0001

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

2 IN THE MATTER OF:

)

3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ) R08-09

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE ) (Rulemaking-

4 CHICAGO AREA WATERWAY SYSTEM ) Water)

AND THE LOWER DES PLAINES )

5 RIVER: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS )

TO 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts )

6 301, 302, 303 and 304

)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS held in the

8 above-entitled cause before Hearing Officer Marie

9 Tipsord, called by the Illinois Pollution Control

10 Board, taken before Laura Mukahirn, CSR, a notary

11 public within and for the County of Cook and State

12 of Illinois, at the Thompson Building, 100 West

13 Randolph, Chicago, Illinois, on the 3rd day of

14 December, 2008, commencing at the hour of 9:00 a.m.

0002

A P P E A R A N C E S

MS. MARIE TIPSORD, Hearing Officer

MR. THOMAS JOHNSON, Acting Chairman

MS. ALISA LIU, Member

MS. ANDREA MOORE, Member

DR. SHUNDAR LIN, Member

Appearing on behalf of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217)782-5544

BY: MS. DEBORAH WILLIAMS

MS. STEPHANIE DIERS

MR. ROBERT SULSKI

MR. SCOTT TWAIT

MR. HOWARD ESSIG

MR. RAY SMOGOR

BARNES & THORNBURG

One North Wacker Drive

Suite 4400

Chicago, Illinois 6606-2833

(312)357-1313

BY: MR. FREDRIC P. ANDES

Appearing on behalf of the Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District

0003

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Good

morning, everyone. This is Day 2 of eight

sets, which means it's Day 23. I'm not going

to repeat everything I said yesterday, but

good morning. This is RO 8-9, Water Quality

Standards and Effluent Limitations for the

Chicago Area Waterway System and Lower Des

Plaines Proposed amendments to 35 Ill. Admin.

Code 301, 302, 303 and 304. As I indicated

yesterday, Dr. Girard has a family emergency

and can't be with us, but here for him today

is on my left board member Thomas Johnson.

We also have present with us to my far right

board member Dr. Shundar Lin, to the next

seat over is board member Andrea Moore, and

from our technical unit today to my immediate

right is Alisa Liu. We are with Miss Wasik,

Jennifer Wasik from the District. Miss Wasik

was sworn in yesterday and we were proceeding

with questions from the IEPA. We are on

Question 20. The schedule today will be

good. I know that I think everybody except

maybe one or two of us has a distance to

drive at the end of the day, and with the

0004

winter weather advisory, and since I've

already heard two different forecasts this

morning as to when it's going to hit and how

much snow we're going to get, we'll see what

we can do and we'll revisit everything later

in the morning.

So with that, if we could

continue with Miss Wasik and the Agency.

MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning,

Miss Wasik.

MS. WASIK: Good morning.

MS. WILLIAMS: Question 20: You

testify on Page 5 that, quote, Hester-Dendy

samples yielded a total of 22 species while

ponar samples only had five species as would

be expected given the high quality lake water

in this reach and poor sediment habitat

quality. Subpart A: Of these 22 species,

how many are considered tolerant and

intolerant?

MS. WASIK: I have to clarify first.

What system would you want me to use to

distinguish tolerant from intolerant?

MS. WILLIAMS: Well --

0005

MS. WASIK: I don't think there's

necessarily a precise cutoff unless you

relate the rating use for the draft IBI, the

Tetratech.

MS. WILLIAMS: You don't feel you can

answer without a specific methodology?

MS. WASIK: Well, I believe Tetratech

has, I think it's a draft, and IBI for

Illinois. And I did -- I do have a copy of

that from Mark Joseph, so I could use that as

a cut-off. I believe they say three is the

cutoff for intolerant species. And if I use

that, then in the Chicago River there were

three intolerant species, 16 tolerant and

three were not rated.

MR. ANDES: And we can provide copies

of that documentation.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Fred. What

did you say?

MR. ANDES: The draft MIBI documents

that Miss Wasik is referring to, we can

provide copies of.

MS. WILLIAMS: No. I don't think

that's the question. I guess the question is

0006

that document identifies intolerant species.

Does it identify which species are tolerant

also?

MS. WASIK: There's a rating of 1-10,

10 being the most tolerant solution. And

then I believe there's in the --

MR. ANDES: I think we'd like to get

this into the record.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes. I

think we need to put it into the record, too,

since her answer is based on this

methodology. Am I stating that correctly?

MS. WASIK: Yes. I believe it says

that they consider three or less an

intolerant species. If you'd like me to

answer it a different way --

MS. WILLIAMS: Are you saying that

four or greater is what you're using toward

tolerant then or greater than three?

MS. WASIK: Actually, it would be --

Let's see. Yes, three or less is intolerant.

MR. ANDES: We have two documents to

add to the record.

MS. WASIK: I mean -- sorry.

0007

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's put

these in the record, first. Because we may

want to take a look.

MR. ANDES: The first one is a

November 2004 document prepared for Illinois

EPA by Tetratech entitled Illinois Benthic

Macroinvertebrate Collection Method

Comparison and Stream Condition Index

Revision. And the second document is an

attachment to that with the title Computing

the Macroinvertebrate IBI, MIBI.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'm going to

enter both of those contrary to the building

of the exhibit numbers, since one is an

attachment to the other, we'll just do one

exhibit number. We'll mark this report and

the attachments Exhibit 190, if there is no

objection.

Seeing none, it's Exhibit 190.

MS. WILLIAMS: Subpart B, is it true

that the Hester-Dendy substrate and petite

ponar samples at Wells each consisted of more

than 90 percent aquatic forms?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

0008

MS. WILLIAMS: Subpart C: Did

gammarus fasciatus, an intolerant amphipod

make up 56 percent of the population in a

Hester-Dendy sample at Lake Shore Drive but

only 4 percent at Wells Street?

MS. WASIK: Yes. Total density was

over twice as high at Wells Street compared

to Lake Shore Drive. And I think this is due

generally to oligochaete density.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is that your answer to

the second subpart? The second subpart of

this question says given the above statement

about high quality lake water and poor

sediment quality in this reach, how do you

explain this to decline?

MS. WASIK: Perhaps because Lake Shore

Drive is right at the lake, whereas Wells is

a little over a mile downstream inland and

the Chicago River near the confluence with

the north and south branch.

MS. WILLIAMS: Question 21: On Page 6

of your testimony in reference to the south

fork of the south branch Chicago River, you

state that, quote, "Tolerant benthic

0009

invertebrate taxa comprise over 99 percent.

Is this true for both Hester-Dendy and petite

ponar samples?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Question 22: On Page 6

of your testimony in reference to the south

fork of the south branch Chicago River, you

state that, quote, "Sediment toxicity

bioassays also confirm toxicity to chironomus

tentans." Is it true that samples from 2006

had 66 percent and 75 percent survival and

were not significantly different compared to

the control?

MS. WASIK: 2006 samples from Bubbly

Creek showed significantly different ash-free

dried weight meaning that there was impaired

growth. But decreased survival was only

indicated in the two 2002 samples where

survival was 14 and 59 percent.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. The question is

referring to the 2006 samples.

MS. WASIK: Right.

MS. WILLIAMS: So the answer is yes

for 2006?

0010

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm going to skip ahead

to 29, because I think that's more similar

questions and then come back to 23.

Question 29: With regard to

your macroinvertebrate sampling methods, how

deep were petite ponar samples in each of the

waterways side and center?

MS. WASIK: So when you ask how deep,

you're talking about water depth or sediment

depth?

MS. WILLIAMS: I think water depth.

Yes. Water depth.

MS. WASIK: Water depths can vary

depending on the waterway. Hester-Dendy

samplers are deployed at various depths

depending on the waterway. Usually we set

the sampler in an area where it will not dry

out during low flow. The plates are attached

to an anchor that sits on the river bottom.

So the plate would be a few inches off the

bottom. And the U.S. EPA 2006 guidance that

I mentioned yesterday states, quote,

deployment depth is chosen so that receiving

0011

or rising waters during the exposure period

will not leave samplers dry or too deep to

retrieve.

MS. WILLIAMS: So when you say a few

inches off the bottom, what do you mean?

MS. WASIK: So there's a river anchor,

and we have the Hester-Dendy plates attached

to that. So the anchor sits on the bottom

and the plates are coming off of an eye hook

on the top. So maybe three inches from the

bottom of the anchor.

MS. WILLIAMS: How deep were the

Hester-Dendy substrates deployed?

MR. ANDES: I think that was the --

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. No. So --

MR. ANDES: Yes.

MS. WASIK: I'm sorry. Did I answer

the --

MS. WILLIAMS: Did you answer the

wrong question? You answered them both

together, and I missed it.

MS. WASIK: I guess I answered them

both because the first one for the ponar, it

does depend on the waterway.

0012

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. What were the

ranges then?

MS. WASIK: Generally it's probably

about -- It can range quite a bit. Because

in the Ship Canal at the side you might have

depth of maybe seven feet in some areas

and -- seven feet in some areas or it could

even be deeper. I think they could be in

water as shallow as three feet.

MS. WILLIAMS: Question 30: Is it

true that oligochaeta were the predominant

organism in the petite ponar grab samples

making up 86 percent to 100 percent from all

the CAWS sites except for Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal at Lockport and South Branch

Chicago River?

MS. WASIK: No. Oligochaete worms

were not the predominant organism collected

in all ponar samples for the CAWS monitoring

stations, and there are other exceptions

besides the South Branch Chicago River.

MS. WILLIAMS: So --

MR. ANDES: Why don't you go on to

talk about what those exceptions were.

0013

MS. WASIK: Percent oligochaeta in

ponar samples was less than 86 percent in

some stations in the Calumet River in 2002

and 2005.

MS. WILLIAMS: How much less?

MS. WASIK: I would have to check.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MS. WASIK: The Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal at Steven Street is -- in 2002 was

13 percent oligochaeta. And, let's see, the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at Harlem

during 2004 at one station and the Cal-Sag

Channel during 2004 and at one station in the

North Shore Channel during 2004. And then in

addition, the one station that you mentioned

in the South Branch Chicago River in 2002.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Miss Wasik,

this information is -- You've provided like

tables in the attachments?

MS. WASIK: Right.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Could you

specify which attachments we would look at to

find that information?

MS. WASIK: Sure. That would be --

0014

Let's see. That would be testimony

Attachments 22, 23, and 24.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MR. ANDES: And then -- I'm sorry. Go

ahead.

MS. WASIK: And oligochaeta was the

dominant organism in the ponar samples from

Lockport during all the years.

MS. WILLIAMS: Would you agree -- This

is the second part of 30: Would you agree

that sediment contamination did not seem to

make a difference in the relative abundance

of oligochaeta?

MS. WASIK: I guess I don't know

specifically whether sediment contamination

did or did not make a difference in the

relative abundance of oligochaete worms,

because I haven't actually done any

multivariant statistics to try to isolate

that factor with the relative abundance. The

fine sediments with organic contamination, I

wouldn't expect a correlation because this is

a really tolerant group.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm going to strike 31

0015

and move on to 32. You have indicated that

Hester-Dendy substrate samples had more EPT

taxa than petite ponar grab samples. How

many taxa of terichoptera and plecoptera, I'm

sure I'm saying it wrong,

p-l-e-c-o-p-t-e-r-a, would you expect to be

found in fine sediment such as silt and sand?

MS. WASIK: It's sort of a broad

question. I don't know exactly how many

would be found. I know they generally live

in cobble and gravel interstices, maybe in

leaf litter and plant debris. However, the

fact that you find limited EPT taxa in the

Hester-Dendy and not the ponar sample, I

think, as I said earlier, it just means that

if there were appropriate habitat for those

species, then they could possibly live in

sediment.

MS. WILLIAMS: But you agree that it

would be normal even in a natural river

dominated by silt and sand to find these same

results of greater EPT taxa in the

Hester-Dendy than on the petite ponar sample,

correct?

0016

MS. WASIK: Possibly.

MS. WILLIAMS: Subpart B asks: Is it

true that only about nine EPT taxa were found

on Hester-Dendy samples throughout the CAWS

through 2001 to 2004?

MS. WASIK: Yes. It's true that nine

taxa were found. That's different than

number of individuals, but nine taxa were

found.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right. And that each

of these taxa make up less than 1 percent of

the population at all sites except one?

MS. WASIK: Yes. That's true.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain how

this information about the oligochaete and

EPT taxa in the Hester-Dendy samples

indicates good water quality?

MS. WASIK: Is good water quality a

quote? Because I -- if you could show me

where I said good water quality.

MS. WILLIAMS: It is in quotes, so let

me see if I can find it.

So would you disagree then

you're not saying that there's good water

0017

quality in the water column? I guess maybe I

should ask it that way.

MS. WASIK: I guess what I would say

is looking through my testimony, I couldn't

find where I've used the word good. But I

did say on Page 9-10 finally higher taxa

richness in Hester-Dendy samples than ponar

samples indicate that water quality is

adequate for more sensitive species, but the

habitat is limiting their colonization. And

then on Page 6 and 7, I said from 2001 to

2005, Hester-Dendy samples yielded many more

total and EPT taxa than ponar samples. This

is characteristic of aquatic environments in

which water quality exceeds habitat quality

or availability. These data are probably

reflective of the soft homogenous silt

sediments present in this system.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you give us the

basis for that second statement that you

read?

