IEMATTACHMENT No.L

'~':

',;:-,:~,;.;.:

.~~:LANoVA

INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

and

Hey and Associates) Inc.

Lower Des Plaines River

Use

Attainability .Analysis

December 2003

Prepared for the

IHino~,

Etnvirnn

H1C

nfa J Protcrti(}!l

i\

~

{~(\

-

llC"V

..

---

:

~~i;i1HHi '~-

.~~tJANOVA

INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

and

Hey and Associates) Inc.

Managers: Vladimir N()votny,PhD, P

O'Reilly, Msc

Timothy Ehlinger, PhD

Charles

S. Melching, PhD

John Braden, PhD

Alena

Bartosova, PhD

Michael Mischuk

FINALREPO

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 - Introduction

The Need for the Use Attainability Analysis

1-1

Objectives of the Study

1-4

Description of the Lower Des Plaines River

1-5

Des Plaines River Watershed

1-5

The Des Plaines River

1-5

The Study Reach

1-6

Water Quality

1-8

Historic Development of the River

1-12

History of Use Designation and Water Quality Standards in Illinois

1-16

Development and Adoption

of the Secondary Use and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use

1-17

Cost

of Cooling Towers was an'Overriding Issue

1-19

Description of the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Designation

1-20

Organization

of this Report

1-23

References

1-24

Chapter 2 - Water Body Assessment: Chemical Parameters

Introduction

2-1

Water Quality Criteria and Standards

,

2-1

Application of the Standards - Aquatic Life Protection

:

2-3

'WaterEffect Ratio (WER)

;

2-6

Reference Water Bodies

2-12

Regional Reference Sites

2-14

Available Information on Pre-Development Reference Conditions for the Des Plaines River

2-15

Reference Water Bodies in Illinois

2-16

Kankakee River

2-18

Mackinaw River

2-19

Green River

2-20

Reference Water Bodies to Assess Impact

of Navigation

2-21

Reference Impounded Water Bodies

2-22

Rock River

2-23

Fox River

2-23

Methodology for Water Body Assessment

2-24

Percentiles for Comparison with Standards

2-26

Tier I - Screening Analysis

2-27

Calculation

of Site Specific Standards

2-27

Probability Plots

2-28

Probabilistic Analysis

2-29

Tier I Evaluation and Recommendation

2-31

Parameters

in Compliance

2-31

Parameters that do not Meet the Illinois General Use Standards and Federal Aquatic Use and

Contact Recreation Criteria

2-33

Parameters not Addressed by this Report

2-37

Tier II Evaluation

2-39

Ammonium

2-39

---

Chapter 2 (continued)

Copper

2-44

Seasonal Variations

2-45

Sources

of Copper

2-45

Relation to Flow

2-47

Water Effect Ratio: Estimation of Dissolved Copper

2-48

Sediment as a Source

of Copper

2-49

Comparison with Site Specific Standard

2-52

Alternative 1 - Standards Calculated for Average Hardness

2-52

Alternative 2 - Standards Calculated for each Sample

2-53

Site Specific Standards

2-55

TMDL Issues

2-57

Summary and Conclusions - Copper

2-58

Zinc 2-60

Dissolved Oxygen

2-60

Problems with LowDO

:

2-60

Statistical Analysis ofthe MonitoringData

2-61

DO Concentrations at the Reference Sites

2-63

Continuous Monitoring by MWRDGC in Joliet and by Midwest Generation at I-55

2-64

Relation ofthe DO Concentration to Flow

2-68

Attainability of the DO Standard

2-69

Historic Comparison

2-69

DO Modeling

2-71

QUAL2E Modeling Results

,~

.. 2-73

UAA Six Reasons Issues

; 2-78

Conclusions on the DO Analysis

2-79

Temperature

2-81

Thermal Standards

2-83

History

of the Standard

2-83

Mixing Zone Issues

2-85

Water Body Assessment for Temperature

2-86

Compliance of Temperature with the Standing General Standards

2-86

Type

of Cooling at the Joliet Plants

2-90

Selection of the Temperature Standard

2-91

Critique ofthe Current Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standard

2-94

Existing Use - Compliance with the General Use Standard

2-99

Conclusion on Temperature

2-102

BriefEvaluation

ofthe Six UAA Reasons for Temperature

2-103

References

2-105

Chapter 3 - Sediment Quality

Introduction

;

;

3-1

Historic Perspectives

3-1

Sediment Toxicity Study by Wright University - 1994 and 1995

3-3

Evaluation of Toxicity of Sediments

3-8

Toxic Metals - Complexation and Immobilization in Sediments

3-10

Organic Toxic Chemicals

3-12

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

3-13

Ammonium

3-13

---

Chapter 3 (continued)

Comparative Criteria for Sediments and Sediment Contamination

3-16

Measurements

of the Sediment Quality by the MWRDGC 1983 - 2000

3-16

USEPA Comprehensive Sediment Survey in 2001

3-21

Methods

of Analysis

3-21

Results

3-23

Toxic Metals

3-23

Pesticides

;

3-27

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

3-30

Other Priority Pollutants

3-33

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

3-35

Conclusions on Sediment Contamination .:

3-40

UAA Issues

3-41

References

~·

3-44

Chapter 4 - Physical Habitat

of the Lower Des Plaines River

Introduction

4-1

Study Reach

4-2

Watershed Characteristics

4-4

Physical Stream Characteristics

4-6

The River Continuum Concept.

4-6.

Reach-by-Reach Conditions

4-8

Upper Des Plaines River

4-9

Brandon Road Pool

4-9

Dresden Island Pool

4-12

Habitat Index Values

4-16

OHEI Index System

4-16

Metric

1: Substrate

4-18

Metric 2: In-Stream Cover

4-19

Metric 3: Channel Morphology

4-20

Metric 4: Riparian Zone and Bank Erosion

4-21

Metric

5: Pool/Glide and Riffle-Run Quality

4-22

Metric 6: Map Gradient

4-23

Computing the Total QHEI Score

4-24

Results of Commonwealth Edison Company Sampling

4-24

Irreversible Nature of Habitat Alterations

4-30

Conclusion

4-33

References

4-34

Chapter 5 - Existing and Potential Macroinvertebrate Community

Introduction

5-1

Historic Data

5-3

Summary of Current Data from MWRGC and IEPA

5-4

Trends in Macroinvertebrate Data

5-5

Evaluation of Community Characteristics (Metrics)

5-5

Total Number of Taxa (Taxa Richness)

5-7

EPT Taxa Richness

5-8

Percent EPT Individuals

5-8

---

Chapter 5 (continued)

Total Number of Intolerant Benthic Taxa

5-9

Percent Tolerant Individuals

5-9

Family Chironomidae (Midge) Community Structure

5-10

Percent Composition by Major Group

(other than Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Chironomidae)

5-11

Percent of Total Trichoptera as Hydropsychidae

5-12

Percent Mollusca

5-12

Percent Amphipoda

5-12

Percent Isopoda

5-12

Percent Odonata

:

5-13

Response Signature Metrics

5-13

Percent Cricotopus sp

5-13

Percent OrganiclNutrient/DO Tolerant Taxa

:

5-13

Percent Toxics Tolerant Taxa

5-13

Conclusion

of Individual Metrices Analysis

5-14

Biological Indexes

5-14

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI)

5-15

Comparison to Illinois General Use Criteria in 305b Report

5-15

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)

5-15

Use

ofMBI and ICI to Assess Illinois General Use Classification

5-16

Summary

5-17

References

5-18

Chapter 6 - Evaluation of Existing and Potential Fishery Community

Introduction

6-1

Description of Indices of Biotic Integrity

6-1

Illinois IBI

6-2

Ohio IBI

6-3

Trends in Fisheries Data

.

6-3

Data Collection and Analysis Methods

6-3

Spatial and Temporal Trends in illI

6-7

Analysis

of Individual Metrics Contributing to illI Scores for the Lower Des Plaines River

6-13

Comparison to Reference Sites in Illinois

6-17

Analysis ofIndividual Metrics Contributing to

illI Scores for Reference Sites

6-18

Stresses on the Biota

6-22

Habitat

6-22

Seasonal Impacts

6-23

Summary - Potential Fish Community

6-25

References

6-27

Chapter 7 - Pathogens and Recreation

Review of Current Limits

7-1

Illinois General Use

7-1

Illinois Secondary Use

7-1

Federal Water Quality Criteria

7-2

Original Formulation (Water Quality Criteria, USEPA 1986)

7-2

USEPA Guidelines to Implement the Criteria for Recreation

7-2

---

Chapter

7 -

Pathogens and Recreation (continued)

Selection of Designated Use

7-3

Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1994)

7-3

Indicator Organisms - The Need for Change

7-3

Standards Linked to Risk of Illnesses

7-5

Summary on Modification ofthe Use in Non-Primary Contact Recreational Waters

7-10

Selection

of Secondary Contact Recreational Use

7-10

Monitoring and Number of Samples to Define Existing Uses and Compliance with the Standard 7-12

Interpretation of the General Use Standard and USEPA Criterion for Sites that do not have

Sufficient Number

of Samples

7-12

Relation ofE. Coli to Fecal and Total Coliform

7-13

Water Body Assessment

7-15

History of the Standard

7-15

Current and Historical Densities of Fecal Coliforms in the Lower Des Plaines River

7-16

Effect of Cessation of Chlorination on the Bacterial Densities

7,.16

Existing Use Evaluation

7-19

Water Quality Potential

,

7-19

Reference Water Bodies

7-19

Conclusions on the Attainability of Standards in Reference Water Bodies

7-20

Features

ofthe Lower Des Plaines River Impeding the Primary Recreational Use

7-22

Physical Limitation

ofthe Pools for Primary Contact Recreation Use

7-22

Brandon Pool (RM 291 to 286)

7-22

Dresden Island Pool (RM 286 to 277.8)

7-22

Effects

of Effluent Domination of River Flow and Urban Runoff on Primary

Recreation.:~

7-28

PointSources

:

7-28

Effect of Combined Sewer Overflows

7-31

Effect of Urban Runoff

7-32

Conclusions

:

7-34

Conflict Between the Navigationand Recreational Use of the Lower Des Plaines River

7-35

Conflict Between Recreation and Navigation

7-37

Existing Use

7-38

Summary

of Responses

7-38

Planned Use of the Brandon Pool

7-39

Overall Assessment of Use Attainability for Primary and Secondary Recreation and

Proposal for Standards

7-40

New Standards Based on the USEPA (2002) Draft Guidelines

7-40

Brandon Pool (RM 291.0 - 286.0)

7-40

Recommendation

7

-41

Selection of the Risk and Standard

7-42

Dresden Island Pool (RM 286.0 - 271.5)

7-43

Selection of the Risk

7-45

Recommendation

7-45

References

7-48

---

Chapter 8 - Modified Impounded Water Use Designation for the

Brandon Road Pool and Use Upgrade for the Upper Dresden Island Pool

Introduction

8-1

Modified Impounded Use for the Brandon Road Pool

8-7

Water Body Assessment and Attainment

of the Use

8-9

References for the Modified Warmwater Use

8-9

Ohio Modified Warmwater Body Designation

8-10

Habitat Evaluation

8-12

Ecological Categorization and Potential

8-14

Development

of Standards

8-18

Why the Current Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Standards

Cannot be Retained

8-18

Water Quality Standard for Dissolved Oxygen

of the Modified Use

8-20

Current Illinois DO Standards and Federal Criteria

8-20

Literature Review

of DO Impacts on Potential Fish Community in the Des Plaines River and

Upper Illinois River

:

8-23

Ohio DO Standard for the Modified Warm Water Use

1

8-28

Duration or Averaging ofthe Minimum Permissible CMC and CCC Concentrations

8-29

Formulation

ofthe Proposed DO and other Standards for the Modified Impounded

Brandon Road Pool.

8-30

Assumption and Water Body Characterization

8-30

Proposed DO Standard for the Modified Impounded Warmwater Body Use (Brandon Pool)

8-31

Ammonium

8-31

Other Standards

8-32

Narrative Standards

8-33

Effect

of the Modified Use Classification on Recreation

8-33

Pathway for Determining the Modified Impounded Warmwater Use

8-34

Evaluation and Use Designation

of the Dresden Pool

8~35

Conclusions

8-37

Summary

of Standards for the Brandon Road Pool

8-38

Summary

of Standards ofthe Dresden Island Pool

8-41

References

8-43

---

Chapter 9 - Action Plan

Introduction

9-1

Sediment Contamination

9-3

Proposed Actions

9-4

Short-Term Actions

9-4

Actions by the Illinois EPA and Illinois Pollution Control Board

9-4

Actions by the Dischargers and Users

of the Brandon Road Dam Pool

9-5

Actions of Dischargers and Users of the Dresden Island Pool

9-7

Potential Toxicity

of the Sediment in the Downstream Tailwater of Brandon Road Dam

9-7

Recommended Remedial Actions

9-7

River Management Measures

9-9

Nutrient Enrichment Problem

9-9

References

9-10

Appendix A

AppendixB

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

AppendixF

Appendix G

IEPA Documents

Chemical Assessment Plots (Chapter 2)

Copper Analysis

DO Modeling Results

Macroinvertebrate Plots

Fishery Data

Comments

---

INTRODUCTION

The Need for the Use Attainability Analysis

This document presents the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) for the Lower Des Plaines River in

Illinois that has been classified by the state as a

Secondary Contact Indigenous Aquatic Life

use

water body. The federal water quality standards regulation requires that states perform a Use

Attainability Analysis (UAA) for water bodies where designated uses are lower than the statutory

fish and aquatic life protection and propagation and primary contact recreation uses required by

Section IOI(a)

of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In Illinois, the statutory use complying with the

CWA goals is the

General Use.

The current other uses of the water body such as. navigation,

wastewater and storm runoffdisposal may conflict with the higher statutory designated uses (aquatic

life protection and propagation and contact recreation) represented by the General Use. The task

of

the UAA is to develop conditions for uses that would meet or approach aquatic life protection,

propagation and primary recreation uses required by the Clean Water Act. Implementation

of such

standards is tested against the six reasons

ofthe UAA regulations (Box 1.1), including avoidance

of wide spread adverse socio-economic impacts that allow a downgrade of the use and/or of the

standards or justify the standards that do not comply with the lllinois general use.

Watershed planning and management for control

of all sources of pollution have been included in

the Clean Water Act (Sections 208,303, and 305) and subsequent regulations (40 CFR 130).

In

this

context, the objective

of watershed management is achieving water quality goals as expressed by

the water quality standards and addressing pollution from all sources. There are two tools provided

by the Clean Water Act and subsequent regulations that will initiate the process

of watershed

management. One is the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) and the other is the Total Maximum

Daily Load (TMDL).

The UAA requirement stems from Section IOI(a)

of the Clean Water Act that states:

it is the

national

goal that wherever attainable .. water qualityprovidesfor the protection andpropagation

offish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved...

In this

document we will refer to the uses in agreement with Section

101(a) as

statutory uses.

The General

Use in Illinois is a statutory use. Consequently, the UAA study investigates whether the standards

defining the designated use conforming with Section

101(a) of the CWA are attainable in the

analyzed water body.

If the statutory CWA use is not attainable, the UAA will define the most

optimal attainable use for the water body.

On the other hand, the TMDL process is used for implementing state water quality standards, i.e.,

it is a planning process that will lead to the goal

of meeting the water quality standards in

water

quality limited receiving water bodies

and,

defacto,

it presumes that the statutory use is attainable.

Both the TMDL and UAA may be prepared for individual waterbodies or their segments; however,

the UAA should precede the TMDL. TMDL and UAA

are performed for water quality limited

I-I

---

segments

that have been specifically defined by the EPA as

those segments that do not or are not

expected to meet applicable water quality standards even after the application

of technology -

ejjluent limitations required by Sections 301(b) and 306

ofthe Clean Water Act.

There are three categories ofclassification ofwater qualitylimited water bodies based on the source

ofpollution: (1) water bodies impacted solely by point sources forwhich the mandatory point source

controls will not result inattainrnent

ofwater quality goals; (2) water bodies impacted byboth point

and nonpoint sources for which the attainment

of water quality goals will not be achieved by

application

ofmandatory point source controls and reasonable and economically efficient nonpoint

source controls; and (3) bodies impacted

by nonpoint sources only.

In 1983, after revising the Water Quality Standards Regulations (40 CFR 131), the Use Attainability

Analysis (UAA) was made the standard procedure through which states were to gather and analyze

data and document decision processes used to resolve questions about site-specific attainability

of

designated use classes. While the USEPA does not demand that its published UAA guidelines

(USEPA, 1983a, 1984a,b, 1991, 1994) are followed, any process that a state develops to address

attainability issues must be sufficient to meet the intent

ofthe UAA guidelines. The rationale of the

Use Attainability Analysis is included in the EPA's

Water Quality Standards Handbook

(USEPA,

1983b, 1994). The process which defines water quality standards (WQS) for any (navigable) water

body must consider whether the designated uses are appropriate for the water body. The EPA

Handbooks specify that attainability or non-attainability

of designated uses and their relevant

standards are

judged based on physical conditions, natural or irretrievable chemical conditions, and

widespread and substantial socio-economic impact (Box 1.1).

In order to carry

out the socio-economic impact analysis outlined in Item 6 of Box 1.1, the load

capacity

of the water body may need to be determined and a waste load allocation performed

(Novotny, et al., 1997).

The UAA generally answers the following questions about the condition

of the water body:

a) What is the existing use to

be protected?

b) What is the extent to which pollution (as opposed to physical factors) contributes to the

impairment

of a use?

c)

What

is

the level of point source control required to restore or enhance the use?

d) What is the level

of nonpoint source control required to restore or enhance the use?

e) What are the needed water body restoration (waste assimilative capacity enhancement)

measures that would alter adverse physical conditions

of the receiving water body that are

impacting the aquatic habitat as well as meeting water quality standards?

f)

What is the optimal water use of the water body as defined in the ecoregional context of

attainable water quality?

g) What is the optimal use

ofthe water body that would not impose widespread adverse socio-

economic impacts

on the population involved and society as a whole?

With exception

of the Item g, this report will address the above issues.

Lower Des Plain,'S River Use ,\ttaim\bility

Aidysi:;

1-2

---

Box 1.1

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Six reasons for a change of the designated use and/or water quality standards of

a water body (40 CFR 131)

Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent attainment of the use; or

Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow

or water levels prevent the attainment of

the use unless these conditions maybe compensated fo r by the discharge of a sufficient

volume

ofeffluent discharge without violating State conservationrequirements to enable

uses

to be met; or

Human caused conditions or sources

of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and

cannot be remedied or would cause

rmre environrrental damage to correct than to leave

in place; or

Dams, diversions, or other types

of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of

the use, and it is hot feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to

operate such modification. in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or

Physical conditions related to the natural features

of the water body, such as the lack of

proper substrate, cover, flow, dep th, pools,

riffles,

and th e like, unrelated to water quality,

preclude attainment

of aquatic life protection uses; or

Controls more stringent thatthose required by Sections

301 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and 306 of

the Act would result in substantial and wide-spread adverse social and economic impact.

The Use Attainability Analysis can result in the following possible outcomes:

(1) The designated use and corresponding standards are confirmed as attainable;

(2) The designated use is confirmed as attainable; however, standards are modified to reflect

ecoregional and/or site-specific attributes;

(3) The designated use is modified

or sub classified with corresponding modification of

standards; or

(4) The designated use is upgraded based on existing or potential uses. The case of upgrading

existing uses

may involve water bodies which had previous water use assignments lowerthan

those specified

by the CWA or water bodies which subsequent to the use assignment were

designated as Outstanding National Resources Waters.

While most

of the potential UAA's may have been developed throughout the nation or needed for

a reason

of downgrading the use or adjusting the standards, the lllinois Environmental Protection

Agency (IEPA),

in the case of the Lower Des Plaines River, is looking for a way to upgrade the

present lesser use

ofthe river defined as "secondary contact recreation and indigenous aquatic life."

This classification established

an objective of protecting the

existing aquatic organisms and allow

limited non contact recreational opportunities and avoid nuisance and aesthetically impaired

conditions.

The agency wishes to achieve the highest attainable water use consistent as closely as

possible with the goals

of the Clean Water Act expressed in Section 101(a).

1-3

---

Urbanization combined with the effects ofartificial channelization, such as in the Lower Des Plaines

River, represents a challenge inthe UAA. The Lower Des Plaines River has been modified by three

dams and locks (Lockport Lock

&

Dam, Brandon Road Lock

&

Dam, and Dresden Island Lock

&

Dam) and receives flow from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal that, during low flows, carries

mostlytreated sewage from the Chicago area. Other urban wastewater andurban runoffcontributions

are brought by the upstream Des Plaines River and from the city

ofJoliet, IL. Thus, the stream can

be characterized as

effluent dominated.

The water quality regulations do not exclude the effluent

dominated streams from compliance with the water quality standards unless Reasons 3 and/or 6

of

the UAA regulations (Box 1.1) provide relief.

Objectives of the Study

The Illinois EPA wishes to elevate the present lesser use of the Lower Des Plaines River from

Secondary Contact Recreation andIndigenous Aquatic Life

to a higher use for balanced aquatic life,

contact recreation and, also considering water supply,

if it is an existing or potential use. The

impetus for this UAA is Section 131.l0(j)

of the Water Quality Standards Regulations. Figure

1.1

shows the map of the investigated river and the UAA reaches.

The UAA is a legitimate means to strive for a higher use when the designated use is a lesser use than

that specified

by Section lOI(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act. If actions needed to upgrade the river

quality and habitat do not cause

"a widespread and substantial adverse socio-economic impact," the

higher use is considered attainable unless one

ofthe remaining five reasons prevents the attainment.

ofthe use. Unlike TMDLs that focus only on waste load and load allocations, the UAA can venture.

further and suggest water body and riparian zone restoration in addition to further reduction

ofwaste

water discharges and BMPs for nonpoint pollution.

The objectives

ofthe study were specified bythe IEPA as:

1. Evaluate all available data to determine the physical, chemical and biological conditions ofthe

waterway.

2. Determine potential to achieve and maintain higher value uses such as a diverse and balanced

self supporting aquatic community and primary contact recreation.

3. Identify and characterize the relative significance

of major stressors on the system including

potential use impairment identified in the agency's April

1, 1998 Clean Water Act Section

303(d) List.

4. Assess available water quality and habitat management activities to eliminate or reduce system

stressors.

5. Develop recommended use designations and affiliated water quality standards to achieve the

highest attainable uses consistent with the Clean Water Act goals and Chapter 2

ofthe USEPA

(1994) Handbook.

Lower Des Plaine., Rive;'

US'~

,\ttainnbiiic} Analysis

1-4

---

Description of the Lower Des Plaines River

Des Plaines River Watershed

The Des Plaines River originates in Wisconsin. In Illinois, the Des Plaines River Watershed covers

a total

of 854,669 acres in Lake, Cook, DuPage, and Will counties. The majority of the watershed

is part

of the greater Chicago metropolitan area and has been extensively developed for urban and

industrial use. The remaining rural and agricultural lands are primarily in Lake and Will counties.

