Exhibit
    K
    Biotic Assessment of Water Quality
    in a
    Reach
    of the Sangamon River Receiving
    From
    the Sanitary District of Decatur
    Eastern Illinois University Report
    ent
    2007
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    effluent from
    the San
    R obert
    Department of Biological
    Sciences
    Eastem
    Illinois University
    Charleston.
    Illinois 61920
    Sangamon River
    tary
    District of Decatur
    ischer. Ph.D.
    and Charles L.. Pederson Ph.D.
    r-,- District of Decatur
    501 Dipper Dries
    Decatur. Illinois
    625??

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    ions associated with operation of SDD that Nvere easily
    ified by prominent landmarks xvithin the City of Decatur. Illinois. USA and have log.>2ed
    GPS coordinates for those sites. Sites were established initially in 1995 during an assessment of
    potential impacts of discharges from combined se-wage overflo%v (CSC) facilities as well as the
    main treatment plant. All sites were located in the mainstem of the Sangamon River extending
    from just downstream of the dam. which impounds Lake Decatur to the
    Wyckles
    Road Bridge on
    the west edge of Decatur. Sites 1. 13.
    4. 5. 6. 7. and S are within the
    UPSTREAM reach
    extendin,, from the dam to the discharge
    of the main treatment plant. and
    Sites 9. 11 . 1? are
    located
    in
    the DQWaSTREANI
    reach which extends from the main treatment
    plant discharge to
    the Wvckles
    Road
    bridge. Throughout this reports. we will refer to general locations
    as either
    UPSTREAM
    or DOMINSTREAN1
    of the SDD main treatment plant discharge.
    Form 2003
    through 2005. samples also v,-ere
    collected from the Sangamon
    River
    at
    an additional
    DOWNSTREAM site (P, 1-I) located 1 km
    north
    of
    the intersection
    of C R 600E and CR SOON.
    near the Lincoln Trail Homestead State Park. Site 2 (an open channel entering the Sangamon
    r from the Lincoln Park CSC)
    and
    Site 10 (located in Stevens Creek in Fainiew Park) are
    distinct from other sites largely due to their location outside of the mainstem of the San=Lamon
    River. Because these Sites are more or less isolated from reservoir or sanitary
    have not included since 200`_'.
    ~
    Levels of 12 water quality variables were determined form eleven mainstem sites in
    ?006. Previously, we documents that UPSTREAM and DOWNSTREAM reaches are
    distinct
    on the basis of their physical and chemical characteristics. Discharge from Lake Decatur is the
    UPSTRE AINI reach. resulting in our observation of relatively
    instream
    o f the SDD facilitate development of more
    overall nature of the UPSTREAM and
    ng periods of high reserv
    oir
    discharge.
    zed by lower pH. perhaps resulting from addition
    .down of organic matter in the wastewater treatment process.
    greater potential for instrearn primary
    productivity
    as a result of
    loading
    as
    indexed by higher levels of dissolved solids. conductivity. total alkaltriltv.
    o x 'di7
    i ,ed
    nitroaen.
    I
    and phosphorus. Suspended organic material including phytoplartkton algae
    r om the reservoir may be supporting heterotrophs in the upstream reach. 'ýN'e have
    established a new research effort that seeks to confirm that SDD discharge may be facilitating
    a shift from a stream system that relies on
    allochthonous
    input of
    algae to
    one
    that relies
    on
    autochthonous instream primary productivity. Improvement of
    conditions
    in
    the
    STREAM reach could be realized by maintenance of flo-,v with the range of 200-400 cfs,
    measured at the Route 48 bridge.
    Collection of diatoms assemblage
    data was
    hampered by disappearance of greater than
    half of the artificial substrates that were deployed- either through vandalism or natural
    disturbance. Loss of the majority of samplers is a drawback to this aspect of the study arid
    d for upcoming sampling efforts to evaluate utilization of natural substrates to
    culties.

    A total of
    I 1 1-1 ester- Den dv
    Nfultiplate samplers were placed along the main
    stem of the
    Samaamon River associated
    with the Sanitan District of
    Decatur for deterrnirration of`
    macroinvertebrate
    communities. For the
    eleven sampling locations eye were only able to collect
    data from eight
    sites along the stretch of
    the Sanaamon River associated with the Sanitary
    t of Decatur.
    a total of 58-18 organisms
    represen rag 19 macro invertebrate
    taxa were
    collected.
    The 110131 values ranged from
    5.79 to 6.94 Nv
    collected
    representing? insects in the
    order Diptera. MBI scores
    tfall of the SDD.
    assessed
    in 2006 were consistent with
    MBi values obtained during 1998 and
    2001-2005. NIBI
    over all the ,ears
    for UPSTREAM and DOWNSTREAM sites were
    7.1 and
    ivelv. Both of these
    overall scores warrant a "goodlfair
    rating." However. two-factor
    ANOVA revealed the difference
    in NIBI values to be significant
    (p<0.05) between upstream and
    downstrearn sites, indicated
    that stream habitat quality is better at the DOWNSTREAyl
    sites.
    our observations
    with data collected in 1988 (IEPA
    report). and 1992
    (IEPA
    report). MBI values for
    the
    Sangamon
    River associated with the Sanitan District of
    Decatur
    -,were significantly lower
    than values obtained during the 1988 survey but
    were aenerally
    ]ties obtained in the
    1992 report. In addition. when comparing present
    NIBI scores
    scores determined during
    a 1998 stream assessment conducted by Eastern
    Illinois
    n -. a continuation of
    the
    trend of improved biotic
    irate
    2 006. As
    in the previous sample
    periods the fish community in 2006 again vas
    Stream qualiný in the Sangamon
    River basin cvas evaluated by fish
    population sampl
    and the Index; of
    Biotic Intearit-\-. A total of 2'317
    fish of 26 species were collected as I
    I s
    dominated by
    the family C"yprinidae (minnows
    and carp). Significant differences were not
    observed (>0.05) in
    community-based measures
    of diversity between UPSTREAM and
    DOW?ý'STREAM
    reaches. Stream quality
    in the Sangamon River basin as evaluated
    population samples
    and the Index of Biotic
    Intearitv ram.ýed between 26 (site 6)
    to 44 (Site 12).
    especial
    quality of poor to
    good.
    Overall
    mean IBIs for data polled form
    -2006 ,were
    31 and 34 for the L`PSTREAM
    and DOW NSTREAM reaches. respectively
    .
    rences were observed
    in community based
    measures of diversity between UPS
    suo4gesting= that overall habitat
    gtrality based on the fish
    the DOWNSTREAM reach.
    DOWNSTREAM sites associated
    Nvith the main treatment plant outfall
    from the Sanitary District
    of Decatur may have increased
    IBI rating
    due to the predictable instrearn
    lows an
    p
    due in part to nutrient
    loading. In addition.
    all mamstr
    d autochthonous
    primary production
    chest percent of organisms
    or the 8 main
    channel sites
    as those received in the
    previous basin sunevs
    conducted in I
    fish community
    metrics, there has been
    no reduction in the quali
    d on
    ated near
    the Sanitary District of
    Decatur in the last 20 years.
    : rýczzi::cx:iriri:ýcicýc.csexxaýxýr:eicxiraczcc-.`rirzaczzzieýczx:r7eirsexxxzxi:ýe7cxiexzýc;ci:
    O
    verall. biotic community structure
    and habitat character]
    erpass i
    s
    tern.
    Established
    biocriteria includin4-
    fish and macr
    t
    fined similar quality
    the SanLamon
    . IL is a homogeneous
    brate indices
    su-gest that
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    discharge from the SDD
    main treatment plant
    actually enhances qualitA of this stream resource.
    Although fauna
    may be responding positively
    to elevated primary production derived from
    nputs to the stream- biotic communities
    of the Sangamon River most likely benefit
    from
    the more constant instream
    flows resulting from discharge of treated effluent. Data on benthic
    diatom community structure
    confirms that. this group of organisms
    likely is the
    most
    sensitive to
    variable stream habitat quality. In
    future vears. emphasis will be placed on evaluating
    the
    presumed positive impact
    of the SDD on stream communities relative
    to what
    «e txiieve
    might
    iinental
    effect of extremely variable flows
    upstream of the plant resulting from the
    unpredictable releases
    of water from Lake Decatur.
    In addition. we specifically intend to revisit
    u ti -1'7
    -1'7
    I 'on
    'on
    of water hardness as a va n 'able for establish'
    i in(, v.,ater quality especialk, as it relates
    to
    concentrations of cations such as nickel
    and zinc. In ?007 and beyond-
    we
    will be making
    additional biotic
    collections in effort to determine
    the bioconcentrations of these elements in
    macro in vertebrates and fish. 'We
    have little doubt that enhancement of the flow
    regime in the Sanýýamon
    River due to the
    SDD more than compensates for an\ impact. real or
    perceived. that may
    arise from loading of nutrients or
    solids into the stream.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    n
    Impoundm
    hers to create reservoirs
    used for irrration purposes. ass urban
    water supplies_
    and recreation. is commonplace. However. impoundments may impact downstream aquatic
    and their
    surrounding
    terrestrial habitats. Diminished water quality and availability.
    closures of fisheries. extirpation of species. groundwater
    depletion. and
    more frequent and
    intense flooding are increasingly distiný.tuished as consequences of current river management
    associated
    with
    impoundments (Abramovitz 1996. Collier et cal 1996. Nairnan ct al 1915).
    Specifically. dams can affect riverine systems by
    altering flow regime.
    changing nutrient and
    loads. and modlfvinv= enerav flow
    (hi--on
    et al 1995). As
    a
    result. river reaches
    doýti-nstream from
    a dam may no longer able to support native species. which will be reflected by
    reduced inte rity of biotic communities. (Nalman
    et al 1995. NRC
    1992).
    A natural flow re,_,irne is critical for sustaining
    ecosystem inte--rit-v and nati
    rivers (Foff.
    et
    al. 1197). Dams can have
    vaniný7
    ef `eets on downstream aquatic habitats
    depending on the purpose for which the dam was built. Impormdmertts used for urban water
    supplies reduce flow rates below the
    dam throughout the entire year (Finlayson et al. 1990 as
    well as increased daily and seasonal variability in flow
    regime (Finlayson et al. 1994.
    McMahon
    ?003). In addition. abiotic variables including temperature.
    turbidity. pH. conductivit-v and solids concentrations are altered in the downstream ri
    (e.g_ (Finla\-son et al. 1990.
    AlonL with stream impoundments. point source
    and non-point
    source
    pollution can
    have
    profound effects on the ecological integrity
    include agriculture. livestock --razin
    '
    waste are examples of po
    ý.
    Non-point sources of pollution may
    d industrial
    Quality Act of 19721 encouraged wastewater treatment plants to upgr
    to r
    result. many communities were
    forced to build advanced tertian water treatment
    et al 1985). Yet these treatment facilities still ex
    Carpenter and W'aite (2000) documented
    that concentrations of phosphorus vyere highest in
    streams draininu agricultural basins and at sites influenced by wastewater discharges. .N-
    al (?002) reported that selvage
    effluent inputs had elevated nitrate levels. These
    enhanced nutrient inputs can be expected to increase
    productivity- ,vithin a river because
    detrital
    processing usually are limited by loxv ambient stream nutrient
    concentrations (Stockner and Shortreed 1978. Elwood et al I
    Physical habitat (e.a.. flow regime. bottom substrate composition. instrearn coyer. etc.) and
    chemical water quality must be suitable for support of
    individual species in lotic systems and
    maintenance of the integrity of aquatic communities. The Sangamon
    River
    offers art
    opN
    to study these relationships it) a stream influenced by impoundment as well as point source
    T
    aamon River Basin
    is a 14.000km2 watershed covenn<= all or portions of
    eir7hteen counties in central Illinois. ,More than 35.10 km of streams within the basin course
    throu«h glacial and alluvial deposits creating rypically lotiv gradient stream with sand and gravel
    substrates. Streams within the basin have been
    impacted for most of the past century. recei
    is from both point and non-point sources. Current land
    use is
    80%
    agricultural
    of
    which
    85%1's corn or so%'beans. The
    great expanses of prairie that once existed in Illinois have been

    reduced to isolated hill and sand prairies coupled
    with remnants along highway and railroad
    right-of-ways
    and
    native
    deciduous woodlands now are limited
    to
    stream
    riparian
    areas. Major
    metropolitan areas associated with the San<amon
    River are Blooming-ton. Decatur. and
    Springfield representing a combined population
    of more than 500.000 residents. Impoundments
    associated with urbanization include Lake Taylon-ille. Lake
    Sangehris. and Lake Springfield on
    the
    South
    Fork
    of
    the
    Sangamon.-
    Clinton Lake on Salt Creek: as well as Lake Decatur.
    h such influential factors at play the status
    of the biotic integrity of the San >amon River
    onstantly in flux. In 1998-99 and continuing
    from 2001-2006. an intensive sampling
    program vas initiated to document,
    temporal and spatial heterogeneiný of an 8.5 km urban reach
    of the Sangamon River
    beginning
    just below the Lake Decatur Dam
    and extending,
    downstream
    to incorporate discharges from the Sanitary,
    District of Decatur (SDD). This study has been
    nded to characterize stream habitat quality and
    to assess impacts resulting from ongoing
    municipal and reset-voir management by evaluating biotic integrity at various trophic levels in
    the
    context of the physical and chemical nature
    of the Sangamon River.
    Histo
    ling locations associated with
    operation of SDD that were
    prominent landmarks within
    the
    Ciry
    of Decatur. Illinois. USA and have logged GPS coordinates
    sites (Table 1). Sites were established
    initiall-v in 1998 during an assessment of
    I impacts of discharges from combined sewage overflow (CSO)
    facilities as
    well
    a the
    main treatment plant. All sites were located
    in the mainstern of the Sangamon River eaten
    tream of the dam. which impounds
    Lake Decatur to the WycUes Road Bridge on
    of Decatur. Sites 1. 3.
    4 . 5 . 6. 7. and 8 are within the UP
    t he
    main treatment plant- and Sites 9. 1 1 and 12
    h extends from the main treatment
    plant
    discharge
    to
    allout this re
    yM of
    the
    SDD
    main treatment
    l
    ted from the Sangamon
    intersection
    of
    Homestead State
    R 600E and CR 8
    1 entering
    the
    Sat
    as either
    g 2003.
    kiVI site
    In Trail
    d Site 10 (located in Stevens
    largely due to their location outside
    are more or less isolated from
    reservoir or sanitan
    protocol after 2003.
    features considered
    are
    f the Sangamon River.
    coln
    other sites
    e these Sites
    in
    sample
    Assessment
    Procedure (SHAP). which evaluates lone habitat quality using
    mportant
    to biotic integrity. vas performed by
    us during the month of JUIV it
    1998. 2001. and 2002 throuo7 2006. At each stream
    site. t- o individuals independently ~
    s related to substrate and instrearn
    coyer. channel
    morpholo-!L,,N,
    and hydrology. and
    III
    th,
    our
    habitat quality types using guidelines established by the
    y
    (1994). The
    mean total score of the 15 metrics lýotms
    overall habitat
    quality rating for the stream reach under consideration. Habitat
    quality of the UPS"
    rid HOWNST
    oor:
    59
    - 100 =
    hes were
    categorized on the basis of its
    ir: 100 - 14
    2 =
    Good
    e llent.

