BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
1
R 04-25
DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD
)
35 111. 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 of the
Pollution Control Board the following documents:
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DENNIS STREICHER
a copy of which is served upon you.
Dated: October 4,2006
Roy
M. Harsch
GARDNER CARTON
&
DOUGLAS LLP
191 Wacker Drive
-
Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(3 12) 569-1000
THIS FILING PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing:
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DENNIS STREICHER
was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board and served upon
the parties to whom said Notice is directed
by electr
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
Service List
R2004-025
Fred L. Hubbard
16 West Madison
P.O. Box 12
Danville,
IL 61834-0012
Bernard Sawyer
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
6001 W. Pershing Rd.
Cicero, IL 60650-41 12
Claire A. Manning
Posegate
&
Denes, P.C.
1 1 1 N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62705
Deborah J. Williams
Stefanie N. Diers, Assistant Counsel
Illinois EPA
1 02 1 North Grand Avenue
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Dorothy M.
Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph Street
-
Suite 11 -500
Chicago, IL 60601
Frederick D. Keady
Vermilion Coal
1979 Johns Drive
Glenview, IL 60025
James
T. Harrington
Ross
&
Hardies
150 North Michigan Avenue
-
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601-7567
John
Donahue
City of Geneva
22 South First Street
Geneva, IL 60134-2203
Alex Messina
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3 1 50 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
Charles W. Wesselhoft
Ross
&
Hardies
150 North Michigan Avenue
-
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601-7567
Connie L.
Tonsor
Illinois EPA
1 02 1 North Grand Avenue
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Dennis L. Duffield
City of Joliet
Department of Public Works and Utilities
921 E. Washington Street
Joliet, IL 6043
1
Erika K. Powers
Barnes
&
Thornburg
1 N. Wacker
-
Suite 4400
Chicago, IL 60606
James L. Daugherty
Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District
700 West End Avenue
Chicago Heights, IL 6041 1
Joel J. Sternstein
Office of the Attorney General
188 West Randolph Street
-
2oth Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Stanley
Yonkauski
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62702- 127 1
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
Katherine D. Hodge
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3 1 5 0 Roland Avenue
P.O. Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
Lisa Frede
Chemical Industry Council of Illinois
2250
E. Devon Avenue
-
Suite 239
Des Plaines, IL 6001 8-4509
Matthew
J. Dunn
Office of the Attorney General
188 West Randolph
-
2oth Floor
Chicago,
IL 60601
Mike
Callahan
Bloomington Normal Water Reclamation Dist.
PO Box 3307
Bloomington, IL 61 702-3307
Richard
McGill
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100
W. Randolph Street
-
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Stephanie
N. Diers
IEPA
102 1 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Susan
M. Franzetti
10 South
LaSalle Street
-
Suite 3600
Chicago, IL 60603
Vicky McKinley
Evanston Environment Board
233 Grey Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
Larry Cox
Downers Grove Sanitary District
2710 Curtiss Street
Downers Grove, IL 605 15
Margaret P. Howard
2601 South Fifth Street
Springfield,
IL 62703
Michael
G. Rosenberg, Esq.
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
100 East Erie Street
Chicago,
IL 606 1 1
Richard Lanyon
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL 6061 1
Sanjay K. Sofat
Illinois EPA
102 1 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Sue Schultz
Illinois American Water Company
300 North Water Works Drive
P.O. Box 24040
Belleville, IL 62223-9040
Tom Muth
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District
682 State Route
31
Oswego, IL 60543
W.C. Blanton
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP
2300 Main Street
-
Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64108
Edward Hammer
Albert Ettinger
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WQ-165
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Todd Main
Director of Policy and Planning
Friends of the Chicago River
407 S. Dearbom
-
Suite 1580
Chicago, IL 60605
N. LaDonner Driver
Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group
3 1 50 Roland Avenue
Springfield, IL 62703
Marc Miller, Senior Policy Advisor
Michael J. Fischer, Policy Advisor
Office of Lt. Governor Pat
Quinn
Room 214 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Senior Staff Attorney
Environmental
&
Law Policy Center
35 E. Wacker
-
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
Irwin Polls
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
3206 Maple Leaf Drive
Glenview, IL 60025
Tracy Elzemeyer
General Counsel
American Water Company
727 Craig Road
St. Louis, MO 63
141
Dr. Thomas J. Murphy
2325
N. Clifton Street
Chicago, IL 60614
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
1
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
)
R 04-25
DISSOLVED OXYGEN STANDARD
)
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.206
)
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DENNIS STREICHER
1 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. I am representing the Illinois
Association of Wastewater Agencies ("IAWA"). Our member water pollution
control agencies represent over 70% of the people in Illinois. I was the
President of IAWA from 2004 to 2005.