Major streams which comprise the Des Plaines River Watershed include the Des Plaines River, the

DuPage River, Cal Sag Cannel, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Salt Creek, Mill Creek, Indian

Creek, Willow Creek, Lily Cache Creek, Grant Creek, Hickory Creek, and Spring Creek. A total

of

685 stream miles was assessed within the watershed by the Section 305(b) study by the lEPA. The

overall resource quality shown

on Figure 1.1. assessed in the 1998 Illinois Section 305(b) report was

"good" on 165 stream miles (24%), "fair"

on 481 stream miles (70%), and "poor" on 39 stream miles

(6%). The potential causes

of water quality problems identified in the Illinois Section 305(b) and

303(d) reports are nutrients, pathogens, siltation, and habitat alterations attributed to municipal point

source pollution, urban runoff, contaminated sediments and/or phosphorus attached to sediment

particles, and hydrologic/habitat modifications, including flow alteration.

The Des Plaines River

The Des Plaines River originates just south of Union Grove, Wisconsin, and enters Illinois near

Russell, Ill. From Russell, the Des Plaines flows

in a southerly direction through Lake and Cook

counties. Near Lyons,

ill.,

the Des Plaines turns to the southwest paralleling the Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal (CSSC) in DuPage and Will counties until the confluence with the CSSC near Joliet,

Ill. The Des Plaines continues southwest to the confluence

ofthe Kankakee and the beginning ofthe

Illinois River. The watershed area of the Des Plaines River excluding the CSSC is 13,371 mi

2

and

the CSSC drainage is 740

me . The total main stem length of the river in Illinois from the State

border to the confluence with the Kankakee River is 110.7 miles. The long-term average discharge

of the Des Plaines River at Riverside, IL is about 350 cfs. This can be compared with the capacity

of the Stickney, IL waste water treatment plant operated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District

of Greater Chicago (MWRD) of 1,200 mgd, which is equivalent to 1,033 cfs. Since other

treatment plants

of the Chicago metropolitan area also discharge into the CSSC, clearly, the lower

segment

of the Des Plaines River is effluent dominated under low and medium flow conditions.

In the 2002 305(b) report, 33.4 miles

of the main stem ofthe Des Plaines River were rated as "fully

supporting the aquatic life use ("good") and 77.3 miles as partially supporting ("fair"- green

designation on Figure 1.1). In 1998 305(b), the section between the confluence

of the river with

CSSC at RM 290.1 and the Brandon Road Dam at

RM 286 was ranked as "poor" (not supporting).

In the 2002 report, degraded water quality was attributed to nutrients and siltation from municipal

and industrial point source pollution, urban runoff, contaminated sediments, priority organics,

metals, ammonia,

TDS/conductivity, suspended solids, flow alteration, and habitat alteration. Most

of Northeast Illinois, where the river is located, is an urbanized area with municipal point source

pollution, hydrologic/habitat modifications, and urban runoff

as major sources of pollution.

1-5

---

The Study Reach

5

0

~

5

-- Good

-- Fair

-- Poor

o

Watershed Boundary

-- County Boundaries

Reference Communities

Figure 1.1

The Lower Des Plaines River

Watershed and the UAA study

reach. The figure is taken

from the Illinois 305(b) water

quality report (latest edition

2002)

WILL

10

LVi,',;r Dei Plain<.::; River Use Att8inability ,\I1;uysis

J.6

---

The Use Attainability Analysis of the Lower Des Plaines River extends from the confluence of the

river with the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal (CSSC)

at the

E.1.&

E railroad bridge (River Mile

290.1 near Lockport) downstream to the Interstate 55 Highway Bridge at the River Mile 277.9 (Figure

1.1). Almost the entire reach is impounded and has two morphologically different segments, the

Brandon Road Pool above the Brandon Road Lock and Dam (River Mile 286) and the portion

ofthe

Dresden Pool above the I-55 Bridge. The US

Army Corps of Engineers operates the locks and dams

to provide conditions for navigation (primarily barge traffic). The Lower Des Plaines River is on the

Illinois

EPA's Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

The Brandon Road Pool is four miles in length, approximately 300 ft wide, with the depth varying

between

12 - 15 feet.

It

is essentially a man-made channel that is bordered byside masonry, concrete

or sheet pile embankments (Figure1.2). The average velocity in the pool is 0.75 fps. The Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) is the main tributary

ofthe Lower Des Plaines River segmentunder

consideration. The canal contributes approximately 80 %

of flow to the river downstream from the

confluence with the Des Plaines River. The water quality status

ofthe Des Plaines River, upstream

from the confluence with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, has been classified as fair.

It

receives

urban

runofffrom many suburban communities. Runoff from the largest commercial diffuse source,

the

O'Hare International airport, is collected and conveyed to the Metropolitan Water Reclamation

District for treatment.

The Dresden Island Pool is 14 miles long, approximately 800 feet wide, with the depth varying

between 2

- 15 feet. The average stream velocityis 0.65 fps. The 8.1 miles reach ofthe impounciment

that is a part ofthe UAA study is more natural than the Brandon Road Dam pool, meanders, and has

a fair amount

ofnatural shoreline and side channels (Figure 1.3). In the Dresden Island Pool, the US

Army Corps ofEngineers maintains a 9 foot deep navigational channel.

The Lower Des Plaines River is a part

ofthe Upper Illinois Waterway. The Illinois Waterway is one

ofthe busiest inland commercial navigation systems in the nation, provi ding a link between the Great

Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway navigation system and the Mississippi River navigation system that

connects to the GulfIntercoastal Waterway.

The lllinois waterway includes the following segments:

•

The Illinois River from its mouth at Grafton, IL to the confluence

of the Kankakee and Des

Plaines Rivers (273 miles)

•

The Des Plaines River to Lockport

Lock (18.1 miles)

•

The Chicago.Sanitary and Ship Canal which provides a connection to the deep draft system

at Lake Calumetand Calumet Harbor, via the Little Calumet and CalumetRivers (23.8 miles).

The entire waterway is completely channelized to a minimum depth

of 9 ft and is used almost for

commercial transport

ofbulk commodities such as grain, coal, petroleum products, chemical and raw

materials.

1-7

---

Water Quality

Historically, the Lower Des Plaines River has received flows from the man-made Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal which receives effluents from several Metropolitan Water Reclamation District

of

Greater Chicago wastewater reclamation plants and overflows from the combined sewers.

Consequently, historically, the environmental potential

ofthe river was deemed to be verylimited to

a point

ofhopelessness. The pollution population equivalent ofeffluent discharge carried bythe canal

to the Des Plaines River is about 9.5 million. The TARP project today has significantly reduced the

number (frequency)

ofCSOs overflows per year. With the full implementation ofthe reservoir portion

ofTARP, the frequency ofoverflows will be further reduced. Combined sewer overflows reaching

the river via the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal are a source

of a mixture ofuntreated sewage and

urban runoff from Chicago and Cook County.

Table

1.1 includes a list oflarge and medium size (more than 1 cfs) public wastewater treatment.

plants located on the

Des Plaines River and the Chicago Waterways upstream ofthe I-55 bridge.

It

can be seen that the effluent discharges constitute the major part ofthe flow in the Lower Des Plaines

River. The total effluent flow from the WWTPs is about 1900 cfs (1230 mgd) (Table 1.1). This

effluent flow constitutes more than 90%

of low flow in the Lower Des Plaines River and during

winter, almost the entire low flow is made

of effluent discharges. Consequently, the Lower Des

Plaines is characterized as

an efJluent dominated stream.

Several large power plants use water from the CSSC and the Lower Des Plaines River for cooling.

The thermal power plants operated by Midwest Generation are listed in Table 1.2 along with the

power capacities and parameters. Two sites, Will County and Joliet #9 and #29 use most

ofthe flow

in the CSSC and the Lower Des Plaines River for cooling. During the summer

of 1999, 24

supplemental cooling towers were installed at the Joliet Station #29 that are used on an as-needed

basis to keep the temperature

of the river at the I-55 bridge at or below the adjusted standard

requested by Commonwealth Edison and approved by the State

of Illinois Pollution Control Board.

Table 1.2 presents the heat release parameters

ofthe power plants that may affect the temperature of

the Lower Des Plaines River. By comparing the condenser cooling water flow and the river (canal)

flow it becomes immediately apparent that two power production systems--Will County and Joliet

power plants--

may use all ofthe flow of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Will County) or the

Lower Des Plaines River (Joliet) during low flow conditions.

The Illinois EPA 1998 303(d) list has identified the following parameters

of concern for the sections

between the confluence with the CSSC and the Kankakee River:

priority organics

nutrients

metals

habitat alterations

low dissolved oxygen/organic enrichment

1-8

ammonia

pathogens

siltation

flow alteration

lOWer Dcs Plain"" River Use ..utainability A!dY';is

---

Figure 1.2

Brandon Pool in downtown Joliet

Figure 1.3

Habitat conditions in the Upper Dresden pool below Brandon

Road

Dam at the confluence of the river with Hickory Creek

into which most

of City of Joliet treated wastewater effluent

and CSOs are discharged.

1-\'

---

Table 1.1

River and Tributaries (average effluent flow greater than 1 cfs)

River

Little Calumet River

North and South

Thorn Creek

Chicago River

Chicago San. Ship Canal

Wastewater (sewage) treatment plant

MWRDGC Calumet STP

Thorn Creek Sanitary District STP

MWRDGC Northside Chicago STP

NSSD Clavey STP

DeeIfield

STP

MWRDGC Stickney STP

MWRDGC Lemont STP

Lockport STP

Average

effluent flow (cfs)

290.00

15.00

367.00

15.20

3.60

1,007.00

2.80

1.90

TOTAL FROM CSSC

Des Plaines River Upstream

pfBrandon Pool

Lindenhurst

STP

NSSD Waukeegan STP

NSSD Gurnee STP

Libertyville STP

Mundelein STP

New Century STP

Des Plaines STP

MWRDGC Kirie STP

Hindsdale STP

Salt Creek

MWRDGC

Egan STP

Roselle

STP

. Bensenville STP

Itasca STP

Bensenville STP

Adison STPs

Salt Creek Sanitary District

STP

Elmhust

Woo d Dale

North and South

Des Plaines

River

Romeoville STP

_________TOTAL FROM DES PLAINES RIVER

TOTAL TO

BRANDON POO L

1,702.25

1.00

18.50

16.20

3.40

3.70

1.70

6.80

40.90

10.90

24.60

1.70

1. 70

2.00

1. 70

8.90

2.00

6.50

4.8

1.50

158.50

1,860.75

Dresden Island Pool

From Brandon Pool

Hickory Creek

Des Plaines

River

Frankfort STPs

East Joliet STP

West Joliet

TOTAL I-55 Bridge

I-I ()

1,860.75

1.83

17.00

3.70

1,883.28

L0w,;r Dts Pbinc-i

Ri,\;r

Use .\tt:.linability Analysis

---

In

the reach just below the confluence ofthe Des Plaines River with the CSSC, the Section 303(d)

list also identifies nutrient enrichment/low dissolved oxygen and flow alterations as parameters

of

concern. The UAA addresses these pollutants of concern, in addition to the proposal for a change of

the current designated use.

Significant progress has been made in improving the water quality at the Stickney, Calumet, and other

reclamation plants discharging into the Des Plaines River system. About 85%

ofthe CSO discharges

from the Chicago metropolitan area are now conveyed into the TARP system and receive treatment

in the Stickney and Calumet plants. The lesser use

of "secondary contact recreation and indigenous

aquatic life" was applied in the 1970s .

The time has come to re-evaluate the designated use consistent with the goals

ofthe CleanWater Act

and to determine whether the higher use would

be realistically attainable. Uses ofthe water body for

navigation and wastewater and storm runoff disposal may be conflicting with the higher statutory

designated uses (aquatic life protection and

propagation- and primary contact recreation) and relate

directly to attainability

of and influence the extent of aquatic life and contact recreation functions of

the water body.

It

will be the task ofthis UAA to develop conditions for the higher uses and test them

against reason 6

ofthe UAA which is the avoidance ofwidespread adverse socio-economic impact.

Table 1.2

Power plant design capacities and heat rejection (Holly and Bradley, 1994)

Station

Rated

Condenser

7 day

Heat

LlTo

SummerLlTo

Load

Discharge

duration

rejection

across the

in

the river

MW

cfs

10 years

rate

condenser

(canal) at low

low flow,

10

6

btu/hr

OF

flow*, OF

cfs

Fisk (one unit)

325

470

1288

12.2

Crawfort

540

852

2243

11.7

(two units)

Will County

1095

2000

4982

11.1

8.7 (2550**)

(four units) CSSC

Joliet (three units)

1360

2620

1950

6417

9.4

6.7 (2850**)

Dresden Pool

8.93 (1950)

* The

LlT values are taken from the modeling study by Holly and Bradley and do not represent actual

measured values and do not incorporate the effects

ofcooling towers. Twenty-four cooling towers were installed

at the Joliet Station 29 that are used, as needed,

to cool approximately 1/3 of the condenser cooling water flow from the

Station.

**

Low summ er average daily discharge that is exceeded 90 percent of time based on 46 year simulation by Holly and

Bradley.

i-I I

---

Historic Development of the River

The Des Plaines River watershed and the investigated segment of the Lower Des Plaines River are

located in the Central Combelt Plains ecoregion (Omemik, 1987). Historic annals from more than

one hundred years ago described the Lower Des Plaines River at Lockport as a small stream.

''Its

Figure 1.4

BEFORE CANAL SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION

o lOCK

~

OA,.

CANAL SYSTEM COMPLETED

Upper Illinois WatelWays before and after the

construction of the

essc (Source US Army

Corps

of Engineers; Macaitis et aI., 1972)

L(}\\'er Des Plaine:; Ri\',;r

lYe

Attainability i\iwlysis

1-12

---

normal water supply comes largelyfrom marshy districts, but itsflow is extremely variable, because

ofvery rapid run-offin times ofheavy rain or sudden thaws. Its waters are charged with organic

matterfrom marshes

and in later years its upper section receives considerable local sewage from

suburbs

ofChicago"

(Palmer, 1903).

In

the pre-development times at the beginning ofthe nineteenth century, Mud Lake, a part ofthe Des

Plaines River and Chicago portage route paralleling today's I-55 upstream from Lockport, was

a

large, leech-infestedpuddlefilled with dense grasses

(Hill, 2000). The lake was essentially a marsh,

one

of many lining the Des Plaines River in these times. Mud in the lake was waste deep, thus, one

could describe the lake in today's terms as having characteristics

of an eutrophic to hypereutrophic

water body, nearing the end

of the geological eutrophication process that started during the ice age

as a part

of the prehistoric Lake Michigan outlet. At times of high flow, the Des Plaines River

overflowed through

Mud Lake easterly into the Chicago River. The river was described in 1821 as

"..

present to the eye a smooth and sluggish current, bordered on each side by an exuberant growth

ofaquatic plants, in someplaces, reach nearly across the channel ... the water oftentimes filled with

decomposed vegetation

there is perhaps no stream in America whose current offers so little

resistance

in the ascent

" (Elliott, 1998). In many places there were floodplain forests along the

banks, some preserved even today.

The above discussion indicates that the water quality

ofthe predevelopment Des Plaines River might

have resembled the quality

of wetland streams with occasional low dissolved oxygen (especially

during night and early morning hours), and elevated levels

of organics. Typically, wetland streams

are dystrophic, meaning, that the nutrient levels and dissolved oxygen are.low.

Conveyance

of Chicago sewage into the Des Plaines River began

in

1860 through the Illinois and

Michigan canal. A pumping station with a capacity

of330 cfs was built at the junction of the canal

with the South Chicago River. Apparently none or very little Lake Michigan waterwas pumped into

this canal at that time. Between 1865 and 1871, the canal at the summit (subcontinental divide) was

deepened to provide another 300 to 400 cfs

offlow by gravityfrom the lake (Palmer, 1903). However,

in a few years, sliding

ofbanks and washing of silt into the canal diminished the gravity lake flow to

less than 160 cfs.

At the beginning ofthe twentieth century, Palmer (1903) noted that

"the city was

growing rapidly in the last quarter

ofthe nineteenth century and the slaughtering and manufacturing

industries were enormously increasing, so that notwithstanding the diversion

ofpart ofthe sewage

into the canal, the river became even more

and more offensive, and the people ofthe city suffered not

onlyfrom the disagreeable and offensive character

ofthe putrefying contents ofimmense stagnant

cesspools or septic tanks situated in their midst..."

The flow

of polluted Chicago and Calumet Rivers into Lake Michigan had severe public health

consequences. In the 1870s and l880s, Chicago had the highest municipal typhoid rate in the United

States (Macaitis

et aI, 1977). In 1889, the Illinois State Legislature created the Chicago Sanitary

District to solve this acute health problem. The District is the predecessor

ofthe Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago (MWROOC). As a solution to Chicago's problems with

epidemics and unhealthy water quality

of the Chicago River, in the second half of the nineteenth

century, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) was built (Figure 1.4)

by the District

I-I 3

---

(MWRDGC). The operati on ofthe canal reversed the flow dire ction ofthe Chicago River. The canal

parallels the Des Plaines River and the old Illinois

- Michigan Canal.

It

diverts Lake Michigan water

into the Chicago River and further into the CSSC that connects the South Branch

of the Chicago

River with the Des Plaines River. To build the canal,

13 miles ofthe Des Plaines River were rerouted

into a diversion channel in the late 1800s. The CSSC was finished at the beginning

ofthe 20

th

century

and navigation on the older Illinois - Michigan canal ceased in 1933.

Between 1907 and 1910, the District (MWRDGC) constructed a second sanitary canal called the

North Shore Canal. This canal extends from Lake Michiganat Wilmette south 6.14miles to the North

Branch

ofthe Chicago River and the flow continues to the CSSC. The Wilmette Controlling Works

regulate the amount

ofLake Michigan flow allowed into the canal and, ultimately, to the Des Plaines

River.

The third canal, the Calumet Sag Canal, was completed in 1922. The canal connects Lake Michigan,

through the Grand Calumet River, to the Sanitary and Ship Canal. This canal carries sewage from

South Chicago (IL) and East Chicago (IN) to the CSSC and then to the Des Plaines River. The

O'BrienLock and Dam located

on the Calumet River, regulates the flow of Lake Michigan waters

into the canal. The Calumet-Sag Canal is 76 miles long and joins the

main CSSC drainage canal at

Sag, about

15 miles upstream from Joliet,

n.

Originally, the development of the Lake Michigan diversion project by CSSC, North Shore and

Calumet - Sag canals were undertaken and justified by the state ofIllinois that the state would make

a profit

by providing water energy. No diversion was'needed to provide a connecting navigable

waterway, as distinguished from the requirement for providing conveyance

of sewage from the

Chicago metropolitan area to the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, instead

of into Lake Michigan.

However, the large diversion

of water from Lake Michigan at the early time ofthe CSSD was made

by the state

ofIllinois without the consent ofany ofthe states bordering the Great Lakes. Temporary

permits were from time to time granted by the Secretary

ofWar solely on the request ofthe Chicago

Sanitary District and the state

of Illinois on the grounds that a termination or reduction of the

diversion would impair the health

of the people in Chicago (Naujoks, 1946). Originally, Secretary

of War issued a permit authorizing a diversion of 4,167 cfs. However, it took more than 25 years

until (in 1925) the Supreme Court entered a decree allowing the Secretary

of War to issue the

diversion permits. In March, 1925, the permit issued limited the diversion to 8,500 cfs.

In

1922, 1925, and 1926, several Great Lakes states filed court actions in the US Supreme Court

seeking to restrict the diversion into the CSSC and Des Plaines River from Lake Michigan in

Chicago. A Special Master, appointed

by the US Supreme Court to combine the three suits and hear

the case, found in 1925 that the permit was valid and recommended dismissal

ofthe action. However,

the

U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Special Master'sfindings and the Court instructed the Special

Master to determine steps necessary for Illinois and MWRDGC to reduce the allowable diversions.

Consequently, a 1930 decree reduced the allowable diversion

in

three steps: to 6,500 after July 1,

1930; to 5,000 cfs after December 1935; and to 1,500 after December 1938 (Naujoks, 1946). The

diversion is water from Lake Michigan and does not include domestic pumpage.

Lower Des Plaines Rivel' Use Att,linability .\ldysis

l-14

---

In 1975, the discretionary diversion of flows into the Lower Des Plaines River was as follows

(Macaitis et aI., 1977):

Domestic pumpage

Stormwater runoff

Lockages and leakages

Water required for maintenance

of navigation

Total

1,658 cfs

977 cfs

226 cfs

58 cfs

2,919 cfs

The CSSC fully reversed the flow

of the Chicago River and is currently bringing a total of3,200 cfs

of lake water into the Des Plaines River. Actual diversions may be less. The 3,200 diversion is

divided between the flow augmentation and sewage resulting from the use

ofthe allotted lake water

diversion for domestic and other water supplies.

Of the 3,200 cfs, approximately 2,400 to 2,600 cfs

is the actual lake diversion that enters the CSSC as (a) wastewater, (b) lake flow for water quality

purposes (dilution) and navigation, and c) 600 to 800 cfs is runoff water diverted from the lake

Michigan watershed into the Chicago River and the

esSC.

The annual average "clean"lake flow water allowed for diversion into the waterway is onlyabout 320

cfs; however, apparently this flow can be released primarily during the summer low flow periods at

a higher prorated rate.

The flow reversal has

resolvedthe public health problem and the pollution ofLake Michigan, the

main source

ofpotable water for the city and its suburbs, but also diverted the pollution into the Des

Plaines River.

In

1911, observations by two biologists noted and reported septic conditions for

twenty-six miles

of the Illinois River from its origin (confluence ofthe Des Plaines and Kankakee

rivers) and the Des Plaines River downstream from Joliet (Mills et aI., 1966).

Significant improvements

of water quality were achieved in the last century by building and

implementing secondary treatment at the large treatment plants operated by the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District

of Greater Chicago in the North Shore, Calumet and Stickney, by smaller

MWRDCG and suburban community secondary treatment plants, and by implementing industrial

treatment

ofwastewater required by Sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) and 306 of the Clean Water Act.

The Stickney plant is the largest in the world.

The tunnel and reselVoir project (TARP) is designed to eliminate overflows from the combined

sewers into the Chicago River and further from the CSSC waterway. The tunnel was put, leg by leg,

into operation since

1985 (the main leg ofthe mainstream tunnel was partially in place in May 1985

and fully operational

in October 1985). Today, the tunnel part has been mostly implemented. The

overflow water (mixed with some groundwater inflow into the tunnel) is stored in the tunnel and

pumped to the Stickney and Calumet plants for treatment. A

10.5 billion gallon reservoir is being

builtnear the pumping station near McCook and anotherreservoir will be built in the northern section

of Thomton Quarry. When the reservoirs are on line (approximately in 2010), the combined sewer

1-15

---

overflows and back flow ofthe Chicago Riverinto Lake Michigan during wet weather will be greatly

reduced and all

dry weather and wet weather waste flows will betreated prior to discharging into the

CSSC and, subsequently into the Lower Des Plaines River.