    Average SNAP scores
    for UPSTREAM
    and DON"S T REANI sites were 82
    respectively. Nonetheless.
    physical habitat structure
    based on SHAP still results in classification
    of all mainstern sites as "fair"
    quality stream reaches indicating
    that the physical structure of the
    homogeneous.
    11
    ,physical
    structure
    provides a backdrop for
    the ability of the study reach to support a
    flora and fauna. Routine
    assessment of characteristic water quality variables
    superimposed on
    substrate characteristics.
    channel rnorpholom and bank features can aid in
    understandng the functioning
    of stream svstems. Given
    that organisms exist within often-
    narrow ranges of tolerance
    for certain physical and chemical characteristics of
    their environment.
    analysis of
    these variables is imperative for
    understanding? the potential for anthropogenic
    impacts to decrease biotic
    integrity of natural systems. As
    a result, "ve incorporated routine
    of various physical
    and chemical features of the Sangamon River
    sites studied dur
    2002.
    xvl-ich based
    on principal components analysis.
    revealed significant differences between
    the LtPSTREAiti=1 and DO'vt`NSTREAN1
    reaches. Ivlonitorirrg of
    relevant variables continues
    through 2007.
    Qualitative judgements (good vs.
    bad) based on established biocritena
    using data
    2000 -2006 were inconsistent.
    The f/lacroinvertebrate
    Biotic Index classified both reaches as
    GOOD/FAIR. although conditions
    are improved significantly DOWNSTREANI of the,discharge
    ent. And the Fish Index
    of Biotic Integrity calculated from 1998. 2001
    ified both reaches
    as FAIR. but ryas able to detect
    ~a
    si
    DOWNSTREANI of the
    m ain treatment. Also,
    since 20102
    we have continued
    to refine our sampling protocol for
    e nthic al;ae
    for monitoring stream habitat quality. Indices of
    diatom
    re did not differ between
    UPSTREAM and
    DOWNSTREAM
    reaches
    based on analysis of spring
    and fall sample periods. Hovveyer,
    qualitative comparisons of
    shifts in community
    dominance Nverc possible
    and clearly indicated pro
    for biomo
    M ethods
    Field data collection
    and water chemistry determination
    collected
    even- tAvo to four weeks from
    February to November. 2006.
    Sampling
    ryas initiated at the Lake Decatur
    dam and preceded downstream. While in the field,
    additional
    abiotic variables (dissolved
    oxygen. pH. conductivity. and
    temperature were
    a :Amphibian and 'vlanta multiprove. Surface
    water samples -were
    collected at 0.3 m below
    the surface aid returned
    to the laboraton- on ice and analyzed
    within
    generally
    accepted time limits. All samplinv
    and analyses were conducted according,
    to Standard
    i%4ethods for Examination
    of VVate, and V astewater (APHA.
    199j).
    In the laboratory.
    suspended and total solids
    determinations were made by drvim-, residue
    collected on standard tLdass Fiber filters
    as well as unfiltered samples
    placed into tared porcelain
    crucibles
    at
    103-105
    "C. Total dissolved solids were
    calculated by difference. Total phosphorus
    (following frersulfate digestion) and
    soluble reactive phosphorus (utilizing
    filtered. undigested,
    sample aliquots)
    were determine
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    for determination of ammonia nitrogen.
    and total oxidized mtro4zen (N0,-N ý N0ý-?°t) was
    determined via the cadmium reduction method.
    Colorimetrv of all nutrient analyses was
    determined
    usinu a Beckman DU Sao Life
    measured by titration
    to colonme
    :e UV/Vis Spectrophotometer. Alkalimr was
    ds. For all chemical artah-ses. due
    consideration
    was
    given
    to
    quality
    control and q
    urance procedures. including, but not
    el analyses of labormorv
    standards.
    Hacroin
    vertebrates
    Macroinvertebrate samples were
    collected from 8 of the -1 I sites using modified multiplate
    samplers (I-lester and Dendv 196'). Substrates
    were placed on the stream bottom Ior periods of
    six weeks. beLLinnim.,
    July 1~0. ?006 to allow colonization. Samplers were collected with
    aid of
    dip-net. in order to avoid loss of invertebrates.
    and placed in wide-mouth plastic containers. All
    organisms
    were preserved in the held with 95% ethanol containing
    rose bengal. After so
    macro invertebrates were identified
    to the lowest possible taxonomic level and data
    were
    used
    to
    calculate a Nla
    each
    taxon is
    literature and pr
    is Index (MBI) according
    to Hilsenhoff(1982). In this method.
    d a pollution tolerance value
    ranging from zero to eleven based on available
    held experience.
    Based on present assessment methods. M
    reflect water qualitti as follows (IFPA 1988):
    <
    5.0 - Excellent: 5.0 - 6.0 - Very g
    GoodJFair: 7.6 -- 10.0
    K
    Poor: => 10.0 - Ven- Poor. Macro invertibrate Biotic Index,
    scores for ?006
    were compared to those data. which were pooled
    from 1998. ?001 through 2005.
    Fish
    Fish were sampled on
    effort at each site. Fish were
    identified to spe
    possible. although voucher s
    1
    were not practical. specimens Nvere preserv
    laboraton-. Species richness
    and evenness (Pielou_ 1977) were used as fundamental measures
    of
    diversitx. Fish communitti data also were
    used to determine the community-based
    0130. Which uses
    twelve metrics in three categories
    to appraise
    fish
    cornmunities
    (Karr et al.. 1986). Values of 1. 3. and 5
    are assigned for each metric. and the values for
    the
    individual metrics are
    then summed to generate a score
    from I`' to 60. Calculation of IBI values
    was aided by an in
    utility of
    I
    follows: 51-60 - excellent: comparable
    to best situati
    er
    v e characterization of streams. as
    pis to standardize sampling
    nan disturbance.
    4 1-50.
    good: good fishen for
    gamefish: species richness may
    31--f0.9 - fair:
    bullheads. sunfish.
    and carp predominate: diversi
    intolerants reduced. 211 -30ý 9 - poor: fish
    dominated by omnivores and tolerant forms: diversity
    notably reduced. <21 - yen- poor: few fish
    of any species present. no sport
    fishery exists. Fish IBI scores for ?006
    were compared to those
    were pooled from
    1998. ?001 and ?00? through 2005.
    B enthic algal (diatom) samples
    Artificial substrates
    were
    continuousIv
    exposed at I I sites in the main channel
    of the Sarazarnon
    River from 10 July - a
    1 July during= 2007. Substrates
    were I a 3 inch clean v.,lass microscope
    ded at the surface of
    the
    stream
    in comznerciaily available periphvtometers (
    "'i1
    telv,
    all but -' substrates
    were
    lost
    due either to natural occurrence (i.e.. high

    discharge events) or
    due to vandalism.
    As such. fart
    pursued as results
    would have been
    uninformative or inconclusive.
    Results
    w
    ere
    riot
    bit ater chenristrt-
    Levels of 1? separate
    water quality
    variables were determined for
    eleven mainstem sites in `?006
    (Table 3). The trend
    established in prior sampling
    rears continued
    throuiXhout this recent
    sampling period.
    with levels for
    each of the variables being
    generally higher in DOG ?NISTREAM
    locations. Most
    notably. higher concentrations
    of forms of phosphorus
    and nitrogen were
    observed along with a Caeneral
    trend of elevated conductivity.
    presumably resulting
    ge from the main treatment plant
    of the Sanitary District of
    Decatur. Water cherrristrY
    continued to be relatively-
    homogeneous over
    the entire study reach
    during periods of hi
    rarge from the darn which impounds
    Lake Decatur.
    Macroin vertebrates
    A
    total of I I Hester-Dendy
    Multiplate samplers were placed
    along the main stern of the
    San<amon River associated
    with the Sanitary
    District of Decatur for detemxirration
    of
    vertebrate communities.
    For the eleven sampling
    locations eve %vere o
    fected data for eight
    sites along the stretch
    of the Sangamon River associated
    ýtith the
    Sanitary
    ct of Decatur. a total of 5828
    orLanisms representing
    19 macro invertebrate taxa
    were
    collected
    (Table I ). The MBI values ranged
    percent of organisms
    collected representing?
    5.77 to 6.94 for
    the
    in the order Diptera.
    armel
    sites assessed in `'
    for
    -')ý Both of
    revealed the
    a nd ?001 - 2005. MBI scores
    averaged over the see
    difference in NIBI values
    to be
    irtdicatinL7
    that stream
    aoodf`fair ran
    ficant
    (p<-
    ites were 7.1 and 5.9_ respecti%
    pstream
    and downstrearn sites.
    °UAcM sites.
    Fish
    A total of '317 fish of
    ?6 species from 10
    families were collected
    at I I sites during July 2006
    (Table 3 ). As in the previous sample
    periods the fish community
    in ?006 again was
    dominated
    by the family Cyprinidae (minnows
    and carp).
    Significant differences were
    not observed
    (p>0.05) in cornmunitN-based
    measures ol'dl%-erslr%
    between UPSTREAM
    and
    DOWNSTRB,VM
    reaches.
    Stream quality
    in the Sangarrion River
    basin as evaluated by fish
    P
    ulat'on samples
    and the Index of Biotic
    Integrit-v rariged from 28
    (Sites 6) to 4-4 (Site
    12).
    OP I
    I
    I
    'era]] strcýam quality
    of poor to {good.
    Overall mean IBIs for data
    pooled frorn 1998.
    ?001-?006 were _31
    and 34 for the UPSTREAM
    and
    rtfirmed
    this difference
    to
    be
    habitat quality, based on
    the fish community.
    is improved in
    r eaches- r espectively.
    <0.05).
    suggesting that overall
    ed in the stream
    were recovered. further
    anaIN sis
    diatom assemblage
    was not attempted.

