Exhibits
A-D
To
the Petition for
Review
of
a
decision
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
July 2, 2009
(Hilisboro
Energy, L.L.C.,
Deer Run
Mine)
Exhibit
A:
Joint Request
for
a Public
Hearing
by Prairie Rivers
Network
and
the Illinois Chapter
of
the
Sierra Club,
July
14, 2008
S
I E RRA
ILLINOIS
CHAPTER
c:
[Tj
13
70 East Lake Street Suite bOo Chica,o
IL 60601
wb tilmois sierruiub org
EOUNDEO t892
Sent via regular
mail and email to larry.crislip@illinois.gov
July 14, 2008
Larry D.
Crislip
Illinois Enviromnental
Protection Agency
Bureau of Water,
Division of Water Pollution Control
Permit Section
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post
Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Re:
NPDES
Permit No. 1L0078727, Notice No. 4885c, Hillsboro Energy, L.L.C., Deer Run Mine,
REQUEST
FOR HEARING
Dear Mr.
Crislip:
Prairie Rivers Network and the Illinois Chapter of Sierra
Club request that a public hearing be held on the
draft NPDES
permit planned to be
issued
to
Hillsboro
Energy for discharges of alkaline mine drainages
from the
proposed
new Deer Run
Mine
to be
located
east of the town of Hillsboro in Montgomery
County, Illinois. The proposal includes 803.5 acres of surface development
and a 4,786 acre shadow area
for an underground coal mine. Members of our groups live and recreate
in Montgomery County and
depend on clean waters in streams and wetlands in the Shoal Creek
watershed for activities including
swimming, fishing, boating, birdwatching and other wildlife viewing.
The proposed mine also
encompasses land within
the
watershed of Hilisboro Lake,
a source of drinking water for residents of the
City of Hillsboro; the villages of Taylor Springs, Schram City and Coffeen; the
Graham
Correctional
Institution and the Montgomery County Rural Water District.
Objections
As detailed below, we object to the issuance of this permit for the following reasons which are
described
in futher detail in the following paragraphs:
• No information about
potential impacts on
public
water supplies is included in the NPDES permit
factsheet although it appears that
Outfall
005 from the coarse refuse disposal area drains to
Hillsboro Lake and the mine shadow area clearly encompasses area that
drains to
Hillsboro
Lake.’
• Issuance of the proposed NPDES permit will allow the development of
surface
facilities
for
underground long wall mining, complete coal extraction
and land subsidence whose impacts have
not
been fully anticipated or addressed.
o
Because the composition of the discharge has not been studied
adequately, the
discharges
allowed
by
the
permit may cause or contribute to a violation of
state water quality standards in violation of
40 CFR §122.4, 122.44(d) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105(c)(2)(B)(i),(ii),
304.105, 309.141(d)
and 309.142.
•
Illinois Antidegradation Rule,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
302.105
(c)(B)(iii) has also not been satisfactory
addressed in that alternatives for minimizing increases
in pollutant loadings (sulfate, chloride,
iron, manganese,
etc)
have not been fully explored.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Sierra Club, Prairie Rivers Network on NPDES Permit
No. 1L0078727, Notice
No.
4885c
page
2
The proposed
NPDES
permit
inadequately captures the
impacts of the proposed mining activity. The
surface facilities
at this
underground
mine contains the incline
slope
to reach the coal seam, two vertical
shafts,
coal preparation plant, reclaim tunnels, rail loading
loop, rail loadout, parking lots, access roads,
drainage control structures, office buildings,
change rooms, assembly rooms, warehousing facilities,
administration building, storage facilities,
elevator facilities, ventilation
facilities, refuse
disposal
areas,
overland conveyors, screens, crusher, power
distribution facilities,
power lines, water
lines, parking
lots,
topsoil and subsoil stockpile areas. Seven
sedimentation
ponds are
proposed as surface
drainage
controls.
The draft permit
states
that
all outfalls will
drain to the Shoal Creek
Watershed Structure No. 5, owned
by
the City of Hillsboro.The proposed permit
fails to addess impacts
to water quality
likely
to
occur
due to
land subsidence caused by proposed longwall mining
activities.
Potential Impacts on Drinking Water Resources
A major concern is Outfall 005, which drains the proposed
coarse refuse disposal area (RDA). The
permit notice states that this outfall drains to an
unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek Watershed Structure
No. 5. The map contained in the NPDES permit
public notice is wholly inadequate for the public to
be
able to assess the impacts of the proposed mine on
surface waters. It illustrates only the outfall locations
without showing any detail of the many proposed surface
coal mining facilities listed in the Construction
Authorization No. 0006-0 8
found in
the draft permit, including the
location of the planned
sedimentation
ponds and the path
of flow from them. However,
on Map 6 Surface Facilities
2provided
by
Hillsboro
Energy in their permit application to the Illinois
Dept. of Natural Resources Office of Mine and Minerals,
it appears that this
outfall drains
to a
tributary
to Lake Hillsboro,
a
source of drinking water for residents
of the City of Hillsboro; the villages of Taylor
Springs, Schram City and Coffeen; the Graham
Correctional Institution and the Montgomery County Rural Water
District. Potential impacts of the
proposed mine on the quality of water which serves as a drinking
water source for residents is a critical
issue that is not addressed in the public notice and should
be
discussed
at a public hearing. In addition,
the impacts of land subsidence in the Lake Hilisboro watershed
on the quality and quantity of the water
supply to the lake need to be
addressed before
the mine is granted any permits.
See
Map
8
Post
Subsidence, IDNR 0MM
Permit Application
No.
3993
Impacts of Proposed Mine Inadequately Addressed
The proposed issuance of this NPDES permit is premature
in that many deficiencies are present in
Hillsboro Energy’s application for a mining permit (Permit
No. 399). On May 30, 2008 the Illinois Dept.
of Natural Resources Office of Mine and Minerals (IDNR
0MM) requested that the applicant address
61
areas
of
concern.4Without the modifications requested
by IDNR 0MM, the application does not comply
with the requirements
of the Illinois Surface
Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act.
The
deficiencies in the
application include
issues pertinent
to the discharge
of pollutants to
Illinois
waters
from the proposed mine
site. These include:
14. Questions about
soil stockpile
15. Location of drain tiles in both the permit and shadow areas
17.
Questions about industrial land on the site
18. Questions about
the area of refuse disposal
20. Questions about
the proposed refuse disposal
area (RDA), including liners, sediment ponds
and
ditches,
quality controllquality assurance measures
such that permeability of 1 x 1 0 cm!sec
is
achieved throughout the liner.
21. Request to
characterize
surface and groundwater regimes
in permit, shadow and adjacent areas,
including the
utilization of
water for mine processes and impacts
on the hydrological balance
Sierra
Club,
Prairie
Rivers
Network
on
NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0078727,
Notice
No.
4885c
page
3
22.
Request
to
quantify
seasonal
variations
in
surface
and
groundwater
regimes
in
the
permit,
shadow
and
adjacent
areas,
including
descriptions
of
the
streams
present.
23.
Characterization
of
groundwater,
seeps,
streams,
ponds
within
the
permit,
shadow
and
adjacent
areas.
24.
Concerns
regarding
impacts
of
the
mine
on
Lake
Hilisboro,
a
drinking
water
source,
from
Outfall
005.
25.
Questions
about
the
water
quality
sampling
protocols
used
by
the
applicant
26.
Impacts
on
water-bearing
strata
27.
More
information
on
potential
acid/toxic
forming
materials
and
potentially
alkaline
producing
materials
requested
28.
Questions
about
extent
of
groundwater
use
by
residents
in
the
area
29.
Details
of
proposed
NPDES
sampling
protocol
requested
30.
Questions
about
hydrologic
impacts
31.
More
details
on
potential
sources
of
contamination
of
surface
and
ground
waters
requested
32.
Previous
mining
activities
impacts
on
surface
and
ground
water
33.
How
the
applicant
proposes
to
deal
with
the
occurrence
of
acidic
conditions
34.
Contradictory
statements
about
the
quality
of
groundwater
35.
Questions
about
groundwater
quality
data
provided
36.
Potential
for
stream
flow
alterations
due
to
mining
activities
need
to
be
addressed
37.
Concerns
about
drainage
from
soil
storage
areas
38.
Inadequate
information
provided
for
areas
identified
as
future
refuse
storage
areas
40.
Concerns
about
roads
and
rail
lines
that
do
not
drain
to
a
sediment
pond
42.
Concerns
about
proposed
coal
slurry
impoundment
44.
Need
to
coordinate
on
JEPA
and
IDNR
0MM
concerns
45.
Concerns
about
drainage
flow
directions
46.
Description
of
measures
to
prevent
coal
and
coal
waste
from
entering
streams
requested
53.
Impacts
to
the
Upland
Management
Area
(previously
Cranfill
Unit)
of
the
Coffeen
Lake
Fish
and
Wildlife
Area
have
been
ignored.
55.
Questions
about
planned
monitoring
of
domestic
and
residential
water
supplies
56.
Concerns
about
request
for
an
exemption
from
conducting
a
survey
of
water
supplies
In
addition
to
the
modifications
requested
by
IDNR
0MM
above
on
the
subject
of
hydrological
impacts,
we
repeat
the
following
concerns
which
the
Sierra
Club
has
previously
raised
to
IDNR
0MM
about
inadequacies
in
the
permit
application
regarding
impacts
of
the
proposed
mine
on
the
hydrology
of
the
area.
5
The
permit
application
does
not
contain
a
complete
and
accurate
hydrologic
characterization
of
existing
conditions
in
the
proposed
permit,
shadow
and
potentially
impacted
adjacent
areas
(hereinafter,
areas
of
concern).
The
permit
application
does
not
identify
all
of
the
important
components
of
the
ground-
and
surface
water
hydrology,
natural
and
anthropogenic,
in
the
areas
of
concern.
When
the
permit
application
does
identify
such
components,
it
does
not
individually
characterize
those
components
sufficiently
to
establish
the
existing
seasonal
variations
in
the
quantity
and
quality
of
their
water.
Generally,
the
application
does
not
quantify
the
existing
directions
and
rates
of
water
movement
within,
or
existing
exchanges
among,
components
of
the
hydrology.
In
instances
where
such
exchanges
are
described,
the
interpretation
offered
is
inconsistent
with
the
limited
site
data.
The
application
does
not
quantify
the
existing
seasonal
variation
in
those
rates
and
exchanges,
or
characterize
the
results
of
those
exchanges.
Hence,
the
permit
application
does
not
describe
the
existing
hydrologic
balance
of
the
areas
of
concern.
Sierra Club, Prairie Rivers Network
on NPDES Permit No. 1L0078727,
Notice No. 4885c
page
4
The permit application does not contain
complete and defendable predictions of the hydrologic
conditions during- and post-mining in the
areas
of concern. The permit application does not
identify all of the
important
future elements of the ground-
and
surface water hydrology,
natural
and anthropogenic, in the areas of concern. When
the permit application does identify such
components, it does not individually characterize
those components sufficiently to predict
reasonably
the future seasonal variations in the quantity
and quality of their water. The
application does not quantify predictions of the future
directions and rates of water movement
within, or future exchanges among, components of the
hydrology. The application does not
quantify predictions of the future
seasonal variation
in those rates and exchanges, or characterize
the
results
of those
predicted exchanges.
Hence,
the permit application does not describe the
future
hydrologic balance of the areas of
concern.
The
permit application contains a summary of the probable hydrologic consequences that is
inaccurate, incomplete, and erroneous. This is partially due
to
the inadequacies in the
characterizations, as described above. It is also due, however,
to
poor understanding of
geological, hydrogeological, and geochemical
principles that will influence the hydrologic
consequences
of the proposed operations.
The
permit application contains inadequate characterization
of soil, rock, and
water
in
the areas
of concern to establish a reasonable list of constituents
to be monitored for baseline and
compliance monitoring under SMCRA. The constituents to
be
monitored appear
to
have been
selected based
upon the minimum lists provided
in the application form and a presumption that
the natural
materials
to be
disturbed and the
processing chemicals will contain no toxins, no toxic
forming
materials, and no sources of acidity other
than pyritic sulfur. This list of constituents for
monitoring needs to be
established
by demonstration relative to site-specific materials and
processes that are part of a complete characterization, not
by presumption.
The
permit application contains inadequate ground- and
surface water monitoring plans.
Monitoring locations are inappropriately positioned and/or insufficient
in number
for both plans.
The parameters being monitored are potentially inadequate, as discussed above. The plans do
not include a
description of how the monitoring
data will be used or interpreted to demonstrate
that
damage to the
hydrologic balance within
the permit area is being minimized and material
damage outside the permit
area
is being prevented. The plans do not establish limits, thresholds,
or
trends for each parameter, exceedence of which would trigger enforcement
by
the
agency,
citizens,
or courts and remedial action. There is no description
of remedial actions that
would
be
triggered
by
such enforcement.
The permit
application does not contain adequate
descriptions of the materials, construction
methods, and verification processes for building the “impervious”
base
for
the
coal storage area.
The
permit application does not contain a definition of what “impervious”
means.
The permit
application does not appear to describe a comparable “impervious”
base for the refuse
storage
area,
an
area that should be underlain by liners that will protect
underlying
groundwater
resources.
The permit
application does not contain adequate
descriptions of the materials, construction
methods,
and verification processes for building the
soil cover for the coarse refuse storage area.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Sierra
Club, Prairie
Rivers Network
on NPDES Permit No.
JL0078727,
Notice No. 4885c
page
5
The permit
does not provide
an assessment
of the rates
of water and oxygen
infiltration through
the
soil
cover, the
rate
of
leachate
generation,
the composition
of that leachate, the
period
of time
that
the leachate will continue
to form,
and
the means
by which that
leachate
will
be monitored
and
managed
for the period
of its production.
The
permit application
does
not provide
any
estimate
or projection
of the composition
of the
initial
water quality in
the coal to be mined,
the rates of water
production
from the mine as
mining progresses,
the impacts
of dewatering
the mine
(including
pumping related
to
the
mine
entrance
through the
shallow sediments),
or
the changes
in
water quality
as the mine and
collapsed
areas are
subject
to mine leakage
and
oxidation
of roof
and
floor rocks. The permit
application
does not provide
any estimate or
any data relative
to the head in
the mine after
pumping
ceases and
a post-mining
equilibrium
is reached. It
does not provide any discussion
or
any
data
related
to the final
post-mining water
composition.
It does not
provide any discussion
or any data
related to what that
head
and
composition
means
with
respect to other
elements
of
the
hydrologic
balance
and water resources
in the areas
of concern.
The permit
application is inconsistent
in its
representation
of
length of the long-wall
panels.
Several of the maps
represent
the
center panels
as stopping before
undermining occurs
of the
[prison?]
and cemetery located
at the western
end of the
shadow
area.
However, Map 4, which
has
a more current
date,
shows
the panels as now
extending under
those features.
The permit
application provides
interpretations
of groundwater
flow patterns,
hydraulic
conductivities
and groundwater quality
in the unconsolidated
section
that are
unsupported by
data within the application,
contradicted
by data within
the application,
or inconsistent
with
acceptable
methods
of interpretation.
Proposed Permit Does
Not Minimize
Increases in
Pollutant Discharges
The proposed
permit allows for
significant
increases
in discharges
.of mine-related
pollutants compared
to
existing conditions.
Attachment III.2.C.2
Baseline Surface
Water
Sample
Site Data
6
shows that the
current
water quality in Shoal
Creek Watershed
Structure
No. 5 is significantly
better than
the discharges
to
it authorized by the proposed
permit.
Existing Water
Quality
at
Discharge
Location
D- 1
(dam
at Shoal
Creek
Proposed
Daily Maximum
Watershed
Structure
No. 5)
Concentration
Limits (mg/L)
January — June
2007
monthly
samples
Outfalls
001-005
(mm
— max in mg/L)
(mm-max
permitted)
Iron, Total
0.402-3.04
6.0
Sulfate, Total
8-26
Chloride
753-2100
6-18
Manganese,
Total
0.1
— 0.688
500-1000
1-3.8
Special
Condition No. 11
(b)(iii)
only requires
annual monitoring
downstream
of the proposed
mine
outfalls. We request
that
such monitoring
be performed
quarterly.
We also
request
that such monitoring
be
performed on a quarterly
basis in the
tributary which feeds
Lake Hillsboro.
Map 6 Surface
Facilities
shows
that the proposed coarse
refuse disposal area
and its
sedimentation pond
are located
within
200
feet
of the tributary.
In
addition
to our
concerns
about
the location
of Outfall 005, we are
concerned
about
Sierra Club, Prairie Rivers Network
on NPDES Permit No. 1L0078727, Notice No. 4885c
page 6
contaminants
leaching out of the unlined
pond through groundwater flows into the creek, which
supplies
drinking
water for many residents of
Montgomery County.
The Antidegradation Assessment
asserts that ‘sedimentation ponds.. .are the only option
available to
mines for controlling
stormwater
runoff’. A public hearing is needed
to
discuss
other options
we have
become of aware
of
through
our research on this issue
as
outlined below.
The
proposed
mining
fricilitv
has
failed
to
satisfy
antidegradation regulations.
The state antidegradation
regulations at 35 IAC 302.105(c) (2) require that all reasonable
measures be
taken to avoid or minimize increased
pollutant loading. The applicant has not considered alternatives
to
the use of sedimentation ponds for
treating runoff from raw and clean coal storage areas as well as
other
areas
on the mine site, including a coal
refuse storage area. Alternatives to sedimentation exist that
could
facilitate the avoidance or minimization
of increased discharges of sulfates, chlorides, manganese, iron,
mercury and suspended solids.
In practice, sedimentation ponds only address dissolved pollutants
like
sulfates and chlorides
by
holding
them until they can be discharged during a rain event when they
can
take advantage of the dilution.
A short survey of experts and consultants in the field of mine wastewater
treatment found the following
opportunities to prevent unnecessary new pollution as our Tier 2
antidegradation. policy requires. We request these alternatives
be
evaluated
to
“assure..
.all technically
feasible and
economically
reasonable pollutant loading
[be]
incorporated into the proposed
activity.”
1) Filtration is a well-established method for removing suspended solids
by
passing
wastewater
through
a filter bed composed of granular material. Filtration may also take the fonn
of
ultrafiltration or nanofiltration,
in
which a membrane or other semi-permeable device
(such as
a ceramic filter) is
used as the filter medium. Filtration is commonly used in treating mine
wastewater for the reduction
of sediment, metals, sulfate,
and
cyanide,
thallium and other
contaminants. Nanofiltration
mechanisms, designed to remove sulfate, are being applied
at the
Tyron copper mine in New Mexico
7and have been developed cooperatively
by
Dow
Chemical
Company and Marathon Oil Company.