MS. WASIK: I guess I'd go back to the

2006 U.S. EPA document under the advantages

of artificial substrate samplers on Page 6-6.

0018

They say an advantage is that they can,

quote, "Be especially effective in reflecting

water quality as a result of the standardized

habitat they provide."

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I'd like to

note for the record here, since this is

different day, that you agreed yesterday to

provide that for us.

MS. WILLIAMS: That's right. We don't

have that. But they're not saying what

you're saying here, right? Does that

document in anywhere say what you are saying

here, that having -- having differences

between the Hester-Dendy and petite ponar

samples indicates that there's insufficient

habitat for higher quality organisms?

MS. WASIK: I'd have to look through

to see if it says that exactly, but I think

from these advantages and disadvantages

that's what would be inferred.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you find any other

source for that, that inference?

MS. WASIK: Yes. There are several

other sources. I don't think I necessarily

0019

have them with me right now, but in the

literature that is a common element.

MR. ANDES: We can provide other

sources in the literature. I would also ask

whether that's your professional opinion as a

biologist?

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's a great

answer. Is it your professional opinion as a

biologist that these results show that?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. WASIK: It does say as a

disadvantage of the artificial substrate

sampler they can effectively indicate water

quality but not sediment or other habitat

quality.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right. They cannot

indicate sediment or other habitat quality.

Not that they indicate poor sediment or

habitat quality, correct?

MS. WASIK: Right. Not alone without

a comparison with the ponar sample.

MR. ANDES: So, again, your point in

terms of your professional opinion is if you

0020

get organisms on the Hester-Dendy samples on

the artificial substrate but you're not

getting in the ponar samples, it stands to

reason that the limiting factor is the

habitat?

MS. WASIK: Right. And I've conferred

with the LimnoTech biologists that are

working on our habitat study, and they've

also reached a similar conclusion.

MS. WILLIAMS: So it's not your

professional opinion that the limiting factor

is contaminated sediment, though?

MS. WASIK: Not necessarily. Just the

physical properties of the sediment alone may

be the issue.

MS. WILLIAMS: So the same results

could occur in a natural, healthy system that

was dominated by silt?

MS. WASIK: Perhaps not to the same

degree, but yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MR. ANDES: So to clarify on that, I

mean I think you stated it yesterday that the

sediment quality in terms of the sediment

0021

composition, the silt, et cetera, is one

possible stressor, and the sediment

contamination is another, and either one of

them could -- or both could cause the

problems we're talking about?

MS. WASIK: Yes, definitely. There is

a lack of heterogeneous sediments, and that

is one stressor. And another stressor could

be contamination or toxicity.

MS. WILLIAMS: And when Fred's

question asked the problems we're talking

about, what do you understand that to mean?

MS. WASIK: The problems?

MR. ANDES: I think I was referring to

the habitat being the limiting factor, lack

of adequate habitat.

MS. WILLIAMS: No. But I assume you

meant that it was resulting in something,

right? Lack of habitat was resulting in the

problems we're seeing? I don't --

MS. WASIK: Limited benthic

communities.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

Let's go back to 23. I think

0022

I'm going to strike 23 and move on to 24.

On Page 7 of your testimony

regarding the Calumet-Sag Channel you state,

quote, "The results from physical

characterizations in the Calumet-Sag Channel

clearly show that the sediments lack

substrate heterogeneity," unquote.

Is this statement based on a

physical habitat assessment such as the QHEI

or on the ponar graph samples?

MS. WASIK: It's based on both.

MR. ANDES: Could you explain a little

bit about how that assessment is done?

MS. WASIK: We, as part of our habitat

assessment, do take a ponar grab sample in

which we, a biologist, would characterize the

composition of the sample or estimate the

composition. And, in addition, we run a

grain size particle distribution or a

contractor runs that for us on our samples

using the hydrometer method.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Miss Wasik,

if you're through with that answer,

Dr. Mackey yesterday talked a lot about the

0023

QHEI and also made the point often that he

was not a biologist, which we appreciate.

But he talked about the QHEI that really

wasn't used in like manmade systems and he

saw some real limitations when using QHEI in

the CAWS. Do you share some of his concerns

or do you feel comfortable using the two

together that you're getting adequate --

MS. WASIK: This is actually just

qualitative data that we've collected. It

doesn't have anything to do with the QHEI we

calculated. It's a parameter, one of the

parameters that we've measured out in the

field. So it's not -- I mean it's not --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: But your

answer to this question is, I guess the

question is do you use the QHEI or the ponar

or both to develop your habitat assessment?

MS. WASIK: Right. She said in

parentheses such as QHEI. It's based on a

physical habitat assessment that we did. But

in answer to your question, I do feel like

the QHEI is limited in the CAWS as

Dr. Mackey mentioned. There are several

0024

parameters that are constant at all of the

stations, so I think it has limited

applicability.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MR. ANDES: So if I can clarify, so

when you talk about habitat assessment here,

you're talking about a qualitative habitat

assessment of the habitat in terms of

assessing the ponar samples. You're not

talking about a use of an index?

MS. WASIK: Right. Like in

Attachments 1 and 2 of my testimony, there's

a field data sheet of all of the parameters

we fill out. And on that sheet, on the

second page, there's information about

sediment composition.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: Maybe on that line, I

think Dr. -- I had made a note that

Dr. Mackey had mentioned yesterday that field

biologists had informed him, told him that

the IBI scores in the CAWS were, quote,

inflated. Do you recall him making that

statement?

0025

MS. WASIK: Yes. And that --

MS. WILLIAMS: Did you -- Were you one

of the ones that told him that or do you

agree with that statement?

MS. WASIK: Yes. That was based on, I

think at the beginning of my testimony

yesterday, I mentioned the scoring mistakes

that were made by the UAA contractor. We

went through and recalculated several

stations and -- using the correct procedure,

and we always -- we, in every case, ended up

with a number that was actually lower than --

and that makes sense. Because the mistakes

that they made awarded more points than

should have been awarded, and there were less

than 200 fish. And we almost always, I

think, get less than 200 fish or often do.

MS. WILLIAMS: And so that was just

referring to mistakes. That wasn't referring

somehow to inappropriateness of applying that

index to the CAWS or problems with the index

itself?

MS. WASIK: No. It was purely

mathematical.

0026

MS. WILLIAMS: I think he implied

there was a need for a more robust index. I

mean that wasn't what you were trying to say

yesterday? It was just that there were

mistakes?

MS. WASIK: That wasn't what I was

trying to say yesterday, no.

MS. WILLIAMS: Has the District used

QHEI in -- that index in evaluating the CAWS?

MS. WASIK: We have attempted to

calculate QHEIs using the information that we

had. We did not fill out a QHEI field data

sheet, so basically at some point when we

were working on our biological reports QHEIs

were being calculated by other agencies. And

it seems like something that might be of

interest, so we did attempt to calculate them

using the Rankin documents as guidance and

our existing field data sheets.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I think

Question 25. On Page 7 of your testimony

regarding the Calumet-Sag Channel you

testified, quote, "Aquatic vegetation was

absent during the surveys except for attached

0027

green algae," unquote.

This is the first mention of

aquatic vegetation in your testimony. Was

aquatic vegetation present in the other

waterways previously discussed?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain why it

wasn't discussed in your testimony? Or what

the significance is of discussing it with

regard to the Calumet-Sag Channel?

MR. ANDES: First can you talk about

where it was found elsewhere?

MS. WASIK: Okay. It was -- Some

aquatic vegetation was detected in reaches of

the North Shore Channel, North Branch Chicago

River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the

Little Calumet River, the Calumet River, and

the Grand Calumet River.

MR. ANDES: So was your point that as

opposed to all of those areas, there wasn't

any aquatic vegetation in the Cal-Sag

Channel?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. We've

0028

already talked about 26, I think. Let me

make sure we got all the subparts. Okay.

Twenty-seven: Are you familiar

with tiered sediment screening methodologies

that take into consideration specific

chemical, aquatic life, and bioassay lines

and weight of evidence approaches to

determine the effects of sediments on aquatic

life?

MS. WASIK: Yes. I'm familiar with

the sediment triad approach.

MS. WILLIAMS: Has the District used

that approach at all?

MS. WASIK: As I've said, the District

has collected information about sediment

chemistry, toxicity, and biological

information in the benthic invertebrates.

However, no, the District has not

specifically analyzed the CAWS sediment using

a weight of evidence approach, though I'm not

sure that that's been done before the UAA at

all.

MR. ANDES: Just to follow up: Are

you aware of the Illinois EPA using the

0029

sediment triad approach?

MS. WASIK: That's what I mean. I

don't think it's been used for the UAA, by

IEPA either.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain a

little bit about what's the goal of that type

of approach, a sediment triad approach? What

it's designed to show?

MS. WASIK: I believe it would be

designed to show what, looking at the

sediment chemistry and the properties of the

sediment, maybe what kind of benthic

invertebrates would be expected versus what

is seen.

MR. ANDES: Explain a little bit more

about what it means that it's a sediment

triad approach? What are the ways -- what's

the weight of evidence approached there in

terms of what are the different factors and

how are they weighed together?

MS. WASIK: Well, you would integrate

sediment chemistry, toxicity, and what kind

of biological community is found and

basically try to integrate all of the

0030

information you have. And as the name

suggests, you're weighing all of the evidence

to try to make the best, I guess, decisions.

MR. ANDES: And are there sources in

the literature including, I believe, a Pelson

workshop report that discusses exactly how to

do that?

MS. WASIK: Yes. There's, in terms of

weight of evidence approach, there's very

specific ways to mathematically look at all

of those factors and try to come up with a

structured sort of conclusion.

MR. ANDES: And there's no evidence

that IEPA has done that, right?

MS. WASIK: From the statement of

reasons and being here at the hearings, I

don't think that I've seen that, no.

MS. WILLIAMS: Question 28: In your

opinion are toxics in the sediments

biologically available throughout the CAWS to

the extent you can conclude sediment toxicity

would prevent attainment of aquatic life

uses?

MS. WASIK: Yes. It is my opinion

0031

that the toxic sediments throughout the CAWS

prevent attainment of the aquatic life uses

proposed by IEPA.

MS. WILLIAMS: I mean my question

specifically is about the biological

availability. What can we look at to

determine whether the toxics in the sediments

are biologically available?

MS. WASIK: Well, you can look at

AVS-SEM ratios.

MR. ANDES: Explain.

MS. WASIK: Well, there's

simultaneously extracted metals and acid

volatile sulfites, and the ratio between the

two can help to explain how much the metals

are available in the sediment. But the

District has collected that information and I

haven't had much success necessarily

determining and trying to correlate the

sediment toxicity data with those AVS-SEM

results, so.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain what

you mean you haven't had success correlating

them?

0032

MS. WASIK: Well, just trying to look

at and compare various factors, you know, in

determining where you would expect the

sediments to have bioavailable contaminants

based on the AVS-SEM data, and you don't

necessarily see higher toxicity values or

higher toxicity in those areas. So in terms

of interpretation of that data, I haven't

been able to really use that, but that is one

way that you could try to determine

bioavailability.

MS. WILLIAMS: And the point I'm

trying to get at, and you can agree or

disagree, but my understanding, what I guess

I'm trying to see if you agree with, is that

it's very complicated.

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: You can have -- You can

measure what's in the sediment, but knowing

how that will impact aquatic life is quite a

complicated analysis. Do you agree?

MS. WASIK: Yes. But, you know, since

we've seen decreased survival and growth from

our sediment toxicity tests of the chironomus

0033

tentans, which is a quite tolerant organism

itself, you know, looking at those toxicity

results, I feel in my professional opinion

that the toxicity of the sediments does

actually prevent the attainment of the

proposed uses.

MS. WILLIAMS: For all of them,

including the Use B designation?

MS. WASIK: Yes. I think so, to some

degree. Because the -- A lot of the toxic

sediments are present in Aquatic Life Use B.

MR. ANDES: So are you saying that the

best indicator of whether there's impact from

the toxic sediment is the state of the

benthic community and in terms of what you're

seeing as far as reduced survival, reduced

reproduction, head capsule deformities, those

are all indicative of --

MS. WASIK: Right. Those are

indicators of toxicity.

MS. WILLIAMS: Aren't the benthic

communities affected by all sorts of other

stressors as well? Wouldn't they be by water

quality, by --

0034

MS. WASIK: Well, head capsule

deformities are not an indicator -- I don't

believe they're an indicator of poor water

quality. I believe it would be sediment

contamination.

MS. WILLIAMS: So specifically head

capsule deformities you're saying is an

indicator of sediment contamination impacts

on the benthic community?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is that true of

other -- explain -- I guess I want to

understand how you can conclude that the

predominance of tolerant organisms is what

the stressor is resulting in that?

MS. WASIK: I don't believe I said

that. Just the predominance of oligochaetes

wouldn't in itself necessarily indicate

toxicity.

MS. WILLIAMS: So you've given one --

you have given -- Let me go down a little

bit. Were any head capsule deformities found

on the Hester-Dendy samples?

MS. WASIK: I believe there were some,

0035

yes. Although I think they're more

wide-spread in ponar samples.