    Discussion
    Overall. the SanLarnon
    River extending from
    the darn. which impounds
    Lake Decatur to the
    W-v&les Road Bridge. can be
    considered a fair quality
    aquatic system with minimal
    habi
    variety.
    Althouah there is sianificant
    variation in ph-sical
    habitats UPSTREAM and
    DOWNSTRE.AA1 of
    the SDD. variability
    in SHAD ratings were
    primarily dependent upon such
    factors as substrate stability.
    pool variability and
    quality due to stream flow. arid loss or
    reduc
    of riparian zone
    vegetation that had
    occurred at each specific
    site, The primary difference
    between
    UPSTREAM
    arid
    DOWNSTREAM
    reaches is attributable indirectly
    to
    metrics
    related
    to flow. The DOWNSTRE
    ANI reach
    receives continuous floe-
    from SDD. whereas
    UPSTREAN1
    flow varies CLreatly due
    to unpredictable reservoir
    discharges. Such alterations
    have lead to simplification
    of stream habitat
    with concomitant reduction in species
    diversity and
    biotic
    inte.rin and an overall
    decline in quality of
    the aquatic resource.
    Based
    on physical habitat stricture
    as measured
    by SNAP. the reaches of the Sangamon
    which %ve studied.
    are indistinguishable.
    Flowever. PCA confirms
    that UPSTREAM and
    DOWNSTREAM
    reaches are
    distinct or, the basis of
    their physical and chemical characteristics.
    Discharge from Lake
    Decatur is the primary
    input to the UPSTREAM
    reach. resulting in our
    observation
    of relatively higher
    variabilin in fjOW and nutrient
    concentrations. Conversely.
    stable and predictable
    instrearn flows observed
    in
    rive s-,-sterns (Sanders
    c-t al. 1985:
    Walde 1
    988).
    'Ke also
    believe that drastic reduction
    o
    discharge is detrimental
    to habitat quality
    in the
    UPS
    I KLAM reach.
    uyeratt. results
    a threshold exists
    with respect to flow. i.e.
    periods when discharge is
    en flow is below this
    threshold. the UPSTREAM
    and DON"STREAM
    reG
    ý,lhile they appear to behave
    as a con
    suggests that water quality
    is comprom
    ides
    as confirmed by work conducted
    in
    983: Peckarskv 1983:
    Vti'ardy &. Stan
    inuum when discharae
    exceeds -IOU cfs.
    downstream
    from the darn to the discharge
    of
    -ion River extending
    air treatment
    plant of the Sanitary District
    of
    Decatur
    as a result of management
    to maintain
    resenýoir levels by eliminating
    o
    -e management
    ofý Sangamon
    River tray require maintenance
    of instrearrr floýý
    above the proposed
    threshold (100 cfs) by
    continuous discharge from
    Lake Decatur.
    of SDD
    are characterized
    by lower pH. perhaps resulting
    from addition
    of CO, due to respiratory
    breakdown of organic
    matter in the wastewater
    treatment process.
    These sites may also have greater
    potential for instream
    priman productivity
    aýs a result of
    indexed by higher levels
    of dissolved solids.
    conductivity, total alkali nit".
    horns. Elevated concentrations
    of suspended solids
    and chi orophyll
    ites indicate
    that suspended organic
    material including
    phvtoplankton algae
    derived from the
    rese5 oir may
    be
    supporting
    heterotrophs in
    the upstrearn
    reach. In
    contrast. DOWNSTREANI
    sites ar-e maintained
    by autochthonous primary
    productivity that is
    supported by relativel\
    higher concentrations
    of plant nutrients
    derived from
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    the sanitary discharge.
    V,*e
    conclude that SDD
    discharge may be facilitatini, a shin from a stream
    system that relies on
    allochthonous input of algae to
    one that relies on autochthonous instream
    ductivity.
    Qualitative evaluation of the two stream reaches
    requires assessment of stream biota to determine
    whether or not
    differences in the tWo stream reaches are reflected b\
    higher trophic
    levels.
    Such
    an evaluation of overall stream
    habitat quality can be made via biotic indices involving
    macroinvertebrates and fish. taxa that have
    become widely used for biotic assessments.
    DOWNSTREAM sites were
    characterized during 1998, ?001-?006 by si<gniicantly lower ,VIBI
    scores and higher IBI values- indicative of
    improved habitat quality capable of Supporting diverse
    and a variety of different
    trophic levels. DOWNSTREAM sites associated with the main
    treatment plant outfall from the SDD may have
    increased Integrity due to predictable instrearn
    flows and increased
    autochthonous primary production due in part to nutrient loading.
    When comparing our obsenýatiorts made during the ?006 sampling
    period with data collected in
    (Sanitary
    District of Decatur) and ?001-?005 (Sanitary District of'
    Decatur) both IBI and
    MBI values for DOWN STREA:'vt sites associated with the maim treatment
    plant outfall were generally similar or slightly improved
    compared to values obtained during, all
    previous sampling periods. Thus
    the upgrades performed to the main plant in 1990 and
    the
    Lincoln CSO in 19x1`' by the sanitation district have
    lead di
    gamon River which has been maintained
    over the past seven years.
    onallv. there has been no reduction
    in the quality of the San<gamon River section located
    near the Sanitary- District of Decatur in the last
    ?0 years.
    r biological
    monitoring was confirmed b% our extensive analysis of
    oiled on artificial substrates
    during ?00`? and 2003. However. y
    d to be reconsidered. Exce
    re to utilize collections from naturally occurrirr<,7
    substrates.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 1. List of the
    13
    sites utilized by tine
    Department of Biolog
    D
    is
    conducted on renc
    o ln Park - above out-fall
    Site . ý' - Lincoln Park - oucfall canal
    r of the
    San
    anron
    Rs-,-er
    associated
    b elow outfall
    Site 4-4 - Oakland (L.incoLn Park Drive) - above
    Oakland
    (Linncoln
    Park
    Drive) -
    below outfall
    7`n Ward - upstream of outfall
    Site -7 - 7`}' Ward - downstream
    of ourfall
    ain Treatment Plant - upstream, of main outfall
    49 - SDD Main treatment Plant - downstream of main outf
    k
    in
    Fairview
    Park
    Site
    '-,I
    I - San2amon
    Site '-t-"
    -
    Sanaarnon
    of stevens
    Creek
    near the Lincoln Trail Homestead State Park. I Lm north
    of the intersection
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 2. Measured water
    quality
    variables
    far 11 mainstern sites in the Sangamon River associated with the SL1D.
    total
    TDS
    6
    2 /23/06
    4'20/06
    5/9/06
    6 /6/06
    6 129/06
    8 /9/06
    9/15/06
    10/13/06
    11/16106
    2006
    Average
    2!21'06
    2/23/06
    4/20106
    5/9/06
    6/6/06
    /08
    8/9/06
    9/15/06
    10/13/06
    _
    11/16/06
    2006
    Average
    1 19.9
    1 29.8
    1
    9.9
    1 7.5
    1 6.3
    1 7.9
    1 9.4
    1 12.6
    1 7.1
    1 12.6
    1 8.5
    23.8
    24.7
    26.7
    22.6
    11.6
    7 ,8
    19.3
    313
    602
    5 44
    521
    507
    341
    531
    606
    9.0 711
    7.8 593
    0 .44
    5,60
    2 49
    0.56
    197
    7.97
    131
    6.44 0.27
    249
    0.39 0.22
    158
    0.96 0.48
    276
    7.80 0.35
    236
    0.08 0.06
    249
    3.67 0.14
    227
    3.39
    12.92
    DL
    0.17
    0,18
    0.22
    389.3 383.3
    DL 8.8 400.0 391.2
    0.04 10,0
    422.7 412.7
    0.07 30.0 370.7
    340.7
    0.01 31.0 350.0 329.0
    0.02 13,0 302.7 289.7
    0.35
    0.23 25.0 225.3 200.3
    0.42
    0,22 11.0 144.0 133.0
    0.12
    0.04 17.0 376,0 359.0
    0,11
    DL 22.0 372.0 350,0
    0.18
    0.05
    17.4
    336.3 318.9
    3 14.0
    2.4 4,5 1276
    263
    0.47
    0.05
    DL 6.8 384.0 377.2
    2 .5 4.5
    364
    236
    5.84
    DL
    DL 8.8 401.3 392.5
    18.4 10.4
    602
    164
    0.55
    0.16
    0.03 12.0 445.3 433.3
    3 10,2 18.5 8.3 544
    197
    8.55
    0.19
    DL 31.0 366.7 335,7
    3 6.8
    23.8
    8.0 520
    197
    7.00 0.21
    0.25
    0.02 30.0
    357,3 327.3
    3 6.7 24.4 8,3 518
    223
    0.42 0.12
    0.21
    0,02 18.0
    314.7
    296.7
    3 7.9 26.7 7,8 345
    184
    1.36 0.44
    0.36
    0.28 27.0 217.3 1903
    3 9.0
    22.3
    8.5 542
    263
    8,34
    0.38
    0.40
    0,25 7.0 160.0 153,0
    3 13,1
    10.9
    8.4 513
    289
    0.21
    0.07
    0.17
    0,06
    20.0
    378.7 358.7
    3 7.2
    7,8 9.0 709
    315
    3.97 0.16
    0.11
    DL 23.0 374.7 351.7
    3 12.0 19.1 7.8 603
    233
    3.67
    15.37
    0.19
    0.05 18.4 340.0 321.6
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 2. (coat.)
    total
    06
    4/20/06
    5/9/06
    6/6/06
    6129106
    819/06
    9/15/06
    1 0/13/06
    11/16/06
    2006
    Average
    4 28.1
    '18,4 10.4 603
    236
    4 9.5
    18,4
    8.2 552
    210
    4 7.5 23.5 8,1
    528
    223
    4 7.0 24.4 8.3 516
    210
    4 8.0 26.3 7.7 353
    158
    4 9.2 21.9 8.5 545
    263
    4 11.8
    9.8 7.7 566
    263
    4 7.2
    7.8
    9.1
    710
    315
    4 11.8 18.8 7.5 589
    230
    212!06
    5
    10.1
    2123106
    5 18.3
    4120106
    5/9/06
    6/6106
    6 /29106
    819/06
    9/15/06
    10113/06
    11116/06
    5 9.6
    5
    7.8
    5
    6.9
    5 7.9
    5 8.9
    5 8.5
    5 7.1
    2006 Average
    5
    11.4
    NFi3 P04 - TP P04 - SRP TSS TS
    TDS
    0.48
    0.05
    DL 4.0 381.3 377.3
    6.11
    DL
    DL 9.6 397.3 387.7
    0.52
    0.17
    0.04 19.0 434.7 415.7
    8.49
    0.17
    DL 32.0 392.0 360.0
    7.30 0.32
    0.24
    0.00 34.0 366.7 332.7
    0.41
    0.13
    0.22
    0.03 21.0 329,3 308,3-
    1.33 0.23
    0,36
    0.26
    34.0
    230.7
    196.7
    8.37 0.43
    0.36
    0,23 13.0 162.7 149.7
    0.59 0.10
    0,25
    0.09 18.0
    372-0 354,0
    4.03 0.21
    0.11
    DL 22.0 354.7 332.7
    3.76 10.07
    0.19
    0.05
    20.7
    342.1 321.5
    2 .4 3.4 1206
    276
    0.47
    0.05
    DL
    6.0 397.3 391.3
    2.4 4.2 362
    197
    5.87
    DL
    DL 11.2 393.3
    382.1
    8 .3
    2 3.7 8 .0
    2 4.4 8.3
    2 6,1
    6 03
    210
    0.54
    0.16
    0.04 9.0
    422.7 413,7
    5 47
    210
    8.49
    0.17
    DL 39,0 340.7 351.7
    522
    210
    6.94 0.26
    0.25
    DL 30.0 362.7 332.7
    515
    210
    0.41 0.16
    0.20
    0.02 20.0 309.3 289.3
    346
    158
    1.30 0.43
    0.35
    0.26 36.0 242.7
    206.7
    545
    263
    8.29
    0.42
    0.39
    0.24 15.0 180.0 165.0
    9.5 7.8 565
    236
    0.61 0.10
    0.25
    0.10 16.0 356.0 340.0
    7.8 9.1 710
    289
    3.79 0.21
    0.12
    DL 25.0 376.0 351.0
    1 8.8 7.5
    592
    226
    3.67 9.63
    0.19
    0.05 20.7 343.1
    322.3

    Table 2. (coat.)
    t otal
    6
    2/23/06
    4120/06
    5 /9/06
    6/6106
    6/29106
    8/9/06
    9/15/06
    10/13/06
    11/16/06
    lkalinlty
    TON
    NH3 P04 - TP P04 - SRP TSS TS TDS
    6
    9.1
    2 .2 4.0 362
    6 7.1
    23.5
    6 6.5 24.4
    6 6.6
    26.2
    6 9.3
    10.5
    8.2
    8.0
    8,2
    7.6
    8.3
    6 6.8
    7.9 9,0
    603
    546
    523
    524
    366
    553
    728
    686
    0 .06
    DL 6.4 384.0 377.6
    2 76
    5.81
    DL
    DL
    10.4 410.7 400.3
    249
    0.53
    0.17
    0.03
    9.0 422.7 413.7
    197
    8.37
    0.19
    DL 39,¬7 390.7 351.7
    6 .85 0.28
    0.28
    0.00 39.0 377.3 338.3
    249
    0.42 0.33
    0.24
    0.01
    18.0
    346.7 328.7
    158
    1.30 0.50
    0.38
    0.28 30.0
    240.0 210.0
    2 89
    7,91 0.35
    0.38
    0.20
    5.0 181.3
    276
    0.30
    0.06
    0.09
    0.00 20.0 458,7
    289
    3.52 0.12
    0.10
    DL 22.0 364.0
    342.0
    6 11.2
    18.9 7.6 595
    253
    3.55 6.84
    0.19
    0.03 19.9 357.6 337.7
    2/2/06
    7 9.4
    3.3 3.3 1063
    263
    0.47
    0.05
    DL 4.8 393.3
    388.5
    2/23/06
    7
    13.1
    2.2 4,1 362
    249
    5.81
    DL
    DL 12.8
    4/20/06
    7 28.1
    18.4
    10,4 603
    243
    0.54
    0.16
    0.03 14.0 441.3
    5/9106
    7 9.0
    18.4 8,3
    547
    190
    8.70
    0,21
    DL 39.0 381.3 342.3
    6/6:06
    7 7,5 23_6
    7.9
    523
    210
    6.82
    0,29
    0.27
    0.00 42.0 380.0 338.0
    6 /29/06
    7 6.5
    24,5 8.2 525
    223
    0,41 0.15
    0,28
    0.00
    22.0 346.7 324,7
    8/9/06
    7 6.5 24,5
    8.2 525
    171
    1.21 0.46
    0.40
    0.27 70.0 306.7 236.7
    9115106
    7 8.7
    21.8 8.2 552
    144
    7.88
    0.33
    0.38
    0.20 14.0 197.3 183.3
    1 0.`13/06
    7
    14.1
    9.7 8.2 736
    289
    0,23 0,08
    0.17
    0.00 66.0 522.7 456.7
    11/16/06
    7
    6.8
    7.9 9.0
    _
    _686
    263
    3.19 0.11
    0.11
    DL 20.0
    360.0
    340.0
    2006 Average
    7 11.0
    18.6 7.6
    612
    224
    3.53
    7.72
    0.20
    0.03 30.5 372.3 341.8

    Table 2. (cont.)
    t otal
    2123106
    8 14.0
    2.1 3.8 362
    158
    4/20/06
    8 27.4 18.4 10.4 603
    223
    5/9/06
    8 8.9 18.4 8.2 547
    197
    6/6/06
    8 7.2 23.5 8,0 522
    210
    61129/06
    8 6.6 24.6 8.3 531
    223
    8 19/06
    8 7,7 26.1 7,6
    375
    197
    9;15106
    8 9,3 21,5 8.2 559
    289
    10/13/06
    8 10.1
    10.4 8.0 694
    289
    11116/06
    8 7.0
    7.8
    _9.1
    696
    289
    2006 Average
    8 10.7 18.9 7.5 681
    234
    2/2106
    9 8,3
    4.2 3.6
    9
    12.8
    4.3 4.1
    4%20106
    9
    27.3
    18.4
    10.4
    5 /9106
    9 8.7
    18.7
    616/06
    9 7.2 23,6
    6%29106
    9 6.8
    8/9/06
    9 8.0
    9 115106
    9 9.2
    10;13106
    9 11.0
    11116/06
    9 6.1
    2 006
    A
    verage
    9 10.5
    8 .1
    8 .2
    2 11 8.1
    9.0 8.9
    NN3 P04-TP P04-SRP
    TSS TS TDS
    0.53
    0.06
    DL 5,6 386.7 381.1
    5.72
    0.00
    DL 12.0 398.7 386.7
    0.53
    0.16
    0.03 8.0 422.7 414.7
    8.46
    0.16
    DL 43.0
    406.7 363.7
    6.91 0.29
    0.26
    0.00 47,0 392.0 345.0
    0.40
    0.14
    0.23
    0,00 16.0 332,0 316.0
    1.36 0.33
    0.34
    0.24 11.0
    232.0
    221.0
    7.91 0.31
    0.37
    0.20 13.0 205.3 192.3
    0.21 0.06
    0.14
    0.03 31.0 433.3 402.3
    3.52 0.11
    0.11
    DL 23.0 376.0 353.0
    3.56 7.28
    0.18
    0.03 21.0
    358.5
    337.6
    1 288
    236
    0.51
    0.67
    0.53 6.8 508.0 501.2
    485
    354
    6.17
    0.81
    0.81 11.6
    518.7 507.1
    632
    236
    0.53
    0.22
    0,17 13.0
    440.0 427.0
    741
    210
    8.49
    0.85
    0.62 41.0
    489.3 448.3
    817
    249
    6.56 0.27
    1.23
    1.02
    44.0
    532.0 488.0
    1 815
    236
    0.43 0.17
    2.53
    3.08 14.0 1122.7 1108.7
    1 455
    249
    3.90 0.29
    2.04
    3.02 35.0
    780.0
    2526
    407
    5.92 0.18
    3.62
    4.43
    8.0
    1133.3 1125.3
    3981
    420
    0.78 0,13
    2.27
    2.51 15,0
    2064.0 2049.0
    1005
    302
    3.76 0.01
    1.23
    1.12 18.0
    496.0 478.0
    20.9 7.5 1475
    2 90
    3.70 4.23
    1.55
    1.73 20.6 808.4 787,8

