BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL ~
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
AUG 042005
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
R 04-25
DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD
)
35 III. Adm. Code 302.206
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk ofthe
Pollution Control Board the following documents:
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DENNIS STREICHER; and
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES E. GARVEY
FISHERIES AND ILLINOIS AQUACULTURE CENTER
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, CARBONDALE,
ILLINOIS
a copy of which is served upon you.
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF WASTEWATER
AGENCIES,
By:
~/t~ 4/~ty.~
One ofIts Attorneys
7’
Dated: August
4,
2005
Roy M. Harsch
Sheila H. Deely
GARDNER CARTON & DOUGLAS LLP
191 Wacker Drive
—
Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 569-1000
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing:
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DENNIS STREICHER; and
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR JAMES E. GARVEY
FISHERIES AND ILLINOIS AQUACULTURE CENTER
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, CARBONDALE,
ILLINOIS
was filed by hand delivery with the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board and served upon
the parties to whom said Notice is directed by first class mail, postage prepaid, by depositing in
the U.S. Mail at 191 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL on Thursday, August 4, 2005.
7V-i~L~
Z~LL
Service List
R04-25
Fred L. Hubbard
16 West Madison
P.O. Box 12
Danville, IL 61834
Alex Messina
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3150 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
Bernard Sawyer
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
6001 W. Pershing Rd.
Cicero, IL 60650-4112
Dennis L. Duffield
City ofJoliet, Department ofPublic Works and
Utilities
921 E. Washington Street
Joliet, IL 60431
Claire A. Manning
Brown, Hay & Stephens LLP
700 First Mercantile Bank Building
205 South Fifth St., P.O. Box 2459
Springfield, IL 62705-2459
Erika K. Powers
Barnes & Thomburg
1 N. Wacker
Suite 4400
Chicago, IL 60606
Deborah J. Williams
IEPA
1021 North Grand Avenue
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
James L. Daugherty
Thom Creek Basin Sanitary District
700 West End Avenue
Chicago Heights, IL 60411
Dorothy M. Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St.
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Larry Cox
Downers Grove Sanitary District
2710 Curtiss Street
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Frederick D. Keady
Vermilion Coal
1979 Johns Drive
Glenview, IL 60025
Margaret Howard
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
John Donahue
City ofGeneva
22 South First Street
Geneva, IL 60 134-2203
Michael G. Rosenberg, Esq.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Katherine D. Hodge
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Lisa Frede
Chemical Industry Council ofIllinois
2250 E. Devon Avenue
Suite 239
Des Plaines, IL 60018-4509
Tracy Elzemeyer
Illinois American Water Company
300 North Water Works Drive
P.O. Box 24040
Belleville, IL 62223-9040
Matthew J. Dunn
Office ofthe Attorney General
188 West Randolph
20th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Tom Muth
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District
682 State Route 31
Oswego, IL 60543
Mike Callahan
Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation
District
P0 Box 3307
Bloomington, IL 61702-3307
W.C. Blanton
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
2300 Main Street
Suite 1000
—
Kansas City, MO 64108
Richard McGill
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St.
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Stanley Yonkauski
William Richardson
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702-1271
Stephanie N. Diers
IEPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Marc Miller
Michael J. Fischer
Office ofLt. Governor Pat Quinn
Room 214 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Vicky McKinley
Evanston Environment Board
23 Grey Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
Albert Ettinger
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 E. Wacker
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60606
Irwin Polls
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
3206 Maple Leaf Drive
Glenview, IL 60025
CHO2I
22400605.!
FECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
AUG
LEAK’S
042005
OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
)
R 04-25
Pollution Control Board
DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD
)
35 III. Adm. Code 302.206
)
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DENNIS STREICHER
I would like to thank the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”)
again for hearing my testimony. My name is Dennis Streicher. I’m
Director of Water and Wastewater with the City of Elmhurst, Illinois.
I’ve been employed by the City of Elmhurst since 1972. For the last 20
years I have managed the wastewater plant, the public water supply and
the storm water system in Elmhurst. I hold an Illinois EPA Class 1
Operators license and an Illinois EPA Class A Potable Water Operators
license.