MR. ANDES: So if I can try to clarify

this a little bit: I think what you said

earlier, correct me if I'm wrong, was that

the nature of the substrates in the waterways

is a stressor in terms of the concrete and

the fine silt, et cetera. And that the

sediment toxicity is also a stressor.

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Have you done any kind of

detailed analysis to figure out how much each

one of them contributes to the problem?

MS. WASIK: No.

MS. WILLIAMS: And is it possible

there's other stressors that are contributing

to the problem?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Would you say that given

the two problems with the sediment, both

nature of the sediment and the chemical

contamination, and I think this is consistent

with Dr. Mackey's testimony, so I want to see

if you agree. He indicated that the habitat

0036

problems were the major limiting factor more

so than water quality.

MS. WASIK: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: So bottom

line, Miss Wasik, if the water quality

suddenly became pristine, you still believe

there would be problems for the species

because of the soil --

MS. WASIK: Oh, definitely.

MS. WILLIAMS: But the problem --

would you be able to distinguish between

whether the problem was contaminated sediment

or just the presence of silt and sand

habitat?

MS. WASIK: You may be able to

distinguish it, but we haven't done the

studies or statistics to do so.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's -- I'm

not trying to be difficult. I just wanted to

get to that point that as you sit here today,

you don't know either to what degree

contaminated sediments could impact benthic

organisms versus just having a lot of --

MS. WASIK: Right. I'm not sure that

0037

it matters, because they're both present in

the CAWS to some degree, I think.

MS. WILLIAMS: And you think they're

both irreversible conditions in the CAWS?

MS. WASIK: Well, I think there's

other people better to testify about whether

it's reversible or not, but I think it would

be irreversible, yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: You think it would be

irreversible? I just want to be sure I

heard.

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Who would be better to

talk about whether these conditions were

reversible or irreversible, do you think?

MS. WASIK: I think to some degree --

I don't know if Dr. Mackey really got into

that, but --

MR. ANDES: I think Dr. Mackey talked

about some of the fundamental aspects of the

walls of the system, et cetera, which were

obviously irreversible. So I think he talked

about them.

MS. WASIK: I mean I can say because

0038

of the hydraulic capacity that's necessary in

the CAWS, sediment capping, I don't think, is

a good option for the entire system because

of the ubiquitous nature of the fines, I

don't really see wide spread dredging as an

option. So in that sense is why I'm calling

it irreversible.

MS. WILLIAMS: Miss Wasik, are you

aware of any existing projects at the

district for sediment capping?

MS. WASIK: Yes. We're participating

in a project with the City of Chicago and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a

demonstration project where they're using

four different kinds of sediment caps. And

I'm on the panel that's been involved in

that.

MR. ANDES: Is that specifically for

Bubbly Creek?

MS. WASIK: It's for the south branch

turning basin or the mouth of Bubbly Creek.

It's a four acre area and just for those four

acres it's running over about a million

dollars.

0039

MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know if we've

talked about what sediment capping is at

these hearings or how it would work. Can you

explain a little bit more about the goal and

how it works.

MS. WASIK: It can serve to either

isolate contaminated sediments by -- you

know, put a layer over the fine sediments,

and it can basically isolate them or it could

be a method that's used to actually try and

remediate them while the cap is on the

sediments. So they have different goals, but

ultimately it's to isolate the aquatic life

in the water from the contaminated sediment.

MR. ANDES: I think we can probably

have at least Dr. Grenado talk about the

impacts that capping, wide spread capping

would have in terms of problems it would

cause in navigation and for flood control.

MS. WILLIAMS: I just think I would

want to ask Miss Wasik about existing plans

the District had to not -- I'm not asking

about wide spread sediment capping throughout

the CAWS. I'm just asking about plans that

0040

are on the books today to do some sediment

capping in some parts of the CAWS.

MS. WASIK: It's true. We're involved

in it. It wasn't our plan, per se, but we

are involved in the committee and have been

working on this project for about four years

now they've been trying to plan it, so. And

that will give them a better idea of how the

various caps work, although I can say from

being involved that they looked at trying to

put the cap in to other areas of Bubbly Creek

besides the mouth, and many engineering firms

and engineers from the city concluded that it

would probably not be possible with RAPS or

the Racine Avenue Pumping Station.

MS. WILLIAMS: Are you familiar with

any other sediment capping projects that the

District is undertaking or involved in?

MS. WASIK: I don't know that I'd call

them sediment capping projects. Maybe

there's other wetland projects.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain what

you mean by wetland projects?

MS. WASIK: I think in the collateral

0041

channel off the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal they planned on, I guess, capping to

some degree just in terms of the isolation

and trying to create a wetland in that area.

MR. ANDES: Can you explain what the

collateral channel is?

MS. WASIK: It's -- I don't know its

historical significance, really, but it's

basically a slip off the Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal.

MS. WILLIAMS: Is it at 31st Street

and Albany Avenue?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MS. WASIK: I don't remember exactly

how long it is. Less than a mile.

MS. WILLIAMS: And what would be --

MS. WASIK: That's off channel. It's

not affected -- it doesn't affect the

hydraulics of the system because it is

off-channel. It's already pretty filled in

with silt, actually.

MS. WILLIAMS: So you don't think it

would improve --

0042

MS. WASIK: I'm just saying that the

fact that they're putting any kind of capping

or limiting the capacity of water that that

area could hold doesn't really make a

difference because it's not limiting the

hydraulic capacity of the system.

MR. ANDES: So it wouldn't affect --

So doing something there wouldn't affect the

flood control function of the CAWS, whereas

if you did that in the middle of the Sanitary

and Ship Canal, it would affect the flood

control function.

MS. WASIK: Exactly.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right. But in theory

it should improve sediment quality?

MS. WASIK: The point of it, I think,

was to demonstrate possibly nutrient removal.

I don't know that the point was to isolate

sediment.

MS. WILLIAMS: Are you aware of any

other projects?

MS. WASIK: No.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I guess just to

follow-up on your explanation of the wetland

0043

project, part of creating the wetland will

involve capping the sediment in the

collateral channel?

MS. WASIK: I believe so. I'm not

really a participant on the project. It's

our engineering department.

MS. WILLIAMS: And are there any

projects that you're aware of in the north

branch or the north branch canal?

MR. ANDES: I think she already said

no.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think so, too, but I

just want to be more specific.

MS. WASIK: No.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

I have one area that I want to

follow up, and I think that's the end of my

prefiled questions from yesterday. And I

think it would help Miss Wasik if she

referred to the statement of reasons, Page 60

on dissolved oxygen that we were talking

about yesterday in order to work on this.

MS. WASIK: Okay.

MS. WILLIAMS: Now I want you to bear

0044

with me, because I think that there's some

confusion on this issue of what the Agency's

proposed and why. And I'm hoping we can just

walk through it and clarify a little bit for

everybody's benefit.

Yesterday I believe you read

from some language on Page 59, and I think

maybe some of it was taken out of context.

And I'd like to turn your attention to the

beginning -- unfortunately, Page 59 is one

long paragraph. And you read from the end of

that paragraph. And I'd like to sort of turn

your attention to the beginning of that

paragraph, the third sentence -- Can you just

read the third and fourth sentence for us and

maybe get our minds focussed.

MS. WASIK: Starting with one

manifestation?

MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MS. WASIK: One manifestation of the

limited biological potential of the Chicago

Area Waterway System Aquatic Life Use A

waters is suboptimal growth conditions for

fish. For sufficient protection under such

0045

limited growth situations, U.S. EPA's 1986

dissolved oxygen national criteria document

provides a chronic criterion of 5.0

milligrams per liter as a daily mean averaged

over seven days for early life stages.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. So that says 5.0

milligrams per liter as a daily mean averaged

over seven days, correct?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Let's turn to the table

on Page 60. And the question that I'd like

to ask you here is are you aware that the

general use standard includes a seven-day

value of 6.0 milligrams per liter to protect

early life stages for the nonenhanced general

use waters?

MS. WASIK: 6.0 milligrams per liter

is a seven day mean of means.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And do you agree

that the sentence you just read from Page 59

indicates that for the Use A Waters the

criteria document would allow a 5.0 milligram

per liter seven-day mean of daily means?

MS. WASIK: No. I'm sorry. You're

0046

talking about in the U.S. EPA table or in the

Illinois IPA proposal? Because they're at

the bottom of Page 59. I think what I was

pointing out yesterday is there actually is

not a seven-day mean.

MS. WILLIAMS: And the reason for that

is?

MS. WASIK: Well, it appears the

reason was that it was redundant because it

would be mathematically impossible.

MS. WILLIAMS: Right. Because it

would have been set at what number?

MR. ANDES: It meaning?

MS. WILLIAMS: The seven-day mean and

daily means. Had the Agency set a seven-day

mean of daily means in this paragraph, what

would that have been?

MS. WASIK: 5.0.

MS. WILLIAMS: And 5.0 is not the same

number as provided for general use, correct?

MS. WASIK: As 6.0, no. But

Dr. Mackey's testimony was that it was

essentially the same; not that it was exactly

the same.

0047

MS. WILLIAMS: I just want to clarify.

I think yesterday we had some confusion about

your testimony. I don't -- I mean I don't

want to clarify Dr. Mackey's. I don't expect

you to do that. But I just want to make it

clear that that number would have been lower

had it been set for these waters than what

was set for general use, correct?

MS. WASIK: I guess that's how I would

interpret the statement of reasons.

MS. WILLIAMS: And is it correct that

the general use standard for dissolved oxygen

includes a 30-day value of 5.5 milligrams per

liter to protect for other life stages?

MS. WASIK: I'm not sure if it's to

protect for other life stages, but it --

MS. WILLIAMS: Nonearly life stages.

MS. WASIK: I think it's a chronic

criterion, the 30-day.

MS. WILLIAMS: During August through

February?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And when that --

The absence of the 30-day value is explained

0048

on Page 59 for the Use A waters. Are you

aware that the 30-day value that would have

been appropriate for the Use A waters would

be 4.0 milligrams per liter?

MS. WASIK: According to the U.S. EPA

guidance or?

MS. WILLIAMS: According to the

Agency's explanation of the U.S. EPA guidance

on Page 59. I think I had you read the

second and third sentences. I think if you

turn to the next -- yeah, the next sentence

after where you stopped.

MS. WASIK: It seems like most of the

discussion on Page 59 is about the seven-day.

Does it say 30-day somewhere?

MS. WILLIAMS: Just for the fourth

sentence, does it say for other life stages

U.S. EPA provides an analogous criterion of

4.0 milligrams per liter.

MS. WASIK: Yes. It's sort of unclear

to me whether that's referring to the 30-day

daily mean.

MR. ANDES: Is there anything further

on that page about the 30-day?

0049

MS. WASIK: Not that I can find. It

seems like it's discussing the seven-day

standard.

MR. ANDES: So if I can try to clarify

for myself and I think this was your point as

well as Dr. Mackey's, but let me make sure I

understand. As I understand what you said

and Dr. Mackey said that the key requirements

here are the 5.0 minimum during March through

July, the 3.5 minimum during August through

February, and the 4.0 mean of mins. And

those are identical between the general use

and the Class A waters?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MR. ANDES: The other provisions that

are in general use is 6.0 mean of means and

the 5.530-day number. Your understanding is

those were not adopted here because the

Agency felt they were unnecessary.

MS. WASIK: Right.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. WILLIAMS: But you're not

testifying, however, that the -- I think the

question then that I asked yesterday that

0050

caused the confusion is, do you agree that

the numbers in the general use standard are

more -- make that standard more stringent,

the 6.0 seven-day mean of daily means and the

5.5 30-day mean of daily means. Do you agree

that those numbers do make that standard more

stringent than the one proposed for the U.S.

Use A waters?

MS. WASIK: It does seem that because

statistically you could get -- because the

numbers that apparently IEPA was going to

propose for those standards would have been

redundant, but you actually could, I think,

violate one of the chronic standards but not

the other acute standards. It does seem that

it's -- could be slightly more stringent.

MS. WILLIAMS: And I apologize,

because I do agree this is -- this section is

somewhat confusing in how it was drafted, but

I just wanted to clear that up.

MS. WASIK: But in terms of the acute

values they're identical.

MS. WILLIAMS: Correct. Thank you.

That's all I have for this witness. And I

0051

would lay out for Miss Wasik and Mr. Andes,

we do only have three questions, I'm sure it

would take less than five minutes to ask the

cyanide questions that she has filed so she

won't have to come back, but it's really up

to you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I think that

we need to stay in order, and partially

because Miss Dexter has some questions and it

may only take a few minutes to ask those

questions, but we were supposed to get to

Dr. Dennison today. So let's -- if that's

okay?

MS. WASIK: I'm always here anyway.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I've noticed

you're here all the time anyway, so

Miss Dexter, you have some questions.

MS. DEXTER: Yes. I have a few

follow-up questions. Can you explain to me

why the district studies sediment? What's

the purpose of you studying sediments?

MEMBER JOHNSON: I missed that.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You have

to --

0052

MS. DEXTER: I'm sorry. Why does the

District study sediment?