8
2) Bioremediation is process in which microorganisms are used to treat pollutants.
Bioremediation is extensively used in the treatment of acidity, sulfate, nutrients
and cyanide.
3)
Reverse Osmosis
uses a driving force or pressure across a membrane to cause water to
flow
from the stronger solution
to the weaker, effecting a separation of water from soluble
contaminants. It is
highly effective for removing soluble metals, including low to medium
molecular weight ionic
species, including nitrate, potassium, magnesium, chloride and
sulfate.
Recent advances in operation and membrane maintenance have made RO effective
on cyanide
and metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury,
nickel,
selenium, silver and zinc. RO has been
used
in the mining industry for the treatment
of
discharges containing cyanide and metals resulting from heap leach operations
and tailings
ponds, with removal efficiencies
of greater than 95%.
4)
Coagulation-Precipitation
is a process by which coagulation removes ultra fine colloidal
particles and metal ions by causing the particles to come into contact with each other
and bind
together, forming a precipitate of a size large enough for removal by filtration. In industrial
applications,
coagulation-precipitation
is routinely used for the treatment of total
suspended
solids, and in specific
cases can remove sulfate, nitrogen compounds, and metals, including
arsenic, chromium and mercury. It is
used to treat
mining wastewater for
sulfate (heavy
density sludge) metal precipitates including arsenic, zinc and copper and also
to treat
wastewater containing cyanide.
Sierra
Club, Prairie
Rivers
Network
on NPDES
Permit
No. 1L0078727,
Notice
No. 4885c
page
7
5)
Ion exchange
removes
unwanted
ions
from water
by transferring
them
to
a solid
material,
called
an ion
exchanger,
which
accepts
them
while
giving
back
an
equivalent
number
of
desirable
ions
contained
in the
ion exchanger.
In
the simplest
terms,
water
softening
is a form
of ion
exchange
in
which
sodium,
from
salt,
is exchanged
with
the
calcium
responsible
for
water
“hardness.”
Ion
exchange
has been
used to
treat
mine
wastewater
for metals
and
nitrate
removal.
An
example
of
this
method
being
utilized
for
sulfate
removal
is
at the
Sierrita
copper
mine in
Arizona.
9
6)
The
Cost Effective
Sulfate
Removal
(CESR)
process
was
developed
to address
the
shortcomings
of other
technologies
used
for
sulfate
removal.
The CESR
process
is
an
extension
of wastewater
treatment
with
lime
in that
it can meet
more
stringent
requirements
for
sulfate
removal.
Addition
of
the
CESR
reagent
to lime-treated
water precipitates sulfate
as
a
nearly
insoluble
calcium-alumina-sulfate
compound
known
as
ettringite.
Ettringite
formation
can also
provide
a polishing
effect,
allowing
precipitation
of
difficult-to-remove
metals
such
as
chromium,
arsenic,
selenium
and
cadmium,
often
below
their
respective
analytical
detection
limits.
Boron,
fluoride
and up
to
30
percent
of the
chloride
and
nitrate
in
water
have
also
been
removed.
Metals
and
other
constituents
which the
ettringite
removes
are typically
not
leachable,
allowing
disposal
as a nonhazardous
waste.
Unlike
treatment
methods
such
as
sodium
aluminate
addition,
all of the
chemicals
added
during
the
CESR process
can
be
precipitated.
Water
treated
by
the CESR
process
typically
meets
or
exceeds
recommended
drinking
water
standards
for sulfate,
metals
and
other
parameters.
The process
produces
a net
reduction
in total
dissolved
solids
(TDS).
Additional
information
is
available
at:
http:/!www.wateronline.comlarticle.mvc/A-New-Process-For-Sulfate-Removal-From-Indust
0001
?VNETCOOKIENO
7)
The
Supervac
of
(Supervac)
Canada
Inc.) is
a system
of high
density
solids
transfer
pumps
that
can
recover
collected
solids
from
settling
ponds
and transfer
them through
a
sealed
pipeline
up
to 3,000
feet
away
for permitting
disposal.
This
can
be an
effective,
low-cost
operation
to
lower
the
TSS
in high
solids
content
drainage
water
in
typical
mining
operations.
Questions
1. Has
the
Agency
performed
any
review
of
the
planned
subsidence
for
Deer
Run Mine
within
the
4,786 mine
shadow
area
and
its potential
to
change
the
discharge
of
pollutants
in the
waterways
draining
the
mine
shadow
area?
2. Specifically, has the
Agency
considered
the
impacts
of land
subsidence
on
the water
quality
of
McDavid
Branch,
which
feeds
Coffeen
Lake State
Fish
&
Wildlife
Area?
3.
Specifically, has
the
Agency
considered
the
impacts
of land
subsidence
on
the
water
quality
in
the
tributary
which
flows
into
Lake
Hilisboro?
4. Can
the
Agency
please
provide
a
map
that shows
the
route of
flow of
discharge
from
Outfall
005
to
an unnamed
tributary
to
Shoal
Creek Watershed
Structure
No. 5
as is
described
in the
public
notice/factsheet for
the
proposed
NPDES
permit.
The
map
provided
in
the public
notice
does
not
show
any
paths
of flow
from
the
outfalls
within
the
map permit
area.
Map
6 Surface
Facilities
(from
Hilisboro
Energy
application
for
permit
no. 399,
obtained
from
the IDNR
0MM
website)
shows
Outfall
005
at the
NE
corner
of the
coarse
refuse disposal
area,
adjacent
to the
tributary
which
flows
to
Hillsboro
Lake.
5.
The Antidegradation Assessment
states that
runoff
to Outfall
005
from
the
coal
refuse
storage
area
will
receive
treatment.
Can
the Agency
please
describe
the
nature
of that
treatment?
Sierra
Club, Prairie
Rivers
Network on
NPDES Permit No. 1L0078727,
Notice
No.
4885c
page
8
6. The Antidegradation
Assessment
states that
‘management practices
for minimizing
sulfate
formation
and chloride
leaching are available
and will
be encouraged’. What
are
this practices
and
why aren’t they
being required
of
the applicant
in order to minimize
pollutant
loading?
7.
How
has
the
discharger
and
the agency determined
exactly
what metals
and other pollutants
will
be contained in the discharge?
8. Why is
no monitoring of
manganese and mercury
(subject
to Special Condition
13)
required
for
Outfalls 006 and
007?
9. Will
discharges
from mine
dewatering
be allowed under
the proposed NPDES
permit?
A public
hearing
is
needed for residents
of Montgomery
County to make sure that
their
water
quality,
for
drinking and recreational
uses,
is being
protected
and to allow information
to be presented
and discussed
regarding
the issues and
questions discussed
above.
Thank you for this opportunity
to raise our
concerns
with the Agency.
Sincerely,
Cynthia L. Skruknid,
Ph.D.
Clean
Water Advocate
Phone:
815-675-2594
Email:
cindy.skrukrud@sierraclub.org
Cc: Hilisboro Energy
(comment letter with
attachments
5,
7,
8 and 9)
Attachments
1
Public Notice
No. P-2664,
U.S.
Army
Corps of
Engineers
2
Map 6 Surface
Facilities
Map8 Post Subsidence
Deer
Run Mine Modification
letter from IDNR
0MM to Hillsboro
Energy, May
30, 2008
Sierra Club
comments
to IDNR 0MM
on
Deer Run
Mine Permit No. 399,
March 31, 2008
6
Attachment III.2.C.2 Baseline
Surface
Water Sample Site Data,
p.
141 of IDNR
0MM Permit
Application
No.
399
Water Treatment as
a Mitigation
Method for Pit Lakes,
Southwest
Hydrology,
Sept./Oct. 2002
8
Sulfate
Removal from Injected
Water in Oilfield
Operations
(found
at
http://www.dow.com/lkiuidseps/prodlsp
oil.htm
Sulphate
removal
demonstration plant
using BioteQ’s
proprietary Sulf-IX
ion-exchange
technology
(www.bioteq.ca)
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Exhibit B:
Post-Hearing Comments
of Prairie Rivers Network
and
Illinois
Chapter of the Sierra
Club, October 17,
2008
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
4SIERRA
ILLINOIS
CHAPTER
(
JjTJ
B
70
East Lake Street • Sute 500 • Chicago. IL 60601
web: illinois.sierraclub.org
FOUNDED
1592
Sent via email
to
kurt.neibergall@illinois.gov
October
17,
2008
Hearing Officer Kurt Neibergall
#5
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue
East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Re:
Hillsboro Energy LLC, Deer
Run Mine, Hillsboro, Montgomery County, IL
NPDES Draft Permit No. 1L0078727
Dear Mr. Neibergall:
Prairie Rivers Network and the Illinois
Chapter
of Sierra Club are submitting these additional
concerns
and
recommendations
on the draft NPDES
permit proposed to be issued to Hillsboro Energy for
discharges of alkaline mine
drainages
from the planned
new
Deer Run Mine
to
be located
east of the
town
of Hillsboro
in Montgomery
County, Illinois.
These comments are
follow-up
to the issues and questions
we raised
in our initial comment
letter of July 14, 2008
on the draft
NPDES
permit in
which we requested
that
a public hearing be held and the
points and questions raised by Sierra Club staff and volunteers
at the
public hearing held on September 17,
2008.
The proposal includes 803.5 acres
of surface development and a 4,786 acre shadow area for an
underground coal mine. Members
of our groups live and recreate in Montgomery County and
depend on
clean waters
in streams and
wetlands in the Shoal Creek watershed for activities including
swimming,
fishing, boating,
birdwatching
and
other wildlife viewing.
The
proposed mine also
encompasses land
within the
watershed of Hillsboro
Lake, a source of drinking water for residents of the
City of Hillsboro;
the
villages of
Taylor Springs,
Schram City and Coffeen;
the
Graham Correctional Institution
and the
Montgomery County Rural Water District.
Downstream, Shoal Creek supplies drinking water for
residents including water users in Breese
and the St. Rose Water District.
Objections
•
Issuance of the proposed NPDES
permit will allow the development of surface facilities
for
underground long wall mining,
complete
coal extraction and land subsidence whose impacts
have
not
been fuliy anticipated or
addressed.
• Because the composition of the
discharge has
not been studied
adequately,
the
discharges
allowed
by
the pennit may cause or contribute
to a
violation
of state
water quality
standards
in violation
of
40 CFR §122.4, 122.44(d) and
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 302.105(c)(2)(B)(i),(ii), 304.105, 309.141(d)
and 309.142.
•
Illinois Antidegradation Rule,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 302.105 (c)(B)(iii) has also not been satisfactory
addressed in that alternatives for minimizing
increases in pollutant loadings (sulfate, chloride,
iron, manganese,
etc)
have not been filly explored.
Sierra Club, Prairie Rivers Network on NPDES Permit
No. 1L0078727, Notice No. 4885c
page 2
Concerns
Biologically Significant Stream
resources downstream need
to be protected
On October 15, 2008
the
Illinois Dept.
of Natural Resources (IDNR)
released
biological
stream ratings
that combine, update, and enhance the two previous
approaches
for rating
Illinois streams. The report
Integrating Multiple Taxa in a Biological Stream Rating
System can be found at:
http ://www.dnr.state.il.us/orc/BioStrmRatings/. The report
identifies
Biologically Significant Stream
segments for which the Dept. of Natural Resources
believes ‘biological communities present much be
protected at the stream reach, as well as upstream
of the reach’ (Report at
p.
23).
The attached
map
of
Biologically Significant Streams shows that stream reaches
in
the Shoal
Creek
watershed account for
a
significant percentage of such rare, high quality stream
resources in the state.’
On the map, IDNR
states
“Stream segments identified as biologically significant are
unique resources
in the state and the biological
communities present must by protected at the stream
reach, as well as
upstream of the reach.”
(emphasis
added)
Runoff from the proposed Deer Run
mine
will be tributary to these important stream resources.
Deterioration of the existing high quality
aquatic community present in the Shoal Creek watershed must
be
prevented.
(See 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
302.105
(a))
Drinking water resources must be protected
Both surface and groundwater drinking water supplies need
to be protected
from pollution emanating
from the proposed coal mining activity. These issuess were raised
at the
public hearing including
concerns for downstream surface water resources
by:
Greg Rehkemper, Director, St. Rose Water District in Northern Clinton County who stated
“one of
our
wells is drawn from an aquifer right
out of Shoal Creek and at a gallomng trade
of
about a
million
and
a
half to two million gallons
a
month,
and we also buy
water from Breese, Illinois
which they use
water right out of Shoal Creek,
and we also buy about
four
million gallons
from
them on a
monthly basis.” (Transcript
at
p.
40-41)
Ryan Payne who stated “Has anybody taken into account,
you
know,
as
that wind blows across
that gob pile and
those sediment
areas and seems to blow back into the Big Four Creek area... Are
we going to do
anything
into that Big Four area? That goes directly to our lakes and water
supply....
We’ve decided from
this area is where our slag pile is going to be at, our sediment
areas.As that wind blows, it’s going to blow in toward this creek. This creek feeds directly into
our
old lake, into one of our water supplies.” (Transcript at
p.
165-166)
In
our
Recommendations section below,
we
discuss
additional treatment measures, ground and surface
monitoring
requirements, groundwater protection
measures and dust minimization measures needed to
address
this concern. In
addition,
the impacts of land subsidence in the Lake Hillsboro watershed on
the
quality and quantity
of the water supply to the lake
need to be addressed before the
mine is granted
any
permits.
Impact of seismic
events on liners under coal slurry area
and
sedimentation basins
Seismologists have
provided
us with an estimated
probability of 40% to 60% for the occurrence of a
6.5R
earthquake happening
in the New Madrid Fault
(fault system extends 150 miles southward from Cairo,
Illinois
through New
Madrid and Caruthersville,
Missouri, down
through Blytheville, Arkansas to Marked
Tree,
Arkansas) within the
next 15 years.
Their probability projections for the 6.5R earthquake is 93
%
to
98
%
within the next 50
years. Estimates for
6.5R earthquakes based on the actual seismic event
occurrence
is one to
occur every
55
to
85 years. Looking at the last event in that range (6.2R) in 1895
and
adding 85 years to
that date, 6.5R activity should have
presented itself during 1980.
In fact, when
Sierra Club, Prairie
Rivers Network
on NPDES Permit
No.
1L0078727,
Notice
No. 4885c
page 3
members
of
the Future Gen alliance
chose Mattoon
and Tuscola as finalists
for
the proposed
clean
coal
power
plant
over sites
in Southern
Illinois, they cited the
relative lack of seismic
activity in central
Illinois.
It
is unclear how, if
at all, the Agency
has
taken into
consideration that environmental
damage
and
threat
to water quality
that will
result from the projected
seismic
activity.
What controls and
specifications
have
been considered in
the
1) location
of the
coal slurry
area
and the
sedimentation
basins, and 2)
the design
of the
liners
for the
coal
slurry impoundment
and sedimentation
basins?
Considering
that
Class
j2
and II
resources are located
beneath
the Deer Run mine
permit
are,
we are
concerned that should
such a
catastrophe take
place, the
potable
drinking water supply
for thousands of residents
would
be forever
contaminated
and unavailable
for
use.
Please provide an explanation
as
to
what
anticipated consequences
have been
considered and prevented
or mitigated
by the proposed permit
requirements.
Previous
water
pollution
by Hilisboro
Energy parent
company and subsidiaries
In light of prior
violations of
Williamson Energy, LLC,
a subsidiary to Foresight
Energy
(also owners
of
Hillsboro
Energy LLC),
IL
EPA
should
impose much
more stringent
permit
terms and conditions
on
Hilisboro Energy,
LLC.
The Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
authorizes
the IL EPA
to consider a permit
applicant’s
past acts
of non-compliance
in
making
permit determinations.
The Act
states:
“In
making its
determinations
on permit
applications under this
section
the
Agency
may
consider
prior adjudications
of noncompliance
with this Act by
the applicant
that involved
a release of
a contaminant
into the environment.
In granting permits, the
Agency
may
impose reasonable conditions
specifically
related to the applicant’s
past compliance
history
with this
Act as necessary
to correct, detect,
or prevent non-compliance.”
415 ILCS
5/39(a).
A list of
violations
of subsidiaries
of Foresight Energy between
July 1, 2003
and June 1, 2006
is located
in the
Sugar
Camp
Mine
application
#382
to IDNR, on page
65.
The
list includes
31 violations in
West
Virginia
and 4 violations in
Illinois. All four
of the Illinois Violations
are water related
violations of
the
Pond Creek permit
#275. The
nature of the first Notice
of Violation, number
28-1-05 was
“Disturbed
area
drainage was leaving
the
permit
area
without passing through
a siltation structure”.
The nature
of
the
second Notice
of Violation,
number
3 7-5-05 was
“Sedimentation Pond
001 is discharging
prior to the
department receiving
a PE Certified
as-built inspection report”.
The nature
of the third Notice
of
Violation, number 37-6-05
was “Failure to
submit quarterly groundwater
monitoring
rerorts
for
third
quarter
2005.”
And fmally, the
nature of the forth Notice
of Violation,
number
37-1-06
was
“Conducting
mining activities
on surface land not currently
permitted”.
IEPA
should
require more
stringent requirements
in the Deer Run permit
in order
to
prevent such
violations from occurring
again. Proposals
for additional
monitoring and special
conditions to
be imposed
in the
NPDES permit
are included in our Recommendations
section
below.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Sierra
Club,
Prairie
Rivers
Network
on NPDES
Permit
No. 1L0078727,
Notice
No. 4885c
page
4
Recommendations
Proposed
Permit
Must
Minimize
Increases
in
Pollutant
Discharges
Illinois
Antidegradation
Rule,
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
302.105
(c)(2)(B)(iii)
has
not
been
satisfactory
addressed
in
the draft
NPDES
permit
in
that alternatives
for minimizing
increases
in
pollutant
loadings
(sulfate,
chloride,
iron,
manganese,
etc)
have
not
been
fully
explored.
The
state
antidegradation
regulations
require
that
all
reasonable
measures
be
taken
to avoid
or
minimize
increased
pollutant
loading.
The
applicant
has not
considered
alternatives
to
the
use
of
sedimentation
ponds
for
treating
runoff
from
raw and
clean
coal
storage
areas
as
well
as
other
areas
on
the
mine
site,
including
a
coal refuse
storage
area.
Alternatives
to sedimentation
exist
that
could
facilitate
the avoidance
or
minimization
of
increased
discharges
of
sulfates,
chlorides,
manganese,
iron,
mercury,
selenium,
cadmium,
other
metals
and
suspended
solids.
The
attached
memo
from
Carpenter
Environmental
Associates
(CEA)
7
provides
information
on treatment
opportunities
for
preventing
unnecessary
new
pollution
as
our
Tier
2 antidegradation
policy
requires.