The IAWA began the process to
update and fix the Illinois dissolved
oxygen ("DO") standard over 5 years ago. I believe, at this point we have
convinced almost everyone that indeed it does need fixing. At the first hearing
in this proceeding Toby Frevert said that this might be the most important of
recent decisions the board will be making. At the second hearing held in
Springfield, Bob Mosher of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
("IEPA") described the existing dissolved oxygen standard as broken.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
In his testimony at the last hearing, Roy Smoger said "that IEPA believes
the current dissolved oxygen standard for Illinois general use waters is too
simplistic. The current standard inadequately accounts for the varied dissolved
oxygen requirements of aquatic life in Illinois waters.
Moreover, the current
standard does not account for how dissolved oxygen concentrations vary across
a broad range of natural aquatic conditions in Illinois". As an alternative Mr.
Smoger presented the Illinois Department of Natural Resources ("IDNR") and
lEPA recommendation for revisions to the standard. ("Joint IDNRIIEPA
Proposal")
It does seem that we have convinced most everyone that the existing
dissolved oxygen standard is broken and indeed does not represent the complex
dissolved oxygen patterns that occur in healthy river systems and that it needs
to be modified. It has taken a long time, and considerable effort and expense on
IAWA's part to get to this realization.
IAWA members knew five years ago that the
dissoIved oxygen standard
was incorrect. We had worked with the existing rule and knew that it is
unattainable even in those Illinois waters that are among the least impacted by
human activities. Our goal was to design and have promulgated the Board
ultimately a DO regulation that met a few crucial criteria:
A)
That it represents accurately what is expected in the least impaired
waters in the state;
B)
That the design of the rule be both enforceable by the IEPA and be
protective of all life stages of all the vertebrate and invertebrate
life found in the surface waters of Illinois;
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
C)
And that it have the fundamental strength of being based in good
science.
We met with folks in the
IEPA to discuss our planned effort. We
commissioned Dr. Whiles and Dr. Garvey to search the literature and draw from
their own knowledge and experience to craft the best standard possible. They
were careful to adhere to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
("USEPA") 1986 National Criteria document and have been in contact with the
author of that document and solicited comments from him. They spent over two
years at this effort and in April 2004 published
"An Assessment of National
and Illinois Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Criteria".
Even when still in
draft form, IAWA circulated copies of the study to the IEPA, citizen groups
such as Sierra Club and Environmental Law and Policy Center the IDNR and
others. This was an effort to reach out to interested parties and seek comments.
We received none. We filed our petition on April 14, 2004 and were promptly
criticized for not first having stakeholder discussions.
After the first hearing on June 29, 2004, we initiated the requested
stakeholder discussions.
I was hoping then that we could begin serious and
directed discussions to defend our position and present the data supporting the
IAWA petition. I'm sorry to say that looking back on it, that during the first
year of stakeholder meetings our efforts were not taken very seriously by some
of the folks at the table. The initial opposition was from the IDNR Natural
Histories Survey ("NHS") and the environmental groups. There were others in
IDNR who supported the needed revision and some others who were opposed as
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
well. 1 think that as time went on and those folks continued to attend the
meetings, they gradually were convinced that the IAWA proposal was sound.
Unfortunately they were ultimately unable to convince their counterparts in
their respective agencies. The stakeholder discussions really led us nowhere.
Not everyone was yet convinced that the standard needed fixing.