THE WITNESS: We study pretty much

everything you can study in the waterways to

determine impacts and improvements over the

years. We've had a monitoring program in

place since the '70s, so we monitor water

sediment, habitat, every kind of parameter

you can really measure.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. Can you explain to

me where the bugs come from for the

Hester-Dendy samplers? If they're not

present on the -- in the ponar samples, how

do they get into the Hester-Dendy samples?

MS. WASIK: They're considered to be

organisms that would be in the drift or in

the water column.

MS. DEXTER: So they are in the river?

MS. WASIK: Yeah. They're drifting in

the water. In terms of the sources, they

could come from tributaries or the lake.

MS. DEXTER: Or they could come from

the river?

MS. WASIK: They can live in the river

0053

on an artificial substrate if one is provided

for them.

MR. ANDES: In other words, they can't

survive or they can't prosper in the sediment

itself, but if they see a nice habitat --

MS. WASIK: Right. It wouldn't appear

to be so from our ponar grab samples because

they -- a lot of species don't appear to be

living in the sediment.

MS. DEXTER: What organisms are most

likely to be impacted directly by

contaminated sediment? What types of --

MS. WASIK: You mean generally? Just

benthic invertebrates and fish.

MS. DEXTER: What kinds of fish?

MS. WASIK: Possibly the

bottom-dwelling fish would be more affected.

But with food chain effects, I think possibly

all of the fish communities could be affected

by sediment contamination.

MS. DEXTER: And by bottom-dwelling

fish, do you mean catfish? What types of

fish are bottom-dwellers?

MS. WASIK: Carp or bulkheads, for

0054

instance.

MS. DEXTER: Did you examine strata in

sediments that you sampled?

MS. WASIK: No. We didn't do core

samples. We only took a grab of what's on

the top of the sediment. So our ponar is

about, I think, six inches by six inches. So

that's as far as it would go down into the

sediment.

MS. DEXTER: So when you take a ponar,

does it mix together? Is that --

MS. WASIK: We mix it together in a

tray after we pull it out of the water.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. Is there an

objective scientific rule of thumb as to what

is good sediment and what might be poor

sediment like we've seen? Like are there --

is there any metric where -- like we've seen

that with the QHEI where generally we assume

that under this number it's -- Is there any

objective measurement?

MS. WASIK: I don't know of a

quantitative measurement. I just know that

heterogeneous substrates would be ideal for

0055

healthy benthic community.

MS. DEXTER: Okay.

MS. WASIK: Meaning a mix of cobble,

gravel. I think Dr. Mackey talked about how

natural river forms in terms of the

geomorphology and the constraints of having

an artificial system in terms of what

materials can get into that system.

MS. DEXTER: So if somebody were to

say that there is poor sediment quality

somewhere, that doesn't necessarily -- that

doesn't refer -- that doesn't sort of -- a

scientific term of art that means that's

being evaluated by?

MS. WASIK: No. I can't think of the

specific index, not that we use, anyway.

MS. DEXTER: All right. I'd like to

look at the McDonald study that we entered

yesterday as Exhibit No. 188 for a minute.

Can you explain what it means that the

threshold effects concentrations or TECs and

the probable effects concentrations or PECs

are consensus based?

MS. WASIK: Well, they've mined --

0056

MR. ANDES: They meaning?

MS. WASIK: The authors have mined a

lot of different data and empirical data, and

basically I think have come to the conclusion

based on a lot of different studies that are

consistent with each other. They've come up

with these guidelines.

MS. DEXTER: And do we know anything

about what those underlying studies -- do you

personally know anything about the underlying

studies to support that?

MS. WASIK: I have not reviewed all of

the underlying studies.

MS. DEXTER: So do we know whether any

of them study fish?

MS. WASIK: I don't know.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. And do we know

that any -- whether any of them simulate

natural conditions in the river?

MS. WASIK: I can find here they do

say that they verify data with the natural

field samples or field --

MS. DEXTER: But my understanding is

they have taken the -- all of the studies and

0057

derived a geometric mean of those studies to

get at the sort of proposed TECs and PECs and

then they field verified it with the actual

sediment samples. Is that what you're --

MS. WASIK: Right. There is a field

verification, so that would, in my opinion,

constitute relating it to natural systems.

MS. DEXTER: Okay.

MR. ANDES: If I can clarify just one

thing. I think if you go to Page 9816, the

summary.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Of

Exhibit 188?

MR. ANDES: Yes.

MS. DEXTER: Otherwise known at 29 at

the top.

MR. ANDES: Page 29 at the top. I

wonder if you could read in the summary

paragraph starting with the results.

MS. WASIK: Sure. The results of the

evaluations of predicted ability demonstrate

that the TECs and PECs for most of these

chemicals as well as the PEC quotient provide

the reliable basis for classifying sediments

0058

as not toxic and toxic.

MR. ANDES: Keep going.

MS. WASIK: In addition, positive

correlations between sediment chemistry and

sediment toxicity indicate that many of these

sediment-associated contaminants are

associated with the effects that were

observed in field collected sediments.

MR. ANDES: Keep going. Oh, that's

enough.

MS. DEXTER: Are you still reading?

MS. WASIK: No.

MR. ANDES: Would you now go there.

MS. WASIK: As such, this is further

down on the page, as such, the SQGs can be

used to identify hot spots with respect to

sediment contamination, determine the

potential for spatial extent of injury to

sediment dwelling organisms, evaluate the

need for sediment remediation and support the

development of monitoring programs to further

assess the extent of contamination and the

effects of contaminated sediments on sediment

dwelling organisms.

0059

MS. DEXTER: Okay. Can we jump down

to the second to the last sentence on the

page that starts, in these applications. Can

you read that?

MS. WASIK: Sure. In these

applications, the TECs should be used to

identify sediments that are unlikely to be

adversely affected by sediment-associated

contaminants.

MS. DEXTER: So does that sentence

mean that TECs should be used to decide

whether or not sediments below the TEC are

nontoxic?

MS. WASIK: Yes. Basically the TECs,

if they're below the TECs, then the

probability is that they're nontoxic. If

they're above the TECs, they are possibly

toxic.

MS. DEXTER: Right. But that

sentence -- okay. So the next sentence says,

"In contrast, the PECs should be used to

identify sediments that are likely to be

toxic to sediment dwelling organisms."

So I read that to say that TECs --

0060

You use the TEC to decide whether sediments

are nontoxic below the TEC and you decide --

you used PEC to decide whether above the PEC

is toxic.

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. DEXTER: TEC does not necessarily

mean that the sediment is toxic. It means

that below that you can be assured that it's

not toxic.

MS. WASIK: It's a threshold. So

below the TEC, as you said, is likely

nontoxic. Again, these are probabilities, so

it's still possible to have toxic effects.

However, between the TEC and the PEC or

greater than the TEC is possibly toxic.

MR. ANDES: Is that the term used by

the UAA contractor?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MS. DEXTER: Could you turn to Page 22

in this study. And on the -- At the bottom

of the page on the right-hand column, the

sentence in the middle that starts samples.

Can you read that sentence?

MS. WASIK: Samples with contaminants

0061

concentrations between the TEC and PEC were

neither predicted to be toxic nor nontoxic;

i.e., the individual SQGs are not intended to

provide guidance within this range of

concentrations.

MS. DEXTER: All right.

MS. WASIK: So that basically is just

saying that I think it's not frequent that

you would -- It doesn't use the language that

you frequently exceed toxicity between the

TEC, PEC; but as the UAA contractor said, it

is possibly toxic or more likely toxic than

if it's below the TEC.

MS. DEXTER: I think that the site

authors are saying --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Miss Dexter,

are you testifying?

MS. DEXTER: I don't think anything,

but.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If you want

to ask her a question, that's fine.

MS. DEXTER: I will rephrase that. I

was -- Do you disagree that the study authors

are saying that these are not -- you are not

0062

supposed to interpret this data between --

interpret points between the TEC and PEC as

significant in this study?

MS. WASIK: I believe what they're --

I believe what they've said, and having read

the whole paper, what my overall feeling is,

is that the levels above the PEC in terms of

probabilities are what they consider likely

toxic; between the two is more uncertain, so

I think that's why the UAA contractor used

the word possibly. And below the TEC is

essentially what they consider to probably be

nontoxic.

MS. DEXTER: But this does say that

they're not intended to provide guidance.

MS. WASIK: Well, it says what it

says.

MR. ANDES: Are the other parties

trying to make the case that the sediments

aren't toxic in the CAWS? I'm just curious.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That's a

question of someone who's not sworn in.

MR. ANDES: I know.

MS. WASIK: But I would say this paper

0063

is pretty widely -- it's pretty widely used,

and it does appear that the IEPA contractors

have interpreted it to mean the possibly

toxic between the PEC and TEC, so.

MS. DEXTER: Were --

MS. WASIK: That's why I used that

language.

MS. DEXTER: Was this study developed

in order to justify lowering water quality

standards?

MS. WASIK: I don't know why --

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Which study?

MS. DEXTER: The McDonald study that

we've been talking about. Is this a tool for

lowering water quality standards?

MS. WASIK: I would guess that it is

not.

MS. DEXTER: Thank you.

MS. WASIK: I don't think that's what

these proceedings are about either, so.

MS. DEXTER: I'd like to go back to

the methodology of the studies. We've sort

of gotten sidetracked for a second. Do you

know when they did the field -- the samples,

0064

the field verifications? I don't know if

that's the right term to use, but when they

verified the values that they created, did

they isolate particular contaminants when

they put the organisms into the -- I don't

understand what --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Miss Dexter,

just for point of clarification, you're

asking her about a study that she did not

personally perform. So you're asking her

this information in this or if she has

information beyond what's Exhibit 188?

Because she didn't personally perform this,

so what you're asking her --

MS. DEXTER: I'm asking her --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let me

finish. When you're asking her the

methodology of how this study was conducted,

she can only tell you either what's in here

or what she's learned comparatively.

MS. DEXTER: Right.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I want to be

clear for the record that this is not a study

that Miss Wasik performed. Okay. And I

0065

apologize for interrupting, but you're asking

her a lot of specifics about methodology and

what the authors mean here.

MS. DEXTER: I'm assuming that if she

used this study to justify her testimony that

she understands this study.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.

I'm --

MR. ANDES: Are you testing her? I'm

sorry.

MS. DEXTER: I'm not testing her.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I want to be

clear. She can ask the question. Because I

also -- it's also my understanding that part

of reason, and maybe I'm wrong.

Miss Dexter -- Miss Wasik, you

used this study, you've spoken many times

about the contractors for the UAA. They used

this study as well, correct?

MS. WASIK: Right.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And so you

used this study in your testimony.

MS. WASIK: To be comparable to their

original report.

0066

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: To their --

to the UAA, okay. Thank you. All right.

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MS. DEXTER: And I'm not trying to

contest the validity of the study. I just

want to know what it is telling us. Because

we're getting information that's saying

basically that the sediment is bad, and I

want to know what this information actually

means. So do you know anything about the

methodology of how these samples were taken?

MS. WASIK: How the samples were

taken?

MS. DEXTER: Not how the samples were

taken. How the tests were conducted.

MS. WASIK: I have limited knowledge

of how the tests were conducted.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. So I think this --

We may not know whether or not --

MR. ANDES: Are you testifying again?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let her

finish.

MS. DEXTER: I'm starting my sentence.

When the authors of this study took samples

0067

that they field verified, those were samples

from rivers all over the country; is that

correct?

MS. WASIK: I believe so. At least --

I wouldn't say they were really wide-spread

across the country, but they were in several

different states.

MS. DEXTER: They were not localized

in one place?

MS. WASIK: Mm-hmm.

MS. DEXTER: Was there any way of them

isolating particular contaminants within that

subpart?

MS. WASIK: No. I don't believe so.

I was just trying to look for a quote where

they discussed that, but I haven't found it

yet.

MS. DEXTER: I think it might be at

the bottom of Page 21 they list a lot of

places.

MS. WASIK: But I mean in terms of the

way they dealt with synergistic effects of

contaminants, I was just looking for a quote

on that. But if I've answered your question

0068

I'll stop.

MS. DEXTER: I think you've answered

my question. What types of organisms were

studied in these tests? You don't have to

state specifically, but.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You can

refer to the page number that they're listed

on as well.

MS. WASIK: I see hyalella azteca.

MS. DEXTER: It might be more helpful

for to you just classify it.

MS. WASIK: As benthic invertebrates.

MS. DEXTER: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: I was

worried about all those scientific names for

the court reporter, that's why I said the

page numbers.

MS. DEXTER: And in this study does

toxicity necessarily mean that the organisms

die?

MS. WASIK: If you talk about

survival, that means the organism has died.

If you talk about growth impairments, that is

not death. It's just -- It means that

0069

there'd be less biomass in your sample than

in your control.

MS. DEXTER: In this study was the

predictive ability the same for all of the

contaminants?

MS. WASIK: I don't know.

MS. DEXTER: If you look at Page 25 in

the right-hand column, that middle paragraph

I believe is referencing the predictive

ability of different types of contaminants.

MR. ANDES: Page 25?

MS. DEXTER: Yes. I think that's

where I've seen it.

MS. WASIK: It appears to say the

predictive ability for the TECs for PAHs or

polyaromatic hydrocarbons was similar to that

for the trace metals ranging from 71 to 83

percent. It does list the predictive

abilities here if you want me to read the

percentages.