Given the length of time since the first two hearings, I will again
explain that I am the President of the Illinois Association of Wastewater
Agencies (“IAWA”). The IAWA is a professional association representing
the major wastewater treatment plants in the state of Illinois. The IAWA
has over 100 agency and affiliate members, which include approximately
55
sanitary districts and municipalities throughout the state. These
agencies operate dozens of publicly owned treatment works (“POTWs”).
The representatives of these organizations are public officials and include
both elected and appointed trustees of districts and appointed officials at
municipalities throughout the state. In addition to the POTWs, water
reclamation districts and municipalities, the largest Illinois private
wastewater treatment utility that owns and operates 12 plants is also a
member. Our constituents are the citizens and taxpayers of Illinois and
are the same constituents as any other state or public agency.
During the second hearing of this petition Board member Andrea
Moore repeated a comment made by Toby Frevert of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”) as describing this petition as
one of the most important decisions this board will ever make. That
description has been continually on my mind as I directed my efforts over
the last year to meet with various stakeholders to explain and defend the
IAWA petition. I had originally hoped to convince others that the
Garvey/Whiles model for an appropriate dissolved oxygen standard was
the correct one and return to the Board with an agreement. Unfortunately
that hasn’t happened.
I think the primary reason for that is based on perceptions. There is
a perception that this petition is an attempt to somehow reduce water
quality protection. One person who has taken a public and vocal position
opposed to the petition is Dr. David Horn who has led a letter writing
petition to the Board. His form letter was distributed to a number of folks
along the Fox River and is the source for many of the Public Comments
posted on the Board web site. Dr. Horn expressed a concern about the
IAWA motivations in this matter. He was suspicious that the petition is
2
an effort to “roll back” an important environmental protection. His
perception is that the wastewater industry is a polluting industry that
should have more strict controls and is no different than any commercial
enterprise.
It’s a perception that I think is shared by a lot of folks, it’s a
perception that I, as President of IAWA and as a career long wastewater
professional, have tried to reverse. Wastewater plants in Illinois are, for
the most part, publicly owned and operated. The owners of those plants
have no profit motive; we have no interest in circumventing or avoiding
appropriate and well constructed environmental regulations. But at the
same time the managers of the wastewater treatment facilities, being
professionals, and generally being engineers as well, want to be convinced
that the regulations that are being promulgated will be both cost effective
and helpful in protecting our water environment.
As I spoke to Dr. Horn I tried to make that point clear. I also tried
to make clear that the current dissolve oxygen standard has little or no
scientific basis to it. Much of the current data show water bodies with
robust biotic indexes violating the current DO standard. The current
standard is unrealistic and too high even for rivers deemed as high quality
rivers. His response was similar to that of many other folks. He saw no
reason why the water quality standard we use should not be over
protective. In other words that it be made intentionally high to insure
adequate dissolved oxygen levels in the rivers and lakes in Illinois. He
3
felt that it was good that there be a margin of safety built into the
regulation and that the margin remain.
I agree that when constructing a regulation that a margin of safety
be incorporated into the calculation. I also believe that the margin of
safety be identified and be on the table, so to speak, with all other details
of the proposed regulation. The Garvey/Whiles report had included a
margin of safety deemed to be appropriate and conservative enough to be
protective of the water quality. I believe that is the proper way to
formulate a water quality standard.
After the second hearing about a year ago the IAWA asked for time
to meet with various stakeholders including the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources (“IDNR”)and the IEPA to further explain the data
supporting the IAWA petition and to hear evidence and review any data
available that would not support the petition. We also discussed how the
proposed new standard might be implemented. I’d like to thank IEPA for
their facilities for these meetings over the last 12 months. I would also
like to thank Dr. Garvey who spent many hours of his time pouring over
data and studies from many sources and in separate discussions with
IDNR and IEPA representatives to further explain and support the original
Garvey/Whiles study. Other interested stakeholders included the Prairie
Rivers Network, Sierra Club, United States Environmental Protection
Agency and from time to time interested parties including representatives
from municipalities within the state and the Illinois Environmental
4
Regulatory Group. I believe that all of the persons at the table understood
the importance of this standard and had a very great deal of concern to get
it right.