As the second hearing transcript clearly shows, all who had been involved
to date were totally surprised by the participation of the representative from the
Lieutenant Governor's office and the letter and testimony of Dr. Thomas from
the
NHS.
Neither had participated in the stakeholder group meeting held the
morning of the hearing. IAWA had also recently spent several hours meeting
with Mr. Miller with Dr. Garvey on the phone to explain
IAWA's position at his
request.
At the third hearing, after numerous stakeholder meetings, we were again
surprised by continuing opposition from the NHS in testimony filed by Dr.
Tomas which was subsequently withdrawn by IDNR. There clearly was
continuing disagreement between the IDNR and the IEPA on this petition. The
different positions taken by IEPA and IDNR and fueled by apparent
disagreements between divisions within
IDNR have taken a long time to resolve.
At the last hearing we saw that there was some resolution to those
disagreements. 1 would like to compliment both IEPA and IDNR for the
enormous effort they have put into this matter. Individuals within both agencies
have worked extremely hard. There has been a huge commitment of staff time
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
devoted to working out the differences between these two important state
agencies. I don't believe that was an easy process.
It was apparent early on that there are slightly different perspectives
between the two agencies. The IDNR has said that protection of Illinois natural
resources is their responsibility. I appreciate that position and support it. They
should focus on protecting natural systems, enhancing habitats and insuring that
the resources of the state are there for everyone present and future. The IEPA on
the other hand have a slightly different mandate. Historically IEPA has
developed and proposed the regulations that are both protective of the
environment and are attainable by the regulated community. It would obviously
be pointless to develop a rule that no one can meet. This is
I think, the source of
the different perspectives between the two agencies. They aren't opposed to
each other but they have approached this petition from slightly different
viewpoints. IDNR wants to be as protective as possible while IEPA needs an
enforceable and attainable rule that is as protective as necessary. The DO
standard which is finally adopted in this proceeding should be a sound dissolved
oxygen regulation that will be used in the development of use stream
classifications. It will be utilized by IEPA in classifying streams as to
attainment or impairment. It will be used in the development of
TMDLs and the
basis for future nutrient rulemaking. It will also be used in other decisions by
other agencies.
I pointed out in my introduction that I manage both the wastewater utility
and the public water supply in my community. The source of the different
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
perspectives regarding regulations between the IDNR and IEPA is reminiscent
of what I've seen in potable water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act has
two sets of numbers for many contaminants found in drinking water. There are
maximum contaminant levels that set regulatory limits that are enforceable and
there are maximum contaminant level 'goals'. The goals are where we would
like to be but can't get there yet either because the technology doesn't exist or
the costs far out weigh the benefits. This analogy is not precisely correct but I
think it illustrates a bit of what I've seen over the past year or more. IDNR
would like to have in place regulatory goals that are as protective as possible
while IEPA needs to have regulations that can be reasonably attained and
enforced.
As explained to me by both IEPA Director Douglas Scott and IDNR
Deputy-Director Leslie Sgro, the Governors' office directed the two agencies to
find some common ground and not present positions at odds in this proceeding.
Eventually staff was assembled who could address the IAWA petition seriously
and a new round of meetings were scheduled while they worked out what is now
the Joint IDWR-IEPA proposal, I wouldn't describe these meetings as being
stakeholder meetings. The group was larger than ideal for this sort of
discussion. We weren't usually apprised of what the data would be presented
before attending the meetings. I'm sorry to say, that in my opinion we were not
given the opportunity to have meaningful input. The actual discussions seemed
very limited. What we did see from those meetings, however, was a morphing of
the NHS position from total opposition to a general acceptance of the IAWA
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
proposal and with limited agreement on the DO numbers and dates for the
different DO concentrations.
That morphing culminated in the submittal of the Joint IDNR-IEPA
Proposal filed with the Board at the last hearing. It has some of the basic design
features of the original IAWA proposal. The two agencies have proposed a
seasonal DO standard. They agree with the IAWA concept of averaging the DO
measurements. There is an understanding that there is an absolute minima and
that there is an average low that can be tolerated by the organisms in the river.