Another step that changed water quality in the CSSC and Des Plaines River was the elimination

of

chlorination of the treatment plant effluents in 1983 and 1984. Although the effluent chlorination

reduced bacteria

in the effluent, the residual chlorine was toxic to the aquatic life. The effect of

chlorination on bacteriadensities in the Des Plaines River will

be

discussed in moredetail in Chapter

7

of this UAA.

Lastly, it appears that several years ago, a change in plant aeration and operation has resulted in

dramatic decrease

ofammonia levels in the effluent and the entire system ofthe CSSC and LowerDes

Plaines River.

Today, at least 25 fish species, including white crappie, large and small mouth bass, green sunfish,

bullheads, and many minnows, are

now found regularly in the CSSC and Des Plaines River system

(Hill, 2000).

The Lower Des Plaines

River today is a'highlymodified and managed riverine system. The changes

are irreversible

in the long run and the system cannot be returned to the predevelopment conditions

nor to some kind

ofnatural stream. The Use Attainability Analysis must consider this status and find

the best ecological

use ofthe water body also considering its other uses for navigation, waste disposal

and cooling. In order to

meet its ecological goals, the system will require extensive management and

the users must also

be aware oflimitations imposed on their use by other demands on the river.

History

of Use

Designation and Water Quality Standards in Illinois!

The state oflllinois currentlyrecognizes two designated uses of the state'snavigable water bodies:

I

The General Water Use,

and

II

Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use Designation

The General Use conforms with the Clean Water Act Section 101(a) goals, and the corresponding

standards are

in accordance with or even more stringent than the federal criteria (USEPA, 1986 and

subsequent documents).

The Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life is contained

in Sections 303.204 of the Illinois

Pollution Control Regulations

(IlL

Adm. Code Title 35).

It

is described as

"...

those waters not suitedfor general use activities (fishing, swimming, aquatic life protection,

agricultural and industrial uses, etc.) but which

will be appropriatefor a secondary contact use

lPortions of this section are taken from an IEPA docmnent describing the use

designations.

L0\V,~r

Des Plaines River Usc Attaiiwbiliry ,\.n8Iysis

i-16

---

and which will be capable ofsupporting an indigenous aquatic life limited only by the physical

configuration

ofthe body ofwater, characteristics and origin ofthe water and the presence of

contaminants in amounts that do not exceed the water quality standards... "

(35

Ill. Adm. Code

302.402).

The following water bodies have been approved for the Secondary Contact use designation in

northeastern Illinois (lllinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations-Chapter

3: Water

Pollution):

•

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

•

The Grand Calumet River

•

The Calumet River, except the 6.8 mile segment extending from the O'BrienLock and

dam to lake Michigan

•

The Calumet - Sag Channel

•

Lake Calumet

•

The Little Calumet River from its junction with the Grand Calumet River to the

Calumet - Sag channel

•

The Calumet River

•

The South Branch

of the Chicago River

•

The North Branch

of Chicago River

•

The Des Plaines Riverfrom its Confluence with the CSSC to the Interstate

55

bridge

•

The North Shore Channel

Development and Adoption

of the

Secondary

Use

and Indigenous Aquatic Life

Use

Prior to adoption

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act in 1970, water quality management

activities, including establishment

of water quality standards, were under the jurisdiction of the

Illinois Sanitary Water Board. Pursuant to the federal Water Quality Act

of 1965 (PL89-235), the

SanitaryWaterBoard initially designated the Lower Des Plaines River as an "Industrial Water Supply

Sector" with numeric and narrative criteria appropriate to such use

category. Stream uses specified

withinthis classification included "commercialvessel and

bargeshipp'ing,recreational boatingtransit,

withdrawal and return

ofindustrial cooling and process water, and to receive effluents from industrial

and domestic waste treatment facilities." Narrative standards established minimum conditions such

as freedom from bottom deposits, floating debris, nuisance, and toxic conditions. Water quality

standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, dissolved solids, and bacteria were also included

in Rule 1.07 of SWB-8 which was adopted by the Sanitary Water Board on December 1, 1966.

Following adoption

ofthe initial water quality criteria, the SanitaryWater Board submitted a plan for

implementation

ofthe standards applicable to the lower Des Plaines River to the federal government

on August 10, 1967.

Upon enactment ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act in 1970, the Sanitary Water Board was

superseded with creation

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) and the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). While Sanitary Water Board regulations remained in

place

on an interim basis under the new state statute; the Board and Agency focused attention almost

[-17

---

immediatelyon development ofnew water quality standards. Draft proposed rules were published for

public comment on May 12, 1971 (docketed

as R71-14) and public hearings were conducted shortly

thereafter.

/

At the September 14, 1971 public hearing in Joliet, the previous standards were discussed along with

the proposed revisions. A t the time

of the hearings, the Board was proposing that th e Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal be classified

as restricted upstream of its point of contact with the Des

Plaines River, generally recognized as located at

Lockport; Downstream from Lockport, the Board

proposed to change the river'sdesignation to the more stringent generaluse. Restricted use standards

were provided for waters that were not protected for aquatic life and in which aquatic life standards

for various toxic materials need not be met (similar to the industrial water supply use designation

under the SWB regulations). Restricted use later became known as the "secondary contact and

indigenous aquatic life" use. The significant changes in the proposal involved the waters that were

previously designated as industrial water supply use and had to meet the primary contact, general use

standard (this includes the

Des Plaines River).

The CommonwealthEdison powercompanyimmediatelysuggested that the restricted use designation

be extended to include the Des Plaines River down to the point

of the Interstate 55 bridge. Others

giving an opinion

on this issue included Richard Ciesla, Director of Utilities for the City of Joliet.

Mr. Ciesla's concern was that the City

of Joliet, being downstream of the proposed use change at

Lockport, would be forced to comply with the more stringent general use standard even though the

waters had not

corp.e to a point of dilution. He suggested the point of changeover be made at the

confluence

ofthe Des Plaines and the Kankakee Rivers (IPCB Hearing, Sept. 14, 1971). The United

States Steel Corporation

ofJoliet was also concerned that the Board had overlooked the fact that the

area south

ofthe proposed change was industrial and suggested that the restricted use be extended a

short distance to the area near Brandon Locks (letter, November 9, 1971). Another concerned

organization from Joliet was the Will-Grundy Manufacturers' Association, who suggested that the

restricted use designation

be "extended south at least to a point where industrial land is not a

consideration" (letter, November 9, 1971).

Another Board hearing was held

on February 10, 1972, at which Commonwealth Edison provided

a panel

ofwitnesses to support their opinions ofthe water quality standard. The witnesses concluded

that the costs

ofimposing a general use water quality standard on the Des Plaines would far outweigh

anybenefits. Also, according to the witnesses, even

ifwater quality standards could be met, the river

upstream

ofthe I-55 bridge would not be suitable for aquatic life due to heavy industrialization, barge

traffic, diking

of the shoreline and dredging.

Meeting the general use standard for temperature was the greatest concern for Edison. Witnesses were

doubtful

ofthe possibility that general use temperature standards could be met until the Des Plaines'

confluence with the Kankakee (five miles from the I-55 bridge). Arguments were also made

suggesting that meeting the temperature standard was not important due

to the small possibility that

the general use water quality standards would be met in other aspects. Therefore, while an increased

temperature standard had perceived benefits such as maintaining the river for year-round navigation

and speeding up the degradation

of ammonia, there would be no advantage in adopting a general use

Lower Des Plnine, Ri\er Us", PJ:tninabiiit); Analysis

1-18

---

designation because the waterway would be incapable of supporting aquatic life anyway and use of

the river for recreation up to the I-55 bridge was nonexistent due to industrialization. In the non-

industrialized five-mile stretch; however, support for aquatic life needed to be addressed.

The fish

biologist, called

as a witness for Commonwealth Edison, testified that fish would rarely be disturbed

by an increased temperature standard, and on the occasions when the temperature did raise above

tolerance levels, the fish would sense the rise and simply move out to other waterways until the

temperature was once again suitable.

Cost ofCooling Towers was an Overriding Issue

The Opinion of the Board dated March 7, 1972 addressed the issues that were raised by Edison's

witnesses. Page ten, Part II (205) discusses restricted use standards and states "The temperature

standard has been modified in response to a suggestion from Commonwealth Edison Company, in

order to avoid expensive cooling devices that are not necessaryto the avoidance

ofnuisances or safety

hazards."

In

Part III the restricted use designation is discussed and the section of the Des Plaines

adjacent to the Chicago River System is included in the category. Once again, the expense ofcooling

towers was noted and the Board stated that meeting temperature standards for aquatic life would be

futile in an area where standards could not be met for dissolved oxygen (and perhaps ammonia). The

Board'sdecision, therefore, was to classify the Des Plaines River from Lockport to the I-55 bridge

as restricted use waters.

During the hearings, a representative

ofthe USEPA testified in general support of the restricted use

designation and the waters that carried that designation.

The problem identified centered primarily

around semantics and consistency with federal guidelines.

Finally, the November 8, 1973 Board Opinion discusses the I-55 boundary on the Des Plaines at page

five. In the opinion, it is stated that "The basis for the Board'sdecision to use the I-55 bridge as a

boundary for the division

ofthe Des Plaines River into restrictive and general use is that the location

of the bridge corresponds to changes in the physical environment characteristics of the area." The

industrial characteristics described

by Edison'switnesses in reference to the Des Plaines could not

be applied to the area below the bridge. The Board also found the five-mile stretch, downstream

of

the I-55 Bridge, "is capable of providing sources of recreating badly needed in the area (R. 107,

9/14/72), and is supporting a limited desirable aquatic biota." The November

8, 1973, Opinion ofthe

Board can be found in Appendix A.

In

the same opinion, the Board also addressed the dissolved oxygen and thermal standards. The Board

urged the Metropolitan Sanitary District

of Greater Chicago to give serious considerations to such

further measures, including in-stream aeration, that offers promise

of improving the quality of its

restricted use waters.

It

modified its original requirement to reduce the effluent BODs to 4 mg/L and

allowed MWRGC to reduce BODs

in its effluents to 10 mg/L and to prove to the agency (IEPA) by

the end

of 1977 that this effluent BOD concentration would meet the DO standard. Two prominent

experts testified that the standards could be met by both restriction

of BODs and instream aeration.

1-19

---

In its November 8, 1973 Opinion (Appendix A), the Illinois Pollution Control Board proposed to

amend Section 302 Restricted Use Waters by adding a clause requiring the Board to hold hearings

in 1973 and every five years thereafter to determine whether any Restricted Use Water should

be

reclassified as a General Use Water.

This amendment was in response to the Federal Environmental

Protection Agencypolicy not to approve restricted status as a permanent status

for any water.

After holding several hearings in 1973, Board modified the Restricted Use designation so it was

consistent with federal requirements. The change renamed the designation "Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life" and incorporated the concept

ofprotecting attainable uses including aquatic

life that were limited only by thephysic

al constraints ofthe watelWay. Since the adoption ofthe order

(IPCB Docket #73-1), the language

ofthe designation, and most numerical standards have remained

substantiallyunchanged. The magnitude

ofthe Illinois General Use and Secondary Contact Use and

corresponding federal USEPA criteria are presented in Chapter

2.

From the above description ofthehistory, it is clear that the secondary contact/indigenous aquatic life

use had its origin before the enactment

ofthe Clean Water Act.

It

was based primarily on the feeling

of hopelessness for any substantial improvement of the water quality of the river on the part of the

agencies that were prevalent at the beginning

of 1970s and on economic reasons to accommodate

effluent and heated discharges into the river that was deemed incapable to support aquatic

life and

provide for recreation.

Description

of the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Designation

There is one basic underlying common characteristic

ofthe waterbodies that have been included into

the Secondary Use Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life designation in northeastern Illinois: these

water bodies were a part

of a massive engineering effort that reversed the flow ofthe Chicago River

System and the Upper lllinois Waterway to allow the City

of Chicago to divert its wastewater from

Lake Michigan. Although the original officialjustification for creating the Chicago WaterwaySystem

and the flow reversal was presented differently, there is no doubt that the system had a tremendous

beneficial impact on public health. The IEPA document stated that at the time the Secondary Contact

Use (1970s) was formulated, the waters designated

fur this use had the following common

characteristics:

1. Heavily dredged and maintained channel including steep-sided cross-sections designed to

accommodate barge traffic with minimal clearance, and/or optimize flow.

2. Significant sludge deposition which is the result of combined sewer overflows and urban runoff.

Sludge depth in the channel system can reach five feet or more despite dredging.

3. Flow reversal projects, such as this one, place a premium on head differential. The entire system

has minimum slope and, consequently, low velocity, stagnant flow conditions. Because

of the

need to minimize use

of Lake Michigan water, diversion to maintain flow in the system is kept

as low as possible.

4. Urban stress is significant within the entire drainage area. There was essentially no recreation

potential with most adjacent property commercially owned and access limited.

Luwer Des Plaine:; Ri\er U;;e

c\tt~linabi:jty

Analysis

l<:O

---

5. Habitat for aquatic communities in the main channel was nonexistent due to the impact of

commercial and recreational watercraft use ofthe system as well as sludge deposition. Watercraft

lockage through the Chicago River Control Works averages 25,000 vessels annually; most activity

occurs during the summer months.

6.

In

addition to the above man-made and irretrievable modifications to the Chicago River System

that are designated as Secondary Contact use, the system also carries a massive wastewater load.

During winter periods,

dry

weather flow is 100% wastewater. During summer periods, a small

"discretionarydiversion"

ofLake Michigan water is permitted to minimize the combined effects

of waste loads from the municipal and industrial discharges to the system and poor assimilative

capacity. During wet weather periods, flow in the system is made

of wastewater and combined

sewer overflows.

2

In

the period oftwenty years following the use designation in 1972, the agencies struggled to find the

potential ecological use

ofthe Chicago Waterways. Twenty to thirty years ago, water quality was bad

and appeared to be getting worse. Table

1.3 reports the DO concentrations taken from an extensive

study

of the Upper Illinois River Waterway by Butts et al. (1975).

However, the study also documented a beneficial impact

of dams on the DO concentrations and

reported a compliance with the DO standard in the Upper Dresden Island pool below the Brandon

Road Dam. The Lockport Dam and power house operation increased the DO concentrations between

upstream and downstream

ofthe dam by about 1 mg/L while the Brandon Road dam overflow (Figure

1.3)

increase~

the DO content by almost 5 mg/L.

It

should be noted that the aeration efficiency of

dams increas.es withthe oxygen deficit. The re-aeration at Lockport was intermittent because at lower

flows all flows were diverted to the powerhouse. Butts

et al concluded, after an extensive modeling

study, a DO standard greater than 3.0 mg/L was not realistically achievable at the time

ofthe study

(1970s).

Table 1.3 Historic (1970s) Concentrations

of the

Dissolved Oxygen (Butts et aI, 1975)

Location

DO concentration (mg/L)

Max

Average

Minimum

Brandon pool

- upstream

2.7

- downstream (above the dam)

1.5

Dresden Island

- below Brandon Dam

6.6

2.0

1.1

5.9

1.1

0.6

5.4

2

The ab ove six items describe the understanding of the system in th e1970 s. Thirty years late r the situation in

the Lower Des Plaines River has significantly improved. Although the hydrologic conditions

of the flow and

diversions remain about the same,

water and sediment quality has improved. Also, the habitat that was characterized

as nonexistent in the 1970s has improved, especially in the Dresden Island pool. The assessment

of current water

quality and habitat conditions is presented in Chapters 2-6.

1-21

---

In

the 1970s, the macroinvertebrate composition at most stations was limited to sludgeworms and

bloodworms. The number

ofworms in the samples above the mile 281.4 (Dresden Island pool) was

so great that field picking and counting was impossible (they existed

in hundreds of thousands per

square meter). The sediment oxygen demand (SOD) in Brandon pool was measured ranging from 40

to 50 g/m

2

-day, an unusually and unsustainablyhigh rate

3

,

but SOD in Dresden Island pool between

miles 283 and 286 was only

1.1 to 2.7 g/m

2

-day. Fecal coliform densities were very high, exceeding

current levels by two orders

of magnitude.

In

1972 Congress passed the Clean Water Act Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act.

In

the same year, the Illinois Pollution Control Board was formulating the uses of the Illinois water

bodies and the appropriate standards to protect these uses (Illinois Pollution Control Board, March

7, 1972). In this rule, the IPCB redefined the General and Restricted Uses.

It

ruled

"that all waters

should be protected against nuisance and against health hazard

to those near them; that all waters

with exception

ofa

f~w

highly industrialized streams consistingprimarily ofeffluents in the Chicago

area, should be protected

to support such life..... Consequently general standards for water quality

are

set that willprotect most uses exceptpublic water supply;

....

and more lenient standards are set

for those streams classifiedfor restricted use. "

Establishment

ofthe "restricteduse," later renamed "SecondaryContact and Indigenous Aquatic Life"

use, was limited to

"those waters in the Chicago industrial area

for which it was established, that

even with the most advanced treatment

and with stormwater overflow control, aquatic life standards

(for dissolved oxygen

and perhaps for ammonia) cannot be met ... and that meeting the aquatic

temperature standards

in the same areas, as well as in adjacent sections ofthe Des Plaines River,

would require cooling towers costing tens

ofmillions ofdollars and produce doubtful benefits in

terms ofstream improvements".4

In

the 1980s the USEPA re-evaluated the appropriateness of Secondary Contact and Indigenous

Aquatic Life designation for the Chicago

waterways, including the Lower Des Plaines River (an

memorandum

by Jim Park to IEPA and provided to AquaNova/Hey Associates team). The USEPA

concluded in the mid 1980s that the waterways designation for secondary contact use in Illinois was

appropriate, in spite

ofthe fact that no Use Attainability Analysis was submitted. The USEPA agreed

with the IPCB that the primary contact activities were also inappropriate for these waters due to

limited access and danger associated with heavy navigation as well as general aesthetic constraints.

The USEPA apparently, in mid 1980s, approved elimination

ofthe bacterial water quality standards

for secondary contact waters and supported elimination

of this use.

3 Recent research findings identified ebullition ofmethane and ammonia from sediments and their oxidation

in the upper sediment layer as the primary cause

of SOD. The SO D is limited by the rates of methane oxidation and

ammon ia nitrification and its maximum rate is about 6 g

of

Ozlm

2

-day (DiT oro, 2000; DiTo ro et aI., 1990; Novo tny,

2002).

4

In

the early 1970's, cooling towers were not common and were expensive. Today coo ling water technology

using forced and natural draft is commonly used

by and mandatory for many power plants on rivers that have a

similar size as those

located on the Des Plaines River, e.g., plants operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority or by

Wisco nsin Energie s on the Wisconsin Rive

rand Ke nosha, WI.

LO\ver Des Plnincs Ri"/er Us,; .. \trainability A.ndlysis

---

The current situation of water and sediment quality and the status of the attainment of the General

and the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life uses

will be extensively documented and

discussed in the subsequent chapters. More than thirty years after the Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life Use has been instituted

by the IPCB and IEPA, the time has come to re-

evaluate the current situation (existing use) and consider,

ifappropriate, a use that would either meet

or approach the statutory uses required by Section

101 (a) ofthe Clean Water Act.

Organization of this Report

This study begins with the defmition of the general use and follows with the assessment of the

compliance or noncompliance with the general use standards. For those compounds that do not meet

the standards, the study looks for reasons

of noncompliance and attainability. For pathogens, the

study applies the USEPA bacterial criteria thatuse EscherichiaColi as indicator organisms. Ecologic

evaluation and criteria were used to define the ecologic

P9tential of the two investigated segments.

A new site specific use was then defined for the Brandon Road pool.

This Use Attainability Analysis report

is organized into nine chapters:

1.

Introduction

(this chapter)

2.

Water Body Assessment - Chemical Parameters

This chapterdescribes the methodology used for water bodyassessment, current standards and

current water quality as described

by 25 chemical parameters.

It

divides the parameters into

those that are in full compliance with the general use standards and those that are not. A more

detailed analysis

of noncomplying parameters follows.

3.

Water Body Assessment - Sediments

Significant improvements in water qualitywere followed by improvernent

in

sediment qu ality.

The sediment quality was characterizedby the illinois comparative criteria and, in some cases,

by calculating the pore water concentrations.

4.

Water Body Assessment - Physical Assessment

This chapter evaluates the physical attributes ofthe Brandon Road and Dresden Island pools

and their habitats.

5.

Evaluation of Existing and Potential Macroinvertebrate Community

Enumeration and evaluation of indices of biotic integrity is a cornerstone for assessment of

the ecologic potential of the river. Macroinvertabrate communities are used as an indicator

of ecological health.

6.

Evaluation of Existing and Potential Fishery Community

Fish community structure has long been used as an indicator of ecological stress. Numerous

reference water bodies were selected and analyzed for the impact on biotic integrity

of

navigation, impoundment and pollution.

\-23

---

7.

Pathogens and Recreation

This extensive chapter evaluates the current water quality expressed by the fecal coliform

indicator organisms and attainability

of the federal criteria that use Escherichia Coli and

enterococci as indicators. Thefederal criteria add flexibility regarding the selection

ofthe risk

to which the magnitude

ofthe standard could be related. The chapter specifies options for site

specific recreational uses for the Brandon Road and Dresden Island pools.

8.

Modified Water Use Designation for Brandon Road Pool and Use Upgrade

for the Lower Des Plaines River

This chapter defines the general use for the Dresden Island Pool and a site-specific modified

use designations for the Brandon Road Pool with corresponding standards.

9.

Suggested Action Plan

Actions needed to accomplish the goals specified by this UAA are outlined.

References

DiToro, D.M. (2000)

Sediment Flux Modeling.

J. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

DiToro D.M, P.R. Paquin, K. Subburamu and D.A. Gruber (1990) Sediment Oxygen Demand

model: Methane and ammonia oxidation,

Journal Env. Eng.,

ASCE, 116(5):945-986

Elliott, J.M. (1998)

Nature and History

ofthe Des Plaines River Watershed.

Presented at the Des

Plaines River Watershed Conference, Dominican University, River Forest,

lL, June 1998

Hill,

L.

(2000)

The Chicago River

-

A Natural and Unnatural History.

Lake Claremont Press,

Chicago,

IL.

Holly, F.M. and A.A. Bradley (1994)

Summary Report on Thermo-Hydrodynamic Modeling and

Analyses

in the Upper Illinois Waterway.

Limited distribution report prepared for

Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL.

Macaitis, B.,

S. J. Povilaitis, and E. B. Cameron (1977) "Lake Michigan diversion - stream quality

planning,"

Water Resources Bull.

13(4):795-805

Mills, H.B. et al. (1966) "Man's effects on fish and wildlife of the Illinois River,"

Illinois Natural

History Survey Biological Notes,

No. 57, pp. 3, Urbana, IL.

Naujoks, H.H. (1946) The Chicago water diversion controversy,

Marquette

Law Review

30(3): 149-

176

Novotny,

V.