We
request
these
alternatives
be
evaluated
to
“assure..
.all
technically
feasible
and
economically
reasonable
pollutant
loading
[be]
incorporated
into
the
proposed
activity.”
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
302.105
(c)(2)(B)(iii).
(Papers
(without
online
access)
referenced
in
the
CEA
memo
are
attached
at
8
9
10
11,
12
,’
3
and
14)
Separate
treatment
basins
from
stormwater
basins
The
draft
permit
describes
seven
outfalls,
all
of
which
are
from sedimentation
ponds.
As
described
in
the
antidegradation
assessment,
“The
sedimentation
ponds
will treat
runoff
from
raw
and
clean
coal
storage
areas
as well
as other
areas
on
the
mine
site. One
outfall,
005,
will
consist
of
treated
runoff
from
a
coal
refuse
storage
area.”
Later
in
the
assessment,
“Sedimentation
ponds
will
be
constructed
using
best
management
practices
and
are
the
only
option
available
to
mines
for controlling
stormwater
runoff..
.Other
alternatives
do
not exist
for
treatment
or control
of runoff
from
mine
areas.”
We
are
unclear
as
to
which
purpose
the
basins
will
be designed:
treatment
or for
controlling
stormwater.
We
understand
from
the engineering
perspective
that
a basin
cannot
be
designed
to
serve
in both
capacities.
Please
see the
following
excerpt
from
Unit
9
of
the
Soil
Erosion
and
Sedimentation
Control
Training
Manual,
available
from
the
Michigan
Department
of Environmental
Quality,
Water
Bureau
at
http://www.deci
.state.mi.us/documents/deq-land-sesc-trainingmanual.pdf
THE
DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
STORM
WATER
BASINS
AND
SEDIMENTATION
BASINS
It
is
important
to
draw
a distinction
between
storm
water
basins
and sedimentation
basins.
Storm
water
basins
are
permanent
structures
designed
to
replace
the
natural
water
storage
of
a
site and
provide
some
water
quality
improvement
after
the
site
is
completed.
Historically,
the
primary
purpose
of storm
water
basins
was
to
reduce
on-site
and
downstream
flooding
by controlling
the
rate of
storm
water
discharge.
Secondary
benefits
include
water
quality
improvement
such
as
sediment
removal,
aesthetics,
and
recreational
opportunities.
Many
of these
secondary
benefits
are
now
being
incorporated
into
the
design
of
storm
water
basins.
However,
it is
important
to
remember that most
storm
water
basins
are
not
designed
to
remove
sediment
and they
generally
do
not work
well
for
that
purpose.
Sedimentation basins
are
used
during
construction
and
are specifically
designed
to
control
off-site
migration
of
sediment.
The
primary
purpose
of basins
is to trap
sediment
and other
coarse
material.
Secondary benefits
can
include
controlling
runoff
and
preserving
the
capacity
of downstream
reservoirs, ditches,
diversions,
waterways,
and
streams.
Once
construction
is
completed,
sedimentation
basins
are
often
filled
to
match
the fmal
site
grade
or converted
to
function
as storm
water
basins.
Sierra Club,
Prairie Rivers Network
on NPDES Permit No. 1L0078727, Notice No. 4885c
page 5
It is imperative
that the type of basin
to be
constructed
is identified in the project-planning phase,
i.e. sedimentation
or
storm water. There are distinct design criteria
to
achieve
these different
functions. If
the intention is for a storm water basin
to serve as a temporary sedimentation basin
during construction,
then
the design criteria
to
maximize
sediment
settling must be incorporated in
the initial design.
Some storm water basins control higher design flows and allow
smaller design
flows
to pass through. To
be used as
sedimentation basins,
they would need to control the smaller
flows as well. This
unit describes sedimentation basin review criteria; other manuals
should
be
consulted
for the review and design
of storm water basins.
We request the basins
at the Deer Run site to be constructed according to the distinct
design criteria
required
to achieve the desired
function, either treatment to improve water quality through
settling or
control of stonnwater runoff. In
addition, all stonnwater runoff from this industrial site should
be
controlled. We
are concerned that Special Condition No. 10 indicates
that the
release
of some stormwater
from the site will not
be controlled.
Increase
frequency of sampling and number
of
pollutants
to be monitored in surface waters
Given the
quality of the biology present in the streams of the Shoal Creek
watershed and concerns for
the
quality
of surface waters that serve
as
drinking water supplies,
we request that the surface water
monitoring requirements
in the NDPES permit
be
expanded. Specifically, we recommend
that
Special Condition
No. 11 (b)(iii) be revised
to
require quarterly monitoring
of Central Park Creek
(described as ‘the unnamed tributary
to Middle Fork Shoal Creek receiving the overflow from
Shoal
Creek Watershed Structure
No. 5) and of the tributary on the mine site which feeds Lake Hillsboro
(called
Big Four Creek by Ryan Payne).
Constituents that should be monitored include those listed on
permit
p.
16 at 12(b) with the exception
of water elevation. We include Big Four Creek because it is tributary
to
Lake Hillsboro, backup water
supply for the City of Hilisboro, and because of the concerns about
fugitive
dust from the
surface coal mining activities contaminating the stream and potential
for contaminated
groundwater
under the surface facilities of the mine migrating to the stream.
Because of the quality biological resources found in the Shoal Creek watershed,
we also request
that
permit require the water in
Shoal Creek Watershed Structure No. 5 undergo yearly Whole Effluent
Toxicity (WET) testing.
Best
Management
Practices
to prevent coal spillage and control dust should
be
required
of Deer
Run
Mine
From an article in Power Engineering International May
J99915,
we see that there are
several ways in
which fugitive dust can be controlled. Considering that fugitive dust control is under the
jurisdiction of
the Illinois EPA (as well as the Illinois Department of Natural Resources),
we
request
that these
opportunities to control and reduce fugitive
dust at
the Deer Run mining site
be evaluated and considered
for
implementation in order
to reduce the amount of pollutants running off and settling into waters
of the
state.
We are
aware of several coal
mining facilities in the United States that employ measures and
mechanisms
for
controlling fugitive
dust
including the use of coal storage silos at Cordero Rojo Coal Mine,
WY
(Coal
storage
facilities
consists of 65,400 T-capacity in six silos), Gibson County Coal in Princeton,
IN
(5,000
Ton Raw Coal Silo and 10,000 Ton Clean Coal Silo) and
at
the Cline Mining Corporation-owned
New
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Sierra
Club, Prairie
Rivers
Network
on
NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0078727,
Notice
No.
4885c
page
6
Elk Coal
Company
in
Colorado.
The
North
Antelope
Rochelle
Mine,
WY uses
both plastic-enclosed
conveyors
and
coal
storage
silos.
Best
Management Practices
discussed
at the
public
hearing
need
to be
incorporated
into
the
NPDES
permit
A
number
of best
management
practices
(BMP)
and
ground
and surface
water
protection
measures
which
were
discussed
at
the public
hearing
are not
reflected
in
the conditions
of
the draft
NPDES
permit.
We
request
that
the
following
items
be
incorporated
into the
permit:
• We
learned
at the hearing
that
five
of the seven
proposed
sedimentation
ponds
are to
be
lined,
but
Special
Condition
No.
7 does
not contain
any
information
on the
required
lining.
According
to
Larry
Crislip,
“Sediment
ponds that
are receiving
runoff
from
refuse
area and
coal
stockpiles,
they
are
also
receiving
compacted
clay liners.”
(Transcript
at
p.
84) and
“As
I recall,
the
application
indicates
that any
ponds
receiving
refuse
or
coal runoff
will
be
lined,
so basically,
if
you
looked
at
our
permit
and take
a look
at
the outfalls
that
get
mercury
monitoring,
those likely
are
the
ones
that
will be
lined.”
(Transcript
at
p.
194).
We
request
that
Special
Condition
No. 7
be
revised
to
describe
the
clay
liners
planned
for
sedimentation
basins
001, 002,
003,
004
and 005
as
well
as the
specifications
for
construction
and
testing
of
the compacted
clay
liners.
In addition,
we
ask that
the Agency
re-evaluate
the
potential
need
for
liners
in the
two
other
planned
basins
(or
any additional
basins
installed
as result
of
our recommendation above
that
separate
basins
for
treatment
and
stormwater
runoff
management
be incorporated
into
the
site
design)
based
on concerned
raised
by
Joyce
Blumenshine
at
the
public
hearing
“that
some
surface
runoff
would
be
going into
some
of those
unlined
ponds
that
could
contain
either
coal
contaminants
or other
contaminants
like oil,
gasoline,
other
things
from the
mine
site” (Transcript
atp.
110)
o
The
Antidegradation
Assessment
states
““Management
practices
for
minimizing
sulfate
formation
and
chloride
leaching
are available
and will
be
encouraged.”
When
this
statement
was discussed
at
the
public
hearing,
Larry
Crislip
stated “We,
of
course,
do
encourage
those,
but
they are
incorporated
into
the
basic
operation
of the facility
the
way
they
handle
their
refuse,
their
grading
replacement,
compaction
of the material,
grading
such that
no
ponding
water
occurs
on
the refuse,
it runs
off
as
rapidly
as
possible,
various
handling
procedures
like
that.
They
are
not
specifically
maybe
itemized,
but it’s
just
a
best
management
practice
that
is implemented
by the
applicant
through
the
drainage
control
process.
As
a follow-up,
you
indicate
why
they are
not required,
and
we
are
currently
giving
some
consideration
to permit
conditions
regarding
that issue.”
(Transcript
at
p.
123)
We
request
that the
described
BMPs
to be
utilized
at the
mine
site
be incorporated
in
the
NPDES
permit
as special
conditions.
• As
was discussed
at
the public
hearing,
we
request
that
the constituents
to be
monitored
quarterly
per
IDNR/OMM
requirements
in monitoring
wells
Nos. MW26S,
MW27S,
MW28,
MW3O,
MW31,
MW32,
MW33,
MW34
be
listed
in the
permit
(Draft
Permit
p.
16
@
12(c)(ii)).
• As
was discussed
at
the
public
hearing,
we
request
that
the parameters
required
to be
sampled
from
the
sedimentation
ponds
in Special
Condition
No.
7
be spelled
out.
Sierra Club,
Prairie Rivers
Network
on NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0078727,
Notice No.
4885c
page
7
Thank
you
for this opportunity
to
share our
additional concerns
and
recommendations
with the
Agency.
Sincerely,
Cynthia
L. Skrukrud,
Ph.D.
Clean Water
Advocate
Phone:
815-675-2594
Email: cindy.skrukrud@sierraclub.org
Attachments
Biologically
Significant
Streams map
2
IDNR
on Class
I
Groundwater
Deer
Run Mine
Williamson
violations
28-5-0 1
“Williamson
violations
37-5-05
Williamson
violations
37-6-05
6
Williamson
violations
37-1-06
CEA
No. 08047
Treatment
Technologies
for
Coal Mine
Runoff
Acid
Mine
Drainage
- Innovative Treatment
Technologies
DOE
& NETL
- The PassiveTreatment
of Coal
Mine Drainage
10
Applications
of
Passive
Treatment
to Trace
Metals Recovery
“Rapid Manganese
Removal
from Mine Waters
Using
an
Aerated
Packed-Bed
Bioreactor
12
Treatment
Technology
Summary
for Critical
Pollutants
of
Concern
in Power
Plant Wastewaters
L
VSEP Filtration
of Acid
Mine
Drainage
“
VSEP Treatment
of RO
Reject
from Brackish
Well
Water
‘
Fugitive
dust control
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Exhibit
C:
Final
NPDES Permit
No. 1L0078727
ILLINOIS
ENvIRoNMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1021 NoRTH
GRAND
AvENta
EAS,
P.O. Box 19276,
SPRINGRELD,
ILLINOIS 62794-9276
- (217) 782-2829
JAMES
R.
THoMPSoN
CENTER,
100 Wsr
RANDOLPH, SuITE 11-300,
CHIcAGo,
IL
60601 — (312)
814-6026
DOUGLAS
P. Scoir,
DIREaOR
May
29, 2009
618/993-7200
Hillsboro Energy, LL.C’.
925
S.
Main
Street
Hilisboro,
IL 62049
Re:
Hillsboro Energy, L.L.C.
Deer Run
Mine
NPDES Permit
No. 1L0078727
Final Permit
(Modified Afier Public
Notice)
Gentlemen:
Attached is the
final NPDES
Permit
for your discharge.
The
Permit
as
issued
covers discharge
limitations,
monitoring,
and reporting
requirements. Your
failure to meet any portion
of the Permit could
result
in civil
and/or
criminal
penalties.
The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
is ready
and
willing
to
assist you
in
interpreting
any
of
the conditions
of the Permit
as
they
relate specifically to
your
discharge.
The
Permit
as issued
was
modified
afier public notice
to incorporate
the following:
I. Outfall
effluent
pages,
Pages 2 through
9, reflect modifications
to indicate
the correct
special
conditions relative
to mercury
and receiving
stream monitoring requirements
as
necessary due
to
redrafling
and renumbering
of such special
conditions.
2. The effluent
page for
Outfall
007,
Page 8, was
modified to
reduce
sulfate
and chloride
effluent limits
to
the applicable
water quality
standard
and
eliminate
allowed
mixing for discharges
from this outfall.
3. Construction
Authorization
No.
0006-08
was
modified
as follows:
a. Page 14
reflects
modifications
to
indicate that
construction and
utilization of Slurry Impoundment
No.
I is subject to
Condition No. 12 (see 2c
below).
b. Page
14
reflects
modifications
to clarify that
compacted clay liners
will
be constructed
in
Sedimentation
Basins 001,
002,
003, 004 and
005.
c. Page 14
reflects redrafted
groundwater monitoring
discussion which
includes requirement
for two
(2)
additional groundwater
monitoring wells.
d. Page 14
reflects
correction
to groundwater monitoring
condition
reference
due to renumbering.
e.
Page
16,
Condition
No. 11(c),
reflects
modification
to reference
the Agency log number
of
the
project
identifying
the Best
Management
Practices
(BMP’s)
to
be implemented.
f.
Page
16,
Condition
No.
12, has
been added to restrict
vertical
expansion of Slurry Impoundment
No,
1 beyond
elevations
currently
approved
without
prior
Agency approval.
Roceroeo
— 4302
North
Main Street, Rockford,
IL 61103
—
(815)
987-7760
.
Oss
PLSO*s
— 9511
W.
Harrison
St.,
Des
P)aines, 160016
-
(847) 294-4000
8-Giu
595
South
State,
Elgin, IL
60123
— (847)
608-3131
.
PEoRiA
— 5415 N
University
St., Peoria, IL 6161$
— (309)
693-5463
Bterau or
Lsuo- PEoi
— 7620 N. University
SI, Peoria, IL M614
—(309) 693-5462
Ci-’sslPAiGN
— 2125 South First Street, Champaign,
IL6182tJ
— (217)
278-3800
CowNsvnct
— 2009
MaIl
Street,
Collinsville, IL
62234— (618) 346-5120
Msior — 2300W. Main
St.,
Suite 116,
Marion,
IL
62939 - (618)
993-7200
PeisjEo
Os,
Rrcscuas
Pape
Hillsboro
Energy,
L.L.C.
Deer
Run
Mine
NPDES
Permit
No. 1L0078727
Final Permit
(Modified
After
Public
Notice)
g.
Page
16, Condition
No.
13, is
re-numbered
previous
Condition
No.
12, required
due
to
inclusion
of
new
Condition
No.
12 as discussed
in
Item
No.
2(f)
above.
h. Page
16, Condition
No. 13,
reflects
modification
to include
the
list
of parameters
required
for
routine
quarterly
monitoring
for
wells
not associated
with coal
refuse
disposal
operations.
i.
Page 17,
Condition
No.
1
3(f), reflects
modification
to add
second paragraph
providing
Permittee
option
of requesting
utilization
of
alternate
statistical
analysis
method
if
justified.
4.
Original
Special
Condition
No.
11 was
redrafted
and
separated
into special
Condition
Nos,
II and
12,
Pages
21
and 22,
to
clarify
applicability
of
allowed
mixing
and
receiving
stream
monitoring
requirements.
5. Page
22,
Special
Condition
No.
13,
is re-numbered
previous
Special
Condition
No. 12,
required
due
to
redrafting
of Special
Condition
No. 11
discussed
in Item
No.
3 above.
6.
Page 22,
Special
Condition
No.
14, is
re-numbered
previous
Special
Condition
No.
13,
required
due
to
redrafting
of
Special
Condition
No.
11 discussed
above.
Special
Condition
No.
14
was
also
modified
to clarify
testing
method
to
be
utilized
for
mercury
monitoring.
The
Permit
as issued
is effective
as of
the
date indicated
on the
first page
of
the Permit.
You
have
the
right
to appeal
any
conditions
of the
Pennit
to the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
within
a 35
day
period
following
the
issuance
date.
Should
you have
questions
concerning
the Permit,
please
contact
Larry
D. Crislip,
P.E..
at
618/993-7200.
Respectfully.
ENVØENTAL
R
9ION
AGENCY
n
d
L.
Morse/Manager
/
Mine
Pollution
Control
Program
Bureau
of
Water
REM:LDC:jkb/483
1
c/04-02-09
Enclosure:
Final
Permit
cc:
IDNR/Office
of
Mines
and
Minerals/Land
Reclamation/with
Enclosure
IDNR/Division
of
Water
Resources/with
Enclosure
Larry Crislip,
Marion
Region/Mine
Pollution
Control
Program/with
Enclosure
BOW/DWPC/CAS
BOW/DWPC/Records
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
NPDES
Permit
No.
lL0078727
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division
of Water
Pollution Control
1021 North
Grand
Avenue,
East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
New NPDES
Permit
Expiration
Date: April 30, 2014
Issue Date:
May
29,
2009
Effective Date:
May 29, 2009
Name
and Address of Permittee:
Facility Name and Address:
Hillsboro Energy,
L.L,C.
Hilisboro
Energy,
L.L.C.
925 South
Main Street
Deer
Run
Mine
Hillsboro,
IL 62049
1
mile
southeast of
Hillsboro,
Illinois
(Montgomery County)
Discharge Number
and Name:
Receiving
waters
001,
003,
006
Alkaline
Mine Drainage
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
002, 004,
005, 007
Alkaline
Mine Drainage
Unnamed
tributary
to Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
In compliance
with the provisions
of
the Illinois
Environmental Protection
Act,
Subtitle
C
and/or Subtitle
D Rules and Regulations of
the
Illinois
Pcllution Control
Board,
and
the
Clean
Water Act, the above-named
permittee is
hereby
authorized to discharge at the
above
location
to the above-named
receiving stream in
accordance
with
the
standard conditions
and
attachments herein.
