BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE
CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM
AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES
RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
35 111. Adm
.
Code Parts 301, 302
,
303 and
304
R08-9
(Rulemaking
-
Water)
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER
CHICAGO'S PRE-FILED QUESTIONS TO LAURA BARGHUSEN
1.
In Section I, Introduction, you indicate that Openlands is working to "further the goals of
the Clean Water Act to make these waterways fishable and swimmable."
A.
Would
you agree with the statement
in the UAA
that
"
navigation and wastewater
and stormwater management
"
are legitimate existing uses
of the CAWS? (CDM,
August 2007
,
p 1-1).
B.
Do you think that in some instances the goal of fishable and swimmable may not
be attainable, particularly at all locations, all of the time?
2.
In Section II, paragraph 2, you state that the waterways were prioritized based on
"whether the trails were paddleable with relatively low cost improvements."
A.
Please describe what you have determined to be a low cost.
B.
What type of improvements were considered?
C.
Does the plan consider safety of the water trails with respect to presence of large
motorized watercraft such as commercial barge and tour boat traffic?
3.
In Section II, paragraph 3, please describe and quantify what is meant by the phrase "well
used trail".
4.
In Section III, paragraph 3, sentences 3 and 4
,
you state that there are concentrated areas
of activity in the
NBCR
and launch sites are scattered throughout
the CAWS, which
reinforces other evidence of intensified recreational uses.
A.
Do you have any field survey
data that illustrates
that the
launching sites are used
intensely for recreational water uses?
B.
What is the other evidence of intensified recreational use you are referring to?
THIS FILING IS BEING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
5.
In Section III, paragraph 3, sentence 5, you state that paddlers heavily use the Chicago
River.
A.
Do you have any field survey data that show that paddlers heavily use the
Chicago River.
What do you consider to be heavy use?
B.
Please
define what you mean by the Chicago River? The main stem only? If you
are including
the north branch as part of this
statement
,
please
differentiate use
occurring on the lower north branch below the dam from that occurring above the
Albany Avenue North Branch dam.
6.
In Section III, paragraph 4, you state that the Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Trail
Plan recommends an access point every 3-5 miles on a trail.
A.
What is the current distance between access points in various waterways of the
CAWS?
B.
Does the Plan recommend there be safe exit points other than boat launches along
the waterways in case of capsize?
C.
What types of warnings does the plan recommend posting to notify unsuspecting
paddlers that they will be sharing water space with large commercial motorized
watercraft, where they will run the risk of collision or capsizing from wakes
generated by these barges, tour boats and power boats?
D.
Are access points at this frequency of occurrence adequate to ensure safe egress
from the waterways if paddlers capsize in the deep-draft, steep-walled canals and
river reaches?
7.
In Section III, paragraph 4, you state "Both the MWRD North Side and Calumet
Wastewater Treatment Plants will be required to disinfect their effluent to kill bacteria,
viruses and parasites ..."
A.
Are you aware that the proposed regulation sets a numerical limit on indicator
organisms, and not pathogens that actually cause disease?
B.
Are you aware that there is not a good correlation between the concentration of
indicator organisms and the concentration of pathogens in effluent-dominated
streams?
C.
Are you aware
that neither chlorination nor ultraviolet disinfection
effectively kill
most viruses or parasites?
8.
In Section III, paragraph 4, you state that "Openlands considers the dramatic reduction in
bacterial levels that would result from disinfection to be an integral step forward in
fostering safe access to the Chicago River and Calumet Area water trails."
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
A.
Is it your understanding that there will be safe levels of bacteria
in the CAWS if
the plants disinfect
?
Safe for which activities?
B.
What bacteria level does Openlands recommend for safe paddling?
C.
Are you aware
of projected bacteria levels in the
CAWS that
would occur even if
disinfection were implemented?
D.
Can you provide evidence that the current levels of bacteria are unsafe for
paddling?
E.
Do you consider factors other than bacteria levels in assessing safety of access to
water trails?
What is the relative risk to paddlers resulting from these factors?
9.
In Section IV of your testimony, you describe a survey of recreational paddlers that
Openlands, Friends of the Chicago River, and the Illinois Water Trails Council conducted
in 2006. You indicated that the survey was mailed to 1,500 randomly selected individual
households who registered their non-motorized watercraft (canoe or kayak) with the State
of Illinois and to members of Northeastern Illinois paddling clubs, participants in the
Flatwater Classic canoe race, and members of the public who had requested the
Northeastern Illinois Water Trails map. You also indicated that 250 responses were
received.
A.
Do you have a formal report detailing the survey methods and results?
B.
Did the response rate for the different groups you describe vary?
Was there a
difference between responders and non-responders across these groups?
C.
If concern for the availability of recreation on the CAWS was strong among this
group of enthusiasts, why did only 1 in 6 reply to the survey?
D.
Further, only about one-third of the respondents reported using the North Branch
Chicago River (statistics are not given for other waterways). This indicates that
there are many alternatives to canoeing or kayaking on the CAWS. Given that
recreators have other good alternatives for recreational paddling in northeastern
Illinois, is it worth the public investment to make the CAWS marginally safer?
E.
Did the survey differentiate between the shallow, wadeable reaches of the North
Branch (not included as part of the CAWS) and the deep-draft portion
downstream from the dam at Albany Avenue? Are paddlers using the wadeable
reaches more than the deep-draft reaches?