(2002)

WATER QUALITY: Diffitse Pollution and Watershed Management.

John Wiley

and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

1-2.:1

---

Omemik, J.M. (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States,"

Annals ofthe Association of

American Geographers

77:118

Palmer, A.W. (1903)

Chemical Survey ofthe Waters ofIllinois. Reportfor the Years 1897-1902.

Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL

US Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Water Quality Inventory for watershed Des Plaienes

River, http://dahlia.induscorp.comlwaters/tmdl web/w305b report

t

-25

---

CHAPTER 2

WATER BODY

ASSESSMENT:

Introduction

This chapter presents the water body assessment ofthe chemical integrity for the Lower Des Plaines

River from its confluence with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to the I-55 Bridge (Figure 1.1).

This assessment is an integral part and the first step (Figure 2.1)

ofthe Use Attainability Analysis

for the Lower Des Plaines River that screens the available chemical sampling data to determine

which parameters are currently meeting the State

of Illinois General Use Water Quality Standards

and which are not. The parameters that do not meet the standards, or

ifthere is a threat that they may

not meet the standards in the near future (one or two reporting cycles), are then further analyzed.

The attainability

of the designated statutory uses <;>f fish and wild life protection and propagation,

contact recreation and

of the Illinois General Use Water Quality Standards are assessed. Chemical

data analyzed

in the report were provided by the following agencies:

•

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEP

A)

•

U S Geological SUlVey (USGS)

•

Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC)

•

Commonwealth

Edison Company

•

Midwest Generation, EME, LLC

Water Quality Criteria and Standards

The Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) provides a mechanism for change of the use or standards if

a designated higher use (commensurate with Section 101(a) ofthe CWA) is not attainable. Also, if

a lesser use was designated previously, the regulations require a UAA reevaluation and possible

upgrade. The

UAA has three parts (Figure 1.1) (Novotnyet aI., 1997): (1) Water Body Assessment

(WBA), (2) Total Maximum Daily

Load (TMDL) anal)'Sis, and (3) Socio-economic analysis. Most

UAA problems are resolved by the first component, which is also the case ofthis UAA. This report

represents the outcome,of the

WBA for the Lower Des Plaines River.

The use evaluation and analysis are accomplished

by comparing the existing or future water quality

to a set

ofwater quality standards or criteria, followed by scientific assessment to find out whether

the standards are attainable. Although several defmitions

ofthe term "standard" and "criterion" have

been suggested in the literature (see Krenkel and Novotny, 1980), in this document we will use the

term "criteria" for the

USEPA defined limiting values (40 CFR 131) and "standard" for Section 302

binding limiting values established

by the state of Illinois.

~-l

---

The UAA-TMDL Process

Output

Water Body Assessment

r--

1. Define water quality goals and uses

2. Define ecoregional background water

quality

...

3. Assess current water quality and decide

,

whether the use currently is attained

4. Assess

excursionswhether

in ecoregionalthere

are criteria

background

-

/"'""

w~tp.r

,.

,if

Total Maximum Daily Load

2.

1. Estimate

Apply mandatory

point and

removal

nonpoint

of

loadswastes

-

from point sources and feasible best

management practices for nonpoint sources

,

"""

3.

Estimate waste load and loading (waste

I-

assimilative) capacity

4. De:fme

margin of safety

5.

Identify further feasible waste load

and load reductions

6.

Develop integrated pollution abatement plan

-

~

,,,

Socio-Economic Impact

1. Estimate cost functions for abatement

and waste assimilative capacity

-

enhancement

2. Optimize abatement and loading capacity

...

3.

Identifyenhancement

innovative ways to pay for

,

-

additional abatement and restoration

4. Estimate socio-economic impact of

abatement and restoration on public

and private dischargers

I-

Site specific

criteria

Adjustment

of the desig-

nated use

Effluent or

water quality

limited

(threatened)

water bodies

Waste load

allocation

Best

management

practices

Water body

restoration

Possible

adverse socio-

economic

impact on

public and

private

dischargers

Possible use

modification

Point/Point or

Point/Nonpoint

Waste Load

Transfers

Figure 2.1

Components of the Complete UAA Process. Water body assessment is

the first component.

2-2

---

Application of the Standards - Aquatic Life Protection

Generally, a standard (criterion) for a pollutant has three components (USEPA, 1994):

•

Magnitude - How much

of a pollutant (or a pollutant parameter such as toxicity),

expressed as concentration, is allowable.

•

Duration - The period

of time (averaging period) over which the in-stream

concentration is averaged for comparison with standard concentrations. The

specification limits the duration

of concentration above the criteria.

•

Frequency - How often the standards can

be exceeded.

Establishing these three dimensions

of the water quality standards is crucial for a successful UAA

and, by the same reasoning, for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies (Committee to

Assess the Scientific Basis

of the TMDL Approach to Water Pollution Reduction; 2001). A

subsequent modified TMDLwill address the attainability issues for those few parameters that do not

meet the general use (aquatic life protection and propagation and contact recreation) designation. The

modified TMDL will be preceded by assessment

of the impact of other possible causes of

impairment listed as reasons 1 to 5 in Box 1.1.

Many states simplified the frequency/duration component by

~ubstituting

the rule that

a numeric

standard must be maintained

(not to be exceeded)

at all times.

Such limitation is statistical

impossibility because there is always a chance - albeit very remote - that a water parameter may

reach a high, but statistically possible, value exceeding an established

standaro (Committee to Assess

the Scientific Basis

ofthe TMDL Approach to Water Pollution Reduction; 2001). This requirement

also brings ambiguity. For example, Figure 2.2 shows that it

is possible if nine samples are taken

over a period

of three years, none of the samples could, by chance, result in an excursion.

If

a

hundred samples are taken in the same period, one

or a few (e.g., five or less) may exceed the

standard. Statistically, these two situations are identical but the former would not result in violation

while the latter would. Stream concentrations represent a statistical time series for which only

infinitesimally large values

of a standard would have a 100% statistical probability of not being

exceeded

at all times.

The procedure ofprobabilistic fitting/analysis has been used inhydrologyand water qualityanalysis

for many years.

It has been described in almost every textbook on hydrology.

It

has been used during

the USEPA evaluation

of stormwater runoff during the National Urban Runoff Project (USEPA,

1983), by USGS in evaluation

ofthe Upper Illinois Waterway (Terrio, 1990;1994), and long earlier

works by the lllinois Water Survey (Butts et aI., 1974). Use

of statistics is indispensable in water

quality reports and evaluations and should not be challenged. The log-normal statistical analysis

methodolo gy requires arranging measured values, transformed to their logarithms or plotted

on a

.logarithmic scale, according to their order ofmagnitude (ascending for

being::;; [less or equal] used

for most parameters and descending for

~

used for dissolved oxygen) and assigning a probability

2-3

---

1000 -y-----------,.----------..,....-----,.-,...-.

Q

=..

100

EARS

;z

..

-

-

--

NONCOMPLIANC

WATERQ

b. .. '

..'

~

.....

:::l:::

10

!-

-

,..,

....

.L.

"-

"

• 1

'.

COMPLIANCE

--

"

'.

I

5

10

20

30.:W 50 60 '10

80

D.I-I--'""T"'-.,.....-...,.........,r--.,.....-l-......,.-,..-...,..--+-...,....-o+-----!-+-!

2

CUMULATIVE PROBABIL ITY (

%

~

)

Figure 2.2

Statistical Plotting of Data and Decision on Compliance with

Standards (Designated Use). Compliance or noncompliance is

revealed from the interceptor of the line of the best fit with the

99.8 percentile line (for 1 B 3 - once in 3 years allowable

excursions) or 90% for 10% allowable excursions.

plotting position as p(%)= 100 M ,where M is the order of magnitude and N is the total number

N +1

ofsamples. Severalcommercial software packages are available for this type ofanalysis. Log-normal

probabilisticplotting (Figure 2.2) is also used for convenience and presentations. Ifthe data followed

the log-normal probability distribution, the plot would result in a straight line; however, other

probability distributions may also be used.

The plot and statistics behind it also prove that there is no such thing as

"compliance at all times"

because a value that would never be exceeded is in infmity (i.e., there is no 100 % ordinate on the

plot). Plotting and analyzing the data

on the probability plot provides a powerful visual tool for

understanding the variability

of the data and puts the smaller monitoring sample data onpar with a

sample with more measurement. Other aspects

of this technique will be discussed in a subsequent

section.

Lower Des PL1ilii.:;

Ri\,~r

Use

/\tbin~1bility

r\I1:.1lysis '

2-4

---

The federal criteria defined the pennissible frequency of excursions for federal toxicity (priority

pollutants) criteria. The Water Quality Standard Regulation (USEPA, 1992; 1994) specifies:

•

•

acute toxicity criteria

- 1 hr average concentration (essentially a grab sample) not to be

exceeded more than once in 3 years on an average

(lB3 allowable excursion)

chronic toxicity criteria

- 4 day average concentration not to be exceeded more than once in

3 years

on an average (4B3) used for most toxic pollutants, or 30 day average concentration

(30B3) that is used for ammonium toxicity

The USEPA selected the 3-year average frequency for criteria's excursions for priority pollutants

with the intent

of providing for ecological recovery from a variety of severe stresses. The 3-year

recurrence was derived from observations on the length

ofrecovery ofecosystems after a toxic spill.

This return interval.is roughly equivalent to the recurrence

of 7Q10 design low flow conditions used

for point sources.

It

should also be pointed out that even when the concentration ofthe constituent

reaches the magnitude

of the standard, the damage to the ecosystem may not occur because of the

safetyrisk factors (margin

ofsafety) incorporated into the magnitude value ofthe standard (USEPA,

1991a).

A frequency

of once in 3 years of allowable excursions corresponds to a probability of 1/(365x3)

=

0.001 or 0.1

%

of being exceeded or 0.2

%

of being equaled or exceeded. Then 100 - 0.2

=

99.8

%

should be the probability ofcompliance. Therefore, the critical decision point should be placed at

the 99.8

%

probabi~ity

ofbeing less for the acute (CMC) standard. Since most of the water quality

constituent concentrations from a sufficiently long record follow log-nonnal distribution, the acute

toxicity criterion. (standard) would be violated

if the 99.8 percentile of

maximum daily

concentrations

arranged in the ascending order ofmagnitude on the log-cumulative probability plot

would exceed the standard. One hour average values for acute toxicity would imply grab samples

taken on randomly selected days or daily. For dissolved oxygen concentrations, the data could be

arranged and plotted in a descending order

of magnitude.

For chronic toxicity, the USEPA water quality guidelines (USEPA, 1992, 1994) require 4 days

averaging (30 days

for ammonium) periods. This would imply that samples must be taken daily or

composited over a 4 dayperiod. Such sampling programs

are not availablefor the studyarea. Illinois

interpretation and water quality standards allow averaging four consecutive samples that may not be

one day apart. Some parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen and temperature) have been continuously

monitored; however, most stream water quality monitoring parameters are available only on a

monthly or longer basis. For such an "incomplete" monitoring series that does not allow 4 day (30

day) averaging the USEPA, in one

of their interim documents (Delos, 1990) after a rigorous

mathematical analysis supported by analysis

ofcontinuous data, suggested that the chronic criterion

(standard) should be applied to a 98.8 - 99.9 percentiles

ofdata but this suggestion was not included

in the criteria regulation. For a first cut assessment, the most realistic 99.4 percentile from the

Delos' analysis, supported by monitored data on the Ohio River, is used to define the chronic

standard in this report. Theoretically, this statistical value should be very close to that obtained by

the Illinois interpretation

of four days averaging. The water quality regulations do not allow

excluding the chronic criteria (standards) because

ofunavailability ofa "complete" daily time series

2-5

---

of data. The 99.4 percentile value will be accepted with caution. For some pollutants that will

require a more detailed analysis, specifically ammonium, a Monte Carlo Modeling is used

to find

four and 30 day moving averages

of the data represented by incomplete series of observations.

For nonpriority pollutants, scientific judgement will be used for determining the frequency and

duration components

if not specified in the standard or criteria documents. In most cases, the

duration component is specified (e.g., the magnitude

of a DO standard or temperature can be

exceeded for a specified number

of hours) but the frequency component may be missing. In such

cases, compliance with a standard will occur

if:

•

all measured data are below the standard, and/or

•

95 to 99 percentile of the data is below the standard

Table

2.1 contains the numeric Illinois General Use and Secondary Recreation and Indigenous

Aquatic Life Standards and corresponding federal criteria. Table 2.2 presents a comparison

of the

narrative Illinois standards and federal criteria. Many

ofthe standards and criteria are site specific

such as metals and ammonium.

Water Effect Ratio (WER)

To overcome the problem

ofthe toxicity difference between the total concentrations ofpotentially

toxic compounds and their toxic fraction and toxicity, a parameter called the Water Effect Ratio

(WER) was introduced(USEPA, 1994). Using WER leads to the definition

of

site specific standards.

The WER has now become the recommended method for defining standards for metals. The

USEPA recommends, in 40 CFR 131, that states use

dissolved metals

for the site specific standards.

The term

site

is synonymous with a

state'ssegment,

i.e., the segments ofthe Des Plaines River from

the confluence

ofthe river with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to the Brandon Road Lock and

Darn and from the Brandon Darn to the I-55 bridge are perfectly suitable and eligible for the site

specific standard definition (USEPA, 1994). For metals and ammonium, the site specificity is

inherent because the standards are related to other site specific water quality parameters

ofthe water

body (hardness for toxic metals and

pH and temperature for ammonium).

Although the

WER concept has been recommended by the USEPA for metals (includingmetalloids

such

as arsenic),

"this guidance is applicable to pollutants other than metals with appropriate

modifications

,,3. The magnitude ofthe WER can be as low as WER

=

0.09 (for lead) to WER

=

1.0.

WER

of 1.0 implies that the toxic fraction, to which the standard is to be applied, is the total metal

concentration. The USEPA (1994)

Water Quality Standards Handbook

presented the magnitudes

ofWER as compiled by the USEPA; however, these values may not be applicable to the Des Plaines

River segments being investigated.

The most preferable method is to use dissolved metal concentrations and compare them with the

standard.

If dissolved concentrations are not routinely measured, the site specific (statistical) WER

can be calculated by the well known partitioning equation (Thomann and Mueller, 1997; and

Novotny and Witte, 1997) or its simplified linear fonn

Lo\\::r

D(;~

Plaines Ri'",":r

L:se

Attainability

Anaiysi~

2-6

---

Table 2.1

Compilation ofNumeric Illinois State Standards (Draft) and h Federal Aquatic

Life Protection and Water Contact Criteria

Parameter

Illinois General Use Standards

Federal A quatic Life

Illinois Secondary

Protection Criteria

Contact and

Indigeno us Aquatic

Use Standards

.

Title 35:Env. Protection,

40 CFR 131

Title 35:Env.

C:Wat.Pollution,

CH. 1

Protection,

C: Wat.Pollution,

rUl

pH (units =-

6.5 - 9

6.5 - 9

6-9

log [H+])

Phosphorus

0.05 (streams and shallow pools

Draft criteria are site specific

NA

(mg/L)

excluded)

Dissolved

5.0 (minimum), 6.0 (for 16 hours on

Early life stages:

4.0

Oxygen

any day)

7 day mean

-

6.0

3.0 (Calumet

(mg/L)

(Permissible

excur~ion

at flows less

I day minimum - 5.0

Canal)

than

Q7-1O)

Other life

(Permissib

Ie

7 day minimum - 4.0

excursion at flows

1 day minimurn -

3.0

less than

Q7-IO)

Toxic

Acute (dra

ft)

Chronic (draft)

Acute

Chronic

compounds

Arsenic

360*1.0

190*.LQ.

360

190

1000

(jJ.g/L)

(total)

trivalent-

dissolved

Cadmium

exp[A-+Bln(H)]x

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

A= -3.828

A=-3.490

150

(dissolved)!)

{1.I38672-

{I.I 01672-

B= 1.128

B=0.7852

(total)

(jJ.g/L)

[(InH)(0.041838]) *

[(InH)(0.041838]) *

A=--2.918

A= -3.490

B= 1.128

B= 0.7852

Chromium

16

11

16

II

300

(total

hexavalent)

(~g/L)

Chromium

exp[A-+Bln(H)]x

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

A=3.688

A=1.561

1000

(trivalent-

0.316*

0.860*

B=0.819

B=0.819

(total)

dissolved)')

A= 3.688

A=1.561

(~g/L)

B= 0.819

B=O.819

Copper

exp[A-+Bln(H)]x

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

A= -1.464

A=-1.465

1000

(dissolved)')

0.96*

0.96*

B=0.9422

B=0.8545

(total)

(~g/L)

A= -1.464

A= -1.465

B= 0.9422

B=

0.8545

---

Parameter

Illinois General Use

Illinois General Use

Federal

Federal

Illinois Secondary

Standards

Standards

Acute

Chronic

Contact and

Acute

Chronic

Indigeno us Aquatic

Tf,

Cyanide

(f.lgIL)

22

5.2

22(Total)

5.2(Total)

100

(total)

Lead

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

A=-1.46

A=-4.705

100

(dissolvedlyl

{1.46203-

{1.46203-

B=1.273

B=1.273

(total)

(f.lgIL)

In(H)(0.1457120]} *

[(1nH)(0.145712)]}

A=B=1.273-1.301

-

A=-2.863*

B=1.273

Mercury

2.6xO.85*=2.2

1.3xO.85=1.l *

2.4

0.12

0.5

(dissolved)

(Total)

(f.lgIL)

Nickel

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

A=3.3612

A=1.1645

1000

(dissolved)ll

0.998*

0.997*

B=0.846.

B=0.846

(total)

(f.lgIL)

A=0.5173

A=-2.286

B=0.8460

B=0.8460

TRC

(f.lgIL)

19

II

Zinc (dissolved)

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

exp[A+Bln(H)]x

A=0.8604

A=0.7614

1000(total)

(f.lgIL)

0.978*

0.986*

B=0.8473

B=0.8473

A=0.9035

A=-0.8165

B=0.8473

B=0.8473

Benzene

(f.lgIL)

4200

860

Ethylbenzene

150

14

(f.lgIL)

Toluene

(f.lgIL)

2000

600

Xylene

(f.lgIL)

920

360

Footnotes

In[H] is a natural logarithm of hardness

*Convers ion factor (tran slator) for disso Ived metals

Conversion factor means the percent of the total recoverable metal found as dissolved metal in the toxicity tests to

derive water quality standards. These values are listed as comp onents of the dissolved metals water quality standa rds to

convert the total metals water quality to dissolved standards and were obtained from the USEPA water quality criteria.

In the

federal criteria this parameter is represented by the Water Effect Ratio.

Met als translator means the fraction of total metal in the effluent or downstream water that is dissolved. The reasons

for using a metals translator is to allow the calculation

of total metal permit limits from a dissolved metal water quality

standard. In the absence

of site specific data for the effluent or receiving water body, the metals translator is the

reciprocal of the conversion factor.

If

dissolved metal concentrations are used, the underlined conversion factor

(translator) needs to be used when dissolved concentrations are compared to the standard. The translator needs

not to be used when total concentrations are compared to a standard.

low.::r Dc'; P\[1inc; River Use Attainability

An~ll::sis

2-8

---

Table 2.1 - Continued

Parameter

Illinois General Use

Federal Aquatic life and

Illinois Secondary

Standards

Human

Health Protection

Contact and Indigenous

r'r;tpr;.,

A

. TTop ".

Barium (total) (mgIL)

5.0

5.0

Boron

(totaD (mg/L)

1.0

Chloride (mg/L)

500

Fluoride (mg/L)

1.4

15

Iron (dissolved) (mg/L)

1.0

1.0

2.0 (total)

,0.5 (dissolv.)

Manganese (total)(mg/L)

1.0

1.0

Oil, fats and grease (mgIL)

15.0

Phenols (mg/L)

0.1

0.3

Selenium

(totaD (mg/L)

1.0

1.0

Silver (total)

I)

(Ilg/L)

5.0

A=-6.52 B=I.72

1100

Sulfate (mg/L)

500

Total Dissolved Solids

1000

1500

(mg/L)

Coliform

2

)

(Noll 0 Oml)

200 (May - October) .

126 (ge ometric me an of 5

Repealed

(geometric mean)

samples over a

30 day

400 (max 10 %

of

period) E. coli -

samples in any 30 day

Risk based geometric mean

period)

and maximum single value

Fecal coliforms

(see Chapter 6)

Temperature

32°C (Apr.-N ov.)

Local and site specific

>

34°C

:<;;5% of time

16°C (Dec. -

March/)

:<;; 37.8 at all times

Total

ammonium as N

calculated4)

5)

calculated

5

)

calculated4)

(mg/L)

Nitrate (drinking water)

10

10

mg/L as N

Un-ionized amm onia as N

Superceded by the

Superceded by the 1999

(mg/Li)

adoption of the federal

federal criteria

5) for total

0.1

criteria4) 5) for total

ammonium

ammonium

Radioa ctivity

Gross beta (pCi/l)

100

Radium 226 (pCi/l)

I

Strontium 90 (pCi/l)

2

---

Reference Water Bodies

Reference water bodies are selected water bodies within the ecoregion that

are (1) of the same

morphological and ecological character as the investigated water body, and (2) are the least impacted

or unirnpacted by human polluting activities and discharges. The water body assessment and

monitoring activities

of the UAA processes also extend to the reference water bodies.

The reference water bodies and conditions in a UAA are needed:

•

To ascertain the ecologic potential

ofthe studied impaired water body (i.e., the Des

Plaines River); and/or

, •

To invoke Reason 1

ofthe UAA in a situation where natural water quality and/or its

water quality parnmeters do not meet the nationwide or statewide chemical standards.

The water quality and biological characteristics derived from monitoring reference water bodies -

reference conditions - are used for (1) estimating background and natural water conditions; (2)

as

a reference for bioassessment using biotic indices; and (3) as a measure ofthe potentially attainable

water quality that the investigating stream should be approaching but not necessarilyreaching. The

goal

of the UAA is

not

to return a waterbody heavily impacted by urbanization or other large scale

watershed changes to natural pristine conditions. This goal would be unrealistic and unattainable.

Rather the UAA should find what is the best water use, considering the irreversible changes in the

watershed and physical irreversible modifications

of the receiving water body.

Natural water quality and water body conditions are expressed as the physical, chemical, and

biological characteristics that result from interactions within a natural ecosystem. Factors, such as

land surface form, mineral availability, vegetative cover, animal and aquatic biota communities, and

climate affects the natural water quality. Karr and Chu (1999) state that in multimetric biological

assessment, the reference condition equates with biological integrity - defmed

as the condition at the

site able to support and sustain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive biological system having the

full

range of elements and processes expected for the region. Biological integrity is the product of the

ecological and evolutionary process at a site in the relative absence

of human influence.