Permitteg is
not authorized
to discharge
after
the above
expiration
date.
In order
to
receive
authorization
to discharge
beyond lhe
expiration
date, the permittee
shall submit the proper
application as required
by
the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(IEPA)
not
later
than 180
days prior to the
expiration
date.
7
L
onald E.
Morse.
Manager
Mine Pollution
Control Program
Bureau
of Water
REM:LDC:jkb/4885c/04-d2-09
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page
2
NPDES
Coal
Mine
Permit
NPDES
Permit
No.
lL0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and
Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mg/I
30
DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
From
the
effective
date
of
this
Permit
until
the
expiration
date,
the
effluent
of
the following
discharge
shall
be
monitored
and
limited
at all times
as
follows:
Outfall*:
001
(Alkaline
Mine
Drainage)
Flow (MGD)
Measure
When
Monitoring
Total
Suspended
Solids
35.0
70.0
Grab
Iron
(total)
3.0
6.0
Grab
pH”
The
pH
shall
not
be
less
than
6.0 nor
greater
than
9.0
f/month
Grab
Alkalinity/
Acidity
Total
acidity
shall
not
exceed
total
alkalinity
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
771
Grab
Chlorides
500
Grab
Manganese
1.0
3/month
Grab
Mercury
Monitor
only
(See
Special
Condition
No.
14)
There
shall
be
a minimum
of
nine
(9) samples
collected
during
the
quarter
when
the
pond
is discharging.
Of
these
9
samples.
a
minimum
of one
sample
each
month
shall
be
taken
during
base
flow
conditions.
A
Tho
flow”
situation
is
not considered
to be
a
sample
of the
discharge.
A grab
sample
of
each
discharge
caused
by
the following
precipitation
event(s)
shall
be
taken
for
the
following
parameters
during
at
least
3 separate
events
each
quarter.
For
quarters
in
which
there
are less
than
3 such
precipitation
events
resulting
in discharges,
a
grab
sample
of
the
discharge
shall be
required
whenever such precipitation
event(s)
occur(s),
The
remaining
three
(3) samples
may be
taken
from
either
base
flow or
during
precipitation
event.
Discharges
from
the above
referenced
outfalls
that are
subject
to the
requirements
of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Cede
406.110
must
meet
the
water
quality
standards
for
sulfates
and
chlorides
in the
receiving
stream.
In
accordance with
35
III.
Adm.
Code
406.110(a),
any
discharge
or
increase
in
the
volume
of
a
discharge
caused
by
precipitation
within
any
24-hour
period
less
than
or
equal
to
the
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
(or
snowmelt
or
equivalent
volume)
shall
comply
with the
following
limitations
instead
of those
in 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
406.106(b).
The
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
for
this area
is
considered
to
be 4.65
inches.
Pollutant
or
Pollutant
Progerty
Effluent
Limitations
Settleable
Solids
0.5
mI/l
daily
maximum
pH**
6.0 -
9.0
at all
times
In accordance with 35
III. Adm.
Code
406.110(d),
any
discharge
or
increase
in
the
volume
of
a
discharge
caused
by
precipitation
within
any
24-hour
period
greater
than the
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
(or
snowmelt
of
equivalent
volume)
shall
comply
with
the
following
limitations
instead
of those
in
35111.
Adm.
Code
406,106(b).
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Prooertv
Effluent
Limitations
pH**
6.0-9.0
at
all times
*
The
Permittee
is
subject
to the
limitations,
and
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
of Special
Condition
Nos.
7
and
12
for
the
discharge
from
Outfall
001
and
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
receiving
such
discharges.
**
No
discharge
is
allowed
from
any
above
referenced
permitted
outfall
during
“low
flow”
or “no
flown
conditions
in the
receiving
stream
unless
such
discharge
meets
the
water
quality
standards
of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
302.204
for
pH.
Page 3
NPDES Coal Mine
Permit
NPDES
Permit
No. 1L0078727
Effluent
Limitations and Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS mall
30
DAY
DAILY
30
DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
From
the effective date of this Permit
until the
expiration
date,
the effluent of
the following discharge shall
be
monitored and
limited
at all
times
as
follows:
Outfall”:
002 (Alkaline Mine
Drainage>
Flow (MGD)
Measure When
Monitoring
Total Suspended
Solids
35.0
70.0
Grab
Iron (total)
3.0
6.0
Grab
pH”
The
pH shall not be less than
6.0
nor greater
than
9.0
1/month
Grab
Alkalinity!
Acidity
Total acidity shall not
exceed
total
alkalinity
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
2100
Grab
Chlorides
1000
Grab
Manganese
3.8
3/month
Grab
Mercury
Monitor
only
(See
Special Condition
No.
14)
There
shall be a
minimum
of
nine
(9)
samples collected
during
the quarter
when the pond is discharging.
Of theseS
samples,
a
minimum
of
one
sample each
month shall be taken
during base
flow conditions.
A
“no
flow” situation
is
not
considered
to be
a
sample of the discharge.
A grab sample of each
discharge
caused by
the following
precipitation
event(s) shall be taken
for
the
following
parameters
during at least
3
separate events
each quarter. For
quarters in which there
are
less than
3 such precipitation
events
resulting in discharges, a grab
sample of the discharge shall
be
required
whenever
such
precipitation
event(s)
occur(s). The
remaining three
(3)
samples may
be taken from either base flow or
during precipitation
event.
Discharges
from
the
above
referenced outfalls that are subject
to the
requirements
of 35
III. Adm.
Code
406.110
must meet
the
water quality
standards for sulfates
and chlorides
n
the receiving
stream.
In
accordance with 35 III.
Adm.
Code
406.110(a),
any
discharge
or increase in the
volume
of
a
discharge
caused by precipitation
within
any 24-hour period less than
or equal to the 10-year, 24-hour
precipitation
event
(or snowmelt or equivalent
volume)
shall
comply with the
following limitations
instead
of
those in 35 III.
Adm.
Code
406.106(b).
The 10-year, 24-hour precipitation
event
for
this area
is considered to be
4.65
inches.
Pollutant
or Pollutant Proertv
Effluent
Limitations
Seffleable Solids
0.5
mIll daily maximum
pH””
6.0- 9.0
at all times
In accordance
with 35 III. Adm. Code
406.110(d), any discharge
or increase In the volume
of a
discharge
caused by precipitation
within any
24-hour
period greater than the
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation event (or snowmelt
of
equivalent
volume) shalt comply
with
the
following limitations
instead of those in
35
III. Adm.
Code
406.106(b).
Pollutant
or Polutant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
pH**
6.0 - 9.0 at all times
*
The Permittee
is subject
to the limitations,
and monitoring and
reporting requirements of
Special Condition Nos. 7 and
11 for
the
discharge
from Outfall 002 and unnamed
tributary to
Shoal
Creek
Watershed Structure No. 5
receiving such discharges.
**
No discharge
is allowed from any
above referenced
permitted outfall during
“low flow” or “no
flow” conditions in
the receiving
stream unless such
discharge
meets
the
water
quality
standards of 35 III. Adm.
Code 302.204 for pH.
Page 4
NPDES
Coal
Mine
Permit
NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and
Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mqdl
30 DAY
DAILY
30
DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
From the effective
date of
this
Permit until
the expiration
date,
the effluent of the following
discharge
shall be monitored and limited
at all times as
follows:
Outfall:
003
(Alkaline
Mine
Drainage)
Flow
(MGD)
Measure When
Monitoring
Total Suspended
Solids
35.0
70.0
Grab
Iron
(total>
3.0
6.0
Grab
pH**
The pH shall not
be less than
6.0
nor
greater
than 9.0
1/month
Grab
Alkalinity/
Acidity
Total acidity
shall not
exceed
total alkalinity
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
771
Grab
Chlorides
500
Grab
Manganese
1.0
3/month
Grab
Mercury
Monitor
only
(See Special
Condition No. 14)
There
shall
be a
minimum
of nine (9) samples
collected during the quarter
when the pond
is
discharging. Of these 9 samples,
a
minimum of one
sample each
month
shall
be
taken during
base flow conditions, A “no
flow” situation is
not considered to be a
sample of the
discharge. A grab sample
of each discharge caused
by
the following precipitation
event(s)
shall
be taken
for the
following
parameters
during at least 3 separate
events
each
quarter.
For
quarters in
which
there are less than 3 such precipitation
events
resulting in discharges,
a grab sample
of the
discharge shall be required
whenever such precipitation
event(s) occur(s). The
remaining
three (3) samples may be
taken
from either base
flow or during precipitation
event.
Discharges
from the above
referenced outfalls that are subject
to the
requirements
of 35 III. Adm. Code
406.110
must meet the
water quality
standards for sulfates
and chlorides in the receiving
stream.
In
accordance
with 35
III. Adm. Code 406.110(a). any
discharge
or increase
in the volume of a discharge
caused by precipitation
within
any
24-hour period
less than
or
equal
to
the 10-year, 24-hour
precipitation event (or
snowmelt or equivalent
volume)
shall
comply
with
the
following
limitations
instead of
those in
35
III. Adm.
Code 406.106(b). The
10-year, 24-hour precipitalion
event for
this area
is
considered to be
4.65 Inches.
Pollutant or
Pollutant Proertv
Effluent
Limitations
Settleable
Solids
0.5
mI/I
daily maximum
pH**
6.0-9.0 at
all times
in
accordance
with 35 III. Adm.
Code 406.110(d).
any
discharge
or
increase
in
the volume
of a discharge
caused by precipitation
within
any
24-hour period
greater
than
the
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation event
(or
snowmelt
of equivalent volume) shall comply
with
the following
limitations
instead of those in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code
406.106(b).
Pollutant or
Pollutant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
pH**
6.0- 9.0
at
all times
*
The
Permittee
is subject to the limitations,
and monitoring and
reporting requirements of
Special Condition
Nos.
7 and
12 for the
discharge
from
Outfall
003
and
Shoal
Creek Watershed
Structure
No.
5
receiving such discharges.
**
No discharge is
allowed
from
any
above referenced
permitted outfall during
“low
flow*
or “no flow” conditions
in the receiving
stream unless
such
discharge
meets
the
water quality standards
of 35 III. Adm. Code 302.204
for pH.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page
5
NPDES Coal Mine Permit
NPDES Permit No. 1L0078727
Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mg/i
30
DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
From
the effective date of this Permit
until the expiration date the effluent of the following discharge shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows:
Outfall*:
004
(Alkaline
Mine Drainage)
Flow (MGD)
Measure
When
Monitoring
Total Suspended
Solids
35.0
70.0
Grab
Iron (total)
3.0
6.0
Grab
pH**
The pH
shall
not be less than 6.0
nor
greater than 9.0
1/month
Grab
Alkalinity/
Acidity
Total
acidity shall
not exceed
total alkalinity
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
753
Grab
Chlorides
542
Grab
Manganese
1.1
3/month
Grab
Mercury
Monitor only
(See
Special Condition
No. 14)
There shall be a minimum of nine (9) samples
collected during
the
quarter when (he pond is
discharging. Of these
9 samples,
a
minimum of one sample each month shall be taken
during
base
flow conditions. A “no flow” situation is
not considered to
be a
sample of the discharge. A grab sample of each
discharge
caused by the following precipitation event(s)
shall be taken for the
following
parameters during at least
3
separate events each quarter. For quarters in which there are
less
than 3 such precipitation
events resulting in discharges, a grab sample of the discharge shall be required whenever such precipitation
event(s) occur(s). The
remaining three
(3)
samples may be
taken
from either
base
flow or during precipitation event.
Discharges from
the above referenced outfalls
that
are subject to the requirements of
35 Ill. Adm. Cede 406.110 must meet
the
water quality standards for
sulfates and
chlorides
in the receiving stream.
In accordance
with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
406.110(a),
any discharge
or
increase
in
the
volume of a discharge caused
by
precipitation
within any 24-hour period less than
or
equal to the 10-year,
24-hour precipitation
event (or snowmelt
or
equivalent volume)
shall
comply with the following limitations instead of those in 35 III. Adm. Code 406.106(b). The 10-year,
24-hour precipitation event for
this area is considered to be 4.65 inches.
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
Effluent Limitations
Settleable
Solids
0.5 mI/i daily
madmum
pH**
6.0-9.0 at all times
In accordance
with
35
lii.
Adm. Code 406.110(d), any discharge
or
increase
in the volume
of
a discharge caused by precipitation
within any 24-hour period greater than the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt of equivalent volume)
shall comply with
the following limitations instead of those in
35
lii. Adm. Code 406106(b).
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Property
Effluent Limitations
pH**
6.0
- 9.0 at all times
*
The Permittee is subject to the limitations,
and
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements of Special Condition
Nos. 7 and
11
for the
discharge from
Outfall
004
and unnamed tributary
to
Shoal
Creek Watershed Structure No. 5 receivIng such discharges.
**
No discharge is allowed from
any above referenced permitted outfall during “low flow”
or “no flow”
conditions
in the receiving
stream unless
such
discharge
meets
the
water
quality
standards of 35 III.
Adm. Code
302.204
for
pH.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page 6
NPDES
Coal Mine Permit
NPDES
Permit No.
1L0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and Monitoring
PARAMETER
From the
effective date of
at
all times
as
follows:
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mph
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
this
Permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the
following discharge shall be
monitored and
limited
OutfaIl:
005 (Alkaline
Mine Drainage>
Measure
When
Monitoring
35.0
70.0
Grab
3.0
6.0
Grab
The
pH
shall not be less than
6.0
nor
greater than 9.0
1/month
Grab
Total acidity shall not exceed total alkalinity
1/month
Grab
1018
Grab
734
Grab
1.3
3/month
Grab
Flow (MGD)
Total
Suspended
Solids
Iron (total)
pH**
Alkalinity!
Acidity
Sulfates
Chlorides
Manganese
Mercury
Monitor only
(See
Special Condition No. 14>
There
shall be a
minimum of nine
(9)
samples
collected during the quarter when the pond is discharging. Of these 9 samples,
a
minimum of
one
sample each month shall
be taken during base flow conditions. A
Tho flowfl situation is
not
considered
to be
a
sample
of the discharge. A grab sample of each discharge caused by the following precipitation event(s) shall be taken for
the
following parameters
during
at least 3
separate events
each quarter. For quarters in which
there
are less than 3 such precipitation
events resulting
in discharges,
a grab
sample of the discharge shall be required
whenever such
precipitation event(s) occur(s).
The
remaining three (3) samples may be
taken from either
base flow or during
precipitation event.
Discharges
from the above referenced outfalls that are subject to the requirements of 35 III. Adm. Code 406.110 must meet the
water quality
standards for sulfates
and
chlorides
in the receiving stream.
In accordance
with 35 III. Adm.
Code
406.110(a), any discharge or increase in the volume of
a
discharge caused
by precipitation
within any
24-hour
period less
than or equal to the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt or equivalent volume)
shall
comply
with
the following limitations instead of those in
35
III.
Adm. Code 406.106(b). The
10-year, 24-hour
precipitation event
for
this area is
considered
to
be
4.65
inches.
Pollutant
or Poutant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
Settleable Solids
0.5
mI/I daily maximum
pH**
6.0-9.0 at
all
times
In
accordance with 35
III. Adm.
Code 406.110(d). any discharge
or increase
in the
volume
of a
discharge
caused by precipitation
within
any 24-hour period greater than the
1
0-year, 24-hour precipitation event
(or
snowmelt
of
equivalent volume) shall
comply with
the
following
limitations instead of
those in 35 III. Adm. Code 406.106(b).
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
pH**
6.0 - 9.0 at all
times
*
The
Permittee
is
subject to
the
limitations,
and
monitoring and reporting requirements of Special Condition Nos. 7 and 11 for
the
discharge from
Outfall
005
and
unnamed
tributary to
Shoal Creek Watershed Structure No. 5 receiving
such
discharges.
No discharge
is allowed from
any above referenced
permitted outfall during “low flow” or “no flow” conditions
in
the receiving
stream unless
such discharge
meets the water quality
standards of 35 Ill. Adm. Code
302.204 for pH.
Page
7
NP DES Coal Mine
Permit
NPDES
Permit No. 1L0078727
Effluent Limitations and
Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mq/I
30 DAY
DAILY
30
DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
From the effective date of
this Permit until the expiration
date, the effluent
of the following discharge shall
be
monitored and limited
at all
times
as follows:
Outfall”:
006
(Alkaline
Mine
Drainage>
Flow (MGD)
Measure When
Monitoring
Total Suspended
Solids
35.0
70.0
Grab
Iron
(total)
3.0
Grab
pH”
The pH shall not be less than 6.0
nor
greater
than 9.0
1/month
Grab
Alkalinity!
Acidity
Total
acidity shall not exceed total
alkalinity
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
771
Grab
Chlorides
500
Grab
There shall be
a
minimum of nine (9) samples
collected during the quarter
when the pond is discharging.
Of
these
9 samples,
a
minimum of one sample each month
shall
be taken
during base
110w conditions. A “no
flow”
situation
is not
considered
to be a
sample of the discharge,
A
grab sample of
each discharge caused by the following precipitation event(s) shall be taken for
the
following parameters during at
least
3
separate events each
quarter. For quarters in which
there are less than 3 such precipitation
events resulting in discharges, a
grab
sample of the
discharge shall be required whenever such precipitation event(s)
occur(s). The
remaining
three
(3)
samples
may
be
taken from either base
flow
or
during precipitation event.
Discharges
from the above referenced outfalls that are subject to the
requirements of
35
III. Adm.
Code 406.110 must meet the
water quality standards for sulfates and chlorides
in
the receiving stream.
In
accordance
with 35 Ill. Adm. Code
406.110(a),
any discharge or
increase in the volume of a discharge caused by precipitation
within any 24-hour period less than or equal to the 10-year,
24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt
or
equivalent volume)
shall
comply with the following limitations instead of those in 35 III. Adm. Cede
406.106(b). The
10-year, 24-hour
precipitation
event for
this area is considered to be 4.65
inches.
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Property
Effluent Limitations
Settleable Solids
0.5
mI/I
daily
maximum
pH**
6.0 - 9.0 at all
times
In
accordance with
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
406.110(d),
any
discharge or increase in the volume of
a discharge caused by precipitation
within
any 24-hour
period
greater than the 10-year. 24-hour precipitation event (or snowmelt
of
equivalent
volume) shall comply with
the
following
limitations
instead
of
those in 35111. Adm. Code 406.106(b).
Pollutant
or Pdlutant
Property
Effluent Limitations
pH”’
6.0 - 9.0 at all times
The Permittee is subject to the limitations, and monitoring and reporting requirements of Special Condition Nos. 7 and
12 for the
discharge
from Outfall
006 and Shoal Creek Watershed
Structure
No. 5
receiving
such discharges.