F.
Did the survey ask respondents to comment on health problems resulting from
their contact with
the CAWS?
Did any of the 291 trips on the North Branch make
anyone sick
?
If so
,
how was this substantiated?
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
G.
Did the survey ask the respondents if they chose not to use the North Branch
Chicago River or other water trail plan waters because they perceived them to be
unsafe because of effluent discharge such that they would use the CAWS waters
more if the effluent was disinfected?
10.
In Section V, paragraph 1, sentence 2, you state that Ryan Chew rented 55,000 trips on
the Chicago River since he opened in 2001.
A.
How does Mr. Chew define a trip?
B.
How does number of trips translate to number of individual paddlers?
C.
Were all of the trips exclusively on the Chicago River (Chicago River lock to the
Merchandise Mart) or were some the trips on portions of the North Branch not
included in the CAWS?
11.
In Section VI, Important Aquatic Habitat in Jackson Creek:
A.
Could
you explain how the proposed rulemaking will enhance aquatic habitat in
Jackson Creek?
B.
What is the hydrologic connection between the
CAWS, the Lower
Des Plaines
River
,
and Jackson Creek?
C.
What is the biological connection between the CAWS, the Lower Des Plaines
River, and Jackson Creek?
D.
What effect
would the electric field barrier located north
of the
confluence with
the Des Plaines
River have
on the ability
of fish to
migrate
between the CAWS,
Des Plaines River
,
and Jackson Creek?
12.
In Section VII, paragraph 1, you indicate "[a]djusting our water quality standards to
match attainable uses will strengthen the regional vision of our `second waterfront'."
A.
What standards do you believe are attainable today?
B.
Will the technology-based effluent limits result in attainable uses?
C.
If the waterways are unsafe during and after a wet weather event, how would you
make sure that people know that the CAWS are unsafe? Can this be done easily?
D.
Do you think the general public might be confused if, for example, 3 days after a
rainfall event, certain sections of the waterways are deemed safe and others are
not deemed safe until weeks after a rainfall event? What if at a particular location,
the number of days a location was safe was different each time it rained?
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
E.
Assume there were a simple system so that the general public knew when they
should limit their exposure to the water due to the pollutant loads present during
or after a rainfall event. Would it still be prudent for people, in general, to avoid
contact with the river water and to practice good hygiene (like avoiding exposure
as much as possible and washing their hands after recreating), even during dry
weather?
13.
In Section VII, paragraph 1, you reference
"...
encouraging communities to better
connect with this precious natural resource
." Could
you please describe or list the natural
elements of the
CAWS that
make it a precious natural resource?
14.
In the last paragraph of your testimony, you state that "strengthening aquatic life use
designations will contribute to better water quality and aquatic habitat, helping
ecosystems throughout the region to reach their potential."
A.
Besides water quality, can you explain the mechanism by which aquatic habitat
would be improved by this rulemaking?
B.
Do you have any experience
assessing
the physical habitat requirements of
aquatic life?
15.
In the last paragraph of your testimony, you state that "maintaining the status quo can be
a factor in the slow degradation of high quality streams, like Jackson Creek, which are
vulnerable to shifts in natural conditions."
A.
What
evidence do you have that high quality tributaries
to the CAWS or Lower
Des Plaines River are slowly degrading?
B.
If they are degrading, is there evidence that this degradation is related to
conditions in their receiving waters (i.e. the water receiving their flow)?
C.
If these streams are vulnerable to shifts in "natural" conditions, why is it
necessary to compensate for these natural conditions in connected receiving
streams that only very slightly, if at all, influence them?
D.
Please explain how the proposed incremental increases in DO within the CAWS
will improve the fish community in the Lower Des Plaines River and Jackson
Creek.
E.
Isn
't there
an electric
field barrier
that separates the confluence
of the Lower Des
Plaines
River from the CSSC
and waterways connected
to the CSSC?
F.
The electric field barrier is designed to prevent the migration of invasive fish
species between the Mississippi and Great Lakes basins. How does increased fish
diversity in the CSC or CSSC improve the fish community in Jackson Creek if
they are isolated from each other?
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
G.
What
is the evidence that the current conditions of the Des Plaines River are
leading to the "slow degradation
of high quality
streams,"
like Jackson Creek?
H.
How exactly will this be improved by the current rulemaking
?
Does Des Plaines
River water feed into Jackson Creek?
16.
Would
you agree with the statement in the
UAA that
"caution
would have to be exercised
during and following a wet-weather event
?" (CDM, August 2007, pp. 1-7)
17.
If
disinfection
were provided at the North Side
and Calumet
Water
Reclamation
Plants,
would
you consider
the waterways to be
safe
for primary
contact
recreation?
Why or
why not?
18.
Is revitalization of urban areas near waterways directly tied to "fishable and swimmable"
water? If so
, then why
has redevelopment of downtown Chicago occurred even though
the CAWS is
not fishable and swimmable?
Dated:
August 25, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
METR P
N WATER RECLAMATION
DIS ^ CT
OF GG.^"TER/eHICAGO
By:
Fredric P. Andes
Fredric P. Andes
David T. Ballard
BARNES
&
THORNBURG LLP
Suite 4400
One North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 357-1313
482119vl
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, August 25, 2008