    Table 2. (coat.)
    total
    /06
    519106
    6(6106
    6129/06
    819/06
    9115106
    1 0/13 !06
    11/16106
    2006 Average
    2 '23/06
    4120/06
    5(9%06
    6/6/06
    6129/06
    8 /9/06
    9115/06
    10113106
    11/16,06
    2 006 Average
    11 13.4
    4.3
    4.0 470
    354
    11 27.4
    18.4 10.4 645
    236
    1
    1
    8.6
    18.7 8.2 740
    210
    11 7.2 23.6 7.9 778
    249
    11 6.9 25,7 8.2 1851
    381
    11 7.3 27,0 7.8 1523
    302
    11 9.5 23.8 7.3 2395
    381
    19.7 8.3 4035
    407
    1 1 6.1
    8.5 9,0 871
    _
    315
    11 10.7 20.7 7.5 1447
    311
    1
    2 16.0
    2.7 2.8 145
    289
    12 13.9
    3.8 3,9 463
    354
    1 8.1
    10.4
    655
    263
    12 8.4 18.3 8.2
    751
    236
    12 6,9 22.5 8.0 741
    236
    12
    5.9 23.7
    8.1 1676
    394
    12 7.7 26.2 7.9 1418
    302
    12
    8.6 22.1 8.2 2252
    407
    12 9.4 15.3 8.0 3229
    433
    12 6,5
    8.3 8.9 810
    289
    12 11.0 19.3
    7.4
    1214
    320
    N H3 P©4 -
    TI
    0 .47
    0.53
    1.21
    0 ,50
    0.4 0
    8.52
    0.92
    6.56 0.23
    1.26
    0.21
    2.45
    4 .10 0.42
    2.00
    0.15
    3.44
    DL
    6.30
    2 .25
    0.83
    1.53
    0.48
    0.52
    1.36
    0.51
    0.36
    0 .21
    0 .23
    0 .55
    6 .13 0.14
    0.80
    0 .82
    0 .98
    2 .27
    1 .79
    3 ,08
    2 .14
    _
    3.61 DL
    0.62
    3.88 11.00
    1.39
    0 .34 6.8
    1.33 8.4
    0.22
    13.0
    0.73 42.0
    0.97 47.0
    3.08 15.0
    1 .0
    T S TDS
    458.7
    451.9
    653.3 644.9
    458.7
    445,7
    514.7 472,7
    524.0
    477,0
    1 106.7 1091.7
    782.7 761.7
    1109.3 1104.3
    2229.3 2140.3
    446.7 427,7
    828.4
    801.8
    4.47 5.0
    2.68 89.0
    0.66 19.0
    1.76 26.6
    0.32
    0.23
    0.65
    0.77
    2.75
    2.51
    7.6 484.0
    8.0 642.7
    22.0 465.3
    39.0 508.0
    43.0
    500.0
    20.0 1018.7
    36.0 737.3
    4 76.4
    634,7
    443.3
    469.0
    457.0
    998.7
    701.3
    0 .47 25.0
    416.0 391.0
    1.49 24.6 752.3
    727.7
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 2. {coat.}
    Date
    total
    T DS
    2/2106
    2'
    `23106
    4120/06
    5
    %9106
    616106
    6/29106
    8/9106
    9/15%06
    1 0/13/06
    1 4 18.5
    14 26.1
    14 8.0
    14
    7.0
    14
    6.3
    14 7.7
    14 8.9
    14 10.6
    14 6.3
    e rage
    14 11,6
    4 ,2 3,8 734
    18.3 10.4 655
    18.2 8.2 761
    22.6 8.0 775
    8.1 1437
    8.3
    1830
    21.2 8.3 2100
    8 .6 3829
    8.8 896
    18.8 7.5 1420
    20.0 497.3 477.3
    341
    6.50
    1.33
    1.33 12.8 705.3 692.5
    236
    0.53
    0.36
    0.23 27.0 469.3 442.3
    246
    8.61
    0.85
    0.60 46,0 549.3 503.3
    263
    7,48
    0.20
    1.09
    0.80 75.0 542.7 467.7
    433
    0.56 0.38
    2.08
    2.16 24.0 872.0 848.0
    302
    4,78 0.59
    1.83
    328 41.0 976.0 935.0
    381
    5.58 0.19
    2.77
    3.89 12.0 965.3 953.3
    551
    0.76
    0.13
    2.29
    2.27 6.0 2040.0 2034.0
    368
    3.79 0.02
    0.93
    0.71 36.0 472.0 436.0
    342
    3,91 7.86
    1.41
    1.56 30.0 808.9 779.0

    Table 3.
    Macro
    Invertebrate data collected In 2006 from the 8 Sangamon
    River
    sample sites associated
    with the
    Decatur Sanitation
    District
    Total
    Number
    749
    1301
    926
    959
    832
    # of families
    6
    10
    7
    6
    10
    MBI
    6.898531
    326
    442
    13
    687
    2 93
    9
    11
    8281
    5.935154

    Table 4. Mean MBI Scores
    for Sangamon River
    sites upstream and doenstream of the
    main discharge from
    the Sanitary District
    of Decatur Treatment Plant
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table S. Fish data collected
    at 11 sites in the Sangamon River
    tar the Sanitary Dist
    P
    rT
    I cta
    n V
    r ht
    rtrxneos
    Leoornrs cr
    nell
    Ettieastcxna n
    i n" n
    L etxxnis hurnrhs
    Lepornis
    9r
    C
    6
    u r.
    44
    1
    22
    7
    6
    L
    P
    l us jai
    1 1
    -These
    wee ti-a Indmduals Found
    T otal Nun,be: o
    f
    indrvvcluals
    6 8
    88
    2 12
    7'?
    96
    -72
    120
    304
    8 89
    133
    256
    T otal Taxa
    11
    12
    10
    8
    11
    6
    9
    2
    13
    14
    11
    index of 6")c Irnegnty 1!131) Score
    3¬3
    40
    3 6
    36
    28
    28
    36
    36
    42
    4
    d
    4 0
    R4ean
    161 Upstmant
    34.57
    Mean 161 Doxn7sweant
    40.50
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 6. Meab
    IBI scores far Sangamon River
    sites upstream and downstream of the
    hsrge
    from the Sanitary District of Deactur
    Treatment Plant
    Year
    9
    e am K e
    1
    0 01
    2 00
    z
    oo
    20
    0
    0
    34
    a ll mean
    1
    31
    1
    34

    Biotic Assessment of Water Quality in
    a
    Reach of the Sangamon River Receiving Effluent
    From the Sanitary District of Decatur
    Eastern linois University Report
    July 2008
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Biotic assessment
    of
    water- quality in a reach of the San
    rom the Sanitar-v
    District
    of Decatur
    Charles L. Pederson Ph.D. and Robert U. Fischer. Ph.D.
    Department of Biological Sciences
    Eastem Illinois Universit-V
    61920
    Submitted
    to:
    per Lane
    Decatur. Illinoi

    Introduction
    d ment of rivers
    to create resen-oirs used for
    irrigation purposes. as
    urban water
    supplies. and recreation.
    is commonplace.
    However. impoundments
    may impact
    do,wnstream
    aquatic systems and their
    surrounding terrestrial
    habitats. Diminished
    water
    qualit-- and availability. closures
    of fisheries. extirpation
    of species. groundwater
    depletion. and more
    frequent and intense
    flooding
    are
    increasingly distinguished
    as
    consequences
    of current river management
    associated with impoundments
    (Abram
    1996.
    Collier ei al 1996. Naiman ei al
    1990. Specifically. dams
    can affect riven
    systems
    by altering flow reggime.
    changing nutrient and
    sediment loads. and
    moditving,
    enera-v flow (Ligon
    et al 1995). As a result.
    river reaches downstream from
    a dam may
    no longer
    able to support native species.
    which will be reflected
    by reduced integritA-
    of
    biotic
    communities.
    (Naiman et al 1995. NRC 1992).
    critical for sustaining ecosystem
    integrity and
    native biodiversitýl
    in rivers
    (Pots'. qtr al. 1997). Dams
    can have v
    habitats
    depending on the purpose
    fects on downstream
    aquatic
    poundments
    used for
    urban water
    supplies reduce flow rates
    below.- the dam throughout the
    entire year
    (F inlayson et al. 199-1) as ý% ell as increased
    daily and seasonal
    varia
    (Finlayson et al. 1994.
    McMahon &. Fiitlayson 2000.
    In addition. abiotic
    perature. dissolved
    oxygen. turbidity. pH. conduct)N-itA and
    solids
    d in the
    downstream river system (e.`g.. (Finlayson
    et al. 1994),
    1 export high concentrations
    of nutrients into rivers. Carpenter and
    'vVaite
    pollution
    may include agriculture. livestock
    LTrazin(_,. and urbanization while
    sanitary
    discharýre
    and industrial waste are examples
    of p(
    s ource pollution.
    the
    Water
    Quality .-pct of 1972
    to upgrade
    their systems and. as a result.
    many communities were forced
    to build
    advanced tertiarv water
    treatment facilities (Karr et al
    1985).
    Yet
    these treatment
    documented that concentrations
    of phosphorus were hiyghest
    in streams draining
    on-point source pollution
    can have
    ffects on the
    ecological intetgritA- of river systems.
    Non-p
    auncultural
    basins and at sites influenced
    by wastewater dischar<2es. while Twichell
    et al
    (2002) reported that sewage effluent
    inputs had elevated nitrate levels.
    These enhanced
    peered to increase productivity
    within a river because primar%.
    productivity and detrital processing
    usual]\- are limited by low ambient
    strewn nutrient
    concentrations
    (Stockier and Shortreed 1978. Flwood
    et ýal 1981
    habitat
    (e.g.. flo\ý regime. bottom substrate
    composition. instream cover.
    etc.)
    nical water quality must
    be suitable for support of individual
    species in
    aquatic
    communities. The San,-,amon
    River
    opportunity to
    study these relationships in a stream
    influenced by I
    pint source discharges. i rte
    Santaamon River Basin is a 1-1.000 km'
    watershed
    or portions of eiuditeen
    counties in central Illinois.
    More than 3 740 Lm of
    ms within
    the basin course throu!7h glacial and
    alluvial deposits creating ty-nically

    with sand and gravel substrates. Strearris within
    the basin have been
    m pacted
    for most of the past centun _ receiving inputs from
    both point and non-point
    sources.
    Current land use is 80°,6 agricultural of which 85°,i} is corn
    or soybeans. The
    great expanses of prairie that once existed in Illinois
    have been reduced to isolated hill
    and sand prairies coupled
    with remnants along highway and railroad right-of-ways
    and
    ive deciduous woodlands
    now are limited to stream niparian areas.
    Major metropolitan
    areas
    associated with the Sangamon River are Bloomington.
    Decatur. and SpnnCgfield
    representing a combined population
    of
    more than
    500.000 residents. Impoundments
    associated with urbanization
    include Lake Tavlorville. Lake Sangchris.
    and Lake
    ringfield on the South Fork of the San-amon: Clinton
    Lake on Salt Creek: as well as
    ecatur.
    Dam and extending
    downstream to incorporate discharges
    tided to characterize stream habitat
    q
    Project
    History
    ongoing- municipal and reservoir manat ernent by
    in 1998 during an assessment o
    Lies from combined sevva<,,,e overfový (CS
    potential impacts of
    yell as the rnain
    treatment plant. .ill sites were located in the cnainstem
    of the Sangamon River extending
    t play. the status of the biotic integrity
    of the Sangamon
    t1v in flux. In 1998-99 and continuing from `_'001-?006. an
    ling, prog=ram was initiated to document temporal and
    spatial heterogeneity
    urban reach of the Sangamon River be,-,Iinin`g
    just below the Lake Decatur~
    i
    m int-tit lanlmnrk:,; vtithin the City. r)t'T7erntxir
    s tream of the dam. which impounds Lake Decatur to the Wyckles Road
    the west edge of Decatur. Sites 1. 14. J. 6. 7. and
    8
    are within
    the
    UPSTREAM reach extending from the dam to the discharge o
    located in the DOWNSTREAM reach
    vv
    hich exten
    main treatment plant discharge to the Wvckles Road
    Bridyge. Throughout thi
    hic levels in the context
    of
    2003. samples also
    were
    collected from the
    n additional DOS :ýISTREAM site (=14) located
    I
    km
    north of
    the
    of CR 600E and CR 800N. near the Lincoln Trai
    _' (an open channel entennL the SanLamon River from the Lincoln Park
    CSO)
    and
    10 (located in
    Stevens
    Creek
    in
    Fain-ievv Park)
    are
    distinct
    from other sites larg
    due to their location outside of the mainstern of the SanLamon River. Because these Si
    isolated from reservoir or sartitan discharges, they are not included in
    sample protocol after 2'003.
    Y
    The ....
    trearn
    Habitat
    assessment
    P
    rnrerilirt-
    ( tiI4,-%P)
    w h,ý,-h
    ._";ý.lrlcýzteý lots- 1:W'.

    usinL,, features
    considered important to
    biotic integrity. was
    performed by us during-,
    the
    month
    of July in 1998. 2001. and
    2007 through 2006. At each
    stream site. two
    independent]\ assigned
    metrics related to substrate
    and instrearn cover.
    channel
    morpholo;av and
    hydrologV. and riparian and
    bank features to
    one of four habitat
    quality types usimt
    guidelines established by the
    Illinois Environmental
    Protection
    A4aency (199-1).
    The mean total score of the
    15 metrics forms the
    basis of an overal
    habitat qualitAý
    rating for the stream
    reach
    under consideration.
    Habitat
    qua
    U PSTREAM and DOWNSTREAM
    reaches tyere care<aorized
    on the basis
    of its SNAP
    score
    as follows:
    <59=
    Very
    Poor: 59 - 100 =
    Fair: 100 - 1-12 =
    Good:
    >
    1-12 = Excellent.
    AP scores for
    UPSTREAM and DOWNSTREAM
    sites were 8-I and 95.
    s superimposed
    on substrate characteristics.
    channel morphology
    and bank
    o f all
    mainstern s i
    p li-. sical
    structure of the stream I
    s
    can
    aid in understandim.,_ the functioning
    of stream systems.
    Given that
    This overall
    physical structure provides
    a backdrop for the abilit- of the
    study reach to
    port
    a diverse flora and fauna.
    Routine assessment
    of characteristic water quality
    organs
    charact
    understanding the
    pate
    natural
    systems. As a result.
    chemical
    features of
    ithin often-narrow
    ranges of tolerance
    for certain pht sical and
    chemical
    their environment. analysis
    of these variables is imperative
    for
    at structure based
    on SNAP still results
    in
    "fair" qualit,,
    stream reaches indicating
    that the
    m ogeneous.
    po-genic
    impacts to decrease
    biotic irate
    we incorporated routine analyses
    of various
    River sites studied since
    2002
    al components
    aria
    giant
    Q
    ualitative judgements
    Good vs. bad) based
    on established Nocriteria usin,
    data from
    1998.
    2000
    -2007
    «.ere consistent.
    The Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
    clas
    reaches
    as GOOD/FAIR.
    ho,. ever. the MBI dovvrtstream was
    the upstream
    MBI. indicating conditions
    significantly improved DOWNSTRE.,Vvl
    of the
    discharge
    from the SDD main treatment.
    And the Fish Index
    of Biotic Inte_T1 ty
    calculated
    from 1998.
    2001 throutrh 2007 classified
    both reaches as FAIR. but
    was able to
    detect a
    significant difference bet-,ýeeen
    stream reaches ýýith improved habitat
    ;TREA.NI
    of
    the
    discharge from the SDD main
    treatment. Also, since 2002
    we
    h ave c
    ontinued to refine our
    s
    ampling
    p rotocol for d evelopment
    o f b enthic a
    monitoring stream
    habitat quality. Indices of diatom
    community, structure did
    not
    differ
    between UPSTREAM and DOS'
    periods. However, q
    s ed
    on analr-sis of
    a fire comparisons
    of shifts in
    ible
    and clearl-v icatcd promise
    for utility of
    for biomonitorin2
    stream conditions.
    Methods
    t Ion a :
    r
    V4'ater
    quality
    data tkere collected
    on six occasions from Nlav to
    December. 2007.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Sampling
    ,as
    initiated at the
    Lake Decatur dam and preceded downstream.
    While
    in
    the
    field. additional abiotic variables
    (dissolved oxygen. pH. conductivity.
    and temperature
    were determined) Using
    Eureka Amphibian and ?Manta
    multiprobe. Surface
    water
    samples tivere collected
    at 0.3 m below the surface; arid returned
    to the laboratory
    on ice
    and arialvzed within
    <-enerally accepted time limits.
    .1.11 samplin
    conducted
    accordin-7 to Standard Methods for
    Examination of Water
    and Wastewater
    1990. In the laboratorti-. suspended
    and total solids determinations
    -were made
    bv
    drt-in, residue collected
    on
    standard
    -lass fiber filters as
    well as unfiltered samples
    placed
    t ared porcelain crucibles
    at 10;-105 "C. Total dissolved
    solids v.ere calculated
    b\
    difference. Total phosphorus
    (folio,.wing persulfate digestion)
    and soluble
    reactive
    phosphorus
    (utilizing., filtered. undi`-ested.
    sample aliquots) were
    determined usiMx the
    ascorbic acid method.
    The phenate method was used for determination
    of ammonia
    nitrogen_ and total
    oxidized nitrogen (NQ,-N -Y-
    NC)_-N) was determined
    via the cadmium
    reduction method. Colorimetrv
    of all nutrient analyses ýkas determined
    usint,, a Beckman
    DL' 5;0 Life Science UV'Vis
    Spectrophotometer. YAlkalinity and
    hardness were
    measured by titration
    to colorimetric endpoint methods.
    For all chemical analyses.
    due
    consideration
    was given to qualiry control
    and quality assurance procedures.
    including but
    not
    limited to parallel analyses of laborator<
    standards.
    .'6.1acrain vertebrates
    ed from 9
    of the: I 1 sites usin<_
    modified
    multiplate samplers (I-lester
    and DendN- 1962). Substrates
    were placed on the stream
    iods of six weeks. beginning July 9.
    2'007 to allow colonization.
    Samplers
    order to avoid loss of invertebrates.
    and placed in
    ,garlisms were p reserved
    in the field k ith W h,
    e thanol c ontaini
    I
    (1'/IBI) accorc
    acrointi
    ertebrates were
    data were used to calculate a
    Macroin
    axon is
    p ollution tolerance
    value ranging, from zero to
    eleven based on available
    l
    iterature and previous field experience.
    Based on present assessment methods.
    MBI
    v alues reflect water quality as follows
    ( IEP., 1988):
    - 7,5 -
    Good/Fair: 7.6 - 10.0 - Poor:
    >
    110.0
    - Ven Poor, Macro invertebrate
    for 2'007 were compared
    to those data.~ý hich ýýere pooled
    from 1998.
    1001 throu:ý,h
    2006.
    Fish
    Fish
    .k ere sampled on 9-11 of JuIN 2007 b<- hand
    seinin-.
    with
    attempts to standardize
    sampling? effort at each site. Fish were identified
    to species. counted and returned
    to the
    stream
    alive when possible. although voucher specimens
    were preserved and retained.
    When field identifications were not practical.
    specimens were preserv
    formal in and returned to
    the laboratory, Species richness and evenness
    (Pielotl. 1977)
    were used as fundamental measures
    of
    diversitx.
    Fish eommunM data also tsere
    used to
    determine the communit---based Index
    of Biotic rote-rity (11311). Vdlich uses m
    elr
    e
    me
    in three categories.
    t o
    a ppraise
    fist? communities
    ( K
    a .rr et
    al..
    19 86). ý,'alues o
    a re assl
    for each metric. and the values for the
    individual metrics axe then summed
    to