No discharge is allowed from any above referenced permitted outfall during
“low
flow” or “no flow” conditions in the
receiving
stream unless such discharge meets the water quality standards of 35
III.
Adm. Cede
302.204
for pH.
Page
8
NPDES
Coal
Mine Permit
NPDES Permit
No. IL0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and
Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
m/1
30 DAY
DAILY
30
DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
From
the effective
date
of
this Permit
until the expiration
date, the effluent
of
the
following discharge
shall be monitored
and
limited
at all times
as
follows:
Outfall*:
007 (Alkaline
Mine Drainage>
Flow (MGD)
Measure When
Monitoring
Total
Suspended
Solids
35.0
70.0
Grab
Iron (total)
3.0
6.0
Grab
pH**
The
pH shall
not
be less
than
6.0
nor greater than
9.0
1/month
Grab
Alkalinity/
Acidity
Total
acidity
shall
not exceed
total alkalinity
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
967
Grab
Chlorides
500
Grab
There shall
be a
minimum of nine
(9) samples
collected
during the quarter
when the
pond is
discharging.
Of these
9
samples,
a
minimum
of one sample
each month
shall
be
taken during
base flow conditions.
A
“no flow” situation
is
not
considered
to
be
a
sample
of the discharge.
A
grab sample
of each discharge
caused
by
the following
precipitation
event(s)
shall be taken
for the
following
parameters
during
at least 3
separate
events
each
quarter.
For
quarters
in
which
there are less
than
3 such
precipitation
events
resulting in discharges,
a grab
sample
of
the discharge shall
be
required
whenever
such
precipitation
event(s) occur(s).
The
remaining
three
(3)
samples
may be
taken from
either base
flow or during
precipitation event.
Discharges
from the
above
referenced
outfalls that
are subject
to
the requirements
of 35
III. Adm. Code
406.110 must
meet
the
water
quality
standards
for
sulfates
and chlorides
n the
receiving
stream.
In accordance
with 35
III.
Adm.
Code
406.110(a),
any discharge
or increase
in
the
volume
of
a
discharge caused
by
precipitation
within
any 24-hour
period
less than
or equal
to the 10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
(or snowmelt
or equivalent
volume)
shall
comply
with
the following
limitations
instead
of those
in
35
III. Adm.
Code 406.106(b).
The 10.-year,
24-hour precipitation
event
for
this
area is
considered to be
4.65
inches.
Pollutant
or
Pollutant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
Settleable
Solids
0.5
mI/l
daily maximum
pH**
6.0- 9.0
at all times
In accordance
with 35 III.
Adm. Code 406.110(d),
any discharge or
increase
in the volume
of
a
discharge
caused
by precipitation
within
any
24-hour
period
greater
than
the
10-year,
24-hour precipitation
event
(or snowmelt
of equivalent volume)
shall
comply with
the following
limitations
instead of those
in 35 III.
Adm.
Code
406.106(b).
Pollutant
or
Pollutant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
pH””
6.0 - 9.0 at
all
times
*
The Permittee
is
subject
to
the limitations,
and
monitoring and
reporting
requirements
of Special Condition
Nos.
7
and 12 for
the
discharge
from Outfall 007
and
unnamed
tributary
to Shoal Creek
Watershed
Structure No.
5
receiving such
discharges.
No
discharge
is allowed
from
any above
referenced
permitted
outfall
during
“low
flow”
or “no
flow”
conditions
in the
receiving
stream unless
such discharge
meets
the
water
quality
standards
of
35
III. Adm.
Code 302.204
for
pH.
Page 9
NPDES
Coal
Mine Permit
NPDES
Permit
No. IL0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mg/i
30
DAY
DAILY
30
DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Upon
completicn of Special
Condition 8 and
approval from the
Agency,
the
effluent
of
the following
discharges
shall be
monitored
and
limited at all times as fdlows:
Outfalls*:
001,
003, 006
(Reclamation Area Drainage)
Flow (MGD)
Measure When
Monitoring
Settleable
Solids
0.5 mIll
1/month
Grab
pH**
The
pH shall not
be
less than 6.0
nor greater than 9.0
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
771
1/month
Grab
Chlorides
500
1/month
Grab
In addition to the
above base flow sampling requirements,
a grab
sample of each discharge caused
by the following precipitation
event(s)
shall be taken
(for
the following parameters) during
at least
3
separate events each quarter.
For
quarters
in which there are
less than
3
such precipitation
events resulting In
discharges, a grab
sample
of the discharge shall be required
whenever
such
precipitation
event(s)
occur(s).
Discharges from the
above referenced
outfalls that are subject to the
requirements
of 35 III. Adm. Code
406.110
must meet
the
water
quality standards
for sulfates and chlorides in the
receiving stream.
In accordance
with
35
III. Adm.
Code
406.110(d),
any
discharge
or increase in the volume of
a discharge caused by precipitation
within any 24-hour
period greater than the 10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event (or snowmelt of equivalent
volume) shall comply
with
the
following
limitations instead
of those in 35 III. Adm. Code
406.106(b). The
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event for this area is
considered
to be 4.65 inches.
Pollutant or Pollutant
Prooertv
Effluent Limitations
pH**
6.0 - 9.0 at all times
*
The Permittee
is
subject
to the limitations,
and
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
of Special Condition No.
12
for
the
discharge from
Outfalls
001,
003,
006
and
Shoal Creek
Watershed
Structure No.
5
receiving
such
discharges.
**
No
discharge
is
allowed
from any above referenced
permitted outfall during ‘low
flow” or no flow” conditions
in the receiving
stream unless such
discharge
meets
the
water
quality standards
of 35 III. Adm. Code 302.204 for
pH.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page 10
NPDES Coal
Mine Permit
NPDES
Permit
No. 1L0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS mg/I
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Upon
completion
of Special Condition 8 and
approval from the
Agency, the effluent of
the
following
discharges shall be
monitored
and limited
at aU
times
as
follows:
Outfalls*:
002, 007
(Reclamation
Area
Drainage)
Flow (MGD)
Measure When
Monitoring
Settleable
Solids
0.5 mWl
1/month
Grab
pH**
The
pH
shall not be less
than
6.0
nor
greater
than 9.0
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
967
1/month
Grab
Chlorides
500
1/month
Grab
In
addition to the
above
base flow sampling
requirements,
a
grab sample
of each
discharge
caused by the
following precipitation
event(s) shall be
taken
(for the following parameters)
during at least 3 separate
events each
quarter. For quarters in which
there are
less
than
3
such precipitation
events resulting in discharges,
a grab
sample of the
discharge
shall be required whenever
such
precipitation
event(s) occur(s).
Discharges
from the
above referenced outfalls
that are subject
to
the
requirements of 35 III.
Adm.
Code
406.110
must
meet the
water quality
standards for
sulfates
and chlorides in the receiving
stream.
In
accordance with 35
III. Adm.
Code
406.110(d),
any discharge or increase
In
the
volume
of
a
discharge caused
by precipitation
within any
24hour period
greater than the I 0year, 24..hour
precipitation event (or
snowmelt of equivalent
volume)
shall comply
with
the
following limitations
instead of
those
in
35 III. Adm. Code 406.106(b).
The 10-ar,
244iour precipitation
event for this area is
considered
to be
4.65 inches.
Pollutant
or Pot
utant
Property
Effluent
Limitations
pH**
6.0
- 9.0 at all times
*
The Permittee
is subject to the limitations,
and
monitoring
and
reporting requirements
of Spedal Condition
No. 11 for the
discharge
from
Outfall 002
and Special Condition No. 12
for
the
discharge from
Outfall
007 and
unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek
Watershed
Structure No. 5 receiving such
discharges.
**
No discharge
is allowed from
any above
referenced
permitted outfall during
*10w
flow” or “no flow”
conditions in the receiving
stream unless
such
discharge
meets the
water quality standards
of 35
III. Adm.
Code
302.204 for pH.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page 11
NPDES
Coal
Mine
Permit
NPDES
Permit
No.
IL0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and
Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mgIl
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Upon
completion
of Special
Condition
8
and
approval
from
the Agency,
the
effluent
of
the
following
discharges
shall be
monitored
and
limited
at
all times
as
follows:
OutfaIl:
004
(Reclamation
Area
Drainage)
Flow
(MGD)
Measure
When
Monitoring
Settleable
Solids
0.5
mI/I
1/month
Grab
pH**
The pH
shall not
be
less than
6.0 nor
greater
than
9.0
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
693
1/month
Grab
Chlorides
500
1/month
Grab
In addition
to the
above
base
flow
sampling
reqt.Jrements,
a grab
sample
of each
discharge
caused
by the
following
precipitation
event(s)
shall
be
taken
(for the
following
parameters)
during
at least
3
separate
events
each
quarter.
For
quarters
in which
there
are
less
than 3
such
precipitation
events
resulting
in
discharges,
a
grab
sample
of
the
discharge
shall
be
required
whenever
such
precipitation
event(s)
occur(s).
Discharges
from
the
above referenced
outfalls
that
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of 35 III.
Adm.
Code
406.110
must
meet
the
water
quality
standards
for
sulfates
and
chlorides
in the
receiving
stream.
In accordance
with 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
406.110(d),
any
discharge
or
increase
in
the volume
of
a discharge
caused
by
precipitation
within
any
24-hour
period
greater
than
the 10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event (or
snowmelt
of
equivalent
volume)
shall
comply
with
the
following
limitations
instead
of those
in
35
III.
Adm.
Code
406.106(b).
The 10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
for
this
area
is
considered
to
be
4.65 inches.
Pollutant
or PoIutant
Proertv
Effluent
Limitations
pH
6.0
- 9.0
at all times
*
The Permittee
is subject
to the
limitations,
and
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
of Special
Condition
No. 11
for the
discharge
from
Outfall
004 and
unnamed
tributary
to Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No.
5
receiving
such
discharges.
**
No discharge
is allowed
from
any above
referenced
permitted
outfall
during
‘lcw
flow*
or no
flow
conditions
in
the receiving
stream
unless
such
discharge
meets
the
water
quality
standards
of
35
III.
Adm.
Code
302.204
for
pH.
Page
12
NPDES Coal
Mine
Permit
NPOES
Permit
No.
1L0078727
Effluent
Limitations
and
Monitoring
LOAD
LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mcill
30
DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Upon
compIetioi
of
Special Condition
8
and approval
from
the
Agency,
the
effluent
of
the following
discharges
shall
be monitored
and
limited at
all times as
fdlows:
Outfall*:
005
(Reclamation
Area Drainage)
Flow
(MGD)
Measure
When
Monitoring
Settleable
Solids
0.5
mI/l
1/month
Grab
pH**
The pH
shall
not be
less
than
6.0 nor
greater
than
9.0
1/month
Grab
Sulfates
693
1/month
Grab
Chlorides
500
1/month
Grab
In
addition
to the above
base flow
sampling
requirements,
a grab
sample
of each
discharge
caused
by
the
following
precipitation
event(s)
shall be
taken (for
the
following
parameters)
during at
least
3
separate
events each
quarter.
For
quarters
in which
there
are
less
than 3 such
precipitation
events
resulting
in discharges,
a
grab
sample
of the discharge
shall
be required
whenever
such
precipitation
event(s)
occur(s).
Discharges
from
the above
referenced
outfalls
that
are
subject
to the
requirements
of
35
III. Adm.
Code 406.110
must
meet
the
water quality
standards
for sulfates
and
chlorides
in
the
receiving
stream.
In
accordance
with 35
III. Adm.
Code 406.110(d),
any
discharge
or increase
in
the
volume
of a discharge
caused
by precipitation
within
any 24-hour
period
greater
than
the 10.year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
(or
snowmelt
of equivalent
volume)
shall
comply
with
the
following
limitations
instead
of those
in 35
III. Adm. Code
406.106(b).
The
10-year,
24-hour
precipitation
event
for this area
is
considered
to
be 4.65
inches.
Pollutant
or Pollutant
Prooerty
Effluent
Limitations
pH**
6.0
-9.0
at all
times
*
The
Permitlee
is
subject
to the
limitations,
and
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
of Special
Condition
No.
11 for
the
discharge
from
Outfall
005 and
unnamed
tributary
o Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
receiving
such discharges.
**
No
discharge
is allowed
from any
above referenced
permitted
outfall
during
“low
flow
or
“no
flow conditions
in
the
receiving
stream
unless
such
discharge
meets
the water
quality
standards
of
35
II.
Adm. Code
302.204
for
pH.
Page 13
NPDES Coal
Mine Permit
NPDES Permit
No.
1LQ078727
Effluent
Limitations
and Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
LIMITS
mg/i
30
DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Upon
completion
of
Special
Condition
9
and approval
from the
Agency,
the effluent
of
the following discharges
shall be monitored
and
limited
at all times as fdlows:
Outfalls:
001
002, 003,
004, 005,
006,
007 (Stormwater Discharge)
Settleable
Solids
0.5
mI/l
1/Year
Grab
pH*
The pH shall
not
be less than 6.0
nor
greater
than 9.0
1/Year
Grab
Storm water discharge
monitoring
is
subject
to the following
reporting
requirements:
Analysis of samples
must be submitted with
second
quarter
Discharge Monitoring
Reports.
If discharges
can
be shown
to be
similar,
a
plan
may
be
submitted
by
Novembei I of each
year preceding sampling to propose
grouping of similar
discharges and/or
updated
previously
submitted
groupings,
If
updating of a
previously
submitted plan
is
not
necessary, a written
notification to the
Agency,
indicating
such is
required.
Upon approval
from the Agency, one
representative
sample
for
each group may
be submitted.
Annual storm water monitoring
is required for all
discharges
until
Final SMCRA Bond is released
and approval
to
cease such
monitoring
is obtained from
the
Agency.
No
discharge is
allowed from any above
referenced permitted
outfall during “low flow”
or “no flow” conditions
in the receiving
stream unless such discharge
meets the
water quality standards
of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.204
for pH.
Page
14
NPDES
Permit
No.
lL0078727
Construction
Authorization
No.
0006-08
CA.
Date:
May
20, 2008
Authorization
is
herby
granted
to the
above
designee
to
construct
and
operate
the
mine
and
mine
refuse
area
described
as follows:
An underground mine containing
a
total
of 803.5
acres,
as
described
and depicted
in
EPA
Log
No. 0006-08
(0MM
Permit
No,
399)
located
in
Sections
7,
8.
17 and
18,
Township
8 North,
Range
3
West,
Montgomery
County,
and
Section
12 and
13, Township
8
North,
Range
4 West,
3°
P.M., Montgomery
County,
Illinois.
The
surface
facilities
at
this underground
mine
contains
the
incline
slope to
reach
the
coal
seam,
two vertical
shafts,
coal
preparation
plant,
reclaim
tunnels,
rail
loading
loop,
rail loadout,
parking
lots,
access
roads,
drainage
control
structures,
office
buildings,
change
rooms,
assembly
rooms,
warehousing
facilities,
administration
building,
storage
facilities,
elevator
facilities,
ventilation
facilities,
refuse
disposal
areas,
overland
conveyors,
screens,
crusher,
power
distribution
facilities,
power lines,
water
lines,
parking
lots, topsoil
and
subsoil
stockpile
areas.
Surface
drainage
control
is provided
by
seven
(7)
sedimentation
ponds
with
discharges
designated
as
Ouffalls
001,
002,
003,
004,
005,
006
and 007,
all
classified
as alkaline
mine
drainage.
Location
and
receiving
stream
of
the Outfalls
at
this
facility
is
as
follows:
Outfall
Latitude
Lone
Number
DEG
MIN
SEC
DEG
MIN
SEC
Receiving
Waters
001
39°
08’
51”
89°
28’
26”
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No.
5 to unnamed
tributary
to
Middle
Fork
Shoal
Creek
002
39°
08’
45”
89°
28’
07”
Unnamed
tributary
to
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No.
5
tributary
to
Middle
Fork
Shoal
Creek
003
39°
08’
43”
89°
28’
23”
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
to
unnamed
tributary
to
Middle
Fork
Shoal
Creek
004
39°
08’
25”
89°
28’
18”
Unnamed
tributary
to
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No.
5
tributary
to Middle
Fork
Shoal Creek
005
39°
08’
16”
89°
27’
21”
Unnamed
tributary
to
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No.
5
tributary
to
Middle
Fork
Shoal
Creek
006
39°
08’
32’
89°
28’
25”
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5 to
unnamed
tributary
to
Middle
Fork
Shoal
Creek
007
39°
08’
46”
89°
28’
08”
Unnamed
tributary
to
Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No.
5
tributary
to Middle
Fork
Shoal Creek
Coarse
and
fine coal
refuse
disposal
is
approved
in
the eastern
portion
of
the permit
area
as
depicted
in EPA
Log
No.
0006-08-.
0.
Foundation
preparation
for
this
disposal
area
shall consist
of
construction
of a
compacted
four (4)
foot
clay
liner.
Construction,
development
and
utilization
of
Slurry
Impoundment
No.
1 is
subject
to Condition
12.
Such
clay liner
shall
be
constructed
in
six
(6)
to
eight
(8)
inch
soil
lifts
with
compacted
effort
on
each lift
sufficient
to
achieve
a
permeability
of
1X10
7
cm/sec
or
less.
Specifications
for
construction
and
testing
of
the
compacted
clay
liner is
contained
in
IEPA
Log
No.
0006-08-C.
In
addition
to the
refuse
disposal
areas,
compacted
clay
liners
as
described
above
will also
be
constructed
in Sedimentation
Basins
001 002,
003,
004
and 005.
which
receive
pumpage
andlor
runoff
from
coal
stockpiles
or
coal refuse
disposal
activities.
Areas
designated
for
“future”
refuse
disposal
in IEPA
Log
No.
0006-08-0
are
not currently
approved.
Coal
refuse
may
not
be
disposed
in
these
designated
areas until
such
time
that plans
and
specifications
addressing
foundation
preparation
and
groundwater
monitoring
are
submitted
to and
approved
by this
Agency.
Groundwater
monitoring
for
this facility
will
consist
of
the following:
a.
Twelve
(12) existing
and/or
proposed
monitoring
wells identified
as
Well
Nos. MW22,
MW23,
MW24S,
MW25S,
MW26S,
MW27S,
MW28,
MW3O,
MW31,
MW32,
MW33
and MW34
as
depicted
in IEPA
Log
No.
0006-08.
b.
Two
(2)
additional
monitoring
wells
with
one
well
to
be located
downgradient
of
both
Sedimentation Basin
001
and 003.
Such
additional
wells
shall
be
located
between
the
basins
and
permit
boundary
in the
vicinity
of the
outfall
and/or
discharge
channel
with
the
screened
interval
located
in the
first water-bearing zone
encountered
in
excess
of 10
feet
below
ground
surface.