I think that the basic design of the IAWA proposal and many of the numbers
were finally being accepted as being mostly on target by the agencies.
I'm sorry to say, however, that there were some other things thrown into
the Joint IDNR-IEPA Proposal that IAWA can not accept. We believe that these
should be rejected by the Board for the reasons I will discuss.
The added feature
I am most concerned about are the concepts of an
enhanced dissolved oxygen concentration for selected river segments.
I suspect
the idea for selecting particular river segments for a different standard may have
came from the first round of stakeholder meetings. During a stakeholder
discussion when it seems as though all of the participants are at an impasse, it
has been my experience that suggesting some new concepts or new ideas might
help stimulate discussion and get the participants over the impasse.
During one
of those impasses early on in the stakeholder process, IAWA suggested that
there might be some rivers in Illinois that would
be deserving of a DO standard
that was different than the rest of the state. Since we couldn't agree on all
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
details of the IAWA petition, IAWA proposed to retain the existing standard for
some list of waters until work could be completed that would identify how to
appropriately classify those waters and determine what standard should be
adopted for these waters. We felt that we could introduce the goal that IAWA
would eventually like to see the surface waters in Illinois categorized by
attainable uses. This would in an appropriate method to assign water bodies to
appropriate categories and would include different
DO standards assigned to
each category. IAWA and those attending the meeting understood that arriving
at just what those new standards would be is a very complex process. No
agreement on this suggestion was reached.
Since these initial shareholder meetings, IAWA, again at its expense, has
begun to move forward to develop what we hope will be a regulatory proposal to
replace the present one size fits all water quality standard approach with tiered
use criteria and appropriate standards.
The IAWA effort includes participation of various stakeholders including
IDNR, IEPA, USEPA and various environmental groups. We have formed a
"Tiered Use Committee' and retained a consultant to begin this process. This
committee has already started to identify what the various appropriate
categories should be in Illinois based on existing and attainable uses. After this
first step we will determine what the various water quality standards, including
dissolved oxygen concentrations should be for each category.
At the September
2006 IAWA Annual Conference Toby Frevert spoke and
provided an IEPA update. During his presentation he was asked about the Tiered
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
Use effort. His response was that it is a difficult process that will take a long
time.
He asked that IAWA stay involved and do what it can to assist the IEPA
as we work out this important addition to Illinois environmental policy and
regulations.
This is indeed a complex process and we expect this to be a long and
laborious effort. Yet in their testimony at the last hearing and their Joint
IAWAIIEPA Proposal, the IDNR and IEPA are suggesting we move to a two-
tiered dissolved oxygen standard now. The agencies recommended to the Board
that the current dissolved oxygen standard be replaced with two levels of
standards, each level applying to one of two sets of Illinois waters. One is a
general use standard, which fairly closely follows the IAWA proposal and
another is a higher-level standard that would apply to a subset of waters that
were identified in the testimony.
As
I said all of this is very complex. There is much to be learned about all
of these relationships. The tiered use work underway by IAWA with
participation from IDNR and IEPA is the correct approach to resolving and
addressing these complexities. Recently the IEPA circulated a 'White Paper'
suggesting biological criteria as a useful tool to identify different categories.
That will possibly be the best approach to take. It is used in other states and
seems to be
a reasonable approach to establish use categories.
Establishing a variety of specific numeric targets for constituents such as
DO without adequate data to support them is re-creating a flawed and
unworkable standard. I would like to caution the Board to be very careful about
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
adopting an arbitrary tiered use or what is called a "higher level" of waters in
Illinois. The dissolved oxygen standard that we are attempting to repair was
established over
30 years ago. That standard was put in place in what seems to
have been a very arbitrary way. We do know that it was arrived at quickly, and
it was arrived at without there being a great deal of data to support it. We came
here to
fix a standard that most everyone now agrees is broken. Let's not replace
it with another standard that has no data to support it either.