Initially many of the participants expressed concerns about what
they perceived to be a ‘roll back’ of a critical water quality standard.
They felt that the existing standard was ‘safe’ and provided extra
I
protection. These were the same concerns expressed to me months earlier
by David Horn about the Fox River. As discussions progressed and new
data was available and reviewed it became increasing apparent that the
Garvey! Whiles study was a very good fit but my feeling was that many
participants were still uneasy. In an effort to keep the discussion going
the representatives from IAWA listened closely to a number of
alternatives that were proposed. All of these alternatives were intended to
add a level of comfort to the concerns expressed by participants opposed
to the petition. Often we got into what I would call negotiations over
details in the petition. I for one am very uncomfortable negotiating facts
or well defined and reviewed data. I have the opinion that good science
should not be negotiated. It simply is what it is. But in an effort to allow
for any idea to be presented and discussed compromises were offered.
Modifications to the petition were discussed, options and adjustments
were proposed in an effort to mitigate the concerns of some and maintain
the integrity of the petition and the science supporting it. In the end none
of the concerns expressed by the participants could be substantiated. The
5
initial data withstood all arguments. To compromise would deny the
accuracy of the data. During the entire year, the results of more
continuous monitoring studies were presented, all of them supporting the
Garvey/Whiles report as published in March of 2004. Dr. Garvey will
present testimony detailing those new studies completed over the past
year that add additional evidence supporting the IAWA petition as
originally filed.
Apparently, some at the IDNR are still uncomfortable with the
petition as filed. They will propose some forty rivers and stream
segments be exempted and maintain the existing DO standard. The
criteria for choosing the list is rivers and stream segments that have
dissolved oxygen sensitive species present. But there is a contradiction in
their logic. Many of the rivers chosen for keeping the existing standard
violate that very standard! Yet they were chosen because they support the
very species of DO sensitive fish that are a cause of concern. How can
this be? How can the sensitive species be present in rivers that are
violating the existing standard? It’s our opinion that the answer is simple
the existing standard is incorrect. Rivers and stream segments fit the
Garvey! Whiles model for DO concentrations and support the DO sensitive
species.
The IAWA would once again like to reiterate its commitment to
using the best science and available data to promulgate well founded and
6
effective regulations. For that reason we are returning to the Board with
only minor adjustments to the original petition.
The dissolved oxygen water quality standard is a key measure that
will have a great deal of influence over the development of other water
quality standards that are about to be or in the process of being
promulgated. Today many streams are being labeled as DO impaired when
they are not in fact impaired. Those impairments are adding to the states
305(b) and 303(d) lists. Many TMDL reports both published and under
development are including unnecessary DO violations adding to the
perceived mitigation efforts necessary to restore the rivers. The
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission published its Water Quality
Management Plan, which included DO impairments as a violation to water
quality standards. Last May the City of Elmhurst was issued a new
NPDES operating permit for the City’s wastewater plant. The first draft
of that permit included a dissolved oxygen limit of 6.0 mg/L. I argued
that the limit was unnecessary and was successful in changing the
Elmhurst permit to require monitoring and reporting only. Many POTWs
across the state however are having a continuous DO limit of 6.0 mg/L
imposed that is likely unnecessary and will add to their costs for
operations and maintenance as a consequence. In short the current
incorrect dissolved oxygen water quality standard is already resulting in
very large sums of money being spent to address a problem that likely
does not exist.