Within
30 days
following
installation
of these
wells,
a location
map,
well identification
and well
boring
logs
shall
be
submitted
to the
Agency.
Monitoring
Well
Nos.
MW22,
MW23,
MW24S
and
MW25S
will
monitor
effects
of the
initial refuse
disposal
area.
Groundwater
monitoring
requirements
are outlined
in
Condition
No. 13.
Page 15
NPDES
Permit
No.
lL0078727
Construction
Authorization
No. 000608
CA.
Date:
May 20, 2008
The
abandonment
plan
shall be executed and completed
In accordance
with 35 III. Adm. Code
405.109.
All water remaining upon
abandonment must meet
the requirements
of 35
III. Adm. Code
406.202.
For
the constituents not covered
by
Parts
302
or 303,
all water
remaining upon
abandonment must
meet the requirements of 35 Ill.
Adm, Code
406.106.
This
Authorization is
issued
subject
to
the
following
Condition(s).
If
such
Condition(s) require() additional
or revised facilities,
satisfactory
engineering plan documents
must be
submitted
to this
Agency for
review
and approval to
secure issuance
of
a
Supplemental Authorization
to Construct.
1.
If any
statement
or representation
is found to be
incorrect, this
permit may be revoked
and
the
permittee thereupon
waives
all
rights
thereunder.
2.
The issuance
of this permit (a)
shall not be
considered
as in any
manner
affecting
the
title of the premises
upon
which
the
mine
or mine
refuse
area is to be located; (b)
does
not
release the permittee from
any
liability
for damage to person
or property
caused
by
or resulting
from the
installation,
maintenance or
operation of the
proposed facilities;
(c) does not take
into
consideration
the
structural
stability of any
units or parts of the
project;
and
(d)
does not release
the
permittee from compliance
with
other
applicable statutes of the
State
of Illinois, or
with
applicable local
laws,
regulations
or
ordinances.
3.
Final plans,
specifications, application
and
supporting
documents as submitted
by the
person
indicated
on
Page 1 as approved
shall constitute
part
of this
permit and are identified by
Log
Nos.
0006-08
and
0006-08-C
in the records af the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency.
4.
There
shall
be
no deviations from
the approved
plans
and
specifications
unless revised plans, specifications
and application
shall
first have been
submitted to the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
arid
a supplemental
permit
issued.
5.
The
permit
holder
shall notify
the Environmental
Protection Agency
(217/782-3637>
immediately of an emergency
at the mine
or mine refuse
area which causes or
threatens
to
cause a
sudden discharge
of
contaminants into the waters of
Illinois and shall
immediately
undertake necessary corrective
measures
as
required by 35 III. Adm. Code
405.111. (217/782-3637
for
calls
between
the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 8:30
a.m.
and
on
weekends.)
6.
The
termination
of an
NPDES discharge
monitoring point or cessation
of
monitoring
of an NPDES
discharge is
not
authorized
by
this
Agency
until the permittee
submits
adequate
justification
to
show what alternate treatment
is
provided or that untreated
drainage
will
meet applicable
effluent and water quality
standards.
7.
Initial
construction activities in
areas
to be
disturbed
shall be for collection
and treatment facilities only.
Prior to the start of
other activities, surface
drainage
controls
shall be
constructed
and operated to avoid
violations
of
the Act
or
Subtitle
D.
At
such
time as
runoff water
is collected in the sedimentation
pond, a sample
shall be collected and analyzed,
with
the
results
sent to
this
Agency. Should additional
treatment be
necessary
to meet the
standards
of 35
III. Adm. Code
406.106,
a Supplemental
Permit must
be obtained.
Discharge
from this pond is
not allowed unless applicable
effluent standards of Subtitle
0 are met at
the basin discharge(s).
8.
This Agency
must
be
informed
in
writing
and
an
application
submitted
if
drainage, which
was
previously
classified as alkaline
(pH
greater
than
6.0),
becomes acid (pH less
than
6.0) or
ferruginous
(base flow with an iron
concentration
greater than
10
mg/I).
The type
of drainage reporting to
the basin should be
reclassified in a
manner
consistent
with the applicable
rule
of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 406
as amended in R84-29
at 11111. Reg.
12899. The application should
discuss the treatment method
and
demonstrate
how
the discharge
will
meet
the applicable standards.
9.
A permittee
has the
obligation
to add a settling aid if necessary
to
meet the
suspended solids or settleable
solids effluent
standards.
The selection
of
a
settling
aid and the application
practice
shall be in accordance
with
a.
orb, below.
a. Alum
(Al
2
(S0
4
)
3
),
hydrated lime (Ca(OH)
2
),
soda ash (Na
2
CO
3
),
alkaline
pit
pumpage, acetylene
production
by-product
(tested for impurities),
and ground
limestone
are acceptable settling aids
and are hereby permitted
for alkaline
mine
drainage
sedimentation
ponds.
b.
Any
other
settling
aids such as commercial fiocculents
and
coagulants
are permitted
only on
prior
approval
from
the
Ariency.
To
obtain approval
a
permittee must demonstrate in
writing to the Agency that such
use will not cause a violation
of
the toxic
substances standard of 35 lii.
Adm. Code 302.210 or
of the appropriate effluent
and water quality standards
of
35
Ill. Adm. Code parts 302, 304,
and
406.
Page
16
NPDES
Permit No.
1L0078727
Construction Authorization No. 0006-08
C.A. Date:
May 20,
2008
10. A
general plan for the nature and disposition of all liquids used to drill
boreholes shall be
filed with this Agency prior to any such
operation.
This plan
should
be
filed at such time that the operator becomes
aware of the need
to drill unless the plan
of
operation was contained
in a
previously approved application. After
settling,
recirculation water which meets
the
requirements
of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 406.106 and 406.202,
may
be discharged. The use
of additives in the
recirculation water which
require
treatment other
than settling to comply with
the
Act will require
a
revised
permit.
11. Any of
the
following shall
be a
violation
of the
provisions required
under 35 III. Adm. Code
406.202:
a.
It is demonstrated that an adverse effect on the environment in and
around the receiving stream has occurred or is likely
to
occur.
b.
It is
demonstrated that the discharge has adversely affected or is
likely
to adversely affect
any public water
supply.
c.
The Agency determines the permittee is not utilizing Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) identified in IEPA Log
No.
0006-08-F
which
are applicable in order to minimize the
discharge of total dissolved
solids, chloride, sulfate, iron
and
manganese.
12.
Slurry Impoundment No. 1 shall be
constructed
as
proposed in IEPA Log No.
0006-08-D. The surface pool elevation
of the
slurry impoundment shall not exceed
approximately 626.5 ft. msl as proposed.
Any deviation and/or modification
of the
proposed
design of Slurry
Impoundment
No. 1
shall
consider
potential impacts to the compacted
clay liner
and shall
be
approved by the
Agency prior to such deviation and/or modification being
implemented.
13. Groundwater
monitoring requirements
for
the
0MM Permit No.
399
area
as
approved under EPA Log No. 0006-08 are
as
follows:
a.
Groundwater monitoring shall
consist
of existing and/or proposed Well
Nos, MW22, MW23, MW24S,
MW25S,
MW26S,
MW27S.
MW28,
MW30,
MW31, MW32, MW33 and MW34, and
two
(2)
additional wells
located downgradient
of
both
Sedimentation
Basin 001 and 003.
b.
Ambient background monitoring shall be performed for all
wells identified in 13(a)
above. Such ambient
monitoring shall
consist of six
(6)
samples collected during the first year (approximately
bi-monthly) following well installation
but no later
than
during the first year of facility operation to determine
ambient background concentrations. Background monitoring
shall include the
following
list of constituents:
Aluminum
Fluoride
Sulfate
Antimony
Iron (dissolved)
Thallium
Arsenic
Iron (total)
Total Dissolved Solids
Barium
Lead
Vanadium
Beryllium
Manganese
(dissolved)
Zinc
Boron
Manganese (total)
pH
Cadmium
Mercury
Acidity
Chloride
Molybdenum
Alkalinity
Chromium
Nickel
Hardness
Cobalt
Phenols
Water
Elevation
Copper
Selenium
Cyanide
Silver
c.
Following
the ambient monitoring
as
required under
13(b)
above, routine monitoring shall continue on a quarteriy
basis
as
follows:
i.
Monitoring Well Nos.
MW22, MW23, MW24S and MW25S,
associated with refuse disposal shall continue
to
be
monitored quarterly for
the contaminants identified in 13(b) above.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page
17
NPDES
Permit
No. 1L0078727
Construction
Authorization No.
0006-08
CA. Date: May 20, 2008
ii.
Monitoring Well Nos.
MW2SS, MW27S, MW28, MW3O,
MW3I,
MW32, MW33,
MW34
and the
two (2) additional
wells downgradient of
Basins 001
and 003 shall be monitored quarterly as
required
by
IDNR/OMM for the following
list of constituents:
Iron (dissolved)
Hardness
Iron (total)
Acidity
Manganese (dissolved)
Alkalinity
Manganese
(total)
pH
Sulfate
Water Elevation
Total Dissolved Solids
d.
Groundwater
monitoring reports shall be submitted in accordance with the following schedule.
January, February, March
May 1
April,
May,
June
August 1
July, August, September
November 1
October, November,
December
February
1
e.
Two copies of all groundwater
monitoring reports
shall
be
submitted
to the following address:
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Mine Pollution Control
Program, Permits
2309
West Main
Street,
Suite 116
Marion, IL 62959
Should electronic
filing
of
groundwater monitoring data be elected,
electronic
nolification shall be provided to the Agency
upon
submittal
of groundwater data
to IDNRJOMM.
f.
A statistically valid
representation of background
water quality
required under Condition 13(b) above
shall
be submitted
utilizing the following method.
This method shall be used to determine the upper 95 percent confidence
limit
for each
parameter listed
above.
Should
the Permittee that an
alternate slatistical
method
would
be more appropriate based on
the data being
evaluated,
the
Permittee may request utilization of such alternate
methodology.
Upon approval from the
Agency, the
alternate
methodology
may be utilized to determine a statically valid representation
of
background water quality.
This
method
should be used to
predict
the confidence
limit when singe
groundwater samples are taken from each
monitoring (test) well.
i.
Determine the arithmetic mean
(Xb
>
of each indicator parameter for the background sampling period. If more than
one background
(upgradient)
well is
used, an equal number of samples
must be taken
from each well.
—
x+x+...x
1
2
n
Ab —
n
Where:
Xb
= Average background
value
for a given chemical parameter
— Background values for each upgradient sample
n
= Number of background
samples
taken
Page 18
NPDES
Permft
No. lL0078727
Construction
Authorization
No.
0006-08
C.A. Date: May
20, 2008
ii.
Calculate the background
variance (S) and standard deviation (Sb)
for
each
parameter
using the values
(Xc) from
each background sample of
the upgradient well(s) as follows:
(X
—X)2
÷(X
X)
2
++(X —x
)2
—
1
2
nb
n—I
Sb
iii.
Calculate the
upper confidence limit using the following formula:
CL
= Xb
±tJXb +tl+I/n(Sb)
Where:
CL = upper confidence
limit
prediction
(upper and lower limits
should be calculated for pH)
one-tailed
t
value
at the required
significance
level and at n-I degrees
of freedom from Table I
(a
two-tailed
t
value
should be used
for pH)
iv.
If the values
of
any
routine parameter for any monitoring well exceeds
the upper confidence
limit
for that
parameter,
the
permittee
shall conclude that
a
statistically significant
change has
occurred
at that well.
v.
When
some
of the
background
(upgradient)
values
are
less
than
the Method Detection Limit (MDL),
a value
of
one-half (1/2) the
MDL shall be substituted
for each background value that is reported as less than the
MDL.
All
other computations shall be
calculated as given above.
If all the background (upgradient)
values are less than the MDL for
a
given parameter, the Practical
Quantitation Limit
(PQL),
as
given
in 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 724 Appendix
I
shall
be used to
evaluate
data
from monitoring wells. If the
analytical results
from any monitoring well exceeds two
(2)
times
the
PQL
for
any single parameter, or if they exceed
the PQLs for two
or
more
parameters, the permittee shall
conclude that a statistically significant change
has
occurred.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page
19
NPDES Permit No.
1L0078727
Construction Authorization
No.
0006-08
CA. Date: May 20,
2008
Table I
Standard T-Tables
Level of Significance
t-values
t-values
Degrees
of
freedom
(one-tail)
(twotail)*
99%
95%
99%
95%
4
3.747
2,132
4.604
2.776
5
3.365
2.015
4.032
2.571
6
3.143
1.943
3.707
2.447
7
2.998
1.895
3.499
2.365
8
2.896
1.860
3.355
2.306
9
2.821
1.833
3.250
2.262
10
2.764
1.812
3.169
2.228
11
2.718
1.796
3.106
2.201
12
2.681
1.782
3.055
2.179
13
2.650
1.771
3.012
2.160
14
2.624
1.761
2.977
2.145
15
2.602
1.753
2.947
2.131
16
2.583
1.746
2.921
2.120
17
2.567
1.740
2.898
2.110
18
2.552
1.734
2.878
2.101
19
2.539
1.729
2.861
2.093
20
2.528
1.725
2.845
2.086
21
2.518
1.721
2.831
2.080
22
2.508
1.717
2.819
2.074
23
2.500
1.714
2.807
2.069
24
2.492
1.711
2.797
2.064
25
2.485
1.708
2.787
2.060
30
2.457
1.697
2.750
2.042
40
2.423
1.684
2.704
2.021
Adopted from
Table Ill of
Statistical Tables for
Biological Agricultural
and Medical Research’ (1947.
R.A. Fisher and F. Yates).
For
pH
only when required.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Page
20
NPDES
Permit
No.
lL0078727
Special
Conditions
Special
Condition
No. 1:
No
effluent from
any mine
related
facility
area under
this permit
shall,
alone
or in combination
with
other
sources,
cause
a
violation of
any applicable
water
quality
standard
as
set out in
the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Rules and
Regulations,
Subtitle
C:
Water
Pollution,
Special
Condition
No. 2: Samples
taken
in compliance
with the
effluent
monitoring
requirements
shall be
taken at
a point
representative
of the
discharge,
but
prior
to
entry
into the
receiving
stream.
Special
Condition
No.
3: The
permittee
shall record
monitoring
results
on
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
Forms
using one
such
form
for
each discharge
each
month.
The
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
forms shall
be submitted
to the
Agency
in
accordance
with
the
schedule
outlined
in Special
Condition
No.
4
below.
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
shall
be mailed
to the
IEPA
at the
following
address:
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
Division
of
Water
Pollution Control
1021
North
Grand
Ave.,
East
P.O.
Box
19276
Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9276
Attn: Compliance
Assurance
Section
Special
Condition
No.
4:
The
completed
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
form
shall be retained
by
the permittee
for
a
period of
three
months
and shall
be
mailed
and received
by the
IEPA in
accordance
with the
following
schedule,
unless
otherwise
specified
by the
permitting
authority.
Peric.d
Received
by
IEPA
January,
February,
March
April
15
April,
May, June
July 15
July,
August,
September
Oc:ober
15
October,
November.
December
January
15
Special
Condition
No.
5:
If an applicable
effluent
standard
or limitation
is
promulgated
under
Sections
301(b)(2)(C)
and
(D),
334(b)(2),
and
307(a)(2)
of
the
Clean
Water Act
and
that effluent
standard
or
limitation
is
more
stringent
than
any
effluent
limitation
in the permit
or controls
a
pollutant
not
limited
in the
NPDES
Permit,
the Agency
shall
revise
or
modify
the permit
in
accordance
with
the
more
stringent
standard or
prohibition
and shall
so
notify
the permittee.
Special
Condition
No.
6: The
permittee
shall notify
the
Agency in
writing
by
certified
mail within
thirty
days
of
abandonment,
cessation,
or
suspension
of active
mining
for thirty
days
or more
unless
caused
by a
labor
dispute.
During
cessation
or suspension
of
active
mining,
whether
caused
by
a
labor
dispute
or not,
the permittee
shall
provide
whatever
interim
impoundment,
drainage
diversion,
and
wastewater
treatment
is necessary
to
avoid violations
of the
Act or
Subtitle
0.
Special
Condition
No. 7:
Plans must
be
submitted
to and
approved
by this
Agency prior
to
construction
of
a sedimentation
pond.
At
such
time
as runoff
water
is
collected
in
the
sedimentation
pond,
a
sample shall
be collected
and analyzed
for
the parameters
designated
as 1
M-1 5M
under Part
5-C
of Form
2C
and the
effluent
parameters
designated
herein with
the
results
sent to
this
Agency.
Should
additional
treatment
be
necessary
to
meet these
standards,
a Supplemental
Permit
must also
be
obtained.
Discharge
from
a pond
is not allowed
unless
applicable
effluent
and water
quality standards
are
met.
Special
Condition
No. 8:
The
special
reclamation
area
effluent
standards
of 35 Ill.
Mm. Code
406.109
apply only
on approval
from the
Agency.
To obtain
approval,
a
request
form
and supporting
documentation
shall
be
submitted
45 days
prior
to
the month
that
the
permittee
wishes
the
discharge
be
classified
as
a
redamation
area
discharge.
The Agency
will
notify the
permittee
upon
approval
of
the
change.
Special
Condition
No. 9:
The special
stormwater
effluent
standards
apply
only
on
approval
from
the
Agency.
To
obtain
approval,
a
request
with
supporting
documentation
shall
be
submitted
45
days
prior to
the month
that
the
permittee
proposes the
discharge
to
be
classified
as a
stormwater
discharge.
The
documentation
supporting
the
request shall
indude
analysis
results
indicating
the
discharge
will
consistently
comply with
reclamation
area
discharge
effluent standards.
The Agency
will notify
the permittee
upon
approval
of the
change.
Page
21
NPDES
Permit
No.
1L0078727
Special
Conditions
Special
Condition
No. 10:
Annual
stcirmwater
monitoring
is required
for all discharges
not reporting
to
a
sediment
basin
until
Final
SMCRA
Bond
is released
and
approval
to
cease
such monitoring
is
obtained
from the
Agency.
a.
Each
discharge
must
be
monitored
for pH and
settleable
solids
annually.
b.
Analysis
of
samples
must be
submitted
with
second
quarter
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports.
A
map with
discharge
locations
must be
included
in this
submittal.
c.
If discharges
can
be
shown to
be
similar,
a
plan
may
be
submitted
by
November
1 of
each
year
preceding
sampling
to
propc.se
grouping
of
similar
discharges
and/or
update
previously
submitted
groupings,
If updating
of
a
previously
submitted
plan
is not
necessary,
a
written
notification
to
the
Agency
indicating
such
is required.
Upon
approval
from the
Agency,
one
representative
sample
for each
group
may
be
submitted.