If the Board were to proceed establishing two tiers of dissolved oxygen
standards it could be setting itself up for
a future workload when each of the
suggested river segments are analyzed and found to not need the suggested
6.25
mg/L dissolved oxygen concentration. How the agencies arrived at identifying
the segments for the added protection seems extremely arbitrary. Features such
as a bridge, or some other geographical identifier are used to delineate the
individual river segments. The Joint IEPA-IDNR Proposal has not been subject
to any ground truthing of the proposed segments. No continuous dissolved
oxygen measurements have ever been performed to show that the suggested
6.25
mg/L concentration is either realistic or attainable in the proposed enhanced
segments. As a result neither IEPA or IDNR has presented any in this record to
support their proposal.
Trying to minimize the apparent impact of the Joint Proposal
IDNRIIEPA,
IEPA points out that only 8% of the total length of Illinois stream miles would
be included for the enhanced protection. I ask the Board to look closely at the
testimony and documentation submitted to support establishing the proposed
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
segments. The 8% is spread out across the state in a very widely dispersed sort
of pattern. A piece here, a piece there, there is no continuity. These designations
should be by basin or at least by sub-basin. I increasingly the data are showing
that habitat should be the characteristic determining which waters receive the
designation.
Also at the IAWA Annual Conference we again heard from Dr. Mark
David. He is one of the principal investigators working on an Illinois
Department of Agriculture project investigating the sources and effects of
nutrients in Illinois waters. Specifically he is working with the Illinois Council
for Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR). While that effort is not yet
complete Dr. David was willing to state that his findings show that the greatest
influence on biological diversity in Illinois waters is habitat. Diverse and intact
habitats result in the greatest diversity of fish and macro-invertebrate
communities.
Again, I caution the Board to be very careful about adopting this
beginning of a tiered use system without there being the appropriate effort put
into identifying the correct numbers, the correct stream use categories and the
streams segments that are appropriate for each category. The process begun by
the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies for identifying tiered use is the
correct process to follow. With continued IEPA,
IDNR and other stakeholder
cooperation, I'm confident we can come to develop in Illinois
a detailed and
defendable attainable use system and correctly identify the appropriate
categories for the surface waters of Illinois.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
The suggested 6.25 mg/L enhanced dissolved oxygen standard is just as wrong and is just
as broken as the existing standard. In other words the 6.25
mg/L average is an unattainable
number even in the least impaired river systems. At the last hearing IAWA suggested that either
IEPA or IDNR repeat the earlier DO continuous sampling effort this summer. It is our
understanding they have not done so. Nor have they made available any of their 2006 sampling
effort. At the last hearing, I explained that
IAWA would attempt to gather some additional data.
Some IAWA members, over the past several months, have at their own expense and effort
installed continuous dissolved oxygen recorders in various river segments across Illinois. Some
of these are segments identified by IDNR and IEPA as deserving of the enhanced dissolved
oxygen standard. Dr. Garvey will review the data that was collected later during his testimony.
As he will testify, the 6.25
mg/L value was not always achieved. This is not surprising because
that was shown over a year ago when IEPA collected continuous DO measurements on eight
selected rivers in Illinois. Some of the rivers chosen were among those least impaired in Illinois.
The data showed that they did not meet the
current 5mg/L for 16 hours and 6 mg/L for eight
hours let alone the suggested
6.25 mgll standard. My questions, and a questions the Board
should ask is how can these river segments support the diversity of fish the IDNR suggests are
DO intolerant and the protection of require a 6.25 mg/L average DO standard, yet are found in
river segments that in fact have been shown do not achieve the
6.25 mg/L average? Why is it we
see lower
DO levels yet still find the river supports a diverse population of so called DO
intolerant fish and other aquatic organisms? And finally where are the data to support the
agencies position? Are we just finding
a compromise that is not supported by any science? Dr.
Garvey and Dr. David, in separate studies have said that habitat is key to species diversity.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
At a meeting in Springfield last January I met with IEPA staff and talked
with them about what was then their draft IEPA-IDNR proposal. I was surprised
to see the 6.25
mg/L concentration being suggested and asked where it came
from.