MS. DEXTER: But does that help you

answer the general question that I asked

that --

MS. WASIK: They appear to be slightly

0070

different between 71 to 85 percent for

predictive ability.

MS. DEXTER: And do you understand the

probable effects concentration to mean that

it is more likely than not that there is --

there will be a toxic event?

MS. WASIK: If it's above that

threshold, yes.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. So more likely

than not could be 51 percent.

MS. WASIK: It could or could not be,

yes.

MS. DEXTER: Right. It might be 100,

but it could be 51?

MS. WASIK: There is a range.

MS. DEXTER: I think that's all I

have.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can I just ask one

quick follow-up based on that? I think in

response to Miss Dexter's questions, I

believe you said something to the effect that

preferred habitat for benthic organisms would

be heterogeneous habitats.

MS. WASIK: I should qualify that and

0071

say for a well-balanced community of benthic

invertebrates, there's certainly taxa benthic

invertebrates that love the silt like the

oligochaetes.

MS. WILLIAMS: Can you explain how the

testing done by the District measures the

distribution of types of substrate? I mean I

believe it's your testimony that it's mostly

silt and sand; is that correct?

MS. WASIK: Yes. We have two methods

by which we do that during our sampling. We

take, you know, habitat measurements in the

field where we probe the bottom or take a

ponar if it's a silty bottom and then look at

the composition of the sediment. And the

biologist would then try to estimate the

percentage of silt, sand, plant debris,

gravel, cobble, rocks, bolders.

MS. WILLIAMS: How does your

methodology measure that there's cobble or

gravel or bolders?

MS. WASIK: So if we're looking in an

area where there's -- we're able to see the

bottom, then we can characterize it visually.

0072

If you can't see the bottom, then we would

drop a ponar down and take a sample. If you

drop the ponar down and it's all scoured out

because it's just limestone, then we would

characterize that as a limestone bottom.

MS. WILLIAMS: But the ponar method

can't be used to sample for cobble or wood

debris?

MS. WASIK: To some degree. I mean if

you put a ponar down and you bring it up and

you have one little rock like this in the jaw

and you're using that combined with a

telescoping rod to sort of spoke around in

the sediment, you can sort of get an idea of

what's down there. And generally it's pretty

easy to tell because it's -- when you take

the ponar, it's either a really hard flat

surface or it's a deposit of really fine

sediments.

MS. WILLIAMS: Do you feel that the

other types of substrates are adequately

sampled using ponar grab?

MS. WASIK: I think so. It does

sample gravel and sand and silt. And if

0073

there's -- if there is cobble, which is very

rare in the system, then we would be able to

determine it either visually or by using the

telescoping rod.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. And how many

sediment probes would you do to reach?

MS. WASIK: In the area you basically

go walk around the entire boat and see what's

there. I mean I wouldn't say that I have an

exact number of times that you poke the

sediment bottom. And that's at each of the

four locations at each of our sampling

stations.

MS. WILLIAMS: So you do it just at

the sites where you're sampling? You don't

go up and --

MS. WASIK: Yes. And I would add a

ponar does sample some plant debris and leaf

litter and sticks. If it's there, you do get

that in a ponar.

MS. WILLIAMS: I think that's all I

have.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything

else?

0074

MR. ANDES: I have one follow-up. I

want to go back to the sediment issue for a

moment. In terms of the TEC and PEC values

that, as I understand it the UAA contract

referred to above the PEC values is presumed

toxic. Am I right?

MS. WASIK: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Okay. I'd like you to

then read a short part from your testimony,

particularly with regard to the Cal-Sag

Channel, starting there and going down to

here.

MS. WASIK: This is Page 7 of my

prefiled testimony, second paragraph.

Several sediment samples displayed slight to

heavy oil sheens and reported to have strong

petroleum odors. Aquatic vegetation was

absent during the surveys except for attached

green algae. By comparing measured

concentrations to the TEC and PEC values, all

of the sediment samples collected by the

district from the Cal-Sag Channel in 2003

would be presumed toxic. For PCBs total pH

levels in all of the sediment samples from

0075

the Cal-Sag Channel exceeded the TEC and two

exceeded the PEC. All of the sediment

samples had presumed toxic led concentrations

and five of the six samples had presumed

toxic zinc concentrations. One sediment

sample showed chromium and cadmium

concentrations greater than the PEC. In

2007, a sediment with a strong petroleum odor

collected from two of the locations on the

Cal-Sag Channel was discarded due to concerns

over possible flammability during metals

analysis. Of the remaining four sediment

samples, three were presumed toxic due to

led, two due to chromium, nickel, and zinc,

and one due to cadmium.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Did you have

a question about that or you just wanted her

to read it?

MR. ANDES: No. So all of those were

above the PEC which is the presumed toxic

level?

MS. WASIK: Several of them were, yes.

MR. ANDES: Yes.

0076

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything

else for Miss Wasik? All right. Let's take

a short break and come back with

Dr. Dennison.

(Short break taken.)

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay.

Dr. Dennison, you have been previously sworn.

Does anyone have any objection to us saying

that and going forward? Okay. You've been

previously sworn, so if we could have your

testimony on Cal-Sag, I believe is the first,

and welcome back. I've been handed

Dr. Dennison's prefiled testimony with

attachments on the Calumet-Sag Channel. If

there's no objection, we will mark this as

Exhibit 191. Seeing none, it's Exhibit 191.

And with that we'll go to the Agency.

MS. DIERS: Good morning. My name is

Stephanie Diers, and I will be asking you

questions on behalf of Illinois EPA today.

And I'm going to begin with Question 1 of our

prefiled questions, and I believe it should

be on Page 12 of what we filed.

Can you please explain why you

0077

disagree with the Cal-Sag being classified as

a CAWS Aquatic Life Use A water.

MR. DENNISON: Well, I feel that

aquatic life use designations should be based

on reasonable potential of the waterway to

support a certain level of aquatic life.

Since habitat is poor in the Cal-Sag, it

should be classified as a CAWS aquatic life

Use B water.

MS. DIERS: So you think it is the

criteria for Use B waters as proposed by

Illinois EPA?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to strike

Question 2 and go to Question 3. In your

opinion, is the Cal-Sag similar to the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal; and, if yes,

please explain the similarities.

MR. DENNISON: Yes. In my opinion the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the

Cal-Sag Channel are similar. As I mentioned

in my testimony, both waterways share similar

physical characteristics. For example, both

are entirely manmade, each has limited

0078

shallow areas along its banks, and both have

a high volume of commercial navigation. A

lack of heterogeneity in the substrate, lack

of pools and riffles, and the necessity to

maintain navigational depth are applicable

physical conditions to both the Cal-Sag

Channel and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal. The sediment in the Cal-Sag Channel

has been shown to be toxic to benthic

invertebrates. Furthermore, frequent

commercial navigation in the waterways will

continue to cause a resuspension of these

sediments and shore line scouring and

erosion.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to skip

Question 4 and 5 and come back to those. I'm

going to strike 6 and 7 and go to 8. And

it's kind of a long quote, so bear with me.

On Page 2 of your prefiled testimony, you

state, "Calumet-Sag Channel and the Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal share similar

physical characteristics. For example, each

has limited shallow area along its banks. Ed

Rankin in his report, Attachment R, indicated

0079

that the Cal-Sag Channel had QHEI scores in

the fair range largely because of the

limestone rubble and coarse materials in the

littoral areas. Those littoral habitat is

not isolated but occurs along much of the

shore line. This waterway had four positive

attributes with most important being the

substrate and shore line structure. Habitat

in the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal ranged

from poor to very poor besides at Lockport,

Romeoville, and Willow Springs Road were

canal-like in nature with steep sides and

little functional cover or substrate. The

side at Lockport was wider and has some

littoral habitat; however, this was very

limited in scope and was extremely imbedded

with silty muk and sand that were of poor

quality." The question is, can you explain

this difference in opinions of these two

waterways between what you stated in your

prefiled testimony and what Mr. Rankin stated

in Attachment R?

MR. DENNISON: Well, this question has

been asked and answered before. I agree with

0080

the testimony given by Dr. S. Mackey and

Melching.

MS. DIERS: Can you explain what you

agree with with Mackey and Melching's

testimony? Because I don't think it's been

answered -- asked and answered before. So

can you just elaborate on that, please.

MR. DENNISON: Well, the District did

not consider the habitat to be of the higher

quality that Mr. Rankin did. For example,

Dr. Mackey stated on Page 12 of his

testimony, quote, "The small amount of rubble

from the crumbling walls does very little to

improve the overall physical habitat for fish

and invertebrates in the Cal-Sag Channel."

This was mentioned by Dr. Melching

who found the difference between the Chicago

Sanitary Ship Canal and the Cal-Sag Channel

not to be -- to be not substantial.

Dr. Melching also stated that the ongoing

study to determine the biological potential

for the CAWS being done by LimnoTech for the

District and the MWRDGC could shed further

light on the differences between the Chicago

0081

Sanitary Ship Canal and the Cal-Sag Channel.

MS. DIERS: Now, Melching and Mackey

are not biologists, correct?

MR. DENNISON: I believe they've

stated as such in their testimony.

MS. DIERS: So are you relying on what

they're saying?

MR. DENNISON: Well, as they've

mentioned in their testimony, they're not

biologists, but they have strong opinions

from their experience. And I found their

experience to be pretty knowledgeable.

MS. DIERS: Question 9: On Page 2 of

your prefiled testimony you state, "All of

the QHEI scores calculated by the District's

aquatic ecology and water quality section for

the Calumet-Sag Channel in the Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal have been in the poor

range." Do all personnel involved go through

QHEI training prior to the survey?

MR. DENNISON: There was no training

prior to the survey, no.

MR. ANDES: Can you explain a little

bit about what, and this may be Miss Wasik, I

0082

think, may be more knowledgeable about this;

and, if so, just tell us that. But I wonder

about if one of you could explain what

exactly was done in terms of calculating

these numbers and how the field data sheets

were used.

MR. DENNISON: Since Miss Wasik was

the one who calculated them, she would

probably be more knowledgeable. I could give

my opinion.

MR. ANDES: We can get Miss Wasik down

here. I think she can explain it.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: You can do

it from there if you speak loudly enough.

MS. WASIK: Can you just repeat the

question?

MS. DIERS: We were asking about

training for the QHEI, and Mr. Dennison

testified that there wasn't any training. So

I think Fred wants you to explain what was

involved with the QHEI; is that correct?

MR. ANDES: Right.

MS. WASIK: Yes. We didn't go to a

specific training, although I used the

0083

original Rankin documents. I don't have the

years with me, but regarding the QHEI. It

had all of the different metrics and

specifically how to score them. And I used

the field data sheets we had which, for the

most part, while they weren't exactly like a

QHEI field data sheet, they had many of the

same parameters. So I basically put our data

and was able to calculate each metric for the

QHEI.

MS. DIERS: Do you recall what

parameters are on the sheets that you -- or

MWRDGC uses?

MS. WASIK: There's, you know, maybe

30 parameters. But they would be on -- if

you were to look at Attachment 1 or 2 in the

methodology section, there's a copy of our

field data sheets.

MS. DIERS: That's attached to your

testimony --

MS. WASIK: To my testimony, yes.

MS. DIERS: Thank you.

Continuing on with Question 9:

The reference MWRDGC reports for the

0084

statement only provide QHEI stores and

appears individual metric scores were not

provided. Could the District provide copies

of the QHEI field sheets along with the

pertinent field sheets -- with other

pertinent field sheets?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: Question 10 on Page 3 of

your prefiled testimony you state, "According

to the Illinois EPA, QHEI classification

scales quote," and our question is is this --

are you referring to Ohio EPA instead of

Illinois EPA here?

MR. DENNISON: I was referring to the

classification scale in Table 4-13 on Page

4-22 in the final CAWS UAA report titled

narrative ranges of the QHEI based on a

general ability of that habitat to support

aquatic life. A quote by -- from Rankin

2004.

MS. DIERS: Question 11: On Page 3 of

your prefiled testimony you state, "In

addition, both the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal and the Calumet-Sag Channel are

0085

dominated by soft homogeneous sediments that

are not conducive to a balanced benthic

invertebrate community."

The question is, in your opinion,

do you think Illinois EPA has proposed a

designated use that represents a balanced

benthic invertebrate community?

MR. DENNISON: Not in those words.

MS. DIERS: How would you explain it

then?

MR. DENNISON: The answer -- the same

question directly from Dr. Melching's

testimony. The rulemaking proposal before

the Board is requiring that the CAWS meet in

certain critical aspects the general use

dissolved oxygen standards and Rule 04-25

that was recently adopted by the Board. A

benthic community that is unbalanced and less

healthy could be achieved with substantially

reduced dissolved oxygen concentration

targets just such as those used by the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency or other

cases cited in Paul Freedman's testimony.

MS. DIERS: So, again, are you relying

0086

on what Melching stated in his testimony for

that quote that I just read from your

testimony?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: Do you know if dissolved

oxygen standards are designed to protect the

benthic organisms or fish?