Estimating background/natural water quality is keyto a UAA since, legally, use-based waterquality

standards may not be enforceable

if the violation is due to natural causes (Reason # 1 of the UAA

regulations for change

of the use and/or the standards). A distinction should be made between

"natural" and ''hackgro und" water qu ali

ty.

Natural water quality and constituent loads (note that the "pollution" and "pollutant" definitions in

the Clean Water Act do not apply to natural water quality even in cases where apparent impairment

is evident) vary from region to region and can be related

to morphological, geographical, and

ecological characteristics. Ecoregions represent relatively homogeneous geographical areas with

similar structure and function between environmental characteristics (Omernik, 1987; Gallant et aI.,

1989). Within an ecoregion it is reasonable to expect similar natural water quality in bodies that have

similar morphological characteristics and stream order.

Lower ])",; Pbin':?" Ri--_-"r U-,c: Attainability Analy,;:;

2-12

---

Natural loads of constituents are topically related to the unimpacted four native land categories

(Novotny, 2003): (1) Woodland, (2) Prairie, (3) Arid land (including deserts), and (4) Wetlands. The

natural activities that affect the concentrations

ofchemical constituents in water include weathering,

erosion, volcanic activity, and biological activity. Chemicals with sources

in natural pathways

include suspended solids and turbidity, heavy metals, dissolved oxygen, organics and nutrients.

Complex organic chemicals such as PCBs, pesticides, fertilizers, may enter receiving waters through

natural processes (e.g., erosion) but are initially introduced into the environment only through

anthropogenic processes. Any apparent background concentrations

of these chemicals.cannot be

considered natural and the question remains whether these sources can be controlled

or not.

Natural metal concentrations or dissolved oxygen in streams may sometimes exceed the chronic or

even acute toxicity standards, especially when considering extreme occurrences (once

in3 years).

These issues must be addressed by a UAA.

Box 2.1 Example

that may allow modification

of the designated

use and/or standards (Novotny et al., 1997)

:

1.

Naturally ephemeral streams with longer periods of

no flow. The use could be modified to reflect the

life forms typical for natural ephemeral water

bodies, including wildlife.

2.

Naturally dystrophic streams draining wetlands that

have low dissolved oxygen conditions and/or could

be naturally acidic.

3.

Streams draining watersheds with ore deposits may

have high concentrations

of metals.

4.

Streams in arid watersheds that carry very large

natural loads

of sediments.

5.

Bacterial contamination caused by water fowl.

Some background loads are

legacy

loads such as atmospheric PCB deposition that is mostly global

and ambiguous. Box

2.1 lists some possible types of natural water quality that could be considered

. as water quality impairment but not by pollution or pollutant in the sense ofdefmitions in the Clean

Water Act and should be addressed and possi bly dis posed by a UAA priorto

embarking on a TMDL.

Karr and Chu (1999) and a number

ofother authors, have pointed out that there may be few, ifany,

places left that have not been influenced by human activities. Definition and selection

of reference

sites, and measuring the reference conditions may use current and/or historical data or theoretical

models. Arbitrary selection

of reference sites, especially if they are degraded, rather than looking

over a wide area for minimally disturbed sites, and inaccurate ranking

ofthe sites should be avoided.

2-13

---

The reference conditions can be obtained:

1. From monitoring of morphologically similar unimpacted or least impacted water bodies; and/or

2.

From historical records of pre-development conditions; and/or

3. From monitoring upstream unimpacted water quality.

Regional Reference Sites

Box 2.2 -Regional Reference

Site

Selection

(USEPA, 1991b)

To determine specific regional reference sites for streams, candidate watersheds are selected

from the appropriate maps and evaluated to determine

if they are typical for the region. An

evaluation

of the level of human disturbance is made and a number ofreiatively .

undisturbed reference sites are selected from the candidate sites. Generally, watersheds are

chosen as regional reference sites

when they fall entirely within typical areas of the region.

Candidate sites are then selected

by aerial and ground surveys. Identification of candidate

sites is based on:

1) absence

of human disturbance

2) stream size

3) type

of stream channel

4) location within a natural or political refuge

5) historical records of resident biota and possible migration barriers.

Final selection

of reference sites depends on determination of minimal disturbance derived

from habitat evaluation

made during site visits. For example, indicators of good quality

streams in forested ecoregions include:

1) extensive, old natural riparian vegetation

2) relatively high heterogeneity

in channel width and depth

3) abundant large woody debris, coarse bottom substrate,

or overhanging vegetation

4) relatively high or constant discharge

5) relatively clear waters with natural color and odor

6) abundant diatom, insect and fish assemblages, and

7) presence

ofpiscivorous birds and mammals.

To develop water quality criteria, the

UAA should considerreference conditions. In some cases, pre-

development conditions may serve as a reference, or a reference water

body is selected from

morphologicallysimilar water bodies least impacted

by human activities and pollution located in the

same ecoreglOn.

2-14

---

Regionally attainable water quality can be approximated from physical, chemical, and biological

(includingbacteriological) quality

ofa morphologicallysimilar water body that is minimally affected

by human activities. Steps to estimate regional reference attainable water quality were outlined by

Gallant et al. (1999) and listed in Novotny

et

aI.

(1997). Box 2.2 depicts the process leading to

selection

of regional reference sites.

Available Information on Pre-development Reference Conditions for the Des Plaines River

The Des Plaines River watershed and the investigated segment of the Lower Des Plaines River are

located in the Central Cornbelt Plains ecoregion (Omemik, 1987). As stated in Chapter

1, historic

annals from more than one hundred years ago described the Lower Des Plaines River at Lockport

as a small stream that received its water mostly from marshes. The river had sluggish currents and

since the end

of the nineteenth century has

b~en

receiving sewage from the Chicago metropolitan .

area.

The earliest chemical analyses

ofthe Des Plaines River water quality at Lockport were reported by

Palmer (1903). The measurements included total solids(TS), suspended solids (SS) and dissolved

solids (DS), total volatile solids (TVS) and volatile suspended (VSS) solids, chemical oxygen

demand (COD), and nitrogen compounds. Table 2.3 presents a statistical summary

ofPalmer'sdata

from 1897 to 1899.

Table 2.3

Water quality of the Des Plaines River at Lockport more than 100 years ago

(palmer, 1903)

Year

Suspended

Total

CODa

Total

Organic N

Nitrate

solids,

volatile

mg/L

ammOnIum,

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

solids, mg/L

mg/L

1897

average

11.3

37.6

11

0046

0.92

0.84

range

004

- 393

12.8 - 68

6.5 - 35.7

0.2-1.12

0.55 - 2.83

0.1 -

304

1898

average

35

53.9

904

00408

0.83

0.6

range

004

- 88.8

25.6 - 104.8

5.2 - 21.0

0.25 - 0.8

0.52-204

0.1 - 2.25

1899

average

21.6

49.2

12.9

0.48

1.0

0.36

004

- 230

19.6 - 126

5.3 - 23.8

0.21 -

1.0

0.57 - 2.87

0.1 -

104

aOxidizing agent was potassium permanganate, today'smethods use chromic acid (di-chromate) as

an oxidant that is more potent.

2-1

~

---

Few years after the Palmer's survey's had been conducted, the water quality of the Lower Des

Plaines River was dramatically altered by the Chicago Sanitaryand Ship Canal. Even Palmer'sstudy

does not reflect the pre-development conditions because the river was affected by the operation

of

the Illinois-Michigan canal and a portion of the river was rerouted in the late 1800s to make space

for the CSSC.

It

can be concluded that reliable data on thepre-development water quality conditions

are not available.

Reference Water Bodies in Dlinois

Reference Water Bodies and Conditions.

Based on the preceding discussion, the predevelopment

conditions provide only an insight

as to the water quality recovery limits. Unfortunately, no

quantitative water quality data exists from the period prior to building the Illinois and Michigan

canal. The data reported in Table 2.3 represent a situation for which some reversal

of flows had

occurred and Chicago raw sewage was discharged into the I-M canal and

sub~equentlyinto

the Des

Plaines River.

Ifthe reversal ofthe flowby the CSSC and urban development had not occurred, the

immediate watershed would have been a mixture

ofprairies, low land forests and wetlands and the

river itself would

be a sluggish wetland affected stream. To allow agricultural development, the

wetlands would have to be drained. Thus, reverting the river into pre-developmentconditions would

require an extensive wetland restoration which most likely is not possible today.

Wetland streams are typically dystrophic, i.e., they exhibit low dissolved oxygen

and nutrient

concentrations. They are also characterizedby

darker colors and higher concentrations ofdissolved

organics. Typically,

pH is less than neutral. Thus, the key issue of the UAA is to find optimum

balanced aquatic life that would sustainably propagate and do well in the Lower Des Plaines River

and its major tributaries. Consequently, reverting the Des Plaines River back to its original status

would not completely resolve the water quality problems. On the other hand,

there is no doubt that

the

causesof the present dissolved oxygen and other problems in the Lower Des Plaines River are

anthropogenic and means are available to maintain the dissolved oxygen in the canal and the river

at levels that would not be injurious to aquatic life.

Figure 2.3. shows a map

ofthe location ofthe Des Plaines River and selected reference watershed.

The following reference water bodies were used: Kankakee River, Green River, Mackinaw River,

Rock River, and Fox River.

2-16

---

Years

1996_

1997_

1998

I

I

1999_

2000_

1. Great Lakes/Calumet River Basin

2. Des Plaines River Basin

3. Upper Fox River Basin

4. Lower Fox River Basin

5. Kishwaukee River Basin

6. Rock River Basin

7. Pecatonica River Basin

8. Green River Basin

9. Mississippi North River Basin

10. Kankakee /Iroquois River Basin

1

J. Upper Illinois/Mizon River Basin

12. Vermilion (Illinois) River Basin

13. Middle Illinois River Basin

14. Mackinaw River Basin

IS. Spoon River Basin

16. Mississippi River North Central Basin

17. La Moine River Basin

18. Lower llIinois/Macoupin River Basin

19. Mississippi Central River Basin

20. Lower Sangamon River Basin

21. Upper Sangamon River Basin

22. Salt Creek - Sangamon River Basin

23. Upper Kaskaskia River Basin

24. Middle Kaskaskia River/Shoal Cr. Basin

25. Lower Kaskaskia River Basin

26. Big Muddy River Basin

27. Mississippi South Central River Basin

28. Mississippi South River I3asin

29. Vermilion (Wabash) River Basin

Figure 2.3

Des Plaines River and the Reference Stream/Watersheds

2-17

---

Figure 2.4

Kankakee River

KANKAKEE RIVER BASIN

SCALE OF MILES

o 5

io 15 ::0

F3 F3 !

A '"

G2gir.~

~atior'l

I

Map of the Kankakee River watershed

The Kankakee River at the confluence with the Des Plaines River is the closest potential reference

water body. The Kankakee River

used to drain the "Grand Marsh" that encompassed approximately

400,000 acres and ranged from 3 to 5 miles in width (Ivens, et aI., 1981). The nature

of the marsh

caused the river to change the course continuously. Most

of the pre-settlement watershed was a

prairie. Today, the Kankakee River watershed in Indiana is drained and converted into agricultural

land. In Illinois, the river has been used

as a scenic, cultural and recreational resource am in some

reaches left in a natural state. The river in the Kankakee County, upstream ofthe confluence with the

Des Plaines River, is noted for high water quality and biologists rank most

of the Kankakee Rivet

along with some

ofits tributaries as "highly valued natural resources." (Illinois Department ofNatural

Resources, 2001).

The river has now more siltation due to agricultural practices in Indiana. However,

not all

ofthe sediment in the Kankakee River comes from Indiana; a significant part of the sediment

load originates from sources in Illinois (Ivens et aI., 1981) primarily from the Iroquois River. Thus,

the best reference condition is the reach between the state line and the confluence with the Iroquois

River. The watershed area

of the Kankakee River is 5,165 sq mi, from which 42% is in Illinois and

58% in Indiana The river has a total length

of about 150 miles, with 59 miles in Illinois.

Nearly 88%

of the sampled stream miles in the Kankakee drainage "fully support " the Illinois

General Use as determined by the Illinois EPA and 231,005 acres

of the watershed have been

designated a resource rich area. The land use distribution in the Illinois part

of the watershed is as

follows:

2-18

---

Cropland

Grassland

Urban/built-up

Bottomland forest

Nonforested wetlands

Water

77.6%

15.8%

2.5%

0.8%

0.5%

0.5%

76.9%

13.5%

4.9%

2.3%

1.3%

1.8%

0.3%

The geologic materials

of the Kankakee River basin consist of glacial deposits overlying Paleozoic

bedrock.

In

Illinois, most ofthe bedrock is Silurian age dolomite, and in Indiana much ofthe bedrock

is Devonian age shale. The most important geologic event shaping the landscape and the character

ofthe deposits in the basin was the ancient "Kankakee Flood.," that occurred during glacial melting

about 16,000 to 13,000 years ago. During this period, the retreating glacial lobes constructed

numerous moraines, including the Valparaiso moraines located along the northern portion

of the

Kankakee River. The flood deposited thick sand in a wide belt along

the Kankakee River resulting

in sandy sediments extending from the City

of Kankakee to South Bend, Indiana. This extensive

sandy deposit is the primary source

of sediments now residing in the Kankakee River.

For this UAA, the water quality monitoring site located at Momence was available as areference site.

The site is located in a relatively scenic and recreational area. The reach between the state line and

Momence is a naturally meandering stream with a sandy bottom, traversing an area

of timber and

relativelyundisturbed wetlands, known as the "MomenceWetlands." However, in view

of large scale

modification and wetland drainage for agriculture upstream in Indiana, the Kankakee River at

Momence cannot be considered as an "undisturbedlunimpacted" stream. More or less, it may be a

stream the Des Plaines River might look like ifurbanization and

flo w reversal from the Chicago River

had not occurred. Thus, this site is used in this study to document,

as close as possible, the chemical

and bacteriological integrity reference conditions

of a stream least impacted by urbanization but is

not considered as a goal for the Lower des Plaines River that

is heavily impacted by navigation.

Mackinaw River

The Mackinaw River originates

in Ford county near Sibley and winds approximately 130 miles in a

westerlydirection before joining the lllinois River nearPekin. The basinarea is approximately 1,138

sq miles. The land use distribution in the watershed is as follows (Illinois Department

of Natural

Resources, 2001) :

Cropland

Grassland

Upland forest

Urban Built-up

Water'

Bottomland forest

Nonforested wetland

2-!9

---

The Mackinaw River is considered one of the best examples of a prairie stream left in Illinois and

136.4 miles have been designated as biologically significant (Figure 2.4). The macroinvertebrates

found in a survey appear to

be more diverse than those of many other watersheds in Illinois, which

is an indication of good water quality.

However, water pollution from build-up and agricultural lands has lead to a decline in the aquatic life

of the Mackinaw River, particularlymussels and fishes. Compared to other major tributaries of the

Illinois River, the Mackinaw River basin has one

of the highest sediment yield rates in the lllinois

River basin. An estimated 2.1 million tons

of sediment are delivered annually to the Illinois River

(Illinois Department

ofNatural Resources, 1997).

In

1992, the Nature Conservancy, Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, and IEPA approved the

Mackinaw River Partnership which

in

1996 became an official Ecosystem Partnership. The

partnership receives funding from the IDNR through the Clean Water Act Section 319 programs.

Figure 2.5

Mackinaw River

The Mackinaw River is considered as areference stream in Illinois. Its relatively good water quality

and ongoing preservation/restoration programs make the river

an example of attainable integrity of

a small to medium stream (Figure 2.5). However, its much smaller size than the Des Plaines River

precludes its use for chemical assessment.

The data is used

in

this study as a reference for

bacteriological contamination.

Green River

The drainage basin ofthe Green River covers 1131 sq mi. The soils consist ofa lake plain ofsand and

gravel outwash from the Wisconsin glacier. The river course follows the northern boundary line

of

2-20

---

the Wisconsin terminal moraine in a general southwesterly direction. The headwaters originate north

of Compton in the southeastern comer of Lee County and the stream enters the Rock River

approximately two miles west

of Green Rock. Before draining activities in the late 1880s, the river

flowed through two large swamps. Except for two sections, totaling 27 miles, the river has been

dredged, straightened, and reduced to a canal like environment. The latest (2002) 305(b) report rated

56 miles

of the river as fully supporting (good) and 26 miles as partial support (fair).

The average width

ofthe river is about 90

ft

and the river is relatively shallow. The water is generally

clear with a substrate

of gravel in the undredged sections and a substrate of almost pure sand in the

dredged sections. The river pollution has been gradual and not visible but silt, agricultural chemical

runoff, animal, domestic, and industrial waste sources are present. The nutrient pollution has caused

extensive phytoplankton blooms (Illinois DNR, 2001).

Because

ofthe absence ofmunicipal pollution this site was used as areference for bacterial pollution,

representing

an agricultural stream.

Reference Water Bodies to

Assess

Impact

of Navigation

One question that can

be

addressed at the beginning ofthe UAA is the role of navigation and its

possible removal. Reason 4

ofthe UAAregulations that allows modification ofthe standards states:

Dams, diversions, or other types

ofhydrologic modifications preclude the attainment ofthe use, and

it is notfeasible

to restore the water body to its original condition or to operate such modification

in a way that would result in the attainment

ofthe use.

Therefore, there are two issues to be addressed: (1) Possible restoration

of the river to its original

condition; and (2) Operating the system so that the aquatic life and primary recreation uses could be

attained.

Section 303(c)(2)

ofthe Clean Water Act provides clear guidance on the possible reversibilityofthe

present conditions

of the system and change of the designated use. This section states that when

revisirig and/or developing new water quality standards

l

:

..

.

Such standards shall be established taking

into consideration their use

2

and value for water supplies, propagation offish and wildlife,

recreational purposes,

and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation.

Thus

one

may conclude that, based on the CWA:

1.

Viable and economicallyimportant navigation by the CSSC appears to be a protected use. The

CSSC and the Lower Des Plaines River are heavily used for navigation. Removing navigation

would create a widespread economic burden andwould disrupt the Chicago and Great Lakes

'A"standard", according to the definition in the Clean Water Act (Section 305(c)(2))

consist

ofthe designated use and the water quality criteria to protect the use.

2The context of this statement implies use of the water bodynot use of the standards.

2-21

---

commerce. Even without considering Section 303(c)(2) this would most like!y triggerReason

6

ofthe UAA, i.e., removing navigation could create a wide spread adverse socio-economic

impact.

The AquaNova International and Hey Associates team has concluded that removing

navigationfrom

the Des Plaines River cannot be considered as a viable remedyfor the water

qualityproblems

ofthe DesPlaines River.

The same is not true for the Illinois-Michigan canal

that has been mostly abandoned and has no economic value for navigation

fuat ceased in

1933. The legal status

of this water body is uncertain and irrelevant in the context of this

UAA.

2.

The CSSC and the LowerDes Plaines River are used for waste conveyance in order to prevent

contamination

of the potable water intakes located inLake Michigan that provide water for

the Chicago metropolitan area. Although waste conveyance in the context

of UAA is not

considered a beneficial use, reversing the flows and creating the CSSCwas the primary reason

why the waterway was proposed and created in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Thus the safety

ofthe water supply for the entire Chicago metropolitan areamust be taken into consideration.

However, flow rev.ersal and wastewater conveyance impairs water supply on the Illinois

River.

Thus, the century old and well functioning and managed system

of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal with its tributary, the Calumet Sag Canal, must be considered for the foreseeable future as an

irreversible reality. Consequently, finding the way to operate the system in a way that would allow

the attainment

of aquatic life and recreation uses will be the task of this UAA.

However, considering navigation as an unremovable physical attribute

ofthe Des Plaines River only

allows consideration

ofthe UAA habitat issues and some water quality modifications. It does not

give relief, in the TMDL process, to discharges

of pollutants or pollution into the water body and

the navigational physical attributes alone may not provide a possibility to downgrade the primary

recreational use and associated bacteriological standards (see Chapter 6 and theUS EPA [2000,2002]

draft documents for establishing criterion for bacteria).

Reference Impounded Water Bodies

In the long run, it is not possible to remove navigation in impounded pools ofthe Illinois Waterway

and restore the river to a natural state. Hence, the ecologic potential

of the Des Plaines River cannot

be directly related to a pristine unimpacted reference water body (that may not even be available near

the Des Plaines River) but to some other mixed impounded water bodies

3

that are minimallyimpacted

by pollutants. The Indices ofBiotic Integrity established for these reference impounded water bodies,

after a critical evaluation, will then serve as a measure

of the ecologic potential ofthe navigational

impoundments.

3 Well mixed unstratified impoundments are generally lakes behind the low head dams.

Their ecology and water quality is different from deep stratified impoundments.

---

Rock River

The Rock River originates in Horicon Marsh in Dodge County, Wisconsin, and flows in a southerly

direction until it enters Illinois south

of Beloit.

It

continues to flow south and southwest across the

northwestern part

of Illinois, and joins the Mississippi River at Rock Island.

The total drainage area

ofthe entire Rock River is about 10,900 sq miles ofwhich about 6,400 sq mil

is located in Illinois. The Wisconsin portion has population

of about 754,000. Major population

centers include Madison, Janesville, Beloit and the expansion area. Major urban centers in Illinois

are Rockford (pop. 139,943), Moline (pop. 43,127), Rock Island (40,630), Sterling (15,152) and

Dixon(15,134). Despite its urban centers, the Rock River basin remains largelyrural in character, both

in Wisconsin and Illinois. The total stream length, including the mainstem and tributaries, is 2325

miles

..

Significant tributaries include the Kishwaukee River, Sugar-Pecatonica River Basins, andthe Green

River. The mainstem length in Illinois is

163 miles. Of the total river miles, 69 stream miles have

"good" quality and 97.9 miles have fair quality. Nutrients, phosphorus in particular, suspended solids

and channel modifications are the major cause

ofwater quality problems due to agricultural runoff

and flow modifications and regulations. The river is impounded, both in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Fox River

The Fox River originates in Wisconsin in Waukesha County and flows generally in a southerly

direction until it joins the Upper Illinois River. The watershed

is directly to the west of the Des

Plaines River watershed. The river is

ofinterest as a reference stream because ofthe extensive study

conducted sponsored by the Illinois Department

of Natural resources and USEPA on the effect of

impoundments on the biotic integrity and fish assemblages (Santucci and Gephard, 2003). There are

15 dams on the Fox River, however, navigation is mostly recreational and is not quite comparable to

the Lower Des Plaines River. The river and its tributaries

are known to support a high diversity of

aquatic organisms including 32 species of mussels and 96 species offish.

The main stem

ofthe Fox River in Illinois is about 115 mil es. The watershed encompasses McHenry,

Lake, Kane, DuPage, DeKalb,

Kendal~

and LaSalle counties. The upper part of the watershed is

agricultural and the middle part is rapidly urbanizing due to rapid expansion

ofthe Chicago suburbs.