7
I think that the stakeholder meetings had one important
consequence. The JEPA and the IDNR agree that the current dissolved
oxygen standard is flawed. Getting the standard correct is important. It
is especially important to have a dissolved oxygen standard that is
supported by the best science. The IAWA proposal in this matter follows
the National Criteria Document design, it is based on the best science
available. In previous testimony and throughout the stakeholder meetings
the IAWA has agreed to modify the petition to incorporate the Chapman
30 day average to come into closer alignment with the National Criteria
Document. In addition the IAWA would be further willing to modify the
petition to incorporate a ‘day time’ minima of not less than
5.0
mg/L if
others so desire and the Board agrees. This minimum would be measured
during daylight hours and must be met for at least 6 hours. Some
stakeholders saw this level as adding increased protection for water
quality. The IAWA is not filing the petition to decrease protection for
waters in need of attention for improvements. Our feeling is that if a
river or stream cannot meet such a 5.0 mg/L DO concentration it probably
does need additional regulatory protection.
The IAWA is Illinois’ front line water quality protector. The
association has endeavored to work closely with the IEPA and others to
develop sound environmental policies. As an example I’d like to quickly
describe a new initiative that the IAWA has begun. With IEPA
participation the JAWA is using funds generated from dues paying
8
members to retain consultants to begin the long process of defining use
designations for Illinois rivers and streams. This effort will we hope
eventually establish categories of realistic attainable uses for the states
waters. The Clean Water Act suggested that states establish such a list
because as Toby Frevert has said,
“...
all rivers are not created equal”.
Realistic and attainable uses will help the IEPA craft appropriate
regulations and the IAWA plan for future water treatment needs.
The IAWA and the managers and engineers that operate publicly
owned facilities want to have an effective set of regulations that will
make best use of the facilities and the resources that the sanitary districts
and the municipalities must spend toward plant construction and
operation. I am sure you will hear suggestions for compromises. Please
consider that the reason for a compromise is to address concerns and
doubts not evidence supported by fact.
Thank you very much for hearing this petition.
CHO2/ 22399094.!
9
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAI~~E~
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
AUG 042005
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
R 04-25
pn~~2d
DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD
)
35 III. Adm. Code 302.206
)
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES E. GARVEY
FISHERIES AND ILLINOIS AQUACULTURE CENTER
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, CARBONDALE, ILLINOIS
Introduction
I thank the Illinois Pollution Control Board for hearing my testimony at this third
hearing on the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (IAWA) proposal to amend
the dissolved oxygen water quality standard. As you know, my name is Dr. James E.
Garvey. I currently serve as an Associate Professor in the Department ofZoology and as
the Assistant Director of the Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale (SIUC). I also have been recently elected as an officer in the
Illinois Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. I have worked in the Midwest and
Central U.S. for the duration of my professional career and have experience in both
regional lakes and streams. I am author ofmore than thirty peer-reviewed publications in
aquatic ecology, with over 400 published papers citing my research findings to date.
Two years ago, IAWA contracted Dr. Matt Whiles, another Associate Professor working
in aquatic ecology, and me to assess the current literature on dissolved oxygen effects on
freshwater systems. We also critiqued the current Illinois state dissolved oxygen
standard which requires that at no time shall concentrations decline below 5 mg/L and for
at least 16 hours each day they must remain above 6 mg/L. As I have noted in previous
testimony to the Board, we concluded in our report that this standard is unrealistic for
most streams in the state, because oxygen concentrations fluctuate both seasonally and
daily, often declining below the state standards. These conclusions were based largely on
published studies summarizing research conducted outside of Illinois and further
bolstered by unpublished continuous monitoring data collected by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) in eight Illinois streams. These findings were discussed
extensively during previous hearings. Since then, I have reviewed a document generated
by Ohio EPA (1996) that also concluded that a minimum of 6 mg/L for even the highest
quality streams in that state was unrealistic (Exhibit 1).