MR. ANDES: Could I go back for a

second? The statement that we were -- that

was asked about on Question 11 was your

statement that in addition both the Ship

Canal and the Cal-Sag Channel are dominated

by soft homogenous sediments that are not

conducive to a balanced benthic invertebrate

community. In making that statement, were

you basing that on your biological judgment?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. DIERS: I want to go back to my

question that I had just asked: Are DO

standards designed to protect the benthetic

organisms or fish?

MR. DENNISON: Fish.

MR. ANDES: In order to protect the

0087

fish, do you need to protect the benthic

organisms?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: Twelve: On Page 3 of your

prefiled testimony you state, "In fact, the

waterways are both dominated by

pollution-tolerant invertebrates."

The question being, how does the

current condition of the waterway indicate

potential aquatic life conditions?

MR. DENNISON: The substrates are such

that they would be expected to be dominated

by such tolerant invertebrates. Since the

substrate quality is what is limiting

invertebrates, the communities are not going

to change.

MS. DIERS: Could you repeat the last

sentence of that again, the last phrase.

MR. DENNISON: Since the substrate

quality is what is limiting invertebrates,

the communities are not going to change.

MR. ANDES: In other words, even if

you improve water quality, that's not going

to help the state of the community?

0088

MR. DENNISON: Correct.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to strike

Question 13.

Question 14: On Page 3 of your

prefiled testimony you state, "Over the years

there has been extensive land use

development, urbanization, and the

Calumet-Sag Channel water shed."

Question: How many acres of

forest preserve are available in this water

shed?

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MS. DIERS: Do you know how many miles

of the Calumet-Sag Channel are bordered by

forest preserves?

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MR. ANDES: Could that information be

available as part of the LimnoTech study?

MR. DENNISON: Yes. That's what we're

looking forward to for the geographical

information system portion of the LimnoTech

study.

MS. DIERS: And that's the habitat

study that's ongoing right now?

0089

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If I may,

Dr. Dennison, I believe that we asked

Dr. Mackey this and he wasn't able to

specify. When is the projected date for the

LimnoTech study?

MR. DENNISON: Well, we're expecting a

report to be available in the summer of 2009.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. DIERS: And just asking on that

line of question, I think I asked Dr. Mackey

this yesterday. Does that time frame, is

that -- Have you accounted for a peer review

in that time frame for a summer of '09?

MR. DENNISON: No.

MS. DIERS: Is that going to be the

final report is what you're expecting?

MR. DENNISON: That's why we're going

towards the summer of 2009. The contract

itself was originally from April to April,

mid April to mid April.

MS. DIERS: Will you be integrating

the biological information by next summer?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

0090

MS. DIERS: That takes care of

Question 4 and 5. Page 134.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Sorry.

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Actually, I

just want to follow up on No. 4 because I

wanted to ask if you could explain a little

bit, Dr. Dennison, about what information the

consultant is developing in that study.

MR. DENNISON: The present Chicago

area waterways habitat evaluation and

improvement project will formulate a habitat

index that is applicable to the deep draft

waterways of the CAWS. For development of

this habitat index, the District's consultant

LimnoTech is using fish, macroinvertebrate

and habitat data sampled by the District

during the period 2001 through 2007 from the

District's 26 sampling stations on the CAWS.

During 2008, 25 District sample stations were

sampled using expanded habitat procedure plus

five additional stations not previously

described; three of these additional stations

are on the Cal-Sag Channel and two are on the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Eight CAWS

0091

stations were sampled by the District in 2008

for fish and macroinvertebrates and LimnoTech

collected fish and macroinvertebrates from 14

stations, not sampled by the District during

2008. LimnoTech is also including the

analysis of collected digital video of bank

conditions and habitats and high resolution

aerial imagery and bathymetry to support the

assessment of the habitat conditions and

index development.

LimnoTech is conducting an

examination of the potential of navigational

effects to adversely affect habitat

conditions.

Finally, LimnoTech is

examining sediment chemistry and toxicity

data to evaluate the potential for adverse

impacts to forage resources.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: And I think

you said in 2008, I think you stated expanded

procedure. Can you explain what you meant by

that?

MR. DENNISON: The LimnoTech study

will be developing a habitat index that is

0092

applicable to the CAWS, and the expanded

procedure will include a number of variables

that will be measured in order to calculate

this new habitat index.

MR. ANDES: Additional metrics and

data that the District hasn't collected

before?

MR. DENNISON: Yes. Additional.

MS. DIERS: I'll go back to Question

15. On Page 4 of your prefiled testimony you

state, "These conditions prevent the waterway

from attaining a healthy biological

community." Will you please explain what is

meant by healthy?

MR. DENNISON: A community, by healthy

I mean a community in a stream that has

biological integrity which is commonly

defined as the ability to support and

maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive

community of organisms having a species

composition, diversity and functional

organization, comparable to those of natural

habitats within a region. This is a

reference, quote from a reference Carr, JR

0093

and DR Dudley, 1981, Ecological Perspectives

on Water Quality Goals. It was in

Environmental Management No. 5, Page 55

through 68.

MS. DIERS: Question 16: Do you agree

or disagree with the conclusion of the Agency

that the aquatic life use potential of the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal is lower than

the potential of the Cal-Sag Channel?

MR. DENNISON: I have stated in my

testimony that the habitat in both waterways

is similar. Drs. Melching and Mackey have

also presented testimony that this is the

case. The only difference that seems to

stand out is that the sediments in the

Cal-Sag Channel were found to be more toxic

to benthic invertebrates than the sediments

in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

However, further analysis of the quality of

the habitat is warranted, and this analysis

is ongoing in the habitat evaluation and

improvement study.

MS. DIERS: Did Dr. Mackey agree

littoral zone was greater in the Cal-Sag

0094

Channel? Do you recall?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Just to

clarify, Miss Diers, you mean the greater

than the Sanitary and Ship Canal?

MS. DIERS: Yes.

MR. DENNISON: It was my understanding

that Dr. Mackey said that they were similar

when comparing the two.

MS. DIERS: Question 17: You state

that Factor 3, the human case conditions, is

applicable to the Cal-Sag Channel with regard

to the Aquatic Life Use A. Can you explain

why these conditions cannot be remedied or

would cause more environmental damage to

correct than to leave in place.

MR. DENNISON: Well, navigation is

essential in the Cal-Sag Channel. Cal-Sag

Channel has no riffling pool sequence or

meandering characteristics. It is deep draft

with few shallow areas along the banks, and

it's stream velocity is very slow. There

were no plans identified in the UAA to change

the situation. Also these habitat

characteristics, riffle pool, meander,

0095

shallows, would not be consistent with barge

traffic and would preclude you from changing

these characteristics.

MS. DIERS: Of all the factors you

just mentioned, which one is limiting aquatic

life in the Cal-Sag Channel?

MR. ANDES: By factors you meant the

riffle and pool, meanders, deep draft, slow

velocity?

MS. DIERS: Everything he just stated,

yes.

MR. DENNISON: Well, the lack of those

factors and many things that are limiting

with the habitat being the limiting factor.

So many of the things I mentioned, they're

all habitat related.

MR. ANDES: Is it possible to single

one of them out, or is it a combination of

all.

MR. DENNISON: It's my opinion that

it's a combination.

MS. DIERS: So do you believe habitat

improvements are not possible anywhere in the

Cal-Sag Channel?

0096

MR. DENNISON: In general, yes.

MS. DIERS: In general, yes, there

could be improvements or no?

MR. DENNISON: No. In general they

cannot be improved.

MS. DIERS: Question 18: You state

that Factor 4, the hydraulic modifications,

is applicable to the Cal-Sag Channel with

regard to Aquatic Life Use A. Can you

explain why the channel cannot be restored to

its original conditions or operate in such a

way that results in attainment of the use?

MR. DENNISON: Well, restoring the

channel to its original conditions would

require filling it in as it is an entirely

manmade channel. The channel cannot be

operated into a natural river.

MS. DIERS: Question 19: You state

that Factor 5, physical conditions, is

applicable to the Cal-Sag Channel with regard

to Aquatic Life Use A. Can you explain the

applicability of this factor and why it is

irreversible in the foreseeable future?

MR. DENNISON: As I mentioned in my

0097

testimony, the lack of proper substrate, lack

of pools and riffles and the necessity to

maintain navigational depth are applicable

physical conditions in Calumet-Sag Channel.

In order to maintain navigation, that's the

way things are going to be. Furthermore,

frequent commercial navigation in the

waterway will continue to cause resuspension

of these sediments and shore line scouring

and erosion.

MR. ANDES: Keep going.

MR. DENNISON: United States Army

Corps of Engineers' data indicates that a

total of 8,792 barges traveled along the

Calumet-Sag Channel in 2006. As stated in

the UAA report on Page 5-4, since these

waterways are maintained for navigational

uses critical to the economic vitality of the

city, the potential for dramatic improvements

to create aquatic habitat to support a higher

designated use would likely be unproductive

and would severely conflict with important

navigational uses.

MS. DIERS: Can you explain why you

0098

think that these limitations are not

reflected in the CAWS Use A designation?

MR. DENNISON: It's not applicable in

the standards. The Use A waters are really

very close to general use standards.

MS. DIERS: I don't have anything

further on the Cal-Sag Channel.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Any

questions on Cal-Sag? All right. Let's go

off the record.

(Off the record.)

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Let's move

on to Dr. Dennison's prefiled testimony on

Bubbly Creek. And we will go through lunch

until about 1:00 o'clock, and we'll break at

1:00 and get out of here before the storm.

I'm going to mark this as

Exhibit 192 if there is no objection.

Seeing none, Dr. Dennison's

prefiled testimony on Bubbly Creek is

Exhibit 192.

MR. ANDES: It's not the dissolved

oxygen. It's the one that talks about south

fork and --

0099

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: With that,

we'll go to the Agency.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to start with

Question 1 of our prefiled questions. It

should be Page 7.

Question 1: Will you please

explain the difference you see between the

South Branch of the Chicago River and the

South Fork of the South Branch Chicago River.

MR. DENNISON: In his testimony,

Dr. Mackey has stated that the channel

morphology and flow characteristics of Bubbly

Creek, the South Fork of the South Branch

Chicago River is what I will refer to it as

Bubbly Creek, and the south branch of the

Chicago River are distinctly different from

each other. The south branch has flow during

dry weather. The south fork or Bubbly Creek

is generally stagnant during dry weather.

During wet weather flow in the south fork is

from combined sewer overflows and storm

water.

MS. DIERS: Did you say you were

relying on Dr. Mackey or Melching? I might

0100

have misunderstood.

MR. DENNISON: I said Dr. Mackey.

MS. DIERS: Okay.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: If I may,

Dr. Dennison, since Dr. Mackey is a

geologist, when she says explain the

difference between Bubbly Creek and the

Chicago South Branch of the Chicago River,

what you're basing the main difference on is

the habitat or the geology of the two creeks.

Is that correct?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Just to clarify, the south

branch of the Chicago River, and then there's

the South Fork of the South Branch which is

Bubbly Creek.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

I knew I mixed those up.

MS. DIERS: Do you know the page in

Dr. Mackey's testimony where he referenced

this discussion about the South Branch of the

Chicago River and the South Fork of the South

Branch? I don't remember Mackey talking

about that, so if you could give me a page

0101

number, that would be great.

MR. ANDES: I don't know that we have

that handy.

MS. DIERS: Later is fine. You don't

have to search through all the documents. I

don't recall. It seemed like that was more

of a Melching than a Mackey.

MR. DENNISON: I know what you mean.

We'll check on that.

MS. DIERS: Okay. Thank you.

Question 2: Is it your opinion

that the South Fork of the South Branch

Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and

Ship Canal only differ due to dissolved

oxygen levels seen in these two segments?

MR. DENNISON: Well, no, because of my

previous answer.

MS. DIERS: Due to what we just talked

about, is that what you mean in your previous

answer?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: And, in particular, just

to restate, you're talking about flow

characteristics and channel morphology. Do

0102

you want to explain what channel morphology

means?

MR. DENNISON: Well, it's the physical

appearance of the banks on the cross-section

of the channel itself.

MS. DIERS: Question 3: In your

opinion, why would flow augmentation not

enable the South Fork of the South Branch

Chicago River to attain dissolved oxygen

standards?

MR. DENNISON: Well, we had a Bubbly

Creek demonstration project drawing the creek

through the Racine Avenue Pumping Station, I

often call that RAPS, to Stickney. We found

that it could not be used as a tool to meet

Illinois Pollution Control Board DO standards

in wet weather. I'm referring to report,

R&D Report 04-8. I'm not sure what

attachment that is. Because the capacity at

the Stickney Water Reclamation Plant may not

be available and operational costs also to

treat the river water are substantial.

Moreover, it's my judgment that full

augmentation would resuspend oxygen-demanding

0103

sediment, high sediment oxygen, biochemical

oxygen demand, and chemical oxygen demand

would further deplete oxygen.

MS. DIERS: When was this project

done?

MR. DENNISON: The report came out in

2003, I believe. January 2003, is not it?

That is -- we had another --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: June 2004.

MR. DENNISON: June 2004. Yes.

MR. ANDES: It was cited as a

reference in the testimony. I don't believe

we provided it as an attachment. We can

certainly provide a copy of that.

MS. DIERS: And in this report what DO

standards were you looking at? Not the ones

proposed -- currently proposed by Illinois

IPA. Would that be correct?