The largest cities in the watershed are Aurora (100,000) and Elgin. The most current assessment in

the 2002 305(b) Illinois report rated 33 miles

of the Fox River as full use (good) and 67 miles as

partial support (fair). The primary causes of less than full use included nutrients siltation, low

dissolved oxygen, flow alteration, habitat alteration, suspended solids, fecal coliforms and pH. These

problems were attributed to agriculture, urban runoff, CSOs, hydrologic modifications/flow

regulations, stream bank stabilization/modification and contaminatedsediments.

It should be pointed

out that the Fox River has been classified as General Use water body.

) "

---

Methodology for Water Body Assessment

Data from several agencies were used to conduct a probabilistic analysis of parameters covered by

the Illinois General Use Standards found in Tables

2.1 and 2.2. The analysis was conducted using

the statistical software package StatGraphics. Data from the Des Plaines River obtained from

monitoring/sampling programs

ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency(IEPA) as part ofthe

Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network (AWQMN), the United States 'Geological Survey

(USGS) and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRDGC) was input into StatGraphics.

A list

of sampling points is included in Table 2.4 and the locations are shown in Figure 2..6.

Table 2.4 Sampling Points Used in Statistical Analysis

Code

Water Body

Agency

Location

91

Des Plaines River upstream

MWRDGC

1

)

Material Service Access Road

of Lockport

near Lockport Power House

92

Sanitary

&

Ship Canal

MWRDGC

1

)

Lockport Power House

Forebay

93

Des Plaines River - Brandon

MWRDGC

1

)

Joliet, Jefferson Street Bridge,

Pool

Joliet

94

Des Plaines River, Dresden

MWRDGC

1

)

Empress Casino Dock

Pool

95

Des Plaines River, Dresden

MWRDGC

1

)

Interstate 55 Bridges

Pool

G-ll

Des Plaines River, upstream

IEPN)

Division St. Bridge at Lockport

.from Lockport Dam

near Lockport Power House

GI-02

Sanitary

&

Ship Canal

IEPN)

Lockport Power House

Forebay

G-23

Des Plaines River, Brandon

IEPN)

Ruby Street Bridge, Route 53

Pool

in'Joliet

G-39

Des Plaines River, upstream

IEPA

Barry Point Road, Riverside

of Lockport

AWQMN

F-02

Kankakee River

IEPA

Route

17 Bridge, Momence

AWQMN

I)

2)

MWRDGC stations 91=95 are sampled weekly

IEPA stations are sampled nine times per year

2-24

Ll)\Ver

Des Plall1t.'S River lJ:;e :\.rraino.bility .--\nalysis

---

-N-

t

I

SAG JUNCTION

gIg

:I 6

LOCKPORT POOL l

8

~~~

ROUTE 83

Figure 2.6 Location of Sampling Sites in the Des Plaines River

1-25

---

The key sampling points based on which the use attainability analysis has been evaluated are those

located in the segments

ofthe Des Plaines River between the Lockport Dam and the I-55 Bridge. The

reference site

on the Kankakee River defines the reference conditions for this preliminary analysis.

Analysis

of data in the river upstream of Lockport and in the CSSC is for comparative purposes.

The report evaluates the water quality data obtained from the agencies forcompliance with the Illinois

General Use Standards.

If a parameter complies with the General Use it can be implicitly assumed

that it also complies with the Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use for which the

standards are less stringent. Some parameters (e.g., bacteria) have only a General Use standard.

Statistical probabilityplots

ofboth !EPA and MWRDGC data for the last five years, i.e., 1995 - 2000

were produced for each parameter and included in Appendix B. The period

ofrecord varied for each

parameter,

but a guideline of a five-year record limitation (1995 - 2000) recommended by the

subcommittee

of experts for this project, was used for all Des Plaines River sites. In the case of the

reference sites, all existing data were used in the statistical analysis. This is due to the fact that tha

changes in most reference watersheds are not rapid (they should be least impacted

by human actions)

and the data base might be insufficient

if restricted only to the last five years.

Some MWRDGC stations had less than five years

ofdata; however, because ofthe higher frequency

ofdata acquisition there were enough data points for the analysis. In most cases, the log value ofthe

parameter was used because the logarithmic transformation ofthe water quali ty data followed a log-

normal distribution. This is exhibited on the plot by data being arranged in an approximate straight

line. Temperature and

pH did not follow a log-normal distribution. pH, being already a logarithm of

the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration, was fitted to a normal distribution. Normal

distribution defined from

_00 to +00 does not fit well with parameters that have a near physical limit

such as temperature. Log normal distribution is defined from 0 to

+00.

Percentiles for Comparison with Standards

As stated previously, it is not possible to consider standards as never to be exceeded although if no

data exceeded the standard it would be, obviously, a good but not unbiased indication

ofcompliance.

However, the three dimensional nature

of the standard and its application must be considered for

priority pollutants. Note the probability

of not being exceeded X

=

p(C<C(max» equals

1 -

p(C~

C(max». If one exceedance is allowed by the criteria regulations, this also implies that one

or two values that equal the standard are also allowed. Therefore, the probability

of required

compliance was set at 99.8 percent

ofmeasured values ofbeing less than the standard. For dissolved

oxygen the allowable exceedance is reversed, i.e., the limit is C(min). In a practical sense, the

probability

ofexceedance, 1 - X, is the frequencytimes duration. Since duration is assumed generally

as one day (one grab sample) then the probability

of the nonexceedence is 1 - probability of

(exceedence + equality) = 1 - 0.2 = 99.8 % for toxic priority

pollutants~

that also includes Criterion

2-26

---

Continuous Concentration (CCC) limit for ammonium and the probability of allowable excursion

for the "absolute minimum"

of dissolved oxygen

4

•

For nonpriority pollutants the allowable exceedance has not been specified. The guidelines for the

CWA Section 305(b) reports allow 10

%

ofdata excursions for classification ofwater bodies as being

in compliance.

No other permissible frequencies have been included in the federal criteria regulation

for nontoxic pollutants. As shown on Figure 2.2, the difference between the 90

and 99.8 percentile

concentrations may be

as much as one order ofmagnitude ifthe concentrations follow a log-normal

probability distribution. Using

10 % allowable excursions underestimates the degree ofimpairment

and will notbe used for estimating exceedences

oftoxic priority pollutants and dissolved oxygen. For

nontoxic pollutants, a scientific judgement

on the compliance will be used if the probability of

exceedance is more than 0.2 % but less than 10 %.

Tier I - Screening Analysis

Calculation

of Site Specific Standards

Metals. The standards are related to and calculated from hardness. Hardness is a log-normally

distributed parameter characterized

by the geometric mean and log standard deviation. Consequently,

the standard is also a statistical variable. Nevertheless, research done

at Marquette University used

statistical and Monte Carlo methodologies

and found that the probability of a standard exceedance

can

be reliably ascertained usingtl;J.e (geometric) average ofhardness(Bartosova and Novotny, 2000).

Table 2.5 presents the metal criteria for the Des Plaines River sites calculated from average hardness.

The standards listed in Table 2.5 are for dissolved metals. When dissolved metals are comparedwith

the standards, the Illinois standards have to

be multiplied by the conversion factor specified in Table

2.1 for the Illinois General Use (Table 2.5).

Total Ammonium. The criteria for ammonium are, as the previous standards were, related to pH for

CMC values and pH and temperature for CCC values (see Table 2.1). The criteria for the Des Plaines

River were calculated for salmonid fish absent and early life present conditions. The ammonium

concentrations in the river during high temperature conditions (summer) are lower due to the

enhanced nitrification in the treatment plants and in the river itself. However, temperatures above

22°C may suppress nitrification (Zanoni, 1968). Higher concentrations

of ammonium are typically

found during cold winter conditions. This will be considered when judgement on the attainability is

made.

F

or the evaluation this study used the federal USEPA water quality criteria because the new Illinois

water quality standard for ammonium was

not issued until Novemeber 2002, long after the report

analysis was conducted. The new Illinois standard is similar

if not identical to the federal criterion.

4 The use of the same probability ofallowable excursions for dissolved oxygen and priority pollutants is based on the

facts that (a) oxygen depletion

is toxic, and (2) the allowable excursions specified at the minimum low flow with a recurrence

interval

of once in 10 years has approximately the same probability as the frequency (probability) of allowable excursions of

once in 3 years.

:'-27

---

Probability Plots

An

example

of an individual probability plot for a toxic compound is shown in Figure 2.7. The

chronicCCC standard is shown

as the lower concentration represented by a dashed line and the acute

standard as the higher acute CMC value shown as the solid bold line. This methodology was

followed for all parameters. Likewise, the plots for dissolved oxygen were altered to show both the

minimum 5.0 mg/L standard and the 6.0 mg/L sixteen hour standard, as seen in Figure 2.8. The

decision

on excursions from the standards is made from visual fitting.

Using a line

ofthe best fit estimated by the StatGraphic software is not feasible because the water

quality evaluation is focusing solely

on the extreme values while the line ofthe best fit calculated by

the software considers all values that were included in the plot, including outliers. Therefore,

professional judgment

is superior to a calculated extreme value. This is documented on the figure by

the thin (all points considered) and

bold(best fit) lines.

Table 2.5

Acute and Chronic Toxicity Illinois Standards Derived from

Average

Hardness

for Dissolved Metal Concentrations

Average Hardness

Cadmium

(ug/L)

Chromium

(ug/L)

Copper

(ug/L)

Site

(mg CaCO,lL)

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

Reference (Kankakee)

293.5C

29.59

2.28

1325.37

429.94

46.93

28.4S

IEPA-G-11

284.5C

28.6

2.21

1291.99

419.11

45.57

27.74

IEPA

- GI-02

230.94

22.81

1.91

1089.11

353.3C

37.44

23.21

IEPA - G-23

238.5C

23.60£

1.9E

1118.2~

362.7~

38.6

23.86

MWRDGC

91

300.8C

30.3

2.3~

1352.31

438.67

48.0

29.09

MWRDGC92

232.8C

23.01

1.9~

1096.2£

355.6~

37.7~

23.3f

MWRDGC93

247.6C

24.6

2.01

1153.m

374.04

39.9

24.6

MWRDGC94

250.4C

24.9

2.03

1163.7

377.5C

40.41

24.8/

MWRDGC 95

246.4C

24.4/

2.01

1148.4

372.5e

39.8

24.5

USGS Riverside

267.2(

26.7

2.1~

1227.2

398.1

42.9

26.2!

Average Hardness

Lead

(ug/L)

Nickel (uglL)

Zinc

(ug/L)

Site

(mg

CaC0

3

/L)

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

Reference (Kankakee)

293.5C

239.

50.<

204.1

12A

304.2"

54.4E

IEPA - G-11

284.5C

231A

48.S

199.

12.1

296.3

53.0e

IEPA- GI-02

230.9~

185.

39.~

167.

10.1

248.31

44.4

IEPA- G-23

238.5(

192.

40.e

171.

10.

255.1

45.7(

MWRDGC 91

300.8(

245.

51.

209.

12.

310.6

55.6

MWRDGC 92

232.8(

187.

39.

168.<

10.~

249.9

44.7E

MWRDGC93

247.61

200.

42.

177.<

10.

263.3!

47.1

MWRDGC 94

250.4

202.

42.

179.

10.1

265.9.

47.6

MWRDGC95

246.4(

199.

4U

176.

10.

262.3

46.9

USGS Riverside

267.2(

216.

45.

189.

11.

280.9

50.3

2-28

---

Probabilistic Analysis

Probability plots for all selected sites are grouped by parameters in Appendix. B. The data sets in

some cases were incomplete or insufficient to provide a probabilistic analysis (as

was the case for

parameters

in

which many ofthe data points were at or below the detection limit). In either case, the

record

ofthe sampling site is given with a brief explanation of the data set. Probability plots were

not done where 'all data were below the detection limit.

_______ N

_

,

,

C (CCe)

-Le

-1.6

-1.4

.1.2

Figure 2.7

Dissolved Copper (log Concentration - mgIL)

Example of Probabnity Plot for Copper at MWRDGC 94 Including the

Illinois General Use Acute

and Chronic Toxicity Values Corresponding to

the Average Hardness

-

-

-

-

'-

1.1

---_.-..-- -

-

-~~

-

----"

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Dissolved Oxygen (log Concentration - mg/L)

5- -

80 :--

f

I

I

I

50

I-

1 ._,_' (j

:::Co~

20

r-.,.,.:.,_~'}(

':C

-

I

1-

I

0.1

L.3L...",..~~--"~~~--+-6

-L-~7~~8-L-~9~~1-,-?

~~~.L-J­

0.6

99.9 -

Figure 2.8

Example of Probability Plot for Dissolved Oxygen at G-23

(Joliet)

Including the Illinois General Use Standards

2-29

---

Toxic compounds included in the analysis are comparedto both the acute and chronic Illinois General

Use Standards. Standards for metals are hardness dependent. The equations for derivation of these

standards are included in Table 2.1. The standard for each individual site

and dissolved metal

including the average hardness, is included

in Table 2.5.

The total ammonium standard was developed by the formulae taken from the recent updated federal

criteria documents (USEPA, 1999). The acute and chronic criteria for

ammonium are site specific

because they are calculated from

pH (acute) and pH and temperature (chronic).

For other toxic priority parameters, as well as other parameters, the Illinois General Use Standards

are used directly in the analysis. As stated previously, acute toxicity

standards are compared to a

99.8% probability

of occurrence, while chronic toxicity standards are compared with the 99.4%

probability

of compliance. Probability plots constructed in StatGraphics are limited to the range of

the data set. In some cases, standards are not shown on the probability plot due to the location ofthe

range

of values for that data set.

A summary

of the parameters that meet the standards according to the probability plots for the site

is included in

Table 2.6. The parameters that do not meet the Illinois General Use Standards are

included in

Table 2.7. All parameters that meet the standards are at the 99.8 % level ofthe probability

ofnot being exceeded. This means that possible exceedences could occur with a recurrence interval

of more than 3 years.

Two tier evaluation ofcopper.

In the Lower des Plaines River the IEPA measured both dissolved and

total concentrations

at sampling points G-ll (Lockport) and G-23 (Joliet). In addition, total and

dissolved metals concentrations

were available from sampling at Riverside (IEPA G-39), upstream

Des Plaines River (IEPA G 02), and Kankakee (IEPA F02). The dissolved concentrations at the two

sampling points

in the Lower Des Plaines River have passed the 99.8 percentile probability test.

However, the

data on copper measured by the MWRDGC at sampling points 92, 93, 94 and 95

included only total concentrations and did not pass the 99.8 percentile test. The WER

in

the Illinois

draft General

Use Standards for copper is onlyO.96; therefore, no change tothe conclusion was made

on the Tier 1 evaluation and copper was added to the compounds that will require further analysis.

In this case the WER will be calculated from the IEPA data and used to convert the MWRGC total

concentrations to

their dissolved fractions.

Two tier evaluation ofammonium.

Total ammonium concentrations are clearly in compliance with

the Illinois and federal

CMC (acute) standards and criteria. However, the evaluation of compliance

with chronic (CCC) federal criteria is complicated by the fact that the time series of 30 day or 4 day

average concentrations are

not available.

In

the next section on the Tier II evaluation two

methodologies will provide a

more scientific and accurate assessment:

(1)

Joint probability oftemperature, pH and total ammonium concentrations.

(2)

Monte Carlo calculation

The highest concentration oftotal ammonium was measured in the winter of 2000 at G-23 (Joliet)

as 6 mg/L. Typical high

summer ammonium concentrations are less than 1.2 mg/L. Because the CCC

Lo\v"r Des

Plaine;

River

Us~

MraillC1bility Analysis

2-30

---

evaluation requires 4 or 30 days averaging of dailydata that is not available, Monte Carlo simulation

and CCC evaluation will be performed in the subsequent Tier

II evaluation.

Tier I Evaluation and Recommendation

Parameters in Compliance

Parameters listed in Table 2.6 are meeting the Illinois General Use Standards and the federal aquatic

life protection and propagation criteria. By default they also meet the current Secondary Contact and

Indigenous Aquatic Life use. These water quality parameters have passed the 99.8 probability

percentile test for nonexceedance in spite

ofthe fact that some are not priority pollutants. Chloride .

is not a priority pollutant, organisms can tolerate extended period of higher salinity; therefore, the

97% compliance was deemed to be satisfactory (nte

that the guidelines for the 305(b) reporting

characterize 90% compliance for

J,lon priority pollutants as "good').

For the parameters listed in Table

2.6

the general use ojthe water body (aquatic life protection) has

been met. The Illinois EPA should reevaluate inclusion

oj the metals listed in Table

2.6

and

ammonium

in the 303(d)

list.

pH

The limits for pH for the General Use Standards (and federal criteria) are 6.5 to 9. Few

exceedences

ofthese limits were detected at MWRDGC sites 94 and 95 (Dresden Island Pool). The

compliance probabilities are:

Reference site

IEPA GI-02

MWRDGC 92

IEPA G-23

MRWD93

MWRDGC94

MWRDGC95

Lower limit 6.5

99%

>99.8%

>99.8%

>99.8%

>99.8%

96%

96%

Upper limit 9.0

>99.8%

Kankakee River

>99.8%

Upstream site

>99.8%

Upstream site

>99.8%

Brandon Dam Pool

99.8%

Brandon Dam Pool

99%

Dresden Island Pool

99%

Dresden Island Pool

(;)

t:u

2

::l

o

~

7.5

o

2

..::

~

7.0

y

= 6E-05x

+

5.103

R.2= 0.0897

~ ~ ~"