I was immediately told that it was a compromise. I was told that the two
agencies, IEPA and IDNR could not decide on the final concentration for the
proposed enhanced river segments and that the IEPA attorneys suggested that
the 6.25
mg/L value be agreed upon as the middle point. This is not the way to
develop an appropriate regulation. It is probably how the current DO standard
was developed, with no data to support it and no documentation of where it
came from. I am hoping we are not going to adopt another standard that starts
out to be broken immediately after being implemented
As I said earlier the goal of the
IAWA petition is that Illinois have a
dissolved oxygen standard;
A)
That it represents accurately what is expected in the least
impaired waters in the state;
B)
That the design of the standard be both enforceable by the
agency and be protective of all life stages of all the
vertebrate and invertebrate species found in the surface
waters of Illinois;
C)
And that it have the fundamental strength of being based in
good science.
I don't believe that the proposed alternative Joint IDNR-IEPA Proposal
achieves those goals.
We have seen over the past two years a focused effort to collect additional
dissolved oxygen data through out Illinois. This proceeding has generated
reams of dissolved oxygen data.
I ask the Board to look again at the numerous
exhibits and the amazing amount
of data filed, the overwhelming bulk of which
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
supports the IAWA petition. Yet still there are questions and doubt about what a
protective DO concentration should be. Why would the two agencies now
propose a tiered approach? I would suggest the reason could be found by
looking at that fundamental difference in the agencies viewpoint of the goal of a
regulation. The proposed alternative agency standard is a compromise that helps
IDNR be more protective than is necessary
....
sort of setting a goal for the
surface waters of Illinois to meet, but the data show they won't. There was no
ground truthing to prove the enhanced waterways meet or will ever meet the
proposed standard.
The second part of the Joint IDNR-IEPA proposal to which IAWA
strongly objects is the arbitrary inclonclusion of July in the cool weather months
which would be subject to the more stringent DO limits. This clearly is another
attempt to set a goal to protect the earlier life stages. The entire data set
presented and discussed in this proceeding shows that
DO levels throughout
Illinois in July routinely fall below that found in the cooler months.
July is a
hot month with resulting increases in water temperature and lower DO
saturation. Acceptance of the IDNR-IEPA position on this issue means the
establishment of a DO limitation that is currently not being attained, is
generally not attainable and one which will lead to expenditures of public funds
to attempt to meet an unattainable goal.
While IAWA is strongly opposed to the enhanced waters proposal and the
conclusion of July in the cool water period, IAWA
is in agreement with a
portion of Toby Frevert's testimony at the last hearing. Mr. Frevert asked that
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
the Board consider incorporation of a narrative provision supplementing the
numeric provisions of the standard to assure environmentally acceptable
conditions are provided throughout the full spectrum of general use waters.
IEPA and IDNR have recommended, and IAWA supports, that the general use
waters at all locations maintain sufficient dissolved oxygen concentrations to
prevent offensive conditions as required in section 302.203 of the Illinois
administrative code.
"Quiescent and isolated sectors of general use waters
including wetlands, sloughs, backwaters, and lakes and
reservoirs below the thermal cline shall be maintained at
sufficient dissolved oxygen concentrations to support their
natural ecological functions in resident aquatic communities."
Also, previously we have also agreed that the inclusion of a 30 day
average be part of the regulation, bringing it more in alignment with the
USEPA
1986 National Criteria Document.
In conclusion, the proposal that a two-tiered system be put in place is
premature and unwarranted by the data. Dr. Whiles and Dr. Garveys' report
stands the test of these past
2
%
years of data collection and should be adopted
by the Board with the two modifications suggested. Along with those two
additions I am urging the Board to adopt the
IAWA petition as filed. That from
March 1" through June
3oth the state wide standard be a one day minimum of 5
mg/L with a seven day mean of 6 mg/L and that the remainder of the year from
July 1" through February 2gth or 29th that the one day minimum be 3.5 mg/L
with a seven day mean minimum of 4.0 mg/L.
As will be explained by Dr
Garvey the data clearly show that the proposed July 3oth date for the seasonal
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006
change in acceptable DO levels throughout Illinois is clearly not appropriate and
should not be adopted as part of this petition.
Thank you for your time.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, OCTOBER 4, 2006