    rate a
    score from 12 to 60. Calculation
    of IBI values ,vas aided by
    an interactive
    program
    ýMtten in Basic for use on an
    IBM-PC (Bickers et al.,
    1988). The utility
    of IBI
    c qualitative
    characterization of
    streams. as follows: _51-60
    excellent:
    comparable to best situations
    without human disturbance.
    41-50.9 --
    ý_ood: wod
    bullheads. sunfish.
    and carp predominate: diversity
    arid intolerants reduced,
    21-30.9
    --
    poor: fish dominated
    by omnivores and tolerant
    forms. diversity notably
    reduced. <"] -
    vend poor:
    few fish of any species present.
    no sport fishers exists.
    Fish IBI scores
    for
    20 07 «ere compared to those data_
    which were
    ere pooled from
    1998. 2001 and 2002 through
    Renthic algal
    (diatom)
    samples
    .krtificial substrates
    were continuously exposed at
    1 I sites in the main
    channel of the
    San,,-xamon River from 10 July
    - 31 Julv during 2007.
    Substrates kvere I x 3 inch clean
    4gla.ss microscope
    slides suspended at the surface of the
    stream in commercially
    available
    ytometers (ýý ildeo. Ire.).
    Unfortunately. all but 2
    substrates were lost due ei
    natural occurrence
    (i.e.. hi,-,Ii discharLxe events) or due
    to
    vandalism.
    .As such.
    torn assemblages wereýnot
    pursued as results would
    have been
    uninformative or inconclusive.
    Results
    Water
    chemistry
    L evels of 13 separate water q
    p ined
    for eleven mainstenn
    sites
    in 2006 (Table 2 ). P rinciple
    Components .- nalvsis confirmed
    multivariate dif:
    t rend
    established in prior sarnplinýa
    years continued throughout
    period. with
    levels for each of the variables
    locations.
    Most notably,
    ed along
    with a general
    `varnefish: species
    richness may be below expectations.
    31--40.9
    - fair:
    conductivity.
    presumably resulting
    the main treatment plant
    of the Sanitary District
    of Decatur.
    Water
    continued to
    be relatively
    homogeneous over the entire study reach dunnt_=
    f high discharge from the dam
    which impounds Lake Decatur.
    :' total
    of' I I Hester-Dendy Multiplate samplers
    were placed along the main
    stern of the
    ver associated with
    the Sanity District of Decatur
    for determination of
    unities. For the eleven
    sampling locations %ýe sere only able
    to
    collected
    data for nine sites aloný,ý the stretch
    of the SanLamon River
    associated Vvith the
    Sanitary District
    of Decatur. a total of 67-13 organisms
    representing
    taxa were collected (Table 3). The MBI values
    ran.L ed from :i.7 to 6.9 for the nine
    sites
    in the order Diptera.
    N M I s cores for the 9 main c
    hannel s ite s a ssessed In 2 007 t
    vere lion
    v alues
    obtained during 1998 and 2001 2006.
    NIB! scores aver
    S'I'REAN1 sites were 7.04
    .aver the
    seven
    \
    ear
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    these overall scores
    warrant
    a "aoodlfair ratirt(-." However.
    rwo-factor ANQVA
    r
    evealed the difference in
    IvIBI values to be significant (p<0.05)
    between upstream
    and
    downstream
    sites. indicatimr that stream habitat quality
    is better at the
    DOWNSTREAM
    Fish
    .A total
    of.--' 180 fish of 19 species from 10
    families were collected at
    1 I sites dunnu} July
    `'007 (Table -I). :-s in the previous
    sample periods the fish community
    in 1007 again
    was
    dominated by the
    family Cvpnnidae (minnows and carp).
    Sid-nificantydifl-erences 4vere
    not observed
    (p>0.0_-5) in community-based
    measures of diversity
    between
    and DOWNSTREA
    N1 reaches. Stream quality in the
    Sangamon Foyer
    basin as evaluated
    opulation samples and the Index
    of Biotic Integrity ranged from 19 (Sites
    3 and
    to -II (Site 14). indicating
    overall stream quality of poor
    to good. Overall mean
    IBIs
    for
    data pooled from 1998.1001-1007
    were 31 and 3_5 for the UPSTREAM
    and
    STREAM
    reaches. respectively. Two-factor
    ANOVA confirmed this
    difference
    sting
    that overall habitat quality-
    based on the
    community. is improved
    in the DOW
    Diatom
    communitt`
    structure
    Because only two of the I 1 samplers
    placed in the stream were recovered.
    further analvsis
    ,,amon
    I n,,,-os were priman
    upon such factors as substrate stability. pool
    variability and quafr% due to stream
    flo'.
    and loss or reduction ofriparian
    zone vegetation that had occurred at each
    specific site.
    ches 1
    Iv to metrics related to flow. The DOWNSTREAM
    reach
    continuous flock from SDD.
    whereas UPSTREAM flow varies greatly due to
    h alterations have
    lead to simplification of stream
    habitat with
    concomitant reduction in spec
    decline in qualitA
    of the aquatic resource.
    Based
    on physical
    uality aquatic
    system with minimal
    ariation in physi
    y and an o-erall
    at structure as measured by
    SHAD.
    the
    reaches of the Sangamon
    .
    Which
    we stu
    indistin,Tuishable.
    Hotiýever. PCA confirms that
    .I'
    istinct
    on the basis of their physical
    and chemical characteristics.
    Discharge from Lake
    Decatur is the primary
    input to the
    ch. resultin ,., in our obsen-ation
    of relatively hiLoher
    variability.
    in floN\
    Conversely, stable and predictable instream
    e
    N
    -11 of
    m
    b iotic
    r m
    v work-
    v
    9
    i n th
    reach DOW ýSTRE. 'ýý the SDD facilitate den elop
    ertt of more diverse
    communities
    as confi ed b
    conducted
    in other ri erine systems (Sanders 19f_i ;

    Fisher
    1983: Peckarskv 1983: Re lee
    1985: Ross ei al. 1985: %Valde
    1986: Resh el al.
    1988). Difference in the
    overall nature of the UPSTREAM and
    DOS"NSTREAINT
    reaches becomes
    less
    distinct
    during periods of high reservoir
    dischargge.
    Vw'e also
    believe that drastic reduction of instream
    flow resulting by routine
    elimination o
    reservoir
    discharge is detrimental
    to habitat quality in the UPSTREAM
    reach. Overall.
    results suLTrgest that a threshold
    exists with respect to flotk. i.e. periods
    "hen discharge is
    less than
    400 cfs. When flow is below this
    threshold. the UPSTREAM
    and
    DOWNSTR
    discharge exceeds
    -100 cfs.
    of the
    San`gamo
    discrete while they appear to behave
    as a continuum when
    This suggests
    that water quality-
    is compromised in the reach
    from the dam to the discharge
    of
    the main
    treatment
    plant of the Sanitan District
    of Decatur as a result ofmanat`ement to
    maintain
    e ls by eliminatinti
    outflow. In contrast. effective management
    of Samtamon
    River may
    require maintenance of instream flow above
    the proposed threshold (400 cf:s)
    ontinuous dis
    of PC.A Factor analysis pro
    caches. Sites DOWNSTREAM
    of SDD may
    productivity as a result of nutrient loading
    as
    xed b% hi<gher levels
    of dissolved solids. conductivity. total alkalinity.
    oxidized
    nitrogen- and
    phosphorus.
    e'v'e
    believe that suspended
    organic material including
    phtitoplankton algae derived from the reservoir
    may be supporting heterotrophs in
    the
    UPSTREAM
    sites. In contrast.
    ilitatint, a shift from a
    stream s,,-stem that relies on allochthonous input
    of algae
    to one that
    relies on autochthonous instrearn primart prod ucti-,-I tv.
    o f stream
    mo
    a m reaches
    are reflected by hip==her
    made
    v
    t have become
    vvidek used for
    sites %,. ere characterized during
    1998. 200
    d hiyaher
    1131 values. indicative of improved habitat
    diverse
    biota and a variet%
    ted with the
    main treatment plant outtall from the SDD
    increased inte;_rrity due to
    predictable instream flows and increased
    pus pnmar-, production due in part to nutrient
    loading.
    'ations made durinlg the 2007 sampling period with data
    P A report). 1998
    (Sanitarti- District of Decatur) and 2001-2 006
    1 values for DOWNSTREAM
    sites
    were generally similar or sliwgl
    during all previous sampling
    periods.
    l
    in
    1990 and the Lincoln CSO in 1992 b% the