MR. DENNISON: No. This would be the

secondary contacts.

MR. ANDES: So if the -- If the

results of that project indicated that flow

augmentation wouldn't meet the current

standards, it would be even tougher to meet

0104

the proposed standards.

MR. DENNISON: That's correct.

MR. ANDES: By the way, I think I can

cite to Dr. Mackey's answers to questions.

He talked about channel morphology and flow

characteristics in response to Question 36.

MS. WILLIAMS: He said the testimony.

Dr. Dennison was referring to Dr. Mackey's

testimony, correct, in the prefiled

testimony?

MR. ANDES: Or his answers?

MR. DENNISON: I used the word

testimony.

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. On Page 7 of

his prefiled testimony Dr. Mackey made that

statement. And then it was discussed in

response to Question 36 from the Illinois

EPA.

MS. DIERS: Thank you. Has the

District also looked at supplemental aeration

with respect to the South Fork of the South

Branch Chicago River or, as you're referring

to, Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: Could you repeat that?

0105

That's not part of this.

MS. DIERS: Has the District looked at

supplemental aeration for this waterway?

MR. DENNISON: For Bubbly Creek?

MS. DIERS: Yes.

MR. DENNISON: No.

MR. ANDES: Well, I think we do have

other witnesses who discuss that. I think,

in particular, Dr. Zenz talks about -- will

talk about the cost of that.

MR. DENNISON: Excuse me. You weren't

referring to presently?

MS. DIERS: Yes. We talked about

either as a project for flow augmentation the

District did for Bubbly Creek. I'm just

asking has there been a project done for

supplemental aeration?"

MR. DENNISON: Not that there's

ongoing supplemental aeration? Okay. No.

MR. ANDES: So you're talking about --

I'm sorry. Was the question has there been

studies of using supplemental aeration to

meet the proposed standards?

MS. DIERS: Yeah.

0106

MR. ANDES: Or at all?

MS. DIERS: At all. The proposed

standards specifically. I just want to know

if you've looked at that on Bubbly Creek.

MR. ANDES: And we'll have Dr. Zenz

will testify and Dr. Garcia who also -- his

testimony is specific to Bubbly Creek and

will be discussing that issue as well.

MS. DIERS: Thank you. I'm going to

skip over and go over to Page 9, Question 14

just for the ease of the record.

On Page 2 of your prefiled

testimony, you state that, "Flow in the South

Fork of the South Branch Chicago River

primary fluctuates as a result of the Racine

Pumping Station." How often does that

pumping station discharge?

MR. DENNISON: As a general matter,

RAPS discharge frequency is 15 times a year.

It's something we saw in 2006.

MS. DIERS: Do you know what the range

in flow value is from the Racine Pumping

Station?

MR. DENNISON: From April 2000 to

0107

October 2008 RAPS released 4.9 million

gallons to 4,018 million gallons per combined

sewage overflow event.

MR. ANDES: So if I can clarify, the

maximum flow there for CSO event was four

billion gallons?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to skip

Question 15.

Question 16 you state on

Page 3 of your prefiled testimony that,

"Dissolved oxygen levels are low in dry

weather." Can you state how low?

MR. DENNISON: I guess depends on what

does low mean. One of our dissolved oxygen

reports I believe that we've attached to

this?

MR. ANDES: Attachment 3, I believe.

MR. DENNISON: From 2006 I'd refer you

to Table 5 and Report 07-25.

MR. ANDES: Page 13 of that report.

MR. DENNISON: For example, for 36

Street and Bubbly Creek, which is in the

0108

Chicago River system portion of that table,

less than two value, DO of less than two

would have been 51 percent of the DO values

would be in less than two milligrams per

liter.

MS. DIERS: Do you know what's causing

the low DO?

MR. DENNISON: Sediments, stagnant

flow, sediment oxygen demand.

MS. DIERS: Do you think this is

reverse -- is something that can be reversed

in the future?

MR. DENNISON: Can we change the

quiescent condition in Bubbly Creek? Flow

augmentation doesn't work. I don't know any

feasible way to reverse it.

MS. DIERS: Question 17 on Page 4 of

your prefiled testimony you state, "For the

South Fork of South Branch Chicago River, the

dissolved oxygen recovery following wet

weather events takes longer than in other

areas of CAWS." How much longer?

MR. DENNISON: Well, recovery can take

weeks longer than the rest of the CAWS even

0109

during high drawback test periods, 75 million

gallons per day through RAPS during 2003.

MS. DIERS: Is that because of the

size of the pumping station?

MR. DENNISON: Well, stagnant flow

conditions allow longer exposure to oxygen

demanding substances along with low

reaeration rates. Probably there's a number

of causes, but stagnant flow is certainly one

of them.

MS. DIERS: Okay. Question 18: You

state on Page 4 of your prefiled testimony

that, "Dissolved oxygen can fall to zero for

three days during a typical wet weather

event." What happens to the aquatic life

during these periods?

MR. DENNISON: Well, while we really

don't know, but since there are not usually

fish kills, the fish must find someplace to

go. Oxygen-breathing organisms would have to

find a source of oxygen to stay alive. If

they can't breathe, they'll die.

MS. DIERS: Question 19: On Page 4 of

your prefiled testimony, you indicate that

0110

the second highest sediment oxygen demand

value obtained by the District was found in

the South Fork of the South Branch Chicago

River. Where is the highest?

MR. DENNISON: Most recently during

2006, 4.81 grams per square meter per day was

the highest measured and that was measured in

an off-channel embayment near Diversey

Parkway near the north branch of the Chicago

River.

MS. DIERS: I'll come back to 20 and

21. So I'm going to go on to 22. On Page 4

of your prefiled testimony, you state with

regard to South Fork of the South Branch

Chicago River that, "Chemical analysis of the

sediments have dictated legacy organic

containment such as polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons, I'm not sure I'm saying it

right, and heavy metals." What do you mean

by legacy, and how do you differentiate

between legacy and contemporary containment?

MR. DENNISON: Well, there is no exact

cut-off date. Legacy sediments are old

sediments, not routinely scoured by high

0111

flows; contemporary sediments would be new

sediments.

MS. DIERS: Twenty-three, are the

contaminants available to aquatic life; and,

if so, what data do you have and what

methodologies do you use to support that the

contaminants are available to aquatic life?

MR. ANDES: I think that Miss Wasik

just answered that question.

MS. DIERS: Okay. Twenty-four: Are

the levels of listed contaminants in the

South Fork of the South Branch Chicago River

different than the levels reported for other

reaches of the CAWS?

MR. ANDES: Can we clarify? Are we

talking about levels in the water column,

levels in the sediment?

MS. DIERS: Sediments.

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MS. DIERS: Okay.

MR. ANDES: Is that information

provided as attachments to Miss Wasik's

testimony?

MR. DENNISON: Yes, it is.

0112

MR. ANDES: But you haven't done an

assessment to compare the data between Bubbly

Creek and the other areas?

MR. DENNISON: That's correct.

MR. ANDES: And just to add,

Miss Wasik's testimony, I believe she

summarized the sediment data for the various

reaches.

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to jump back to

Page 7 just for flow of the record and go to

Question 8. On Page 4 of your prefiled

testimony you state, "The District measured a

sediment option demand, SOD, of 3.64 grams

per meter squared per day at Interstate I55

on the South Fork of the South Branch Chicago

River.

Are there established criteria or

guidelines that indicate sediment conditions

based on SOD concentrations; e.g., what

levels of SOD are considered low, moderate,

and high?

MR. DENNISON: Not to my knowledge.

MR. ANDES: Was it your intent simply

0113

to note that these were high values within

the CAWS? Did -- the Bubbly Creek SOD levels

were among the highest in the system?

MR. DENNISON: That's correct.

MS. DIERS: Do you know what the

highest and lowest concentrations were and

where they were in the Chicago Area Waterway

System?

MR. DENNISON: In 2001 the highest SOD

was 3.89 grams per square meter per day

measured at Simpson Street on the North Shore

Channel. And the lowest SOD in 2001 was 0.59

grams per square meter per day measured at

the Conrail Railroad Bridge on the Little

Calumet River. In 2006 the highest SOD was

4.81 grams per square meter per day, as I

mentioned earlier, in a small embayment near

Diversey Parkway. That was on March 8, 2006.

The lowest SOD in 2006 was 0.23 grams per

square meter per day measured in the main

channel of the Calumet River upstream of

Wisconsin steel slip.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to skip 9.

Ten: On Page 4 of your

0114

prefiled testimony you state, "High

phytoplankton levels sustained by abundant

nutrient loads." How are high phytoplankton

levels determined?

MR. DENNISON: Well, we measure

chlorophyl and systonic chlorophyl is a

surrogate measurement for phytoplankton, and

it's a good indicator for phytoplankton.

MS. DIERS: How do you decide they

were high?

MR. DENNISON: Well, I looked at

others chlorophyll values in the CAWS, and

they were very high in comparison with them,

with the majority of them.

MS. DIERS: What were they?

MR. DENNISON: Well, the maximum

chlorophyll concentration in Bubbly Creek was

90 micrograms per liter in the 2001/2004

period, Report No. 08-02; and 130 micrograms

per liter in 2005, which is Report 08-33.

MS. DIERS: Do you agree that the

median chlorophyll A concentration in the

South Fork South Branch Chicago River from

January 2004 through May 2007 was 8.8 UGL?

0115

MR. DENNISON: I didn't go through

that data to calculate that value, but that

could be correct. However, there were also

many high values greater than 25 micrograms

per liter, for example, that had been

detected during the period 2001 through 2008

since we've been collecting these data.

MS. DIERS: Do you consider 8.8 high?

MR. DENNISON: Everything being

relative in the CAWS, that's higher than

other stations perhaps for -- Is that median?

But it certainly is less than the maximum

values that I was talking about.

MS. DIERS: I'm going to skip 12.

MR. ANDES: Did you skip 11?

MS. DIERS: I'm sorry. Eleven is that

what you asked?

MR. ANDES: We were on 10 and you said

you --

MS. DIERS: I skipped 11 and 12, yes.

Sorry.

Question 20, and that will be on

Page 10. On Page 5 of your prefiled

testimony, you indicate that, "Efforts in

0116

2006 to draw back water at the Racine Avenue

Pump Station and send it to the Stickney

Plant for treatment demonstrate that flow

augmentation will not enable South Fork of

the South Branch Chicago River to attain the

dissolved oxygen standard proposed. Would it

result in attainment of the current secondary

contact standard in dry weather? If not,

please explain why.

MR. DENNISON: It will not

consistently attain the secondary standard,

even at the high drawback of 75 million

gallons per day.

MS. DIERS: Why?

MR. DENNISON: That was our result

from our study.

MS. DIERS: Would supplemental -- I'm

sorry.

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Just a couple

of questions. Do you believe that that is

due to the basic physical and hydraulic

nature of the water body?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: And are those limitations

0117

part -- and the fact that it would have

problems even attaining the current standard,

is that one of the reasons why you're

proposing that Bubbly Creek have a different

use, a Use C, with a narrative standard?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: And I'm asking about dry

weather. So does that make a difference in

your answer?

MR. ANDES: Are there attainment

issues in wet and dry weather?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: Would supple aeration work

alone or would both be necessary? Would you

need the supplemental aeration with flow

augmentation?

MR. DENNISON: Well, I haven't looked

at that. I suppose Dr. Garcia's testimony

may be the one to check.

MR. ANDES: That would be right.

MS. DIERS: Dr. Garcia?

MR. ANDES: Yes.

MS. DIERS: Okay. I'm going to strike

21. I'm going to strike 25. I'm going to

0118

strike 26.

I'm going to go to

Question 13. It's Page 9. On Page 6 of your

prefiled testimony you state, "To this end

the District recommended a narrative TDO

standard to be developed that prevents fish

kills.

Is the District going to

propose a narrative standard for us to look

at, or are you thinking of the narrative

standard that was used in the DO rulemaking

for general use waters? And I kind of fixed

that question a little bit. I'm sorry.

MR. ANDES: It wasn't quite what we

thought it was.

MR. DENNISON: Could you repeat it?

MS. DIERS: What I'm asking is there

seems, reading your testimony, a need for a

narrative standard. So I guess the first

question I start with, can you explain why we

need a narrative standard? And I guess --

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: That was

actually Question No. 4.

MS. DIERS: Thank you. I guess first

0119

the real question is the narrative standard

just for Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: Well, as things stand

now, it's my understanding that it would be

just for Bubbly Creek.

MR. ANDES: As proposed in the

testimony.

MS. DIERS: And can you explain

what -- give us an idea of what your

narrative standard would be.

MR. DENNISON: Well, we've got to

prevent fish kills. We would like to prevent

defensive odors from happening. That's what

we would like to put into the standard to see

that happen.

MS. DIERS: Is that something that the

District is going to do in this process is

prepare language for a narrative standard for

Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: Not that I know of as a

definite thing that's happening. I'm sure

that --

MR. ANDES: I think when Dr. Grenado,

when he wraps up the testimony, will

0120

summarize the District's proposals. I don't

believe that's the intention to propose

specific language, but a conceptual approach.

And I think that's reflected in the testimony

to date.