Proposed Recommendations
Since the last hearing in sumner 2004, our recommendations originally made to
the Board still stand, although I will outline a few potential modifications later. The
recommendations as to how to amend the existing Illinois dissolved oxygen standard
rely heavily on the guidance of the 1986 USEPA National Criteria Document for
dissolved oxygen. Because ofthe passage of time since the IAWA proposal was first
filed and the initial two hearings, I will repeat what our initial recommendations were
here. Dr. Whiles and I recommended that during March 1 through June 30, when early
life stages of sensitive species are present and freshwater has the capacity to hold high
oxygen concentrations, a minimum identical to the current Illinois standard of5 mg/L
and a seven-day mean of 6 mg/L should be adopted. This is similar to the year-round
standard for exceptional-designated waters in Ohio. During warm, productive months
and the remainder ofthe year when species with sensitive early life stages have largely
completed reproduction, we recommended a minimum of
3.5
mg/L and a seven-day
mean minimum of 4 mg/L. It is important to emphasize that we included running means
to avoid chronically low dissolved oxygen concentrations. We set this standard
acknowledging that dissolved oxygen concentrations in undisturbed freshwaters decline
during warm months due to water’s reduced capacity for oxygen and increased biological
production. For the proposed standard to be supported, minima must not be violated,
ensuring that concentrations never approach critically lethal limits. These regulatory
values are consistent with, and with respect to the
3.5
minimum value more restrictive
than, the 1986 USEPA Criteria Document values.
Summary of Stakeholder Meetings
Following the second hearing there have been a series of stakeholder meetings
beginning in the fall 2004 through the spring 2005. I participated in all ofthe meetings
among representatives ofIAWA, state and federal agencies, and advocacy groups to
discuss the proposed standard. As was agreed to at these meetings, I also discussed
issues that were presented at the meeting at greater length and detail with several agency
personnel through telephone conversations. Many ofthese productive conversations
were with Scott Stuewe, Acting ChiefofFisheries in the Illinois Department ofNatural
Resources (IDNR). As our meetings progressed, more data were provided for streams in
the Midwest, primarily in Illinois. In addition, the data for the eight continuously
monitored streams discussed during the last hearing were refined, summarized, and
published in a 2005 USGS report (Exhibit 2). Analysis ofthese data by Paul Terrio of
the USGS by request ofthe group largely minored my previously discussed analysis
(Exhibit 3). The Garvey and Whiles proposed dissolved oxygen standard “works”.
Relative to the current standard or other proposed standards, it greatly reduces the
percentage of violations of streams with high biological integrity but still correctly
identifies degraded systems.
30—day rnea~and continuous
clatci
The stakcholdcr group agreed to support the adoption ofthe non-spring, 30-d
mean
01’
5.5
mg/i. advocated by the 1986 National Criteria Document. It is important to
note that the proposed 30-d mean generated many (23) violations in a high-quality
Illinois stream, Lusk Creek. Thus, addition ofthis standard may generate unmerited
violations.
Ohio data
A report entitled “Notes on the association between dissolved oxygen and fish and
macroinvertebrate assemblages in wadeable Ohio streams” generated by Edward Rankin
of the Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria in Ohio emerged during our
deliberations as the result of input from USEPA (Exhibit 4). This extensive survey of
both dissolved oxygen grab samples and continuous sonde data in Ohio streams shows
the pronounced lack ofcorrelation between dissolved oxygen concentration and
biological integrity as quantified for fishes or macroinvertebrates. Minimum dissolved
oxygen concentrations in streams with very high integrity values occasionally declined
below 4 mg/L but very rarely below 3 mg/L. Thus, warmwater streams that are
considered to be ofhigh biological integrity in Ohio would be in violation of the current
Illinois standard but probably not the Garvey and Whiles proposed standard.
Stream list
Some streams in Illinois might have naturally occurring, continuously high
dissolved oxygen concentrations, even during summer. Most likely this would occur in
streams with a cold-water source and a high gradient. The IDNR, largely through the
efforts of Scott Stuewe and his biologists, generated criteria by which certain streams
would continue to fall under the current dissolved oxygen standard in the state. The
primaryjustification for this listing would be that the streams are perennial, containing
either four (tributaries) or five (mainstems) fish species deemed dissolved-oxygen
sensitive by state biologists. I am unsure of the tolerance ofmany ofthese species to low
oxygen, although all are associated with streams of very high water quality and intact
physical structure. Thirty mainstem tributaries and ten mainstem river reaches fell within
the IDNR’s recommended categorization scheme. Of these, IEPA has noted that about
thirty segments within these streams are currently listed for Aquatic Life Use impairment
due to low dissolved oxygen. Thus, although the current listing likely does afford
protection to many stream segments requiring higher oxygen concentrations, the presence
ofdissolved oxygen sensitive species in some streams with documented low dissolved
oxygen concentrations presents obvious concems about the biological realism and
efficacy ofthis list.