    sanitation district have
    lead direct to improvement
    of
    the
    water quality
    of
    the
    Sangarnon
    River which
    has been maintained over the past
    seven years. .Additionally.
    them: has been
    no reduction
    in the quality of the Sangamon
    River section located near the
    Sanitary
    ict of Decatur
    in the last
    Additional fish and
    invertebrate specimens had been collected for
    determination of tissue
    levels of zinc and
    nickel. but analyses were not conducted
    upon request by the
    Sanitary
    istnct
    of Decatur. Samples have been retained
    in the event those analyses
    arc requested
    at a
    future date. Instead. eve conducted a comprehensive
    literature review
    of the effects of
    these
    rwo metals on aquatic ecosystems
    (Appendix: A).
    xt contract year. special projects
    are intended to determine
    the effects of
    sanitary effluent
    on benthic al,2al assemblage structure and productivitN
    using a
    bioassay
    approach.
    This is intended to allay difficulties
    eye have had with loss of
    artificial
    +
    substrates.
    In addition-
    we are planning to initiate an investigation
    of nutrient loading to
    and export
    from Lake Decatur.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table
    1. List of the 13 sites utilized
    by the Department of Biological
    Sciences far
    studies
    conducted on reaches
    of the Sangamon River associated
    with the
    San
    S ite
    -1 - Lincoln Park - above out
    Site
    '-2
    - Lincoln Park - outfall canal
    Park - below
    outfall
    Site
    "4
    - Oakland (Lincoln
    Park Drive) - above
    outfall
    (Lincoln Park Drive) - belo-w
    out
    Site
    "6 - 7°'
    ward
    - upstream of outfall
    Site '-7 - 7`'' 'A.'ard -
    downstream o
    S ite 48 - SDD Main
    Treatment
    Plant - upstream of main
    outfall
    M ain treatment Plant - downstream
    of main outfall
    Site
    #
    10 - Stec ens Creek in Fainiew Part:
    - Samamon
    River - downstream of
    Stevens Creek
    s Road
    near the Lincoln Trail Homestead
    State Park. l km north
    of
    CR
    600E and CR 80ON
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table
    2. Measured water quality
    variables for 11 mainstem sites in the Sangamon
    River
    associated
    with the SDD.
    T otal
    Date
    Site DO Temp pH
    Cond Hardness Alkalinity TON
    NH4 PO,.TTr POr-SRP TSS TS TDS
    6126/07
    1
    253.1
    2094 0.91 0.12
    0.24
    0
    14 14.5
    2347
    220.2
    8/23/07
    1 6.9 270 92 5,62.0
    271.4
    251.3
    0.17 0.05
    0.11
    0,11 24.0
    425.3 401.3
    9x27107
    1 4.4 20.9 8.3 516.0
    236.7
    223.4
    0 15 0.19
    0,15
    0.07 26.2
    384.0 357.8
    10/25/07
    1 7.1 11,6
    7.8
    501.0
    261.2
    1954 , 0.37 0.00
    0.19
    0.04 30.0
    340.0 310.0
    11/29/07
    1
    8.3
    4.9
    7
    .4
    474.0
    212.2
    167.5 0.27 0.10
    0.11
    0.04 6.9 321.3
    314.5
    1
    2/13/07
    1 12.7
    6.0
    7.8 677.0
    253.1
    209.4 0.25 0.03
    0 1 1
    0.01
    19.0
    4147 395.7
    6 126/07
    3
    253.1
    223.4 0.84 &11
    0.22
    0.12 22.5 226.7 204.2
    8/23/07
    3
    4.5
    261
    8 .7 6 34.0
    281.6
    258.3 0.49 0,15
    0.12
    0.09 15.0 4573
    442.3
    9127/07
    3
    4
    .4 2 0.6
    7.9
    625.0
    257
    1
    230.3 0.39 0.12
    0.15
    0.06
    29.2
    4587 4294
    10/25/07
    3 4,6 11.8
    7.6
    526.0
    228.6
    237,3
    0.64 0.12
    015
    0.03
    12.0
    345.3 333.3
    11/29/07
    3 6.6
    4 5 7.6 574.0
    271, 4
    209.4 0.49 0.05
    011
    0, 04 6.4
    382.7 376.3
    12/13/07
    3 9.3
    5.8
    7.7 649.0
    255.1
    209.4 0.68 0.09
    0,13
    0.02
    15.0
    444.0 429.0
    6/26/07
    4
    249.0
    209.4 1,16 0.09
    0.24
    0.13 24.5 2493
    224_8
    8/23/07
    4 5.5 270 8 .8 5 59.0
    263.3
    230.3 0.16 0.03
    0.15
    0.11 33.0
    425.3 392.3
    9/27107
    4 4.4 204
    7.8
    653.0
    281.6
    258.3 0.17 0.05
    0,14
    0.09
    16.0
    460.0
    444.0
    1 0/25/07
    4
    5.8 10.7
    7.6
    503.0
    293.9
    223.4
    0.44 0.29
    0.17
    0.04
    11.7
    328.0 316.3
    11
    1"29107
    4
    8.6
    2.7
    7.6 627.0
    287.8
    265.2 0,38 0.66
    0,12
    0.05 3.6
    382.7 379,1
    1 2/13107
    4 10.8
    4.0 7.9 774,0
    283.7
    2373
    072
    0.33
    0 10
    0.01 12.8 525,3 512.5
    6126107
    5
    249.0
    2094
    1 16 0.10
    0.23
    0 13 22.0 270.7 24$.7
    8/23107
    5 6.4 27.1 9.0 583.0
    261.2
    258,3 0.70 0.05
    0
    13
    0.09 33.0 4200 387.0
    9127107
    5 3.9 20.5
    7.8
    648.0
    293.9
    237.3
    017
    0.05
    0.16
    0.09 18.5
    466 7
    448.2
    10125/07
    5 5.7
    11,3 7.6
    485.0
    273.5
    195.4 0.37
    0.28
    0.17
    0.02 18.5
    316.0 297 5
    11129/07
    5
    7.3
    3 .0 7.8 6 22.0
    283.7
    265.2 0.41 0.60
    0.13
    0.05 6,2
    386.7 380.5
    1 2/13107
    5 10.4
    4.0 7.9 767.0
    285.7
    237_3
    0.72
    0.31
    0.10
    0.02
    12.9
    508.0
    495.1
    6/26107
    6
    289.8
    223.4 1.11 0.09
    0.23
    0.12 35.0 293.3
    258.3
    8123/07
    6 5
    4
    2 70 8.2 656.0
    265.3
    258.3 0.36 0.05
    0,11
    0.09 20.0
    425,3 405.3
    9 127/07
    6 6.6 22.4 7.6 746.0
    326.5
    286.2
    0.11 0.05
    015
    0.05
    14.2
    530.7 516.4
    10/25/07
    6 6.0 12.4 7.6
    465.0
    302.0
    2234
    0.34 0.40
    0.14
    0.04
    107
    2880
    277.3
    11129/07
    6 6.3
    3.9 7.5
    482.0
    224.5
    223.4 0.30 0.36
    0,26
    011 6 0 3173 311,3
    12,13/07
    6 9.9
    4.2 7.9
    735.0
    279.6
    216.4 0.67 023
    0 10
    0.03 13.7
    492.3 478
    7
    6/26/07
    7
    244 9
    223.4 1.20 0
    12
    0.23
    0.13 42.0 306.7 264 7
    8
    /23/07
    7 4.7 26.8 8 .0
    671 0
    0 0
    2 79-2 0
    43
    0.07
    008
    0.06 28.0 4-147 4467
    9
    /27/07
    7 5.7
    18.8 7.6
    595.0
    273.5
    258.3
    0.05 0.02
    015
    0.05
    32.5
    410.7 378.2
    10/25/07
    7 71 11,6 7.8 470.0
    228,6
    2094 0.15 0.41
    013
    0.04
    15.5
    310-7 295.2
    11/29/07
    7 8 4
    4.0 7.3 516.0
    222.4
    230.3
    0.35 0.48
    025
    0.08
    26.0 292.0 266.0
    1
    2/13/07
    7 9.9
    4.2
    7 .9 7 39.0
    2694
    230.3 0.67 0,22
    0.11
    0.03 14.5 4947 480.2
    6
    /26/07
    8
    249.0
    223.4 1.02 0.11
    0.24
    0.12
    43.0 330.7 287.7
    8/23/07
    8 4.0 27.5 8.0
    697.0
    324.5
    286.2 0.21 0.05
    0,19
    0.14 15-5
    474.7 459.2
    9/27/07
    8
    4 .7
    2
    1 1 7.6 582.0
    253.1
    272.2 0.04 0.05
    0
    18
    008 16>.9 386.7 369.8
    1 0/25/07
    8 6.3
    11.3
    7 .6 4 82.0
    244.9
    195.4 0.18 0.30
    015
    0.01 17.0 304.0 287.0
    1 1/29/07
    8 8.6
    3.8
    7 4
    405.0
    195.9
    188.5 0.32 0.41
    0.25
    0.13 12.3
    2560 24'x.7
    1
    2/13/07
    8 9.2
    3
    7 7.8
    733.0
    244.9
    1954 0.58 0.33
    0
    15
    0.07 15.3
    470.7 455.3
    6/26/07
    9
    2571
    223.4 1 42 0.11
    0.59
    0.52 25.0
    404.0 379.0
    8/23/07
    9 6.4 30.3 8.4
    4031.0
    504
    1
    6840
    5.32 0.15
    1.62
    042 7.6 26440 26364
    9/27/07
    9 6.0 27.5 8.0 4283.0
    465.3
    718.9 5.38 0.05
    2.00
    2.53
    7.0 2741.3 2734 3
    10/25/07
    9 7.3 22.2 8.0 4279.0
    449.0
    5444
    5.67 0.05
    1.94
    2.86
    10.7
    2658.7 2648.0
    1 1/29/07
    9 9.4 184 7.9 3987.0
    477.5
    474,6 6.46 0.12
    1.86
    2.39
    16.6
    24747 2458.1
    12113/07
    9 7 7 170 7.8 3134.0
    440.8
    307
    1 6 44 0.05
    1 45
    2.52
    7 3 1966,7 1959.3
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 2. continued
    9/27/07
    10125/07
    11/29107
    12113/07
    1 6.3 30 4 8.4 3941.0
    11 5.9
    27.0 8.0 4181.0
    11 7.3
    21,3 8.0 4234.0
    11 8.7
    16.8 7.9 3890.0
    11
    8.2
    15-1
    7.8
    3080.0
    6 /26/07
    12
    8/23/07
    12
    7.0
    9/27/07
    12 7.2
    10125/07
    12 8.1
    11/29/07
    12 9.0
    12/13/07
    12 11.0
    8123107
    9/27107
    10125/07
    11
    /29107
    1 3/07
    2 9.8 8.2 3900.0
    2.4.3 8.1 4300.0
    171 8,1 3934.0
    11.5 8 1 3681.0
    9 .0 7,9 2043.0
    1 4 10.4
    29.2 8.1 3-438,0
    14 8.9 22.3 8.3
    4007.0
    14
    10,0
    13.2 8,3 3694.0
    14
    13.3
    6.9 8.2 2968.0
    14 11
    0
    7
    6 8 6
    2202.0
    471
    4
    698 0 4 89 0.05
    1.93
    510.2
    670.1 5.06 0,05
    1.99
    473.5
    488.6
    6.08 011
    2.14
    8
    2234
    2.
    2 .14 9.8
    1 77
    13.6
    1
    3.8
    7.9
    13,0 7.9
    13.2 8.0
    140 7.8
    131 77
    13.5 7,7
    23 1 8,0
    22.1 8.0
    1 83 8
    1 5.8 8.3
    variable
    DO
    mg L-1
    Temp,
    0C
    pH
    Cond
    us
    Hardness mg I-1
    Alkalinity mg L-1
    TON
    mg L-1
    NH4
    mg L-1
    P04 - TP mg
    L-1
    P04-SRP mg
    L-1
    TSS
    mg L-1
    TS
    mg L-1
    TDS
    mg L-1
    601, 6
    623.2
    621 0
    616.8
    598.2
    579.8
    3942.8
    3865.2
    3571
    3261
    2 28.9 0.54
    242.9
    0.37
    2 38,
    7 0.47
    2 41.5 0.36
    2694
    237.3
    1.76 0.17
    0.
    2.55 8.2 2685.3 2677.2
    2.62 13.6 2668,0 2654
    4
    2.88
    217 24613 2439.6
    6 13.7
    6387
    5 32.6
    698.0 6.03 0,11
    1.88
    467.3
    732.9
    5,36 0.07
    1,73
    424.5
    725.9 6.02 0.05
    2.29
    477.5
    4677 6.46 0.13
    1.80
    357.1
    279.2 5.95 0.12
    135
    2 6.37 0.06
    1 78
    4837
    663.1 7.51 0.05
    412.2
    390.9
    0.72 0.04
    1.93
    428.6
    467.7
    5.26 0.05
    341
    353
    1
    202
    4
    5.75 0
    15
    1 43
    2 58.8
    282.0
    279.6
    2
    79,
    6
    1 98.8
    2 52.7
    4 67,3
    462.0
    451 8
    4298
    6
    8
    6.37 0.05
    1.73
    0 27
    5 45.8 5,85
    548.6 489
    580,7 5.96
    0
    0 , 11
    0 .27
    0 .26
    0 .22
    0 .24
    0 .23
    0 .08
    0 06
    0 10
    0 .13
    0
    14
    0 .14
    0.15
    0.14
    0.18
    1.77
    1 66
    1.81
    2.02
    1.77 12.9 1294 7
    TDS
    0
    .42
    19.0
    2604.0
    2585.0
    223 12,0 2729.3 2717.3
    2.67 19.2 2486 7 2467,5
    3 ,07 18.9 2300 0 2281.1
    9 3.5
    470.
    2.60 37.9
    2625.3 2587
    4
    2.72 19.3
    2373.3 2354.1
    176 24.0
    1858.7
    18347
    1.82
    277
    1402.7 1375.0
    0 2250.7 2230.7
    2 ,03 16
    87
    417.6 402.1
    4 243 408,8
    419.5 401.6
    410.7 397,8
    396.5 373.2
    378.4 363.0
    2497 1 2487.2
    2203
    7
    4 2 282.9 2266,5
    2 5.8 2102
    1
    20764
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    `ýc3ýýitzýrý,
    its
    A nalysis o f w ater cliclilistry III a t I I I llaiEZstctla sitcs ill the S angamon (ti=er associated with t he
    - 2-
    -6
    -4
    -2
    0
    2
    4
    PG1
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 3.
    Macroinvsrtebrate data collected in 2007 from the 9 Sangamon River sample sites associated with the Decatur
    Sanitation
    District
    Trtchoptere
    HyýIsychidae
    Coleoptera
    nn
    e
    --
    r
    "0""8'
    Furbel
    ýýe
    a
    11ý
    UP
    =
    6.84
    Dawn =
    5.87
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table 4, Fish
    data collected in 2007 from the Sangamon
    River sample sites associated with the Decatur Sanitation District
    G enus
    phales
    fctalurus
    nphales
    L ?orosonia
    Moxostoma
    Etheostorr7a
    Gambusia
    C arpoides
    Notropis
    Micropterus
    Micropterus
    rinella
    notatus
    macrochirus
    n
    otatus
    1 24 1 168
    27
    38
    purIctatcrs
    p romelas
    e thrurum
    p unctulatus
    0 1 0
    2 39
    4 1
    0 1 0
    S ite4
    _44
    7
    17
    0
    69
    20
    0 1 0
    1
    0
    SIte5
    10
    10
    2
    8
    22
    34
    31
    0
    1 2
    Slte6
    13
    40
    57
    42
    5
    27
    Site? SIte6
    1 10
    19
    4
    47f-1 1
    1 4
    1 4
    0
    11
    43
    0
    Siteg
    54
    4
    1 8
    12
    0
    10
    54
    65
    97
    0
    0
    1 2
    43
    23
    0
    _
    10
    3
    1 3
    0
    0
    0
    0
    27
    2
    Slte14
    _
    112
    1
    0
    26
    1 8
    _
    rside_
    _
    minnow
    iii
    cat
    h ead minnow
    liniouth bass
    d bass
    eelcolored shiner
    keimouth
    m
    innow
    low bullhead
    T otal
    61
    Richness
    6
    1131
    32
    54
    9
    29
    1 167
    9
    34
    1
    29
    U p= 31.43
    Down =
    39.25
    1 02
    9
    35
    92
    9
    290 147 221
    13
    9
    13
    30
    31
    37
    215
    63
    181
    11
    7
    9
    39
    40
    41
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    APPENDIX .A. Poten
    ature.
    constituting
    2'0-?0C) ppm (by
    weight) of the Caz-th's crust
    (Goodwin
    Introducti
    Both
    zinc and nickel are naturally occurrinv7 elements
    (AI-SDR 2005). Zinc
    and
    as elemental zinc in nature (Llo-,d and
    Showak 198-I). Nickel
    r der
    of
    abundance
    in the earth's crust. with an average
    concentration of
    0 .0086°ýo:
    the concentration of nickel increases towards the center
    of the earth. It is
    comprise 0.`'`'°lo of the mantel and
    5.8% of the core- thus making it the fifth
    most abundant element on earth
    (L'SDFIHS 2'005: Duke 1980).
    Both elements are naturally
    occurring. and both are considered micronutrients
    and have
    hate variable
    solubilitA in aqueous solutions
    bio!teochernical cycles that form the chemical
    buildin-a blocks of life. They are divided
    into tuo categories:
    rnacronutrients and rnicronutrients. Macronutrients
    are required by
    in large quantities and include: water. carbon.
    hydrogen, oxyLyen. nitro4>en.
    phosphorus. sulfur. and calcium, klicronutrients.
    like zinc are only required in trace
    quantities (Audesirk
    1996). The
    National
    Academy of Science estimates
    the
    Recommended
    Dietary .Allowance (RDA)
    I-'(-)r
    zinc' is I 1 mL,d
    for men mid 8
    women (ATSDR 200:3).
    sites and rucke
    naturally
    occurring element. but due to its reactivity (amphoteric: capable
    o
    chemically
    either as an acid or as a base) it is not y
    e and Nickel on
    Stream Ecosvste s
    (EPA)
    has identified zinc at 985
    of the 1.6
    of the sites (ATSDR 2005). Zinc
    release
    from
    both natural and anthropog==epic sources: hoEVever. releases
    zinc chloride(ZnCl,). zinc sulfate(
    acetate(Zn(C,
    H ;O+ ). zinc cvanide(Zn(Citif ), ),
    chromate(ZnCr0a ). and zinc ýh% droxide(
    phosph
    ent in nature.
    i
    c ommon
    r
    opogenic
    anthropogenic
    zinc
    4 )
    (Goodwin 1998: W"hIO 2'0(.)1 ).
    ounds are naturally occurring. however the
    EPA
    has
    de
    toxic pollutant under the
    Federal
    (hater
    Pollution Control Act and the Nati
    etNiS(J4). nicks
    The most commonly used and released
    forms of nickel
    chloride(:' ICl, ). nickel by droxide(N i(OH ), ). nickel
    ( '.Vi
    (N1-l4):(SO4),). nickel
    ride(?
    Ni(-NO;),).
    nickel acetate(N1(CH=CO)r). nickel oxi e(NO). and nickel
    carbonate(NiCO,) (ATSDR
    1005: Eisler 1998).
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Zinc and Nickel in the Env
    ne and nickel are naturally occurring elements.
    Zinc
    is a bluish-white metal that
    %vhite metal. and is insoluble in water (EPA 2003). Like
    zinc. in nature nickel
    is
    o xide. and carbonate (Eisler.
    1993). In typical riverine environments 90% of
    zinc
    is
    present
    as
    aquo
    ions (Zn(H,O)(,)-- (Spear. 1981 ). Elemental nickel is a hard.
    lustrous.
    found in multiple compounds: chloride. sulfate,
    nitrate. hydroxide- and carbonate (Eisler
    1998). Both elemental compounds have varying degrees
    of solubility in tivater,
    d nickel are characterized as hea`-%metals. -vvhich is a
    loose term that
    encompasses any of the high atomic weight metals (Nebel et al.
    2000). .A major problem
    with heavy metals
    is that unlike organic pollutants. they are not broken do"hn by bacteria.
    Since they are not de,raded they can bioaccumulate in the tikater column and
    sediment.
    leadmta toybiocnaLnification in the food chain (O«en
    et al. 1995). HeavA metals are
    extremely toxic because. as ions or certain compounds. they are soluble in water
    and
    eadily in strong acids. In nature. zinc
    occurs
    as
    three compounds: sul
    orbed into the body. Once in the bod% they tend to combine
    with and
    bit the functions of vital enz-,-mes. Even very minute concentrations
    can have severe
    oloý,ical and neurological consequences (Nebel et al. 2000: Oven et al. 1995).
    In nature both elements
    are regulated by biogeochemical cycles. Chemical and physical
    dc2radation of rocks and soil release nutrients that arc available for biotic uptake, As
    those orýýanism die they re-release their nutrients into the
    soil or atmosphere. Zinc and
    ash, and forest fires (Eider 199
    precipitate back to
    earth,
    an
    orunent as soil dust. from volcam
    released into the atmosphere where
    they
    al, 2000), This c%c
    drastically thrown out of equilibrium due to anthropogenic stressors. Hum
    el include: minim(,. smeltint-. cornbustiori o
    d industrial
    setikaue.
    road
    surface
    runoff.
    Eisler 1998: EPA 2003 ). Normal backa-round
    c and nickel vary vastly depending on the ecosystem and other
    1e 2).
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Zinc
    Z inc is a ubiquitous micronutrient that
    is essential for normal trTowth_ reproduction.
    and
    «ound healing,
    of biotic org>anisrns (Audesirk 1996; Eisler 1993).
    Zinc is a cofactor for
    more than
    200 enzymes that are fundamental for maximum
    catalytic actiyitti. cellular
    respiration. chemical detoxification. metabolism.
    and neurotransmitter synthesis
    (Vesela
    CT al. 2006: Eisler 1993: Rai et
    al. 198: u'ri;ght et al. 2007). Its primary
    metabolic effect
    zinc-dependent
    enzymes that regulate the biosynthesis and
    catabolic rates c>
    and DNA (EPA
    2003: Eisler 19933).
    Acute
    and chronic toxicities
    of zinc are variable b%
    or,-a.nism
    (Cable A-1).
    nd antagonism with other
    variables
    The environment and
    interactions Evlth other chemicals produce radically
    altered patterns
    ulation. metabolism. and toxicity: some
    of which are beneficial to on=anisms
    whereas others are
    harmful (Eisler. 1993). Zinc bioavailabilin and toxicity
    to aquatic
    or4ganisrns are
    hM,_hest under conditions of low pH. low alkalinity.
    losv dissolved oxygen.
    and elevated temperatures (ýVeathereley
    et al. 1980).
    R
    Copper:
    The toxicity of zinc is believed to be due to its interactions
    ýý ith copper
    xtures
    of zinc and copper are general acknowledged to be more than
    of aquatic organisms. including marine:
    fish (Eisler.
    Cadmium:
    Zinc has been shown to dirnim
    1990: Herkoyits &
    n g zinc concentrations
    al
    s orption of
    depresses
    t al..
    P re-eynncitrr r)f Omafn/T fnr ti, -n u-,-f,A:}cý: ir,
    murus pules) protected
    agt
    I
    Clurius la_eru) (Hicnly
    et
    al.. 1987).
    xic effects o
    sho«-z to
    protect embryos
    for 96h (Howell. 1985).
    Aqueous solutions of Zinc-Cadmiurn mixtures are usua
    additive in toxic1r% to aquatic organisms. including
    lah et al.. 1988:
    Verriopoulos and Dimas. 1988: Eisler and Gardner.
    are less toxic to Duphniu muglw
    than tyre
    individual elements (Eider. 1993).
    Zinc
    exhibits
    antaiomstic effects on uptake of
    cadmium by -Tills and tissues of the freshwater clam (.4noderriu
    ctif,,,eu) and other
    :l1tacdowu. but accelerated cadmium transport
    from the gills to internal organs (Hemelraad
    ). Exposure to cadmium maN cause chamaes in
    the distribution of zinc since
    th compete for a common transport carrier svstern in renal proximal calls. This
    can cause zinc ace ttmulation in the l i% er and kidney. particularly
    if dietary intake of zinc
    deNelopmental maiform
    is marginal (ATSDR
    2
    005:

    Leant:
    Line
    is believed to
    increase the toxicity of lead,
    but
    data are conflicting
    (.
    _'00'ý).
    Lead-zinc mixtures
    were more than additive
    in toxicity to marine
    copepods. and
    fish accumulate
    lead tip to 10 times
    faster in sewvater with elevated
    zinc
    ( Verriopoulos
    and Limas 1988:
    Eisler 1981). In terrestrial
    animals zinc
    [.ends to protect
    against lead toxicosis
    (Eisler 1993).
    Zinc Bioaccumulation
    and Biotic Affects
    L ine does not
    volatize from soil or water. but is
    deposited primarily in
    sediments throut'h
    absorption and
    precipitation. Zinc complexes
    with
    various
    organic
    and inorganic
    'mops
    to affect
    its biolotTical activitA
    and mobility in aquatic environments.
    The level of ý
    +
    s aciditl- increases (ATSDR
    -'M). The
    relationship
    between biota and
    sediment concentrations
    is not proportional_- the
    biota
    contains relatively
    little zinc compared to the sediment.
    Zinc bioaccumulates
    moderately
    in aquatic
    organisms. bioconcentration
    is higher in crustaceans
    and bivalve species than F
    in
    fish. In some fish.
    it has been observed that the
    level of zinc found in their bodies
    did
    not directly relate to the
    exposure concentrations.
    It has been shorn that
    bioaccurmilation
    of zinc in fish is inversely
    related to the aqueous exposure
    (McGeer et
    al.
    2003). This
    suggests
    that
    fish placed in en
    hi--her
    in urban
    areas. eggs.
    i
    s p ositiV
    (A SDR 2'005).
    lover zinc concentrations
    zinc concentrations tend
    to be
    he
    liver. and lowest in muscle tissue.
    Accumula
    ein concentrations. and
    is lower in all tissues
    981:
    Eisler &ý LaRoche 1972;
    Grade et al. 1989).
    the v,ater column-
    unto and
    e sult of
    sediment
    zinc on the food base of the
    sucker. that is invertebrate
    unkirtrick
    acid Dixon 1989).
    Miller et al.
    (1991 ) conducted a stud%- to determine
    the relationship
    concentrations
    of copper and
    zinc in ,vater. sediment. benthic
    invertebrates. and tissues of
    White
    Sucker K'uroslomus comnxersoni)
    from six contaminated Ontario lakes. The
    de.,aree
    of metal contamination
    in the lakes varied progressively and eýere
    compared to
    The% discovered
    a direct correlation bet-veen
    Zri concentrations in
    invertebrates and
    sediment- but not with water concentrations.
    Concentrations of Zn and
    Cu in fish
    tissue were strongly correlated
    with waterborne metal levels
    rather than those
    in sediments. The
    concentrations of Zn in the liver. kidney. {gill.
    bone arid stomach were
    ificantly
    correlated to waterborne concentrations.
    Concentrations in the kidney.
    o a less extent correlated with sediment.
    Zn levels. The\ did not
    discover a relationship
    between fish tissue metal concentrations
    and invertebrate metal
    rile there were no
    4gender differences in concentrations in liver.
    kidney.
    h er
    e
    w ere
    s ianiticrnt d i f ferences t o ugonadal tissue.
    LinC:
    concentrations Stere
    h igh er i n o varies t han to testes.

    Nickel
    importance. It is
    trace element in animals.
    althougrh little is know about
    its
    red a micronutrient based on studies of
    nickel deficienc% in
    1
    several
    animal species (e.ý7. rats. chickens, cows. 47oats), Nickel
    deficiency primarily
    affects
    the liver and cal cause abnormal cellular morphology.
    oxidative metabolism- and
    fluctuating lipid levels. It has also
    been shown that decreased
    arotivth
    and
    hemoglobin
    concentrations as well
    as
    impaired glucose
    metabolism can be linked to nickel
    deficiencies
    (USDHFIS ?005; Zaroogain et al. 198-1). .cute and
    chronic toxicities of zinc
    are variable
    by or-anism (Table A5). y
    Svne
    n tagonism with other variables
    AmonL7 animals. plants, and microorganisms.
    nickel interacts with at least 13 essential
    elements:
    calcium. chromium. cobalt. copper. iodine. iron. magnesium.
    manganese.
    molybdenum. phosphorus- potassium. sodium, and
    zinc (Nielsen 1980).
    At
    the cellular
    level. nickel
    interferes with en7vrnatic functions of calcium. iron. ma-7nesium.
    ese, and zinc (Kasprzak 1987). Mixtures of metals
    (arsenic- cadmium- copper-
    curv. lead.
    zinc) containinu, nickel salts are more toxic to daphnids and
    fishes
    than the individual compounds (Enserink et al. 1991 ).
    -additive in toxicity to aquatic al -aae in combination with
    zinc
    (WHO
    :1 in binding, to
    D
    of D
    knov,n as "finger loop domains.
    cular targets
    vitamins,
    and polycycli
    carbons (PAI-Is) (Eider 1998). Chelatinýi-, agents mitigate the toxicity of
    nickel by stimulatint7 nickel excretion
    (USPHS1993:
    USDHFIS 2'005).
    Chelators reduced
    t he toxicity
    of nickel to aquatic plants. presumable be lowering nickel bioax
    (
    WHO 1991). Lipophilic chelating agents. such as triefvlenetetramine
    (1 _4X I 1-tetraazac% clotetradecane)
    are more effective in abating nickel toxicltv than
    hydrophilic ag'entsýlike EDT.. cNclohexanediamine tetraacetic acid, and
    h-droxtiethvIenediamine triacetic
    acid. Lipophilic agents are believed to be more
    effective due to their abilit,, to bind to nickel both iratracellularly and extracellularlv.
    rophilic agents cats only bind extracellularly (USPHSý1993:
    USDHH F
    Nickel Bioaccumulation and Biotic
    affects
    ncentrate t
    o
    aquatic o rganisms
    o r small
    terrestrial
    mamma
    l ,oý:'e'* er.
    studies have shown that plants can tans: up arid accumulatc nlckzl
    ( ý
    0
    nll s
    2'(:)03 ). Nickel concentrations in carnivorous fish (e.ýa, Lake Trout) did not increase

    s lani
    ' ificantiv with
    aure. and had a mean bioconcentration factor (BCF)
    of
    c oncentration
    of
    nickel in mussels ( Crussvstreu riijo,,inicu) a nd
    o vsters Ofh-tilis e didis)
    and I OpiAý-seaxvater for 12 vt eeks averaged 9.26
    -- 3.56 and 12.96
    e ight for C . virginicu. and 10.04 = 2 .66 and 1 6.43 W
    3A
    9p«iu
    dry w eight
    o r _t1. edtdis. There was a sianificant linear relationship
    found bettikeen nickel uptake
    by
    nickel concentrations. There was an inverse
    relationshi
    nickel
    concentrations and dry weight for both species.
    However, after a
    ration period in which the treated species
    wvere returned to ambient flow
    tltrations in
    (."
    rir(inicu
    were reduced 73 and 89%
    and
    .1l edulis were
    r educed 48 and 68°o respectively (Zaroo«ian
    et al. 1984).
    McGeer et al (2003) examined BCF's of various aquatic
    organisms (e.g. algae.
    arthropods. mollusks.
    and fish) as a group based on whole bode metal
    arid exposure
    concentrations. For exposure concentrations within
    the raniae of 3-5Op.,/L nickel in %tiater
    a mean BCF value
    of 106--56 .vas obtained. The results indicate an inverse
    correlation
    'alues and exposure concentration. There
    vs-as no evidence that nickel
    aquatic organisms
    S urti eti N ational W
    ater- Quali
    d
    zinc are naturally occurrin4u elements. T
    c orrelations
    bet\%een nickel
    sediment concentrations and nickel concentrations
    in IINer and tissue
    samples of fish (USGS
    2'000).
    Toxic heavy metals, including
    Ni
    and Zn introduced into aquati
    tend
    to accumulate in
    sediment. It is belietied that metals reactinL E%ith sulfides control
    the
    toxi
    -ollinv- poreuater
    (the
    water tilling the spaces between g
    W S). a component of iron sulfide can create
    S ummary
    and even indicated
    that nickel concentrations in
    increasing t rophic level. Likewise. the
    U
    .S.
    Geological
    sment
    INAW'QA)
    Program found no
    statistical l\ slCan1ficant
    1 accurnulation
    are
    etals (
    h's biogeography and anthropogenic sources.
    There I
    i.
    elements e:
    . while the researchers and
    and
    anta.onistic reactions with other metals and
    chemicals, however. the data is limited.
    ""r with the bioaccumulation
    is incomplete when considerin.t all ofyearth-s
    organisms in proportion to the amount
    of
    orýý,_arrisrrts studied. It is hard to conclude the affects of zinc and nickel
    on
    rorlment when there
    are so mane confoundim factors that can alter their behavior.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table Al. Solub
    1998).
    i nc and Nickel
    Compounds
    in "v'ater.(Eislerl993;
    Eisler
    Index
    Solubility L,11-
    Zinc Chloride
    61.-1
    Z inc
    Sulfate (rrionoh%drate)
    3.38
    N ickel Chloride (hexah%drate)
    2.-100-2'.300
    Nickel Sulfate (hexahvdrate)
    2.-10()-`'.4
    Nickel Nitrate
    -17
    Nickel I1,,droxide
    .13
    l Carbonate
    .09
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    ( aci 'd"t 1 -\-;,alkal'n*
    I it)
    El,(oxidation-reduction potential)
    ration status
    (aerobic.
    microaerobie.
    anaerobic)
    capacity
    InorLani
    composition
    composition
    I
    Water content
    Clay mineraloLn
    H-,,drous metal oxides
    tier
    ý Cation exchanýLle c apacity,
    anion e xchange capacit-
    I
    Temperature
    i Solar radiation
    drostatic pressure
    i
    cater hardness
    Turbi
    altitude
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Table A.3.
    Background Concentrations of Zinc and Nickel.(Eisler
    1993;
    Eider 1998;
    03;
    Barcelout 1999; ATSDR ?00-+) (Concentrations
    are subjecte
    geographical
    differences)
    Z n
    Brackish/Estuaries
    er% Oirs
    ;streams
    water
    7
    0mL,-%
    l Opta/L
    <7. I
    pgIL
    > 10pg%L
    < 40pa/L
    0.1-1 apa/L
    < 40jg/L
    0 . 1-1 0ýqý-2
    /L
    <1U . ,2