t

•

~

• n,

U\"'f'J'W

'l

ftJ!V

'\i

~

~.O

~~~~;~~:~:~::~~~~l~;~:;g~

:: :: :: :: :.: :: :: ::

::

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

::

:: :: :: ::

~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

D..

~.

Figure 2.9 Trend of pH at IEPA G-23 in Joliet.

2-J I

---

pH is not a prioritypollutant, hence, the 99.8% rule is not applicable. Bell (1971), in a discussion of

the effect ofpH included in the USEPA (1986) criteria document, reported 30 day lethal value (after

exposure

ofthe organisms for 30 days) oflow pH between 2.45 to 5.38 for macroinvertebrates. The

criteria themselves specified that

pH as low as 5.0 is unlikely to be harmful to any species unless

either the concentration

of free

CO

2

is greater than 20 mg/L, or the water contains iron salts which

are precipitated as ferric hydroxide. None

of the two are likely.

We have also investigated the trend in pH at the IEPA site G-23 in downtown Joliet (Figure 2.9). The

trend is increasing, meaning that the likelihood

oflow pH is decreasing. Thus the percent compliance

with the pH standard specified above

is satisfactory.

Table 2.6 Parameters Meeting Dlinois General

Use

Standards and Federal Criteria

Representative Sites

Approximate Probabilty

of

Parameter

Meeting General Use

Compliance with General

Standards

Use Standard

Arsenic

All in the Lower Des

>99.8%

Plaines

R.

Barium

All

>99.8%

Boron

All

>99.8%

Cadmium

All

>99.8%

(CCC)

I)

Chloride

All

97% (MWRDGC 94, 95)

Chromium (trivalent)

All

>99.8%

Cyanide (WAD CN)

MWRDGC

93,94,95

> 99.8 %

Fluoride

All

>99.8%

Iron

All

>99.8%

Lead

All

>99.8%.

Manganese

All

>99.8%

Nickel

All

>99.8%

Phenols

MWRDGC, IEPA sites

>99.8%

Selenium

All

>99.8%

Silver

All

>99.8%

Sulfate

All

>99.8%

Tot. Ammonium as N(CMC)

All

>99.8%

Tot. Ammonium as N (CCC)

All

2)

Zinc

All

MWRDGCGC and IEPA sites

>99.8% for total and dissolved

zinc acute (CMC) standard

only

I)

Chronic standard for cadmium is 10 to 25 % below the detection limit All measured dissolved cadmium concentrations

in the last

fIve years were at or below the detection limit, consequently it is not possible to calculate WER. Compliance

with the chron

ic standard is impossible to ascertain but is assumed.

2) An exact estimation of compliance involves statistical fitting and joint probability consideration ofJ parameters Total

NH/, temperature and pH calculated as 30 day (4 day) averages. Furthermore, all three parameters are not pure random

variables

but exhibit a cyclic p aHem. A scientific ju dgemen t was used in the Tier 1 an alysis.

---

Temperature.

Grab temperature data at the I-EPA, MWRDGC and Midwest Generation sites (I-55

bridge) and continuous temperature monitoring

by Midwest Generation at the I-55 bridge did not

reveal actual measured excursions. Furthermore, the normal

or log-normal distribution do not

propedyrepresent the probabilitydistribution

ofthe temperature measurements. The log-normal plots

have a distinct upswing tail that indicates a near physical limit (i.e., the temperature cannot physically

increase under present conditions over a certain value, e.g.

400C). The plot indicates that a

temperature limit

of 32°C (Illinois General Use) at GI-02, G-23, MWRDGC 92 to 95 would be met

with a probabilityofcompliance better than 99 percent. However,

the MWRDGC sites in the Brandon

and Dresden pools do not include data prior 2000 and IEPA does not measure temperatures in the

Dresden Island pool

The Interstate

- 55 bridge (mile 277.9), the end of the investigated reach, is approximately 7 miles

from the cooling water outlets

ofthe two large Joliet powerplants. There is only one location in this

stretch where temperature is measured occasionally during collection

of grab samples at the

MWRDEGC 94 site (Empress Casino). The problem

of cooling" water discharge on this 7 miles

stretch and attainability

of the general use temperature standards in the stretch of the Dresden Island

pool upstream

of the I-55 bridge will be addressed in the subsequent section.

Parameters That Do

Not Meet the Illinois General

Use

Standards and Federal Aquatic

Use

and

Contact Recreation Criteria

Several analyzed parameters did not meet the Illinois Water Quality General Use Standards and will

be analyzed in more detail in Tier II - The Detailed Compliance Analysis and Simplified TMDL.

Table 2.7 presents these parameters.

As proposed in the methodology,

if dissolved concentrations are not measured, the total

concentrations were evaluated in the Tier I analysis.

If

this analysis failed to find compliance and the

noncompliance was marginal,

WER would be estimated in the Tier II analysis and compliance will

be evaluated with estimated dissolved concentrations.

Copper.

Total copper concentrations at MWRDGC 92, 93, 94 and 95 did not meet the Illinois

General Use Standards. The level

of compliance probability were

MWRDGC92

MWRDGC93

MWRDGC94

MWRDGC95

Acute (CMC)

99%

> 99.8 %

95 %

> 99.8 %

Chronic (CCC)

95 %

99.2

%

85%

99%

In

general, the noncompliance is only marginal (note that theprobabilityofnoncompliancein percent

is 100

- probabilityofcompliance). Furthermore IEPA sites located at about the same location (IEPA

GI-02

= MWRDGC 92 and IEPA G-23 = MWRDGC 93) did not indicate a problem. Nevertheless,

copper will be analyzed

in more detail in the next Tier II evaluation.

---

Table 2.7 Parameters Not Meeting lllinois General Use Standards or Threatened

Parameter

Representative Lower Des

Comment on meeting the

Plaines River Sites Not

Secondary Contact

and

Meeting General Use Standards Indigenous Aquatic Life

Standards

Copper

MWRDGC Sites (chronic

&

All sites meeting Illinois

acute)l)

secondary

use standard

Mercury

MWRDGC Sites (chronic

&

MWRDGC sites

92 - 95 also

acuteY)

not meeting the secondary use

standard

Fecal Coliform

All stations

No Illinois secondary use

standard in force

pH

MWRDGC sites

94 & 95

Also not meeting Illinois

secondary

use standard

Dissolved

All stations with exception

of

Only Stations G23 and

Oxygen

MWRDGC

95 (Interstate 55)

MWRDGC 93 do not meet the

secondary use standard

Zinc

All MWRDGC sites

1) (IEPA

Only acute Illinois General use

measurements not available)

standard

is met at all sites.

Illinois chronic standard is

not met

at all sites. Federal

chronic criterion

is met at all

sites.

I)

MWRDGC sites measured total metals only.

Mercury.

This metal has a very low standard (CMC= 2.6I-Lg/L, CCC = 1.3 I-Lg/L, respectively) for

total concentrations. Oddly, the Illinois secondary

use indigenous aquatic life standard for total

mercury is

even less, 0.5 I-Lg/L. The probability plots for mercury (Appendix B) show that most

measurements at

MWRDGC 92-95 and IEPA G-23 are below the detection limit of 0.1 I-LgIL.

However, all MWRDGC sites have one to three measurements that exceed the standards. The

reference site has only one measurement

of 0.07 I-Lg/L that is greatly below the standard. The

compliance probability for the sites is given below

Reference site

IEPA G-23

MWDDGC-92

MWRDGC-93

MWRDGC-94

MWRDGC-95

>

99.8%

>

99.8%

98%CMC

98%CMC

98%CMC

96%CMC

(Only one measurement)

(All measurements below detection limit)

96% CCC

Upstream site CSSC

96% CCC

Brandon

Dam pool

97 % CCC

Dresden Island pool

95% CCC

I-55 (Dresden Island pool)

Mercury is a problem that may have to be addressed by a TMDL study. However, before such study

is initiated, analytical measurements with a lower detection limit should

be conducted for several

years.

It

is very difficult to estimate loading capacity and other variables ofTMDL if a majority of

2-34

---

measurements are reported as detection limit. Also, a significant part of the mercury load may be

uncontrollable or difficult to control atmospheric emissions.

Fecal coliform bacteria.

All sites indicated noncompliance with the Illinois General Use Standard

for primary contact recreation. The probabilitylevel

ofcompliance with the probabilistic standard of

the maximum 10 % of samples in any 30 day period not exceeding400/l00 mL is given below. 10%

allowable exceedance means 90% or more compliance.

The matter

of fecal coliform compliance or noncompliance may be simplified by the new USEPA

(2002) draft guidelines that specify Escherichia Colin as an indicator organism and link the

magnitude

of the standard to the risk of gastrointestinal disease to swimmers.

Reference site

IEPA GI - 02

MWRDGC92

IEPA G - 23

MWRDGC93

MWRDGC94

MWRDGC95

Fecal coliform compliance at monitored sites

Compliance .

85 % Kankakee River

50%

Upstream site CSSC

60 % Upstream site CSSC

50 %

Brandon Road Dam Pool (Joliet)

50 %

Brandon Road Dam Pool (Joliet)

20 % Dresden Island

Dam Pool

50 % Dresden Island

Dam Pool

The attainability of the bacteriological standards and definition of uses and new risk based E. Coli

standards for the Brandon and Dresden Island Pools is presented in Chapter

7.

Dissolved oxygen.

Dissolved oxygen in the Brandon Pool ofthe Lower Des Plaines River frequently

falls below the General Use Standard

of5 mgIL. The river is made of two impoundments that have

a very low reaeration capacity. Removing the dams and improving

in this way the reaeration is not.

possible because active navigation on the river is a protected beneficial use, based on the

interpretation

ofthe wording ofthe Clean Water Act. As a matter offact, overflows over the Brandon

Road Dam are the major source

of DO in the Dresden island pool.

Kankakee River

Upstream site

Upstream site

Brandon Road Dam Pool (Joliet)

Brandon Road Dam Pool (Joliet)

Dresden Island Dam Pool (Empress)

I-55

Dresden Island Dam Pool

Reference site

IEPA GI -02

MWRDGC92

IEPA G 23

MWRDGC93

MWRDGC94

MWRDGC95

The standard of 5 mg

IL

DO is met with the following probabilities of compliance (note that on the

probability distribution charts in AppendixB the compliance is assessed from right to left, i.e., a 20%

reading

on the probabilistic - proportion scale means 80% compliance):

Compliance

99%

60%

50%

75 %

80%

99%

>99.8 %

2-35

---

A 99% compliance for the reference site may not

be

an acceptable compliance for the 5 mglL

"absolute" minimum standard specified by the Illinois General Use Standards.

Analysis of the

continuous monitoring

ofDO in Joliet on Brandon Pool (MWRDGC) and I-55 (Midwest Generation)

will be done in the subsequent next Tier

II analysis that will address the DO attainability in more

detail.

Zinc.

The compliance with the General Use chronic standard and federal criterion for zinc is presented

below for the MWRDGC sites

Illinois General Use Standard

Federal Criterion

Site

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Chronic

%

Ilg

lL

%

1lg!L

%

Ilg

/L

%

Ilg

/L

Compliance

Compliance

Compliance

Compliance

MWRDGC 91

310.6

>99.8

55.6

75

297.5

>99.8

269.4

>99.8

MWRDGC 92

249.9

>99.8

44.8

45

239.4

>99.6

216.8

>99.8

MWRDGC 93

263.4

>99.8

47.2

50

252.3

>99.8

228.5

>99.8

MWRDGC 94

265.9

>99.8

47.2

40

254.7

>99.8

230.7

>99.8

MWRDGC 95

265.9

>99.8

47.7

52

254.7

>99.8

230.7

>99.8

It

is clear that chronic General Use standard for zinc is not met and the excursions are significant. At

some sites more than 50 percent

of measured values do not comply with the standard. The question

that must posed and answered is whether the chronic General Use standard is attainable. The data

base did not contain measured values at the reference streams; therefore, Reason 1

of the UAA

attainability cannot be reliably used. However, the reality of the standard should be reviewed by

comparing it with the federal USEPA chronic criterion that is about 5 times greater and

is attained

at the measured sites. Therefore, it is not a question

of attainability of the chronic General use

standard that should be answered, it

is the question of reality of the standard and its

overprotectiveness.

---

Parameters Not Addressed by This Report

Several parameters and causes ofimpairment listed in the Illinois 303(d) list have not been addressed

in this report.

Priority organics

in

the water column.

Data on priority pollutants other than phenol and toxic metals

were not provided. The State

ofIllinois has only a narrative standard that would require development

of a numeric translator. Most of the :federal criteria are for use of water for drinking and fish

consumption. Priority organics in the sediment are addressed in Chapter

3.

Nutrients.

Illinois does not have a numeric standard for nutrients. The federal draft criteriadocument

provides only a ranking

of the water bodies within the ecoregion and does not address the use

impairment. Nitrate, a product

ofthe nitrification process in the treatment plants and in the receiving

water, has been increasing as shown on Figure 2.9. Figure 2.10 shows a corresponding decrease

of

the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) that is converted to nitrate in the nitrification process. Removal

of nitrate from the effluents is possible by modifying the treatment plants to include

nitrification/denitrification. Such processes

are common in Europe and many US treatment plants

(e.g., Brookfield, WI). Nitrate is approaching in the river the drinking water limit

of 10 mg/L but not

exceeding it. Because potable water use

ofthe Lower Des Plaines River is not an existing use and no

problems were encountered at the nearest site (Peoria) the problem was not analyzed further. Figure

2.12 presents the phosphorus concentration.

v

= -0.0005::< +20.277

R

2

""

0.3996

..

'-

r-

It.

t

rr-

110.

!~I

~

Ii

tt-

1

h

~

~~

"""

Q

r- ...

r- ...

-.

.

~

...

..

~

~ii:~:Z :::::~: :;:a:~~:

~~~~~::::~:::~~:~

~~~~.t~~~~~~~~~~

D.~.

Figure 2.11 Historic Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen at G-23

2-37

---

".J

" 9E-05x - 2.1058

R

2

= 0.2434

1

1t.1 ....

l,..

~

Ir

1

1t.

~

~~

~

fi

.~

llt

~

I

Z.O

Co

~

N

t

."

.

.

."

'r

.

.

f

."

.

.

t

t

t t t ¥ ; t

~

~~~~~~~~~

Figure 2.12

Historic Phosphorus Concentrations at G-23.

The nutrient level is exceeding the concentrations limiting eutrophication and eutrophication

symptoms are evident (e.g., daily fluctuations

ofthe DO concentrations, high turbidity partially due

to algal infestation). The problem

of daily fluctuation of dissolved oxygen, caused most likely by

nutrient enrichment, will be discussed in the subsequent section

of this chapter.

In spite of the absence of quantitative standards for nutrients, the problem can not be overlooked.

However, most

ofthe nutrient loads come from the upstream reaches ofthe Chicago Area Waterway

System and should be addressed in the subsequent UAA.

Siltation and habitat alteration.

These potential causes of use impairment will be addressed in

subsequent Chapters 4 to 6 on biological impairment and the ecologic potential

of the Des Plaines

River.

2-38

---

Tier II Evaluation

Tier II e valuation follows the screening done in Tier

I.

Ammonium, copper, pathogens, dissolved

oxygen and temperature were identified for further analysis.

Analysis of pathogens (fecal colifonns

and Escherichia Coli) is included in Chapter 7 where appropriate standards will be developed.

Ammonium

s

Ammonium and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (a sum oftotal ammonium and organic nitrogen) have been

declining in the last ten years (Figure 2.13). Apparently, a change in operation

of the aeration

equipment resulted in more nitrification. The obvious result was an increase

of nitrate N which is a

product

ofnitrification (Figure 2.1 0). Ammonium and organic nitrogen are measured together as Total

Kjeldahl Nitrogen. Therefore,

the trend ofTKN on Figure 2.11 is similar to that of ammonium on

Figure 2.13. Because ammonium is a part

of the TKN analysis, the high ammonium concentration

in winter

of2000 is mostly an outlier because it was not accompanied by a corresponding high TKN.

Ammonium is evaluated using both acute and chronic standards. The acute feferal criterion is a

function

of pH and applied to the instantaneous grab values. The chronic standard is a function of

both temperature and pH, and is estimated using a 30 - day moving average of samples. Due to the

fact that the number

of samples taken by the agencies does not allow estimating 30 day moving

average a direct estimation

of ammonia concentrations compliance with the CCC standard is not

possible.

In

such situations, the USEPA allows use of the Monte Carlo methodology. The most important

advantage

of Monte Carlo modeling is compatibility with the water quality standards expressed in

terms

of allowable probability of exceedance. Monte Carlo modeling software is induded in the

USEPA models DYNTOX and its concept is described in Marr and Canale (1988). The methods and

derived software allow time averaging by the moving average concept (4 or 30 days) and includes

formulas, where needed, for calculations

of site specific criteria for metals and ammonia. The US

EPA'smodel QUAL 2E (downloadable from the US EPA watershed web site-www.epa.gov) has also

Monte Carlo capabilities. Another Monte Carlo application with a more complex water quality

transfer function was developed and published in a peer reviewed article by Novotny, Feizhou, and

Wawrzyn (1994). Monte Carlo modeling was also suggested by the EPA researchers (Ambrose et aI.,

1988) as a recommended methodology for waste load allocation (and, hence, for TMDL).

The Monte Carlo analysis begins with the measured incomplete series

ofconcentration values for the

parameter

of interest (e.g., ammonium). The term "incomplete" means that samples were not

measured daily and there are large data gaps in the measured series. The Monte Carlo methodology

substitutes missing data by computer simulation using the original probability distribution

of the

5 The terms ammonium and ammonia are sometimes used interchangeably in the water

quality standards literature.

In

this report ammonium refers either to the total ammonium (NH

4+

and unionized NH

3)

or to the ionized form. The term ammonia refers to the unionized toxic form,

NH

3

,

which is a gas that can be dissolved in water.

2-39

---

V'"

_n nnn.!1y

+

1

~

44.1

R2 -

r1 ?R1:

//

F1tt=

-

outher

-

..

-

•

~

'I

~

•

N~~

~J

If

+

1~1'"

rr

II

~

111

'" fll' IJ

1..0

~!;.5

~;.O

~

5

4

.

S

~

...

gJ:.5

...O

1ll.0

%:

~~.!l

~~.O

~

1.5

\!J

:i:

1.0

~(..!l

'M

........

...

•

"" ..

I

I

..,

..

.c

..,

.

c'.

..,

.

r:;

TLn-..lor-~"%>

or-

02'"

<11'0

a-

-ro

4-

I

I

•

I

I

I

e

til

.,

.::

.,

.:

.,

c

.,

.:

.:

~

-.. "":I --.. -.. -.. .,

..,

<><>

.

.

,

..

-

~

.

..

"

Figure 2.13 Historic Plot of Total Ammonium at G-23

incomplete series.

In

Monte Carlo modeling methodology a random number generated by a suitable

computer program is transformed into a cumulative exceedance probability value, which is then

applied to the probability distribution

of the parameter(s) of interest, thus obtaining a value that is

used as a substitute for the mjssing measured value. This process is repeated many times (on the order

of several thousand). In this fashion, as a large number of data points become available, the series

can be statistically evaluated, and the number

of exceedences of the standard can be counted. The

generated series

of data has exactly the same probabilistic distribution as the measured incomplete

data series. This series can then be averaged to obtain 3D-day (or any other number

of days such as

four) mean values that can then be statistically analyzed for exceedences of the pertinent CCC-

standard. A simple spread sheet model in the Excel environment was created by the AquaNova/Hey

Associates researchers that calculated the data series

ofammonium concentration, averaged them over

a 3D-days moving average windows, calculated the CCC standard for each 30 day period from

average temperature and pH for the period and calculated a ratio

of 3D-day ammonium concentration

divided

by the CCC standard. The CCC standard was calculated bythe equation taken from USEPA

(1999) ambient water quality criteria for ammonium listed

in the footnote of Table 2.1. In this case

a ratio

of less or equal to one signifies a compliance with the standard and greater than one is

noncompliance, respectively.

The generated series

of compliance ratios are plotted on Figures 2. 14 (IEPA data) to 2.16 (MWRD

data). Note that the simulated period is six years (1995-2001). This simulation for this period was

recalculated several times to get an average number

of exceedences in 3 years that was then used for

evaluating the compliance.

The detailed analysis

of the ammonium concentrations resulted in the following outcome and

conclusions:

Lower Des Pl:.li116 Ri\'or Use Altllilabi!ity AtLlly:;ic:

2-40

---

~~

....

=

..,

('D

N

0

~0

~

.

111/1995

1/1/1995f

<

~

..,

('D

~

~

4/2/1995

4/2/1995

~

r:

7/2/1995

~

7/2/1995

('D

(1

~

0

10/111995

10/1/1995

S"8

12/31/1995

12131/1995

Q.=

="C

3/31/1996

~

~

3/31/1996

..,

Q.~

=

6130/1996

6/30/1996

~('D

t'!'lo

9/29/1996

9/29/1996

""d""

>~

12129/1996

12129/1996

~

8

3/3011997

~a

3/30/1997

('D

0

6/29/1997

6/29/1997

~

~

C.

=

9128/1997

1

-

9/28/1997

...

~

~

~a

12/28/1997

cr

12/28/1997

-..

~

jJ

~

0

'-'=

3/29/1998

3129/1998

-l

=

~

('D

~

6128/1998

6/28/1998

Q.=

.....

9127/1998

0'"

9127/1998

,a

12/27/1998

N

....

12/27/1998

tHO

r

-..=

3128/1999

3128/1999

c

r:~

:;::

~

'-'::i1

6/2711999

6/27/1999

0

.....

....

c;

=-

9126/1999

9/26/1999

'j.'

-v

(1

12126/1999

(1

12/26/1999

.'

(1

3126/2000

!/

3/2612000

;;;'

tH

=

612512000

U

612512000

.~

I

~

I

(~

Q.

G)

'""""

~'

912412000

[I

9/24/2000

~

~

r

(i)

'J,

«

w

~

.:..

.,:,

8

1212412000

1212412000

.....

0

3/2512001

~

<

3/2512001

....

~

=

,.-

'"-

..

',

1,..:-,

---

~

I

U'

co

~

..

lt

9126/1999

6/29/1997

9126119~

312612000

6125/2000

912412000

6/27/1999

3131/1996

613011996

9129/1996

o

1/1/1995

4/2/1995

3129/1998

6128/1996

912711998

12/2711996

3128/1999

1212412000

3125120011L

---l

-.J

12/2911996

3/3011997

71211995

10/1/1995

12/3111995

12/26/1999

12128/1997

c:r

3129/1996

312612000

6126/1996

6129/1997

3126/1999

1/111995~

----------+-----.........

------r----+----,

4/2/1995

7/2/1995

6/30/1996

9/29/1996

313111996

10/1/1995

12/31/1995

9128/1997

12/26/1997

8/27/1999

9126/1999

12/26/1999

12/2911996

313011997

912711996

12/27/1996

~~Oj

~

I

912412000

~

I

,-=

3125/2001

'$:

I

~

rJll

liJ

(JQ

~

....

=

""l

('I)

~

N

<:

('I) ....

•

""l

Ul

~~

(JQC"

~

(')

..... c

~

a

5."0

""l

~

~

==

.

I:lo=

~

~('I)

~~

~a

~a

(')§

f!l.

cr

ft

fI.l

~

a

-

~

N=

\CC

('I)

~

'-'=

~

.....

=

I:lo~

::t.

""l

\CC

_fI.l

~=

'-'

r:r':=!!

.....

....

=-

(')

(')

(')

~

=

Q.

'1

a

c

<:

(JQ

S.

!:.:.>

~

(.~

0;

r:::r

c

~

2,~

~

r'

c

'2

~

'0

"

:..'-.

;:~

L;

L.

l.-J

,7

C

§.

'.r.~

':'r:'

e;;'

---

~

....

~

=

""l

~

~

N

~

~

0

""l

0'\

1/1/1995

--->-----+---->-----+---->------j

0

~~

~~

~

.w_

~

4/2/1995

~~

~

\ 1

7/2/1995

~C

~~

[~

1~~

1~~

~

~

12/31/1995

12/31/1995

Q.,=

•

~

3/31/1996

3/31/1996

s:~

~

c

~996

~~

i

~996

~~

C':)

3

12129/1996

12129/1996

(j§

3/3~

~~

~.a·

~9~

~~19~

[

~.

912911997

9128/19971

~

I

~

I.)

~

§

1212911997

~

12128/1997

'~.,

-.

~

~~

~996

~~

~q

=

~996

~~

Q.,=

=

~

~996

~~

r-

\OC

C

til =

12/27/1998

12127/1998

"

",

~

~~

~996

~~

o

v,

'-"

=:

=-

6127/1999

6/27/1999

J

(j

~996

~~

;

(j

~

(j

1~996

1~~

;-

~

312612000

3/2612000

::

[

c.

:..

'1

~

612512000912412000

;U~

U

'"

6125120009124/2000

•

~

~

Co>

I

',~

3

0

~

...

~

8'

C

1212412000

:

~

1212412000

N

DO

-

~

~_

S.

312512001

312512001

.,

~

---

Acute standard for Ammonium

In

the Ti er I, all measuring stations had a probability ofcompliance with the USEPA (1999)

CMC criterion greater than 99.9%.

It

was found that the CMC standard is attained.

Chronic standard (30 day moving averages) - Monte Carlo simulation

Station

Number

of exceedances

in

3 years

I EPA

G-ll (upstream Des Plaines River)

0.5 (1 in six years) small MOS

MWRDGC

91 (upstream Dees Plaines River) 0

Large MaS

MWRDGC 92 ( upstream CSSC, Lockport) 0

Large MaS

I EPA G-23 (Brandon Road Pool, Joliet)

0

Large MOS

MWRDGC

93 (Brandon Pool Joliet)

0

Large MOS

MWRDGC 94 (Dresden

I.

Pool, Empress C.) 0

Large MOS

MWRDGC

95 (Dresden lsI. - I 55)

0.5 (1 in six years) small MaS

The results of this analysis indicate that the chronic standard for ammonium would most likely be

attained at all stations. The Margin

ofSafety would be large for all stations ofthe Lower Des Plaines

River except MWRDGC

95 (I-55) where combination of higher pH caused by algal development

and high temperature would result in a small MOS.

Copper

In

the Tier I water body analysis, copper was identified as a parameter that did not meet the water

quality standards at the locations on the Lower Des Plaines River analyzed bythe MWRDGC while

the IEPA analysis at the G-23 location indicated compliance. The difference

ofthe analyses and

sample collection might have been a partial problem. The monitoring at the IEPA station analyzed

dissolved copper while the MWRDGC stations

93 (Brandon pool), 94 and 95 (Dresden pool)

measured total copper concentrations. The lEPA analysis at the G-23 showed all measurements

of

dissolved copper below the detection and also below the dissolved copper CMC and CCC standards.

MWRDGC

93 and 95 had borderline compliance. The acute CMC standard was fully met while the

chronic CCC compliance was doubtful. Therefore, the analysis will be performed primarily at the

MWRDGC station 94, where both standards were exceeded. Note that the once in 3 years allowable

frequency

of excursions for the CMC standards is equivalent to 99.8

%

compliance. In the Tier I

analysis

of the chronic toxicity evaluation that requires four day averages, the assessment was only

approximate and the CCC standard was compared with the 99.4 percentile concentration.

The more detailed Tier II analysis proceeded as follows:

1.

The data were analyzed to reveal seasonal changes of the copper concentrations.

2.

Sources of elevated copper were identified.

3.

A water effect ratio was developed from IEPA data (both total and dissolved concentrations

were analyzed) and applied to the MWRDGC data to obtain estimates

of dissolved

concentrations. These were then compared with the dissolved standard.

4.

A modified standard was developed using USEPA's procedure for site specific standard

development for

1he locally indigenous species.

2-44

---

o

20 DOg §

ODD

10

~"'"'''''''''''''''''CJ''-'''''''''''''fl'''''''6'''''''O'''·

...O._..el....

....el........D.......

..

········~

DOD 0

0

0

0

0

o

o

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

month

Figure 2.17 Monthly Variations of Copper at MWRDGC 94

5.

Development of the water effect ratio, WER, based on the toxicity measurements in the

water body and the laboratory water was suggested. The rationale behind this standard

procedure is that river

water, may contain ligands that detoxifycopper. Such ligands may not

be present in the laboratory water

in

which the bioassays for copper toxicity were performed.

6.

The final step was to estimate a simplified TMDL

as a reduction of point and nonpoint

copper discharges.

A full detailed report

on copper analysis was submitted to the IEPA and stakeholders for evaluation

and comments. The full report

is included in Appendix C. The subsequent sections are a summary

of the full report.