Special
Condition
No.
11:
Sediment
Pond
Operation
and
Maintenance
(Outfalls
002, 004
and 005>:
a
No
discharge
is allowed
from
Outfall
Nos.
002,
004
and
005 during
“low
flow”
or “no
flow”
conditions
in the receiving
stream,
unless
such
discharge
meets
the
water
quality
standards
of 35
III. Adm.
Code
302.
For
purposes
of
this Condition
“low
flow”
shall be
defined
as
any
condition
wherein
the
upstream
flow available
for
mixing is
less
than
the
ratios
times the
flowrate
being
discharged
from
the
respective
outfalls.
These ratios
are as
follows:
Flow
Ratio of Receiving
OutfatiNo.
Stream
to Outfall
Discharge
002
3.99
004
1.10
005
0.48
Pursuant
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code
302.102,
discharges
from
the
referenced
outfalls
that
otherwise
would
not
meet the
water
quality
standards
of
35
III.
Adm,
Code
302 may
be permitted
if sufficient
flow
exists in the
receiving
stream
to
ensure that
applicable
water
quality
standards
are
met. That
is, discharges
not
meeting
the
water
quality
standards
of
35 III. Mm,
Code 302
may
only be
discharged
in
combination
with
stormwater
discharge
from
the
basin,
and
only
at such
times that
sufficient
flows exists
in
the receiving
stream
to
ensure
that
water quality
standards
in the
receiving
stream beyond
the
area of
allowed
mixing
will not
be
exceeded.
Following
any such
stormwater
discharge,
but
prior to
the
flow
in the
receiving
stream
subsiding,
the impounded
water
in
the
boom
moy be
pumped
or otherwise
evacuated
sufficiently
below
the discharge
elevation
to provide
capacity
for
holding
a
sufficient
volume
of mine
pumpage
and/or
surface runoff
to
preclude
the
possibility
of
discharge
until
such
time
that
a subsequent
precipitation
event results
in discharge
from
the
basin.
At
times of
stormwater
discharge,
in addition
to
the altemate
effluent
monitoring
requirements,
Outfall Nos.
002,
004
and 005
discharges
shall
be monitored
and
reported
for Discharge
Rare, Sulfate,
Chloride
and
Hardness.
b.
The following
sampling
and
monitoring
requirements
are applicable
to flow
in the
unnamed
tributary
to Shoal
Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
which receives
the
discharges
from
Outfalls
002,
004
and 005.
i.
All sampling
and
monitoring
required
under
11(b)(ii)
and (iii)
below shall
be
performed
during
a discharge
and
monitoring
event
from
the associated
outfall.
ii.
The unnamed
tributary
to
Shoal Creek
Watershed
Structure
No. 5
shall
be
monitored
and
reported
quarterly
for
Discharge
Rate,
Chloride,
Sulfate
and Hardness
upstream
of
the associated
outfall.
At such
time that
sufficient
information
has
been
collected
regarding
stream
flow
characteristics
and
in-stream
contaminant
concentrations,
the
permittee
may request
a
re-evaluation
of
the
monitoring
frequency
required
herein for
possible
reduction
or
elimination.
For
the purpose
of
re-evaluating
the
upstream
monitoring
frequency
of the
receiving
streams,
“sufficient
information”
is defined
as
a
minimum
of
ten
(10)
quarterly
sampling
events.
Page
22
NPDES Permit No. lL0078727
Spedal
Conditions
In the event that upstream monitoring of the receiving waters
is eliminated during the term of this permit based
on
an
evaluation
of the
quarterly data,
a
minimum of three
(3)
additional
samples analyzed for the parameters
identified
above must be submitted with the permit renewal application a
minimum of 180 days prior to expiration of this
permit.
iii.
The unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek Watershed Structure No. 5
shall
be
monitored
and
reported
annually for
Discharge Rate,
Chloride, Sulfate and Hardness
downstream
of
each associated outfall. This downstream
monitoring
shall
be performed a sufficient distance
downstream of
the
associated outfall
to ensure that
complete
mixing
has
occurred.
Special
Condition
No.
12:
Sediment Pond Operation
and Maintenance (Outfalls 001, 003, 006 and 007):
a.
For discharges resulting
from
precipitation events, in addition to the altemate
effluent monitoring requirements,
discharges
from Outfalls, 001, 003, 006
and
007 shall
be
monitored
and reported for
Discharge Rate,
Sulfate,
Chloride and
Hardness.
b.
The following sampling and
monitoring requirements are applicable to flow in
the unnamed
tributary
to Middle Fork
Shoal
Creek (known locally
as
Central Park Creek) receiving the overflow from Shoal Creek
Watershed
Structure No. 5 which
receives discharges from Outfalls 001, 003,
and
006 and
the unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek Watershed Structure
No.
5
which receives the discharge from Ourfall 007:
i.
All
sampling and monitoring required under 12(b)(li) and (ill) below
shall
be
performed
during
a
discharge
and
monitoring event from the associated outfalls.
ii.
The unnamed tributary to Shoal Creek Watershed Structure No. 5 shall be monitored and reported quarterly
for
Discharge Rate, Chloride, Sulfate and Hardness upstream of
Outfall
007. At such time that sufficient information
has
been collected regarding stream flow characteristics and
in-stream contaminant concentrations, the permittee
may
request a re-evaluation
of
the monitoring
frequency
required herein for possible reduction or elimination. For
the
urpose of re-evaluating the upstream monitoring frequency of the
receiving
streams, ‘sufficient information”
is
defined as a
minimum
of
ten (10) quarterly sampling
events.
In the event that upstream monitoring of the receiving waters is
eliminated during the
term of this
permit
based on an
evaluation of the quarterly data, a minimum of three (3) additional samples analyzed
for
the parameters identified
above
must be submitted with the permit renewal application a minimum of 180 days prior to expiration of this
permit.
iii.
The
unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Shoal Creek
(known
locally as Central Park Creek) downstream
of Shoal
Creek Watershed
Structure
No, 5 and
the
unnamed tributary to Shoal
Creek
Watershed Structure No.
5
downstream
of Outfall 007 shall
be
monitored
and reported annually for
Discharge
Rate, Chloride, Sulfate and
Hardness. This
downstream monitoring shall
be
performed
a
sufficient distance downstream
of the Shoal Creek
Watershed Structure
No, 5 overflow and Outfall
007 to
ensure that complete mixing
has
occurred.
Special
Condition
No. 13: Data collected in accordance with Special Conditions Nos.
11
and 12 above will be utilized to evaluate
the appropriateness
of the effluent limits
established in this Permit.
Should
the
Agency’s evaluation
of
this data indicate
revised
effluent
limits are warranted; this permit may
be
reopened and modified to incorporate more appropriate effluent limitations.
This
data
will also be used for determination of effluent limitations at the time of permit renewal.
Special
Condition
No 14:
Mercury shall be
monitored
quarterly until a
minimum
of
ten
(10) samples
have
been collected.
Samples
shall
be
collected and tested
in accordance with USEPA 1631E
using the option
at
Section
11.1.1.2
requiring the heating
of
samples at 50”C
for
6 hours
in
a BrCl solution
n closed vessels.
This test method has a Method Detection Limit
(MDL)
of 0.001
Ag/I,
The results of such testing must
be
submitted with the quarterly
Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR’s). The Permittee may
submit
a
written request to the Agency to discontinue
quarterly
Mercury monitoring if the sampling results show
no reasonable
potential to exceed the Mercury water quality standard.
Page
23.
Attachment H
Standard
Conditions
DefInitions
Act means the illinois Environmental
Protection Act, 415 1LCS S as
Amended.
Agency
means the Illinois Envwonmental
Protection Agency.
Board means
the Illinois
Polluton
Control
Board.
Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
means
Pub,
L
92-500, as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1251
et
seq.
NPDES
(National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System)
means the national program
for
issuing,
modifying, revoking
and
reissuing, terminating, monitoring
and enforcing permits, and
imposing and enforcing pretreatment
requirements, under Sections
307,
402,
318
arid 405
of the Clean Water Act.
IJSEPA means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Daily Discharge means the
discharge
of a
pollutant measured during
a calendar day
or
any
24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calender day for purposes
of
sampling. For
pollutants With limitations expressed in units of
mass, the daily discharge’ is calcutated as
the total mass
of
the
pollutant discharged
over the
day.
For pollutants with
limitations
expressed in other units of measurements,
the ‘daily discharge’ Is calculated
as the average
measurement of the pollutant
over the day.
MaxImum Daily DIscharge Limitation (daily maximum) means the highest allowable
daily
discharge.
Average Monthly
DIscharge LImitation (30 day
average)
means
the
highest
allowable
average
of
daily discharges
over
a
calendar month, calculated as the
sum of
all daily
discharges
measured
during a calendar
month divided
by
the number
of
daily
discharges
measured
during
that month.
Average Weekly Discharge LImItation (7 day average) means the highest allowable
average of daily discharges over
a
calendar week, calculated as
the
sum
of all
daily
discharges measured
during a
calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges
measured during that week.
Best Management
Practices
(BMP5)
means
schedules
of
activities,
proifribulions
of
practices,
maintenance procedures,
and other
management practices to
prevent
or reduce
the
pollution
of waters of the Stale. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage
from
raw
material storage.
Aliquot
means a
sample of specified
volume
used to make up a
total composite
sample.
Grab Sample means art individual
sample
of at least 100
milliliters
collected
at a randomly-
selected time
over a period not exceeding
15 minutes.
24
Hour
Composite
Sample means a
combination
of at
least 8
sample aliquots of at least
100
milliliters, collected
at
periodic intervals during the operating hours of a facility over a 24-
hour period.
& Hour ComposIte
Sample means a
combination of at least
3
sample aliquols
Of at
least
100
milliliters, collected
at
periodic Interests
during
the operating hours of a facility over
an
8-hour
period.
Flow
ProportIonal ComposIte Sample means a combination of sample
allquots of at
least
100 milliliters collectea
at periodic intervals such that either the time interval between each
aliquot
or
the
volume
of
each aliquot
is
proportional to either the stream flow at the lime of
sampling or the total stream flow since the collection of the previous aliquot.
(1)
Duty
to
comply.
The pemiittee must comply with all conditIons of this permit.
Any
permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement
action,
permit termination, revocation and reissuance, modification, or for denial
of
a
permit renewal application. The permiltee shalt comply
With
elfluent standards
or
prohibitions eslablished under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic
pollutants
within the time provided in the regulations that
establish
these
standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
12)
Dusy to reappty.
If
the
pemrittee wishes to
continue
an activity regulaNtd by this
permit
after the expiration date of this permit, the pemlittee must
apply for
and
obtain a new
parnii
If th5
fi4imittee
ruitmita
a proper application as required by the Agency no later
than 180
days
prior
to
the aspiration date, this permit
shall continue in full
force and
effect until the final Agency decision on the application
has
been
made.
(3) Need to halt or reduce
activity not a defense, It shall not be a defense
for a
permitlee vi an enforcement action
that
it
would have
been necessary to halt or
reduce
the pennitled activity
in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of
this permit.
(4) Duty to
mitIgate. The pe’miltee
shall
take all reasonable
steps to minimize
or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit which has
a reasonable
likelihood of adversely
affecting human health
or
the
environment.
(5) Proper operatton and maintenance.
The pemlittee shall
at
all
times properly operate
and maintain sit facilities and
systems of treatment
and control
land
related
sppurtenances) which are installed or used by
the perrniltee
to achieve compliance
with conditions of
Ihis permit. Proper operation and
maintenance nctudea
effective
performance,
adequate
tunctirig,
adequate operator staffing
and
training,
and adequate
laboralory
and
process
controls,
including appropriate quality
assurance
procedures.
[Iris provision requires the
operation 01 back-up,
or
auxiliary tacitities,
or similar
systems only wtren necrnssary
to achieve compliance with the
conditions of the permit
(6)
PermIt
actions. This permit may be
modified,
revoked and
reissued,
or terminated
for
cause by the Agency
pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62.
The tiling
of
a
request by
the
permittee
for
a permit
modification,
revocation and
reissuance,
or
termination,
or
a
notiftcatlon of planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance,
does
not stay
any
permit
condition.
(7)
Property rights. This permit does not
convey any
property rights of
any
sort, or any
exclusve
privilege.
(8)
Duty to provide Information. The permittee
shall
furnish to the
Agency
within
a
reasonable lena any information which Ihe
Agency
may
request
to
determine
whether
cause exists for modifying
revoking and reissuing
or
terminating
this
perm
t or to
detemrtne coniptiance with
the
permit. The
permitteeshatl
also ftimish to the
Agirnce,
upon
request, copies of records required to be kept by
this
permit.
(9)
InspectIon and entry. The
permittee shall allow
art authorized
representative
of the
Agency, upon the presentation of credentiats and
other documents
as may be
required
by law, to:
(a)
Enter
upon
the permittee’s premises
where a regulated
facility or
activity
is
located or conducted, or where records
must be kept
under the conditions
of
this
permit;
(b)
Have access
to and copy, at reasonable times, any records
that must be
kept
under the
conditions of this permit:
(c) Inspect at reasonable times any facilities,
equipment (including
monitoring
and
control
equipment),
practices, or operations
regulated or required
under this
permit;
and
(d) Sample or monitor
at
reasonable
times,
far the purpose of assuring
permit
compliance,
or
as otherwise authorized by
the
Act,
any substances
or parameters
at any location.
(10) MonItoring and records.
(a) Samples
and measurements taken for the purpose of
monitoring shall
be
representative of the monitored
activity.
(b)
The
permittee
shall retain records of
all monitoring inlotmation, including
all
calibration and maintenance
records
and
all original
a np chart recordings
for
continuous
monitoring
instrumentation,
copies of all reports required
by
this
permt, and
records
of all data used to complele the application
for this permit,
for
a period of at least 3 years from the date of this permit,
measurement. report
or
application.
This period may be extended by request of the
Agency at any
lime.
(c)
Records of monitoring
information
shall
include:
(1) The date, exact place, and time of sampling or
measurements:
(2) The
individual(s)
who performed the sampling or measurements;
(3)
The date(s) analyses
were performed:
(4)
The individual(s)
who performed the analyses;
(5)
The analytical techniques or methods used: and
(6) The
resuils
of such analyses.
Id) Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under
40
CFR Part 138, unless other test procedures have been specified in this
permit.
Where no test procedure under 40
CFR
Part 136 has been approved,
the
permittew must submit
to the
Agency a test method for approval.
The
permittee
shall calibrate
and perform maintenance
procedures
on
all
monitoring and
analytical instrumentation at intervals
to
ensure
accuracy
of measurements.
(ii)
SIgnatory requIrement.
Alt applications, reports or
information
submitted
to
the
Agency
shall
tie
signed and
certified.
(a) ApplIcation. Alt permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a principal executive officer of at least the level
01
vice president or a person or position having overall responsibility
for
environmental matters for the corporation;
(2) For a partnershIp or solo proprietorship: by
a
general
partner or le
proprietor,
respectively:
or
(3) For a munIcipalIty, State, Federal, or other public agency:
by
either
a
principal
executive officer
or
ranking elected official.
(b) Reports. All reports required
by permits, or other information requested
by the
Agency
shall be
signed
by
a
person descrbed in paragraph
(a) or by a duly
authorized representative of that person. A person is
a duly aulhorized
representative only if:
(1) The
authorization
is made
itt
writing by
a person
described
in paragraph
(a):
and
(61
The authorization
specifies either an individual or
a
position
responsible for
the overall
operation
of
the facility, from which the discharge
originates,
such
as a plant manager,
superintendent or person of equivalent
responsibility:
and
(3) The written authorization
is submitted to the Agency.
Page
24.
(C) Changes
of
Authorization.
If an
authorization
under (b)
is no longer
accurate
because
a different Individual
or
position
has
responsibility
for
the
overall
operation of the
facility, a new
authorization
satisfying
the requirements
of
(b)
must
be
submitted
to the Agency
prior to or
together
with any
reports,
Information,
or applications
to be signed
by
an
authorized
representative.
(12)
ReportIng
requirements.
(a)
Planned changes.
The
perrnittee
shall
give
notice to
the Agency
as soon as
pOssible
of any
planned
physical
alterations
or
additions to the
permitted
facility.
(b)
Anticipated noncomplIance.
The
permittee
shall give
advance notice
to
the
Agency of any
planned
changes in the
permitted
facility or
activity which may
result
in noncompliance
with
permit
requirements.
(c) Compliance
schedulee. Reports
of compliance
or
noncompliance
with,
or
any
progress
reports
on, interim and
final
requirements
contained in
any compliance
schedule of
this
permit
shall be submitted
no
later
than
14 days
following each
schedule
date.
(it) Monitoring
reports.
Monitoring
results
shall be
reported at
the intervals
specified
elsewhere in
this permit.
(1) Monitoring
results must be
reported
on a
Oischarge Monitoring
Report
(DMR).
(2) It the
perrnittee monitors
any
pollutant more
frequently
than required
by the
permit,
using
test
procedures
approved
under
41)
CFR
136 or
as
specified
in
the pem,it,
the results of
this
monitoring
shall
be Included
in the calculation
Ond reporting
of
the data
submitted
in the
QMR.
(3) Calculations
for all
limitations
which
require
averaging
of measurements
shall utilize
an
arithmetic
mean
unless otherwise
specified
by the Agency
in
the permit.
(e) Twenty-four
hour reporting.
The
permitlee
shall
report any
noncompliance
which may
endanger
health or
the
environment Any
Information
shall
be
provided
orally within
2$ hours from
the
tints the perrnittee
becomes
aware of
the
cbcums(ancas.
A
written
submission
shell also
be
provided
withIn
5
days
of the
time
the permutes
becomes
aware
of the
circumstances.
The
written
submission
shall contairt
a
description
of
the
noncompliance and
its cause;
the period
of
rrcncompiisrice,
including exact dates
and time;
and if the
noncompliance
has not
been corrected,
the anticipated
time it is
expected
to continue;
and steps taken
or planned to
reduce, eliminate,
and
present
reoccurrence
of the
noncompliance.
The
following shall
be included
as information
wnich must
be
reported
within
24
hours:
(1) Any unanticipated
bypass
which exceeds
any
etfluent limitation
in
the
permit;
(2) Violation
of a maximum
daily
discharge
limitation for any
of
the
pollutants
listed by-ths
Agency
in
the permit to be
reported within 24
hours.
The
Agency
may
wafae
the
written report
on a
case-by-case
basis
if
the oral
report
has been
received within 24
hours.
(f) Other
noncompliance.
The
permiflee
shall report
all
instances
of
noncompliance
not
reported under
paragraphs
(12)(c), (d),
or (a), at
the time
monfoning reports
are
submitted.