Spawning timing
An issue that continues to remain unresolved among participants of the
stakeholder group is the exact duration of the “spring” period where the higher standard
ofa
5
mgIL minimum and 6 mgIL mean hold. Given that reproduction ofmost stream
organisms is driven by spring temperatures, latitudinal differences in spring warming in
Illinois might influence when sensitive early life stages are present. I used minimum
daily temperature data from the USGS continuous monitoring effort (Exhibit 2) to
determine how temperature available for spawning fish differed between northern and
southern streams (Exhibit
5).
I acquired spawning temperatures ofmany Illinois fishes
from the literature and determined how differences in warming would affect spawning
times. By June 30t~~,most fishes in southern Illinois likely have completed spawning. In
the northern half ofthe state, most spawning may not be initiated until late June.
Spawning in the central portion ofthe state likely occurs during mid June. Indeed,
unpublished larval fish spawning data generated by one ofmy students in the Illinois and
Mississippi Rivers near central Illinois confirm that most spawning is completed by mid
June (Exhibit 6). Research that I published in the Transactions ofthe American Fisheries
Society on three lakes across eight years showed that most production of larval gizzard
shad and bluegill occurred before July in central Ohio reservoirs (Exhibit 7).
Some species, most notably the sunfishes here in Illinois, spawn through the
summer. This concern led several biologists within the state agencies to recommend that
the “spring” designation be extended through late summer when dissolved oxygen
concentrations are expected to decline naturally. In previous testimony, I argued that
many ofthese species must be able to tolerate occasionally low dissolved oxygen or they
would not persist in nature. The fact that streams in violation of the current standard are
listed as containing sensitive species by IDNR supports this suggestion. Many ofIllinois
fish species spawn during both proposed “seasons” in the Garvey and Whiles report. For
the stakeholders, I conducted an exercise to show why offspring produced early (i.e.,
before June 30) would likely contribute disproportionately to fish production (Exhibit 8).
This is largely based on the peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates that the earliest
spawned fish in an annual cohort likely have the highest survival. A paper I published in
the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences shows that, although young
bluegill present during fall represented a range ofdaily ages and sizes, only the oldest and
largest individuals survived to spring (Exhibit 9). This pattern obviously has exceptions,
but it does appear to hold generally among species. Thus, commercially and
recreationally important species such as sunfish and channel catfish that spawn beyond
the proposed June 30 “spring” date are still protected from occasionally declining oxygen
after this date. Early spawned progeny, on average, will contribute disproportionately to
their populations.
My conclusion is that the June30 cutoff for the south and perhaps July 15 for the
north is sufficient to provide protection for most fishes spawning in the state.
Conclusions
Given the stakeholder discussions and further analysis, based upon the exhibits I
cite in this testimony, I conclude that the standards originally proposed in the Garvey and
Whiles report to IAWA are sound. This is further supported by the favorable review of
our report by the author ofthe National Criteria Document, Gary Chapman. I
summarized his comments in previous testimony to the Board. Addition of a 30-d mean
and perhaps latitude-dependent dates may provide some additional comfort to various
stakeholders, although the biological relevance is still somewhat unclear. I conclude this
prepared testimony by again reiterating that the primary factor affecting biotic integrity in
streams is the physical template. And the best method for monitoring integrity is through
the assessment ofthe resident organisms. Although laboratory data show a strong effect
of very low dissolved oxygen concentrations (typically much less than 3 mg/L) on
individual aquatic organisms, the data presented herein demonstrate unequivocally that
oxygen typically occurring in natural streams (i.e., above 3 mgIL) explains very little of
the variation in biological integrity. Thus, in my view, the goal ofresource agencies
should be to maintain oxygen concentrations above the proposed seasonal minima and
focus their resources on improving the likely culprit affecting variance in integrity among
warmwater streams
-
physical habitat.
CI-102/ 22400660.