    ý E 1-fects
    100% ýnowth inhibition 7d
    18
    .Selenusirum
    S. cupricorrn7tum
    40-69ppb
    95%
    _ro«-th inhibition 1-Id
    18
    S. c upricornutum
    I OOppb
    & v77ec1'estruin
    300m-o,
    Lethal
    -17
    quudriccuda
    .
    ýcenedesirum
    I00pta/ýc,
    1 00% u rowth inhibition
    -I-
    cupricoinutuni
    7 days
    .'arthropods
    Duphnia 7na`,na
    1 -', 40mk-?
    %k7hole bod\
    ?690m2.lkt7
    Mortalitz
    'A-hole bod-,
    D Up1777iU P2717X
    i s Toxicitti, of Zinc
    2
    ý " t""4
    l C.v7
    Hella U flecu
    ( "Q
    L C50
    LC50 24h
    disiaidis a71n-`
    LC50IOdass
    Diatom
    .1 ii-schiU
    clOsieri
    centrum micuns
    '71- OO11u
    7
    2
    18
    18
    41;9
    11
    -1;_47
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    _Table
    A4. continued
    __
    Species
    Cane.
    i lodc
    nu
    ucutilbrmus 5ftq:,g
    .annelid
    Cupitella cupitutu
    (Adult)
    Fish
    Pintephales promeles
    Re
    4
    8h ýi 25ýC
    0
    L C50 1'8 davs
    47
    Larvae
    6004%
    I t
    8 00palg
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Algae
    .-1 nuhuenu inc'q uu
    l i s
    I OM<U'L
    .4nucvstis niduluns
    1 60pw_>/L
    ( Blue-Green)
    r 7edeSinCIS
    uc'utilorinis
    'L
    p ellic1110su
    100
    M ollusks
    Ju-u plicileru
    ?371
    (Freshwater
    snail)
    Luinellidens MUrýZiriuli.s
    (Freshwater
    rnttssel )
    Arthropods
    Copepods
    E udiuptornu.;
    puduntis
    3.6m-.'L
    Preulpinus
    ''L.
    eric?duphniu
    dUhiu
    1 3.0ftg!L
    ( 96h)
    40
    I 'L
    LC50(48h) d pl-16.0-6ý - 5
    38
    D uphnia h.valine
    1. 9m u L
    Duphniu mugnu
    days)
    9
    100Pg/1_.
    Growth inhibited in 9 days
    -42
    A nnelids
    Lumhr'iCUILIS
    iwricuutes
    Fishes
    Ca
    prinus
    curpio
    (Common Carp)
    II
    ctulurus p unclums
    LCIO
    tt)is_h_)
    710
    U T
    t C'ýO
    T oxicitv o ¬ Nickel
    C Ot1Cý
    s
    G rowth inhibited
    Photos
    nthesis 1
    Growth inhibited
    No ;-uro-,vth in 1-1 d
    R eference
    e d
    ;0
    ýO
    0
    - 19
    29
    G
    rowth reduced -47°'0
    50
    Groýkrth reduced 8'0f0
    50
    d
    50% In 14davs
    .0-8. fl,
    -118
    -6.5
    38
    0 .0ma-%I. LC50(96h)
    -1--'.p4
    t o

    Ilicropterus suimoicies
    61-185P`I LC10
    10
    (LarL,emouth Bass)
    1.-18-2.84mý7/L LCýO
    10
    Pimephules promelus
    3,1m-./L
    LC30(96hyd PH8.0-8.5
    38
    (Fathead mmncnO
    >4.0ma/L
    LC50(96h),d
    pl-16.0-
    :,
    8
    Amphibians
    .-1 mhYstvmu Opucum
    410u(,!L
    LC
    50
    (Marbled Salamander)
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    References
    1 .
    For Toxic Substances
    and Disease Revistrti. 2007. Division
    of I oxicology
    ToxFAQs. Nickel
    CAS 7--1G-02-0.
    for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry. 2005. Division of ToxicoloLA
    ToxFAQs.
    Zinc. CAS,- 7-140-66-6.
    y
    Ahsanullah. M.. h1. C. Moblev.
    and P. Rankin. 1988. Individual and
    combined effects
    of zinc. cadmium and copper on
    the marine: amphipod .411orchestes compressa.
    Australian
    Journal of Marine and Freshwater
    Research
    39:33-317,
    -l. Alam. IM. K., and 0. E. Ivlau<Lhan.
    1992.
    lathion.
    diazinon. and
    V arious concentrations of zinc. copper. nickel.
    lead. iron.
    and mercury tin fish.
    BioloLxical
    T race Element
    Research
    3-1:225-236.
    Y
    .Ankle% GT.
    Phipps
    GL.
    Leonard EN. et al. 1991. Acid-volatile
    sulfide as a factor mediating
    cadmium and
    nickel
    blow ailabilin in contaminated
    sediments. Environmental Toxicologti
    and Chermsm 10:1'99-1307.
    6 . .ktudesirk. Teresa.. Audersi
    7
    Id
    1996. Biolow: Life on Earth. Prentice
    Hall.
    eloux DG. 1
    zooplankton. Bulletin of Environmental
    Contamination and
    ToxicoloLv 12:7
    ental
    Toxicants:
    is Em-ironmental Factors
    and Microb-Mediated
    al Toxicolo<L.,
    douin, M.
    F.. and P. Scoppa. 1974.
    Acute. toxicitA of various metals
    to
    10. Birge.
    0.
    e ditor,
    and J.
    980.
    Aquatic toxicology
    of nickel.
    Pages 349-366 is J.
    ilea &:. Sons. Nevi
    1 1. Bommann. L°..
    W.P.
    Nonkood.
    and C. Clarke,
    1993. .accumulation. re,->ulation
    and
    copper. zinc. lead and
    mercury in Ilvalella azteca.
    1-[ydrobiolo4sia
    oniuszko-.lakoniuk.
    J:
    Jurczuk. M: et al. (1-001) The effect
    of zinc
    nduced chances
    in the tibia of rats. Food
    &.: Chemical
    1980
    9(7):729-737.
    rocks and ores. In:
    Nriagu JO. ed. Nickel in
    the
    environment.
    k.
    ti p": John Wilev and Sons.
    Inc.. 27-

    1-1-. Eisler.
    R. 1981. Trace metal concentrations
    in marine or(-,anisms. Peryamon
    Ne-x York. 687 pp.
    E isler. R. 1984. Trace metal chamres
    associated Eyith aaae of marine vertebrates.
    Biological Trace Element
    Research 6:165-180.
    16. Eisler.
    R. and G. LaRoche. 197`'. Elemental composition
    of the estuarine teleost
    FIMu'771us heteroclims (L). .Journal
    of Experimental Marine Bioloati
    and Ecologti.
    9.`'9---1-'.
    17. Eisler.
    R.. and G. R. Gardner. 1973. Acute toxicolo,rN
    to an estuanne teleost of
    mixtures of cadmium.
    copper and zinc salts. Journal of Fish
    Biologt
    ;:131-1-1_'.
    E. L.. J.
    L. Maas-Diepeveen, and C. J. Van Leeuwen.
    1991. Combined
    effects of metals: an ecotoxicolotaical
    evaluation. Water Research 2'5:679-687
    19. Ford
    T.. Ryan D. 1995. Toxic ItiIetals in Aquatic
    Ecosystems: A IV11croblological
    Perspective. Supplement I : Fate.
    Transport. and Interactions of Metals 103:
    '5-
    hnoloiin . Nee; Yor
    1I.
    Goodwin FE. 1998. Zinc compounds.
    In: hroschývitz J. HoNýe-Grant vl. eds.
    Sons. Inc.. 8-10-85
    ". Grade. J,
    R.. :1. G. .Johnson, and Ivl. Sanders, 1989. I-leavv metal content
    in otoliths of'
    kinL, mackerel (.ýconiheromoi-us carer
    i
    ons in Marine Science 81:17-2
    de
    i
    lams. 11
    and
    copper on zinc transport
    1-lolwerda_ and D. 1. Zandee.
    I
    n .4170do171U CVI,ý-17eL7. A
    C ontamination and Toxicolo,,. 16:95
    f
    zinc on
    uptake
    and
    1990. Zinc protection against d
    tal
    d evelopment produced by cadmium. Biological Trace
    Element Research
    ?
    1.
    T
    v
    . -ý. M- N. A.
    EI-Domiatv. A. Y. Daabees. and A. Adsarha. 1987a. The toxicity
    to C7urius lu.`cru ofcopper and
    zinc
    applied
    jointl\. Comparative Biochemistr% ~
    and Physiolog%
    87C:309-31-1.
    w ell. R_ 1985. Erect of
    zinc on cadmium
    toxicit%
    to the amphipod Guml n u1-11,v
    p roximal
    cells. Biological Trace Element Research 3ý
    pulex.
    Hvdrobiol
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    '8. Kiffnev M. Peter.
    Clements H. W'illiant. 1996. Effects of'Vletals
    on Stream
    N-lacroinvertebrate AssemblaLes from Different Altitudes.
    Ecolo,-=ical
    .applications Vol.6_ No.": -17'1--181.
    e.
    L. H.. and B. Lustnunan. 1996. Effect of barium and nickel
    on the ;,pro,kth of
    Anucvstis nidulans. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
    and Toxicolo-v
    ý6:98ý-991
    30. Llovd TB.
    Shovv
    981.
    Zinc and zinc allots. In: Grayson
    1M. ed. Kirk-Otfuner
    of chemical technolo<n.
    3rd Edition. vol. 2-1. Ne,ý%
    WileN
    and Sons. 835-836.
    ýv
    3 1. McGeer J. Brix KV.
    Skeaf
    AL et al.
    2'003. Inverse relations
    d exposure concentratio
    1-'.
    1987. Bioaccumulation of zinc in nko freshwater orý,anislns (Daphni
    ' 1:99-106.
    'Metal-Contaminated
    . M. K.. J. R. Dierkes. P. D. Monson,
    commersoni ). E coto: o av and Environmental
    Safer, 18:1'
    C atostonnis
    n al Academv of Sciences (NAS). 1979. Zinc. United States National Academv
    of Sciences. National
    search Council. Subcommittee on Zinc. University Park
    Press. Baltimore.
    F. 1-1. 1980. Interactions of nickel
    with
    essential
    minerals. Pates 611-634 in
    J. 0.
    NnaLu. editor.
    Nickel
    in the environment. John Wilev & Sons. New
    York.
    0. E.. N. Belznonte. and J. Herkovits. 1990. Zinc protection against cadmium
    effect on estrual c% cle of " istar rat.
    al exposure to copper and
    and G. T. Ankle. 199..;. pH-
    in of Ca. Cu. Ni. Pb. and Zn to
    (aeno
    ma
    duhiu. f'irnephules

    Promelus.
    Nti-ulellu cz:tecu. and Lumhriculus vurieautus.
    Enyiror-tmental
    lo-,ý and Chemistry 1':1261-1X66.
    79.
    Spear. P. A. 1981. Zinc in the aquatic
    environment: chemistry. distribution. and
    tolicolog<.
    National Research Council of Canada Publication NRCC 17589, 1
    pp.
    -10. Sreedeyi. P..13.
    Siyararnak.rishna_ A. Suresh. and 1;.. Radhakrishnaiah. 199-". Effect of
    nickel on some aspects of protein metabolism in the gill and kidney
    of
    the
    fresh«ater fish. Ctprinus curpio L. Environmental Pollution 77:59-6J.
    ent of Health &-. Human Services: A{uency
    100. Toxicolo<,ical Profile for Nickel.
    al Protection A4ency (L'SEPA).
    1980. Ambient water qualit-
    -1-40',o-80-060.
    206
    pp.
    -17. U.S. En%
    1 Protection ALencv
    (EPA). 1987. Arn
    --1987. U.S. Environmental Protection .a aenc,
    pp.
    4-1. L SCS. 2000.
    n ochlorine compounds in bed sediment
    and
    fish tissue
    in Neýt lerseti streams- sources and effects. U.S. Geological
    Surýe%.
    Water
    resources
    tion report
    o file for nickel. U.S.
    r0ISM.
    and
    S. Dimas.
    1988.
    Combined
    toxicity
    of
    copper.
    cadmium. zinc.
    copepod Tishe holothuriue.
    d Toxicology=N -11:378-,8-1
    47. w'yrrrazal. .1. 1986. Occurrence and chermstr-v of zinc in freshvsaters--its toxicity and
    ion with respect to algae:
    a
    reyieýý. Part
    ': toxicity and
    14:83- 101
    ith respect to algae. .Acta livdrochimica e
    ley. .1. 1-l.. P. S. Lake. and S.C. Rogers. 1980. Zinc pollution and the ecology
    ýironment. Pa,es
    }a7--117
    it J. O. NriacYu. editor. Zinc in the
    environment. Part l: ecolottical c%clinCz. John vile%.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    -19
    c admium on the blue-(reen alilm Anucrstis nididans. Environmental Pollution
    27:1.:275-281.
    4
    n. 13. .A.. and F. 1-1. A. Shehata. 1982. Influence of cobalt. nickel. copper and
    ý 0. World Health Orýaanization (WI-10). 1991. Nickel. Environmental Health
    Criteria
    108. 3831 pp.
    51.'N'l-10.
    2001. Zinc. Environmental Health Criteria 221. Geneva- Svýitzerland: GVorld
    Health Or-anization, http.P«titxv.1nchem.org,'docurnents;ehclehc,ehc-' -l.htin.
    June
    11.
    2003.
    ian GE. Johnson N1. 1984. Nickel uptake and loss in the bivalves
    Cýrussosirca
    virginica and Alviihis edulis.
    Archives
    of Environmental Contamination and
    Toxicolo« 13:411--118.
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, June 15, 2009
    * * * * * PCB 2009-125 * * * * *

    Back to top