with microorganisms and saturated with oxygen

(Some samples, such as those from sanitary wastewater treatment plants, contain natural

populations of microorganisms and do not need to be seeded.). The sample is placed in an

environment suitable for bacterial growth (an incubator at 20°Celsius with no light source to

eliminate the possibility of photosynthesis). Conditions are designed so that oxygen will be

consumed by the microorganisms. Quality controls, standards and dilutions are also run to test

for accuracy and precision. The difference in initial DO readings (prior to incubation) and final

DO readings (after 5 days of incubation) is used to determine the initial BOD concentration of

the sample. This is referred to as a BOD5 measurement. Similarly, carbonaceous biochemical

oxygen test performed using a 5-day incubation is referred to as a CBOD5 test.

Water Quality Standards for BOD

-

Although there are no Michigan Water Quality Standards pertaining directly to BOD, effluent

limitations for BOD must be restrictive enough to insure that the receiving water will meet

Michigan Water Quality Standards for dissolved oxygen.

Rule 64 of the Michigan Water Quality Standards (Part 4 of Act 451) includes minimum

concentrations of dissolved oxygen that must be met in surface waters of the state. This rule

states that surface waters designated as coldwater fisheries must meet a minimum dissolved

oxygen standard of 7 mg/I, while surface waters protected for warmwater fish and aquatic life

must meet a minimum dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/I.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Limitations in. NPDES Permits

Typically, CBOD5 limits are placed in NPDES permits for all facilities which have the potential to

contributesignificant quantities of oxygen consuming substances to waters of the state. These

limits are developed in direct correlation with limits for ammonia nitrogen and dissolved oxygen.

The nitrogenous oxygen demand is computed separately because of the difference in oxygen

demand (as explained above) and because the rate of oxygen consumption over time varies

lii ip: ~ \vv~ dcq .slatenhi.iistswq:periiiits/paramciers/bod.h1ii~

- 2/19/02

---

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Page 3 of 3

from carbonaceous oxygen demand. Ammonia is further considered separately because in

sufficient levels (dependant upon several variables) it can also be toxic to living organisms.

In determining CBOD5 limits, -stream modelers use computer models which simulate actual

stream conditions. Model inputs include the flow of the receiving stream, the quantity of water

to be discharged, the decay rate for the particular type of wastewater, the stream’s slope, and

temperature. Other upstream or downstream dischargers are also considered in the model. The

modeler determines maximum limits for CBOD5 and ammonia nitrogen and minimum limits for

dissolved oxygen. These limits are selected to insure that Water Quality Standards for dissolved

oxygen are met in the receiving water.

Permit-related questions and comments? Contact Fred Cowles, cowlesf@imichigan.gov

Web- page maintained by Sean Syts, sytss@imichigan.gov

Last revision: April 30, 2001

http ://www.deq .state.mi. us/swq/permits/parameters/bod

.

html

~

l~I

l~w~I

Home

-

littp

://\vww

.dcq - state. m i -

us/swq/pcrm

i ls/parameters/bod.him

-

2/19/02

---

-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Albert F. Ettinger, certify that on July 21, 2004, I filed

MOTION TO SUSPEND

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN

STANDARD PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RULES and

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUSPEND CONSIDERATION OF

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD PENDING

DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION RULES. An original and 9 copies was

-

filed, on recycled paper, with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James R. Thompson Center,

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601, and copies were served via United States

Mail and via facsimile to those individuals on

the included service list.

Respectfully submitted,

Albert F. Ettinger

Senior Staff Counsel, Environmental Law &

Policy Center and counsel in this matterfor

Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club

July21, 2004

r

L

---

Marc Miller, Senior Policy Advisor

Office of

Lt.

Governor Pat Quinn

Interested Party Room

214

State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Michael J. Fischer, Policy Advisor

Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn

Interested Party

Room 214 State House

Springfield, IL 62706

Irwin Polls

-

Ecological Monitoring and Assessment

Interested Party 3206 Maple LeafDrive

Glenview, IL 60025