Seasonal Variations

Figure 2.17 shows the monthly variations ofthe total copper concentrations at the MWRDGC site

94. Most

of the data were below the detection limits of 5 and 10 j..L gIL. Only in late fall and winter

were higher concentrations measured. However, this pattern is specific only for the MWRDGC data

collected over a two yearperiod and has not been found in the long term sampling by IEPA at G-23.

Sources of Copper

Natural ecoregional sources.

Copper is a common trace metal that is found

in

nature as a free metal

(CUD), copper sulfide (CuS

z),

chalcopyrite (CuFeS

z)

and in other forms.

It

is measured in small

concentrations in ground and surface waters. However, a study

by Schonter and Novotny (1993)

found that natural concentrations

of copper in the reference water bodies located in the Milwaukee

River watershed were typically less than

Ij..Lg/L. The analyses performed by the University of

Wisconsin on this pristine watershed required ultra clean techniques.

Reference agricultural watersheds.

In 1993 AquaNova study (Schonter and Novotny, 1993)

concentrations

ofcopper in nonurban reference watersheds were strongly correlated with the percent

ofthe watershed in agriculture. The ranges ofcopper concentrations in reference watersheds that are

not impacted

by urbanization and had less than 60 % agricultural land use (more than 40 % forest

and wetland) were found to be between 0.0025 to 0.116

j..Lg/L. A reference watershed near

Milwaukee, WI that was 70 % agricultural and about 3

% urban had copper concentrations

2-4:'

---

LOWER DES PLAINES RIVER

CU-DISCHARGES -1996

Des Plaines River

comparable to those measured in the Lower Des Plaines River (10 to 40 Ilg/L). Concentrations of

copper measured by the IEPA on the reference site of the Kankakee River at Momence were below

the detection limit

of 10 IlgIL.

These relativelylow concentrations ofcopper measured at nonurban reference watersheds effectively

discount the possibility that the elevated copper concentrations measured in the Lower Des Plaines

River would be

of a natural origin (Reason 1 ofthe UAA regulations for modification of standards

or use).

Urban sources.

Urban sources ofcopper are numerous and include point and nonpoint sources. The

National Urban RunoffProject study

by the USEPA (1983) found urban stormwater runoff annual

copper loading higher than effluent from secondary treatment plants. The sources can include metal

corrosion (pipes, copper roofs), automobile emissions and wear out, use

of copper based algicides,

and a number

of industrial sources such as paints, wood preservatives, and electroplating. Median

copper concentration in a urban runoff in the NURP studies was 34

1Jg/L.

Figure 2.18 presents the registered point source of copper in the Des Plaines River and CSSC

drainage areas. The map was obtained from the downloadable USEPA data base in BASINS, which

also has a list

of sources by name. However, the map shows primarily the sources that have copper

mentioned in their permit.

It

is not implied in any way that these sources discharge excessive

amounts

of copper into the Des Plaines River.

L0w~r

Des Pbinc:, River Usc AttJinabiiity '\nalysic,

2-46

---

The study by AquaNova International, lid. (Novotny et aI., 1999) for the Water Environment

Research Foundation found that winter use

ofdeicing salts maycontribute to elevated levels oftoxic

metals, including copper, during winter conditions. The salt itself contains copper. Novotny et

al.

(1999), Doner(1978) and Warren and Zimmerman (1994) documented that increasing concentration

ofchlorides (salinity) has a profound effect onthe magnitude ofthe partitioning coefficient. Chloride

concentrations found in urban runoff and streams after the application

of deicing chemicals during

winter can reduce the magnitude

of the partitioning coefficient by several orders of magnitude.

Consequently, metals can be leached from the soil adjacent to salted roads that have a higher metal

content due to traffic and from metal laden sediments in urban detention ponds and streams. Donner

(1978) found that increasing the

Ct concentration in soil increased the rate ofmobility ofNiH, CUH,

and Cd

H

through soil. The increased mobility was related to the formation ofchlorocomplexes and

more dissolved metals in

the soil environment. However, salting could be discounted as a source

because the elevated copper concentration occurred in the October

- December period during which

(at least in October and November) salting is not practiced.

Relation to Flow

::±T"

s-- -

-

-

_

-:J

0.05

0.04

1-

1

0.03

:J

()

0.02

0.01

0

0

:J

:J

I1.:J :J

=S

'~

:Jl]J

:J;;-::iii""::uJ

:J

:J:::Il:J

=

:J

4

:J

8

flow

12

16

(X 1000)

Figure 2.19 Plot of Copper Concentrations with Flow at MWRDGC 94

Monitoring Station

Figure 2.19 shows the copper concentrations at MWRDGC 94 plotted vs. flow. The largest

concentrations occurred during low flow. This

t}pe of relationship is not typical for diffuse wet

weather sources that would have the highest concentrations during wet weather larger flows.

It

resembles an effect of one or more point source discharges, which is most profound during dry

weather conditions.

2-47

---

Water Effect Ratio: Estimation

of Dissolved

Copper

The strong affinity

of fine sediments - primarily clay and organic particulates - to adsorb and make

the pollutants biologically unavailable

is considered by some as a partial water quality benefit of

sediment discharges. The new USEPA water quality standards consider the effect of suspended

sediment on the toxicity

of metals (USEPA, 1994). Through sediment - dissolved fraction

partitioning, the bioavailable fraction

oftoxic pollutants is reduced. For example, at concentrations

of suspended sediment ranging from 15 to 50 mgIL, only about 25 to 30 % of copper would be

available and toxic (Tischler and Hollander, 1994).

The IEPA has analyzed both dissolved and total concentrations

of copper while the MWRDGC

measured only total concentrations. As stated before, the total and dissolved copper measurements

attained the standard and met the Illinois General Use.

In the first step of this detailed assessment,

dissolved concentrations are estimated from total concentration for the MWRDGC data. By

developing a WER based on the correlation with the suspended solids and COD, both contain

possible ligands that may precipitate copper.

The ratio between the dissolved concentration,

co, and total concentration, c

T

,

is described by the

partitioning theory:

CD

1

G

r

1

+

II

ss

G

ss

where ss is the partition coefficient [L/mg] and C

ss

is the concentration ofsuspended solids [mg/l].

Figure 2.20 shows the relationship between the dissolved-to-total ratio and concentration of

suspended solids (SS). Data showing inconsistencies (CO>c

T)

or detection limits were eliminated

from the analyses.

1.0

0.8

0.6

J-

-0

0

0

.

4

0.2

~

\t.

•.

,~

•

.......

•

•

"-.....,

•

• t

~'-

---

r---

...

o.0

o

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

suspended solids

rm~1L

1

Figure 2.20

Changes in

CD/~

Solids Concentration: Partitioning Theory

Fit

2-48

---

60

50

"'!' 40

~

C

0::

30

~.

til

.

20

til

10

0

00

000

000

000

0

0

99

0

'[

'!..

9

9

9

0

'2

0

0

0

<:

.0

~

<:

:;

C>

b..

i;

;.

..

.,

..

1:

..

::>

.,

0

0

"

.,

4'

7

::>

7

LL

::;;

7

1

cr;

'(

'(

z

0

LO

~

LO

'"

0

0

~

~

'"

0

0

N0

0

0

;;;

6

6

'"

'"

Date

Figure 2.21 Suspended Solids Concentration at the

MWRDGC Station

94 (Empress Casino)

,

The correlation coefficient was sufficient. However, there are only a few measurements for high

concentrations

of suspended solids and the spread is quite significant. From the analysis the

partitioning coefficient,

II =

0.01896 L/mg x 106Kg/mg z 19,000 L/Kg.

In addition to suspended solids the correlation was also conducted for

SS and COD to account for

the fact that organic particulates also immobilize metals. However, COD was found to be strongly

correlated to suspended solids, therefore; COD was dropped from the relationship.

The variation

ofsuspended solids in the Des Plaines River is significant because the sediments are

continuouslybeing resusp ended by barge traffic. Figure 2.21

is a plot ofsuspended solids in the Des

Plaines River. A high concentration spike is a result

of a barge tow transient resuspension of the

bottom sediments (see the discussion below

on the effects of barge traffic). This range is most

cornmon.

Sediment as a Source of Copper

Table 2.8 contains the sediment copper concentration data for the Des Plaines River at Brandon Pool

(Rm. 290.5), Dresden Island Pool at Rm. 285

(1 mile downstream ofBrandon Road Dam), Dresden

Island Pool at

Rm 278 (I-55 Bridge), and the Reference Kankakee River at I-55 near Wilmington.

2--+9

---

The data were provided by the MWRDGC. Only the databetween 1994 and 2000 were considered

6

•

All measurements were made in the month of October. Upon investigating the average copper

concentrations

ofthe sediment it becomes evident that is a significant difference of copper (metal)

contamination in the Dresden Pool between the

Rm

285 and

Rm

278. The sediment concentration

of copper between these two locations doubles. This is in agreement with the water column

evaluation. One explanation is that the sediment at

RM 285 has a coarser texture and less volatile

solids than at RM 290.5 and 278, indicating that the sediment has a less adsorbing capacity for

copper.

IEPA classified the sediments in the state waters based on a classification contained in Short (1997).

The categories were nonelevated, elevated and highly elevated. Based on this comparative

classificationthe copper content

ofthe sediments in the Lower des Plaines River would be classified

as either uncontaminated by copper (Dresden Pool at RM 285) or mildly contaminated (Brandon

Pool and Dresden Pool at RM 278).

The key parameter that defines sediment contamination, besides the total concentration

of the

pollutant, is the pollutant concentration in the pore water

of the sediment. The pore water reflects

the toxicity

ofthe sediment because the fraction oftheparticulate pollutant is considered as not being

toxic (DiToro and DeRosa, 1995; DiToro, 2000). This

is analogous to the concept of WER

introduced

in the preceding section that specifies that the dissolved concentration ofthe metal in

water is toxic while the particulate metal is not. In addition, a judgement can be made

as to whether

or not the contaminated sediment is a source or sediment is a sink

ofthe copper.

Table 2.8

Sediment Characteristics and Contamination by Copper (1996

Ii

2000)

Total solids

Total Volatile

Total

Pollution

Location

%

Solids

Copper

Classificatio

%

mg/Kg

n

Brandon Pool (RM 290.5)

Average

65.9

7.8

61.0

elevated

Range

67.1 - 71.1

4.9

- 12.1

57 - 66

Upper Dresden (RM 285)

Average

68.2

5.58

33.6

non-elevated

Range

55.8

-77.8

3.4 - 8.0

23 - 51

Lower Dresden (RM 278)

Average

42.16

7.3

94.6

elevated

Range

40.5 - 66.1

44.

- 11.3

44 - 158

Kankakee R., (Wilmington)

Average

NA

NA

21.7

non-elevated

Range

18- 25

6 Chapter 3 has a detailed evaluation of sediment contamination using all available data.

Lower D¢s

PL\jll(~

River Us," .\ttainabiliry Aidysis

2-50

---

Copper can be released from the sediment by

•

Convection of pore water into the water column by groundwater discharge

•

Diffusion

if the pore water is much greater than the water column concentration

•

Scouring

of the contaminated sediment (e.g., by barge traffic)

Pore water concentrations were not measured but could be calculated by the same partitioning

concept. For sediment

C

r

C

pw

= ----

e

+

Dm~~

where C

pw

is the dissolved copper concentration in the pore water, C

Ts

is the total copper

.concentration in the sediment, eis the porosity or water content of the sediment. I1\s is the solids

content

of the sediment in Kg/L and

II

is the partitioning coefficient in LlKg. Porosity was

estimated from the percent weight

of the solids

in

the sediment and average density.

Ambrose (1999.) presented a statistical equation that relates water and sediment partitioning

coefficients

as

Mean log

II

sediment

=

1.418 (mean log

II

suspended sediment) - 3.18

The calculated pore water concentrations

of copper then were

Pore water concentration

Brandon Pool

Upper Dresden Island Pool

Lower Dresden Island Pool

0.079 mg/L

0.044

mgIL

0.122 mglL

These pore water concentrations are significantly greater than the water column concentrations.

Many water column concentrations were below the detection limits

of 0.01 mgIL and 0.005 mgIL,

respectively. By mass balance calculation it was found that 99.9 %

of copper in the sediment is

particulate and immobilized and only about 0.1 % is contained in pore water.

It

is now possible to ascertain the approximate magnitude of the copper fluxes. The three possible

mechanisms

of copper release from sediments were listed above. The first possible route can be

discounted because the water level in river impoundment is almost always above the surrounding

groundwater table; therefore, the water flux through the sediment layer is downwards (the

impoundments are recharging groundwater). Diffusion

of dissolved copper from sediment pore

water is likely but it

may be counterbalanced by the downward convective flux of the river into

groundwater. Furthermore, almost all copper is contained in the particulate fraction. This may leave

the scour

ofthe bottom sediments by barge traffic as the onlymajor mechanism ofenrichment ofthe

Lower Des Plaines River

by pollutants from the sediment.

2-:; J

---

Bhownik, et al. (1981) studied the effect ofbarge traffic on resuspension ofsediment and concluded

that:

•

•

•

•

Tow passage increases suspended sediment concentrations.

The increase in concentration is greater in channel border areas than in the navigational

channel.

The increase

is more significant when the ambient suspended sediment concentration is low.

The concentration is transient and may last 60 to 90 minutes.

In

the absence of extensive modeling and monitoring data it was not possible to accurately assess

the impact

of barge traffic on resuspension of copper (and other pollutants) from sediments in the

Brandon and Dresden Island pools. Studies

by Bhownik, Soong and Bogner (1989) in the Ohio River

and Bhowmik, Lee, Bogner and Fitzpatrick (1981) in the Upper Illinois River showed there was a

significant but very transient resuspension

of sediments during barge tow passage. The increases

lasted between a few minutes and ten minute's,at most. Typically, sediment concentrations increased

during the barge tow passage by as much as

9Q mg/L but the concentration subsided to its pre-

passage value in

10 minutes after the passage. Also the work by Butts and Shackleford (1992) on

the Upper Illinois River did not [md significant differences in sediment concentrations with and

without traffic.

Due to the difference in the partitioning coefficients in water and in the sediment, more copper can

be adsorbed on the sediment particles in water than in sediment. Therefore, although the total water

column copper concentration may be slightly increased during the barge tow passage, the released

sediment may scavenge the copper from the dissolved pool in the water and take it back into the

sediment layer during resettling. Upon resettling, a part

ofthe resettled pollutant will be released into

the pore water. During resupension

of sediment bybarge tow traffic, possible $cavenging ofmetals

and hydrophilicpriorityorganics by the resuspended sediment and subsequent resettlement has either

no or a slightly beneficial effect on toxic concentrations

of these pollutants in the water oolumn.

Comparison with Site Specific Standard

The acute and chronic toxicity standards have been calculated according to IEPA guidelines included

in Table 2.1. Two approaches were used in this study to ascertain compliance with the current

Illinois General Use and Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life uses.

In

Tier I, standards

were calculated using average hardness for the site and total metal concentrations. These calculated

standards are shown in Table 2..4. The illinois Environmental Protection Agency in the draft

document

ofimplementation ofwater quality standards requires that the standardbe calculated using

the sample hardness.

In

the Tier II analysis, the total concentrations were converted by WER to

estimate

of dissolved concentrations and compared with the IEPA standards.

Alternative 1

Ii

Standards Calculated for Average Hardness

Tables 2.9 and 2.10 show probabilities of compliance with the acute and chronic toxicity criteria

using Alternative 1

- Average Hardness. The chronic toxicity standard is defined for 99.4%. The

acute toxicity does not seem to be an issue (Table 2.10). Table 2.9 shows the chronic toxicity

Low<:r De, Plain,s River U",e Attainability Analysis

---

standard would be exceeded in all sites, regardless of the regression function used. The total

concentrations were converted

to their dissolved fractions by the water effect ratios related to the

suspended solids documented in the preceding section on Water Effect Ratio: Estimation

of

Dissolved Copper.

Table 2.9

Probability

of Compliance with the Chronic Toxicity Standard for Copper in

MWRD sites

[%], Assuming Log-normal Distribution

Method

Linear regression

Partitioning theory

91

99.363

99.243

92

99.168

98.437

93

99.274

99.173

94

98.761

98.688

95

98.944

98.629

Table 2.10

Probability of Compliance with the Acute Toxicity Standard for Copper in

MWRDGC Sites

[%], Assuming Log-normal Distribution

Method

Linear regression

Partitioning theory

91

99.960

99.937

92

99.951

99.866

93

99.953

99.943

94

99.902

99.891

95

99.919

99.878

Sites 91 and 92 are upstream sites (Des Plains River - 91 and Lockport CSSC - 92) are used only

as an information

of upstream situation.

All evaluated sites (92, 93, and 94) met the acute toxicity standard when WER partitioning was

considered. Sites 92, 94 and

95 may still exceed the chronic toxicity standard. Although site 92 is

not part

ofthe Lower Des Plaines system, its proximity and dominant impact is indisputable. This

site exhibits the most dramatic improvement due to application

of WER and conversion of total

concentrations

to dissolved concentrations.

An

increase of copper concentrations occurs between sites 93 and 94 exhibited by the decrease of

the probability of compliance between the sites. Site 93 is in downtown Joliet in the Brandon pool,

Site 94 is at the Empress Casino in the Dresden Island pool. There is also a decrease of the

concentrations (exhibited

by a small increase of the probability of compliance) between Site 92 at

Lockport and

93 in Joliet. This may be attributed to a mild diluting effect ofthe Des Plaines River

when itjoins the flow from the CSSC. A recovery

ofthe probabilityofcompliance between the sites

MWRDGC sites 94 (Empress Casino) and

95 (I-55) was also noted.

Alternative 2

fi

Standards Calculated for Each Sample

The draft Illinois EPA water quality standard'sguidelines require that the standard is calculated for

the harness

of the sample and not for the overall average hardness of the site. A research by

Bartosova and Novotny (2000) documented that the differences between the compliance of a

standard based on the average hardness and standard determined for each sample from the sample

2-53

---

hardness are not great. Determining compliance statistics for sample based standards requires a

modified statistical analysis outlined herein as fullows:

99.9

(J)

99

0)

95

2

c

80

(J)

50

~

20

~

5

1

0.1

-1.3

lJ

Standard for

Z =

1.0

-1

-0.7

'-0.4

-0.1 0 0.2

Z=log 1O(Cu_DM/QS)

For each sample, denoted as i in the sequence of samples:

•

Calculate the standard using the hardness

of the sample

•

Calculate the

WER based on the suspended solids ofthe sample

•

Calculate the dissolved concentration

normalized by sample standard

WQS(i)

WER(i)

CD(i)

=

CT(i) x WER

where CT is the total concentration

•

Calculate a

new statistical variable

Z(i)

=

CD(i)/WQS(i)

For the sample being in compliance withthe standard, Z is less or equal to 1.0. The variables Z were

then statistically analyzed using normal and log-normal probability distributions. In this concept, the

normalized standard for Z is 1.0 because all concentrations were divided by the sample standard

calculated from the sample hardness. The respective limits

of99.8% for acute (CMC) evaluation and

99.4% for chronic evaluation are then applied in the

way as for actual concentrations in Alternative

1. This concept is shown on Figure 2.22. The probabilities of compliance for all analyzed sections

are

in Appendix. C.

Tables 2.11 and 2.12 present the probabilities

of compliance determined by the Alternative 2.

Table 2.11

MWRDGC sites

[%], Assuming Log-normal Distribution.

Method

91

92

upstream control

upstream control

93

94

95

site

site

Linear regression

99.184

98.321

98.878

98.263

98.556

Partitioning theory

99.243

97.591

98.856

98.075

98.172

2-54

---

Table 2.12

Probability of Compliance with the acute toxicity standard for copper in

MWRDGC sites

[%], assuming log-normal distribution

Method

Linear regression

Partitioning theory

91

99.934

99.932

92

99.803

99.690

93

99.892

99.893

94

99.807

99.771

95

99.850

99.780

The compliance probability, using the standard for each sample has not improved, although the

differences are less than 1 %, commensurablewith the results

ofthe work by Bartosova and Novotny

(2000). This proves that Alternative 1 methodology is adequate for screening

and preliminary water

body assessmen

1.

Since Alternative 2 is a methodology preferred and required by the Illinois EPA,

the results

in Table 2.1 0 and 2.11 will be considered and this methodolo gy will be used for further

assessment.

The results confIrm compliance with the acute toxicity standards (Table 2.11) because all compliance

probabilities were at

or better than 99.8 %. The probability ofcompliance with the chronic standard

(Table 2.10) has imroved; however,

due to the incomplete data series (samples are taken in weekly

intervals), it is not possible to arrive at

an exact evaluation because such evaluation would require

four

days averaging of daily samples. Similarlyto Alternative 1 evaluation it could be concluded;

however, that the MWRDGC site 93,94, and 95 data may not meet the compliance criterion for the

chronic toxicity based on the USEPA frequency and duration (probability) for priority pollutants..

Site Specific Standards

The panel of experts on the biological subcommittee and the AquaNova/Hey Associates aquatic

ecology experts developed a list

of organisms that would be indigenous to northern Illinois rivers.

The list was developed from the latest draft criteria document for copper (Great Lakes

Environmental Center, 2001). The

fInal set, plotted on Figure 2.23, contained 40 Genus Mean Acute

Values

(GMAV).

The procedure described in Appendix C followed the USEPA guidelines for developing site specifIc

criteria in order to calculate the acute criterion ofmaximum concentration (CMC) and is also shown

on Figure 2.23.

The fInal acute value (FAV) was determined as concentrations yielding 5% protection GMAV. The

acute toxicity criterion is calculated as

CMC =

a*FA

V, where the

a

multiplier corrects the FAV

values derived from 50% lethality value LC50 to those that would correspond to a threshold-lethal

(near zero mortality) effective concentration (USEPA, 1991). The recommended value for this

procedure is

a

= 0.5. The site specifIc criteria for individual sites are given in Table 2.13. The last

column contains the criteria calculated from the standing formula (Table 2.1) ofUSEPA criteriaand

rEPA standard for metals.

Daphnia magna is the most sensitive indigenous species that drives the

magnitude ofthe standard. The standards estimated from the new USEPA guidelines are somewhat

more stringent than the standing General Use standard Table 2.14 then presents probabilistic

Lower Des Plain,C". Ri\.er Use A.Wlln"bility

2-55

---

compliance with the site specific standard.

It

should be noted that the methodology and criteria

presented in the report

by the Great Lakes Environmental Center (200 I) is only draft guidance.

Table 2.13

Site-specific Standards for Acute Copper Toxicity

CMC

Site

Average

hardness

FAV

rmg CaC0

1

/ll

Gumbel Gumbel

EPA

Reference (Kankakee)

294

81.43

40.72

46.93

IEPA -

G-ll

285

79.08

39.54

45.57

IEPA -

G-D2

231

64.97

32.49

37.44

IEPA -

G-23

239

66.97

33.49

38.60

MWRDGC91

301

83.34

41.67

48.03

MwRDGC92

233

65.46

32.73

37.73