MS. DIERS: That takes care of 4, 5,

6, and 7 on Page 7. Just give me a few

minutes --

MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on that

for a minute in terms of the need for a

narrative standard. I don't think we really

got to that. Do you believe that we can

identify a numeric standard that Bubbly Creek

can meet?

MR. DENNISON: Things are just so

variable in Bubbly Creek that I don't see how

you could identify a numeric standard.

MS. DIERS: Why do you --

MR. ANDES: And that's the basis for

proposing a narrative instead?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: So instead of a numeric

standard, you think a narrative standard

would be the best way to go for Bubbly Creek?

0121

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: And that would be for the

period at least while the TARP projects are

going on, the 2024 which would address some

of the CSO issues?

MR. DENNISON: Certainly.

MR. ANDES: So after the CSO issues

are addressed through TARP, it could be that

a different standard could apply?

MS. WILLIAMS: Fred, are you

testifying?

MR. ANDES: No. I'm asking him if

that's correct.

MR. DENNISON: That's correct.

MS. DIERS: So how would this

narrative standard be protective if we don't

have a numeric criteria?

MR. DENNISON: Well, it would be an

operational standard, I believe. It would be

faced with having to make sure that there

were no fish kills or offensive odor

production.

MR. ANDES: Are you aware that the

State has other narrative standards in its

0122

regulations?

MR. DENNISON: There is one for

general use for stagnant waters that's

somewhat similar situation as Bubbly Creek.

MS. DIERS: So is your thought that

the narrative standard would prevent fish

kills?

MR. DENNISON: That would be the goal.

MS. DIERS: Prohibit, I'm sorry. I

don't think I meant as a preventative.

Prohibit fish kills.

MR. DENNISON: So that fish wouldn't

be dying.

MS. DIERS: Just give me a second and

see if I have any more questions.

So what aquatic life use would

you propose for Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: Well, without -- If

things had to go on right now without any

other way of going about things, I guess I

would have to say an Aquatic Life Use C. But

I'd rather see the habitat study that's going

on be able to be completed to help make that

decision.

0123

MS. DIERS: How would you envision

Aquatic Life C? If we're sitting here today,

we don't have the habitat study. How would

you envision Aquatic Life C?

MR. ANDES: What do you mean how would

you envision?

MS. DIERS: We've come up with

proposal for Aquatic Life A and B. You're

saying those don't work for this. So what

would C be?

MR. DENNISON: Well, I guess it would

be something, as I've mentioned, that would

prevent fish kills and offensive odors. I'm

not sure of how -- what sort of language it

would be or what, but it's that goal that we

certainly would have to focus on.

MR. ANDES: And it would only contain

Bubbly Creek. Am I right?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: And am I right in your

testimony you say this would be appropriate

until the sediments are capped, removed, or

remediated and the frequency of discharge of

RAPS is diminished sometime after 2024?

0124

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DIERS: Doesn't the current

standard prevent fish kill?

MR. DENNISON: Permit?

MS. DIERS: Prohibit. I'm sorry. I'm

trying to understand how this would be any

different from what we already have.

MR. ANDES: Can you contrast it to the

current numeric standards?

MS. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. ANDES: You asked him how it was

different than what we already have, right?

MS. WILLIAMS: But I think she's

asking about use designations, not about --

MR. ANDES: She just said -- I don't

think that's so.

MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. ANDES: You asked about the

standards, whether the current standards

prohibit fish kills.

MS. DIERS: I did.

MR. DENNISON: I'm just recalling

numeric values. I don't remember that

wording in such.

0125

MS. DIERS: That's fine. We have

nothing further.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: All right.

Then let's go to Miss Dexter.

MS. DEXTER: I will start with my

prefiled questions.

MEMBER LIN: Just a moment.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Yes,

Dr. Lin?

MEMBER LIN: On Question 16, very

important. You say the most important

factor. I have two questions: Do you know

how much the accumulation per year? A second

one, the sediment more important so does --

Do you think that dredging will cure the

problem? Dredging very costly.

MR. ANDES: Right. So the second part

is do we believe dredging would cure the

problem?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: The

dissolved oxygen problem on Question 16.

MEMBER LIN: Because sediment --

MR. ANDES: And I wasn't clear on the

first part of the question.

0126

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Question 16

is the dissolved oxygen issue, I belive. Is

that correct, Dr. Lin?

MEMBER LIN: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Dissolvable

oxygen, whether or not dredging would cure

the problem with the dissolved question given

the sediment.

MEMBER LIN: That's question two.

Question one is do you know what the annual

accumulation rate per year is?

MR. ANDES: The annual accumulation

rate.

MEMBER LIN: Right. It's really

important.

MR. DENNISON: I understand what

you're asking. I don't know the annual

accumulation rate.

As far as your second

question, you must remember that the Racine

Avenue Pumping Station will be continually,

for quite a while anyway, pumping during wet

weather events into the Bubbly Creek which

would add to the sediment low. If you

0127

dredged it completely, certainly that would

take out the sediments that are exerting the

SODs. But, of course, you would then begin

building up again the same situation in that

quiescent stagnant body of water there.

MEMBER LIN: Can you repeat that? In

history, it should be considered to evaluate

the cost, cost of dredging and the aeration,

so whole package. It's very important.

MR. ANDES: Is it -- Let me ask a

question to follow up on that. I believe

Miss Wasik talked about there being a

demonstration project to cap a small portion

in four acres at the mouth of Bubbly Creek.

MR. DENNISON: She did mention that.

And all I know about that project is that,

yes, it is indeed a project.

MR. ANDES: So that is being studied?

MR. DENNISON: Yes, yes.

MR. ANDES: But am I correct to say

that, and maybe Miss Wasik can answer the

question, but do we know when the results of

that will be available or sort of what the

future steps are in that effort?

0128

MS. WASIK: Well, everything so far in

that project has taken much longer than they

anticipated. So right now they're at the

engineering design phase, and they've awarded

the contract to an engineering firm. But I'd

say it'll be several years before they have

data regarding the results.

MR. ANDES: So long-term those issues

are being assessed in terms of sediment

capping possibility?

MS. WASIK: Capping.

MEMBER MOORE: Are there any

measurements of the accumulation rate

anywhere within the CAWS?

MR. ANDES: The sediment accumulation

rate?

MEMBER MOORE: Yes.

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MR. ANDES: Miss Wasik?

MS. WASIK: Dr. Garcia may have

measurements like that, but they would be

model results, but I'm not sure.

MR. ANDES: I think that Dr. Garcia

will talk a lot about flow and sort of where

0129

sediment goes. So I think we can ask him

those questions. And he's the next witness

up.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Thank you.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. I will begin with

my prefiled Question No. 1. On Page 4 of

your testimony you indicate that DO levels

fall to zero for up to three days following

rain events.

Has the District seen evidence

of fish kills caused by sediments?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DEXTER: Are they frequent? Can

you describe them?

MR. DENNISON: Infrequent as far as we

know. The last one from Bubbly Creek that

I'm aware of was in 2004. It would depend on

whether I'm made aware of them or not. But

it appears to be less than once a year.

MS. DEXTER: And do you know of any

before Bubbly Creek?

MR. ANDES: You mean before 2004?

MS. DEXTER: Yes. I'm sorry. I was

typing and talking at the same time.

0130

MR. DENNISON: Not personally. And I

can't really say that I do unless I've had

the data in front of me.

MS. DEXTER: Okay.

MR. ANDES: If I can follow up on that

for a minute. Dr. Dennison, in terms of that

particular incident in 2004, I wonder if you

could tell us a little bit about what the DO

levels went down to and how quickly that

happened.

MR. DENNISON: Within a matter of

hours, a couple hours went from

approximately, if I'm remembering correctly,

six to zero, six milligrams per liter to

zero. It was very quick.

MS. DIERS: I have a quick follow-up.

Does the District check to see if there are

fish kills after each overflow event?

MR. DENNISON: It's my understanding

that we would rely on reports of fish kills

unless they are noticed by our pollution

control boats during their normal operation.

MS. DIERS: When you say rely on

reports, what do you mean by that?

0131

MR. DENNISON: For example, a

citizens' report.

MS. DIERS: Thanks.

MS. DEXTER: Where do the fish that do

not die go after such an event?

MR. DENNISON: I don't know. I assume

that they would swim into the south branch of

the Chicago River; however, I haven't tracked

movements nor has anyone at the District

tracked the movements of the fish.

MS. DEXTER: Prefiled Question 3.

Generally does the District know where fish

go to avoid extreme low DO conditions in

Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: No.

MS. DEXTER: Do you know where fish go

when DO conditions are extremely low in the

North Shore Channel?

MR. DENNISON: I do not know. I

assume that they would seek areas of higher

DO such as downstream and the North Side

Water Reclamation Plant.

MR. ANDES: Is that because the

stagnant flow above the north side

0132

reclamation plant results in very low DO

levels?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: So the levels are higher

below the plant?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MR. ANDES: Thank you.

MS. DEXTER: I'm going to skip

prefiled Question 5 for now. I'm assuming

that you've answered prefiled Question 6 when

I asked Question 1.

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DEXTER: All right. I'm going to

skip 7 and 8 for a few minutes and go to

Question 9. Who prepared Attachment 2 to

your testimony?

MR. DENNISON: The U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

MS. DEXTER: And what has happened to

the recommendations and ideas suggested in

Attachment 2?

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MS. DEXTER: Has the District

considered doing any of the things discussed

0133

in Attachment 2?

MR. DENNISON: I do not know.

MS. DEXTER: Now I'll go back to

Question 5. Were there fish kills that

resulted from any of the DO drops that are

reflected in Attachment 3?

MR. DENNISON: Yes.

MS. DEXTER: Can you describe? Are

they different than the ones that you've

already described?

MR. DENNISON: In August of 2006, fish

kills occurred in the CAWS, though I didn't

have a report of one in Bubbly Creek.

MS. DEXTER: Are there any others?

MR. DENNISON: Any others? Any --

MS. DEXTER: That you know of.

MR. ANDES: You mean during 2006?

MS. DEXTER: What?

MR. ANDES: Fish kills during 2006?

MS. DEXTER: Fish kills associated

with the DO drops in Attachment 3. That's

all that you know of?

MR. DENNISON: Well, they were at

other locations in the CAWS. I believe it

0134

was on the North Shore Channel, the North

Branch of the Chicago River that we had

investigated.

MS. DEXTER: On Page 15 of Attachment

3, do you know what caused the DO collapse at

Main Street in December 2006?

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: This is

Question 14?

MS. DEXTER: Sorry.

MR. DENNISON: I do not know.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. Now I'm going to

go back to Question 7. Does the District

propose that conditions be allowed to

continue such that dissolved oxygen levels

are allowed to fall below 3 milligrams per

liter in Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: No matter what you do,

that's going to happen. It's the nature of

the water body.

MS. DEXTER: Would the answer be yes

then?

MR. ANDES: I think he answered the

question.

MS. DEXTER: I don't think he answered

0135

the question.

MR. ANDES: He gave you a response.

It just wasn't a simple yes or no.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Are you

comfortable giving us a yes or no answer,

Dr. Dennison?

MR. DENNISON: I'm trying to determine

that. Because of the variability, I don't

see how you could answer that other than the

way I have.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Okay. Thank

you.

MS. DEXTER: All right. Question 8:

Does Bubbly Creek now at this time constitute

an attractive nuisance for fish as stated on

Page 5 of your testimony?

MR. DENNISON: Not now.

MS. DEXTER: And now I'm going to go

down to Question 12. On Page 6 of your

testimony you propose a narrative standard

for Bubbly Creek that would stay in place

until sometime after the 2024. As a

practical matter, what DO levels would need

to be maintained to protect such a narrative

0136

standard?

MR. DENNISON: Well, I don't know. I

haven't done that analysis.

MS. DEXTER: Would the District need

to do such an analysis to meet the narrative

standard?

MR. DENNISON: Are you asking that as

part of Question 12?

MS. DEXTER: I'm following up to

Question 12, yes.

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MS. DEXTER: What would the District

do to assure compliance with the proposed

narrative standard?

MR. DENNISON: I don't know.

MR. ANDES: Might be better addressed

to people with more operational

responsibility. That would be Dr. Grenado

later.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. If Bubbly Creek

cannot be expected to maintain a standard of

four milligrams per liter of dissolved

oxygen, how is it that the North Shore

Channel at Main Street generally stays above

0137

five milligrams per liter of dissolved

oxygen?

MR. DENNISON: Flow augmentation from

the Wilmette Pumping Station.

MS. DEXTER: Is that all?

MR. DENNISON: That's all that I can

think of.

MR. ANDES: I'm sorry. Are there

significant differences in characteristics

between North Shore Channel and Bubbly Creek?

MR. DENNISON: Yes. Bubbly Creek is

stagnant. The North Shore Channel isn't. It

has flow when there's flow augmentation from

the Wilmette Pumping Station.

MS. DEXTER: I'm sorry. Just -- I'm

not sure that I heard what you said. The

flow augmentation what? What causes the flow

in North Shore Channel?

MR. DENNISON: The flow augmentation

from the Wilmette Pumping Station.

MS. DEXTER: Okay. That's all I have.

HEARING OFFICER TIPSORD: Anything

else for Dr. Dennison?

MS. DIERS: We may have just a couple

0138