The reports
shall contain the
information
listed
in, paragraph
(1 2)(e).
(g)
Other information.
t
Atrere the
permlttae becomes
aware
that
ii
failed
to
submit
any
re avert
facts
ma permit
apph,alron
or
submitted mcorrect
rnfOrintetl1)fl
ill a
permit
application,
or
.n
any report
to the
Agency,
it
shall
promptly submit
such
facts
or informiafion.
(131
Trartsferof
permta A permit
may be
automatically transferred
to a new
permittee
(a)
The
current
permittee
notifies
the Agency
at
least
30 days
in advance of
the
proposed
transfer date:
(b)
The notice
includes
a written agreement
between
the
existing
and new
pertnitteea
containing
a
specific date
for
transfer
of
permit
responsibility
coverage
and
liability
between the current
and
new
permittees; and
(c)
The
Agency
dods not
notify the
esialing permittee
and the
propoaed
new
permittee
of its intent to
modify
or revoke and
reissue
the permit.
If this
notice Is
not received,
the
transfer
is effective
on the date
spccificd
in the
agreement.
(14)
All
manufacturing,
commercial,
mining,
and slivicultural
dischargera
must
notify the
Agency
aa
soon as they know
or have
reason to believe:
(a)
That
any activity
has occurred or
writ occur
‘sfilch would result
In the
discharge
of
any
toxic pollutant
identified under Section
307
of the
Clean Waler
Act
which
Is
not
limsed
itt the permit,
if that
discharge will exceed
the
highest
of
the
following
notification levels:
(1) One
hundred
micrograms
per
liter
(100 uglt);
(2)
Two hundred
micrograms
per
liter
(200
ugh) for acrotein
and
acrylonitrlte;
five
hundred
micragrame
per
liter (500 ugiI)
for 2,4-dinitrophenoi
and
for
2
mathyl.4,6
dinitrophenol;
and
one
millIgram
per lIter
(1
mg!l)
for
antimony.
(3) Five
(5) times
the maximum
concentration
value reported
far
that
pollutant
in
the
NPOES
permit
application;
or
(4)
The
level established
by the Agency in
this permit.
(b) Thatihay
have
began or
expect
to
begin
to use
or manufacture
as an
intermediate
or final
product
or
byproduct
any
toxic
pollutant which
was not
reported
in
the
NPDS
permit application.
(15)
All Publicly
Owned Treatment
Works (PO1Ws)
must
provide
adequate notice
to
the
Agency
of the
following:
(a)
Any new
introduction of
pollutants
into that POTW from
an indirect discharge
whicn would
be subject
to Sections
301 or
306 of
the Clean
Water
Act if it were
directly
discharging
those
pollutants;
and
(it)
Any
substantial
change in tlr volume
or
eharactar
of pollutants being
etroducod
into that P01W
by
a
source
introducing
pollutants into
the P01W at the time
or
issuance
of the permit.
-
Ic) For
purposes
of
lhis
paragraph,
adequate notice shall
include intormatiort
on ii
the
quality
and quantity
itt
ettluent introduced
rita tIre
POTW, antI
liii trip
anticipated
impact of the
change on the quantity
or qriality
ol
elituent
to
t
discharged
from the P01W
(t6)
If
the permit
is issued
ton
publ:cly
owned
or
publicly regulated
treatment
winks,
tire
permittee
shall require
arty
indusiriat
user
of
such treatment
works
to
comply
with
federal
requirements
concerning:
(a)
User
charges pursuant to
Section
204(b) of the Clean
Water Act,
and
applicable
regulations
appearing in 40 CFR
35;
(it)
Toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
and pretreatment
standards
pursuant
to Section
307 of the
Clean
Water
Act:
and
(c)
Inspection.
monitoring
and entry
pursuant to Section
308
of Ihe
Clean
Water
Act,
(17)
If an applicable
standard
or limitation
is
promulgated
under Section
301(b)(2l(C)
and
(0),
304(b)(2),
or
307(51(2)
and
that effluent standard
or limitation
is
more
stringent
than
any effluent
limitation in the
permit, or controls
a pollutant not
limited
in
the
permit,
the permit
shall
be promptly
modified
or
revoked,
and reissued
to conform to
that
effluent
standard
or limitation.
(lit)
Any
authorization
to construct
issued
to the permittee
pursuant 1035111.
AnIm.
Code
309.154
is hereby
incorporated by reference
as
a condition
of this permit
(19)
The
petmitsee
shail not make
any false statement,
epresentaton
or
certification
in an
application,
record, report, plan
or
other
document
submitted to the Agency
or the
USEPA.
or required
to
be
maintained
under this permit.
(20)
The
Clean
Water
Act
provides that any
person who
violates
a
permit condition
implementing
Sections
301,
302, 306, 307, 308,
31.3. or 405 of the
Clean
Water Act
is subject
to a
civil penalty
not to exceed
$10,000
per day of such
violation. Any
person
who
willfully or negligently
violates permit
conditions
implementing
Sections
301,
302,306,307. or
308
of
the Clean Water
Act is
subjecl ton fine
of not less than
$2,500
nor
more
tttart 625,000
per
day
of
violation,
or by
imprisonment
for
not more
than one
year,
or both.
(21) The
Clean
Water Act provides
that any person
who
falsities,
tampers
muir, or
knowingly
renders inaccurate
any monitoring
device
or meihod required
to be
maintained
under
permit
shall,
upon
conviction, be
punished
by a tine of not
more
than
$10,006
per violation,
or
by
imprisonment
for not more Ihan
6 months per
violation,
or
by both.
(22)
The Clean
Water Act
provides that
any person who
knowingly makes
any
false
statement,
representation,
or
certification
In any record
or other document
sat’mitted
or
required to be
maintained under
this permit shall,
including
monitoring
reports
or
reports olcompnlsnce
or
non-compliance shall,
upon
conviction,
be punished by
a fine
of not more than
$10,000
per
violation,
or
by
imprisonment for not
more
than
6
months
per
violation.
or
by both.
(23)
Collected
screening,
slurries, sludges,
and other
solids
shall be
disposed of
in such
a
manner as
to
prevent
entry of those wastes
(or
runoff from
the wastes)
into waters
of
the State. The proper
authorization
for such disposal
shall
be
obtained from the
Agency
and is incorporated
as part
hereof
by reference,
(24)
In
case
of conflict
between these
standard
conditions
and any
other
condition(s)
included
in this
permit,
the
other condition(s)
shall govem.
(25)
The
permittee
shall comply with,
in
addition to tire
requirements of
the
penrilt. all
applicable provisions
of 35 III. Adm.
Code. Subtitle
C.
Subtitle 0.
Subtitle E.
and
all
apptlcab.e orders
of the Soard.
(26)
The
provisions
of this permit are
severable,
end
if arty
provision
of
this
permit, or the
application of
any provision of this
permit is held invalid,
the
remaining
provisions,
of
thiS
permit shall continue
in full force
and effect.
(Rev.
3-13.98)
Exhibit
D:
IDNR,
Integrating
Multiple
Taxa in
a Biological Stream
Rating
System
(2008)
,
‘1
,
S1
‘V
•‘
:
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Photo Credits
All photos were taken by the IDNR Watershed
Protection Section staff except:
cover - Kevin Cummings - Bean
Creek - Salt Fork
page 2 - Kevin Cummings - Hickory Creek
page 6- Ed Dewalt - Hydroperla fugitans
(Plecoptera: Perlodidae) the Springfiy
page 6- Kevin Cummings
- Threatened mussels at Salt Fork
page 7- Kevin Cummings - Mussel
sampling
on the North Fork Vermilion River
page
11 - Chris Taylor - Orconectes
propinquus
page
15- Kevin Cummings
- Asian clams
at
Lone Tree Creek
page
21 - Kevin Cummings
- Pink Heelspliffer from the Sangamon River
Acknowledgments
T
his
work
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
previous
efforts
of
the
Biological
Stream
Characterization
Work
Group
that
instituted
a
statewide
stream
rating
system
in
the
late
1980s
and
the
Illinois
Natural
History
Survey that
developed
the initial
Biologically
Significant
Streams
listing.
We would
like
to
thank
all
the
members
of
our Biologically
Significant
Streams
work
group for their
efforts
at
enhancing
this
project.
Special
thanks
to
Kevin
Cummings,
Ed
DeWalt,
Mark
Joseph,
Christine
Mayer, Chris
Phillips,
Bob
Schanzle,
Bob
Szafoni,
Chris
Taylor,
John
Wilker,
and
the
IDNR stream
specialists
for
providing
access
to
data
from
streams
throughout
Illinois.
This
report
is
based
largely on
work
done
by
Leslie
Bol and Leon
Hinz
of
the
Illinois
Natural History
Survey, and Ann
Marie
Holtrop
of
the IDNR.
Their
work
was
funded by
IDNR
through
the
Illinois
State
Wildlife
Grant
Program
(T-20-P-OO1
).
Preface
TJ
pdated stream ratings are provided in
this
report
under authority
of state law
(see 515 ILCS 5-5 and 520 ILCS 5/2.1).
This
state
law provides
the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
with ownership of the wildlife and
aquatic
resources residing within the borders of
the State of
Illinois.
The
IDNR is
designated
as
the agency of
state
government charged
with
the regulation,
protection,
and preservation of those
natural resources. Tools
such as the
stream
ratings
provided
in this report are
used by
IDNR
as
the basis for field
program implementation for resource
protection.
For over twenty years,
resource mangers
in Illinois
have used
stream
biological ratings as a vehicle for
the
interpretation, assessment,
and
communication of aquatic resource values.
The first stream
ratings, published in 1989,
were
based
on a five-tiered classification
system predicted
largely on the
type and
condition of the fishery resource. In July
2005, the State of Illinois submitted
a
Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Plan
to
the
U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service as
part of a
Congressional mandate
to be
eligible for future federal funding. The plan
was
accepted, renamed the Illinois
Wildlife
Action Plan,
and became
the strategic
document
guiding
protection
and
conservation efforts throughout the state.
As the name implies, the Illinois
Wildlife
Action Plan outlines
a
plan
of action
to
address the particular needs of
wildlife
that
are declining
and presents a
targeted
approach to habitat enhancement and
conservation.
The
Wildlife Action Plan
broadly
addresses all types
of wildlife
including fish, mussels, amphibians, and
reptiles.
To
help
establish baseline
conditions against which change promoted
by
the Illinois
Wildlife Action
Plan could
be
measured
and understood, the
following
report describes in detail
a
stream rating
process
based on multiple aquatic
taxonomic groups. Users desiring access
to the most current ratings and
additional location information are
encouraged
to
search
http://
www.dnr.state.il.us/orc/BioStrmRatin
gs/. The ratings will provide the
Illinois
Department
of Natural Resources
with
a
mechanism for identifying high-quality
examples of all stream communities and
will guide management and restoration
activities
throughout the state.•
II
Table
of
Contents
Acknowledgments
Preface
ii
Table
of
Contents
iii
Introduction
1
General
Approach
for Diversity
and
Integrity
Ratings
3
Diversity
Ratings
5
Background
5
Approach
5
Examples
of
Diversity
Ratings
12
Map
of Diversity
Ratings
14
Integrity
Ratings
15
Background
15
Approach
15
Examples
of
Integrity
Ratings
20
Map
of
Integrity
Ratings
22
Biologically Significant
Streams
23
Map
of
Biologically
Significant
Streams
25
Conclusions
26
Data
Issues
26
Updates
and Revisions
27
Literature
Cited
30
Appendix
A
33
III
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
List of
Tables
Table 1.
The number of sites
from each dataset used
to
calculate diversity ratings.
Table
2.
Number of
taxa
corresponding
to each class in the Macroinvertebrate Index
of Biotic Integrity (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007).
Table
3.
Number of species corresponding
to the three classes developed for the
Critical Trend Assessment Program’s
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Tricoptera data.
Table 4.
Class scores for mussel species richness ratings
based on
expectations
according to drainage and
stream
size.
Table
5.
The
number of
datasets contributing to final diversity ratings.
Table 6.
Examples of calculating diversity
scores.
Table 7.
The number of sites from each dataset used
to calculate
integrity ratings.
Table
8.
Class scores for mussel single
sample intactness percentages based on
expectations according to drainage
and stream size.
Table 9.
Class scores for mussel historical intactness
percentages based
on
expecatations according
to drainage and stream size.
Table 10. The number of datasets contributing
to
final
integrity ratings.
Table 11.
Examples of calculating integrity
scores.
Table 12. The
underlying qualifications
for designation
as a
biologically significant
stream (BSS).
List
of
Figures
Figure 1.
Distribution of diversity scores
and corresponding letter ratings.
Figure 2.
Geographic distribution of diversity ratings.
Figure 3.
Distribution of integrity scores and
corresponding letter ratings.
Figure 4.
Geographic distribution of integrity
ratings.
Figure
5.
Geographic distribution of biologically significant
streams.
Appendix
Appendix A. List
of threatened and endangered
species included in stream ratings.
iv
Introduction
C
omprehensive
statewide biological,
chemical,
and physical
information
associated with
streams in Illinois has
been
routinely
collected since 1980
through a
partnership
between
the Illinois Department
of Natural Resources
(IDNR) and the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
(IEPA;
Bertrand
et
al. 1996).
This
partnership was
established
in order to assess
fish and
macroinvertebrate
communities,
water
quality
and habitat throughout
major basins
of Illinois.
In 1984,
a
Biological
Stream
Characterization
(BSC) Work Group was
convened
to create a mechanism
for
interpreting
data collected as part of the
interagency Basin Survey Program,
and “to
provide managers
an overall prospective of
the state’s stream resources”
(Hite and
Bertrand 1989). The
BSC Work Group
developed stream ratings
using letter grades
“A” through
“E”, thereby establishing
a
means
of communicating the
quality of biological
resources in streams to diverse stakeholders.
At the time the BSC Work Group
began, the
fish-based
Index of
Biotic
Integrity (IBI) was
recently developed, and it
became the
predominant stream integrity indicator used
for rating streams (Hite and Bertrand 1989).
In
recognition of the need
to also protect
other stream-dependent organisms in the
state, the
Illinois Natural
History
Survey
(INHS) developed a list of Biologically
Significant Streams (BSS) that incorporated
data on
mussel
communities and rare
species (endangered, threatened, watch list)
of crustaceans,
fish,
mussels, and aquatic
plants
in addition to stream
segments rated
as “A” by the initial
BSC
(Page et al. 1992).
The
goal of the BSS project
was to protect
100% of the
stream-dependent
biodiversity
thus a
stream with characteristics
that
met
any one of
the
established criteria could
achieve status as a BSS (Page
et
al. 1992).
Despite the lack of regular
updates, the BSC
and BSS processes generated products
that
are still
used extensively by diverse
stakeholders including state and federal
agencies,
local
watershed
groups,
consultants, environmental interest
groups,
and municipalities.
In
2006,
the IDNR
initiated an effort
to
combine and
update
the previous
stream
rating efforts
into
a single rating. The purpose
behind the project was
not only to update
outdated information (i.e., the existing ratings
were
based
on
data at least 15 years old)
but
to
create a rating system that would
help
resource mangers
determine
efficacy in
implementing the aquatic goals of the Illinois
Wildlife Action
Plan (State of Illinois 2005). To
be most useful in evaluating and guiding
implementation of the Wildlife Action Plan,
IDNR sought
a
single rating for stream
segments that represented multiple signals
of stream condition. This
intent was similar
to the “overall prospective” identified
by
Hite
and Bertrand (1989).
Although the main
purpose behind stream ratings has changed
since the creation
of BSC and BSS, several
other objectives for the development
and use
of ratings remain. These include:
°
Facilitate planning and prudent
allocation
of State resources in IDNR monitoring
activities;
•
Inventory
and identify the nature, extent,
and distribution of Illinois
stream
resources;
•
Establish
a
common vehicle for the
interpretation, assessment, and
communication
of aquatic resource
1
values;
•
Identify
stream segments exhibiting
a
high potential for resource
management
or restoration
activities;
•
Focus greater emphasis
on
the
importance of uncommon
aquatic biotic
resources
and an
awareness of where
these resources
exist.
Since BSC and
BSS were developed,
the
quantity
and quality
of
aquatic
data and
assessment
tools has increased.
For
example,
multi-metric
indices
have
been
developed
for benthic macroinvertebrates
(Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007)
and mussels
(Szafoni
2002),
and revised for
fish (Smogor 2000).
Further,
the Basin
Survey
Program,
which
assesses
fish and macroinvertebrate
communities,
has
continued.
These
available
indices
and data presented
new opportunities
to
create
a
rating
that reflects how
different
taxonomic groups can
respond dissimilarly
to
shared stream
conditions
because of
differences in
life-history, mobility,
and
sensitivities
to
stressors
(Paller 2001).
Specifically
in this project we
used fish,
macroinvertebrate,
and
mussel information
because
these taxa reflect steam
conditions
at
different spatial
and
temporal scales
(Diamond
and
Serveiss
2001, Freund and
Petty
2007,
Kilgour
and Barton 1999,
Lammert
and Allan 1999).
For instance, due
to their limited
mobility, typically shorter
life
spans,
and association
with stream
substrate,
macroinvertebrates
may
be
indicators
of local and
more recent stream
conditions
(Freund and Petty
2007),
whereas
fish may
be
better
indicators of regional
conditions
because
they have greater
movement capabilities
and longer life
cycles.
Mussels,
due to
their limited dispersal
as
adults, may
also indicate local conditions,
but
due
to longer life spans
may reflect historic
stressors related
to
specific
areas
(Diamond
and Serveiss
2001).
By incorporating various
taxonomic
groups
and
averaging
standardized
taxonomic
scores,
we
generated
an overall rating
for stream
segments that is
representative
of multiple
signals
of stream conditions.
This report
describes an
approach that results
in
assigning
up to
three designations for
a
stream segment,
which are
a
diversity
rating,
integrity
rating,
and identification
as
a
biologically
significant stream.
2
General Approach
for
Diversity
and
Integrity
Ratings
s
everal purposes of the
previous BSC and
BSS
processes overlapped between the
two inWatives. Both
had objectives to identify
the extent of Illinois
stream resources, to
identify stream segments of exceptional
quality and
to
focus
protection efforts toward
uncommon
resources
or
biologically
significant
streams (Bertrand et al. 1996,
Page et al. 1992). However, the two initiatives
differed
in their overall
intent to rate a stream’s
biological diversity (Page
et
al. 1992) or
biological integrity
(Bertrand et al. 1996; Hite
and Bertrand 1989). For the purposes of
implementing Illinois’ Wildlife
Action
Plan,
IDNR sought a rating system that would
include both diversity and integrity measures.
Although the approach
to
obtain the diversity
and integrity ratings is similar, we have not
directly combined the two ratings for an
overall rating. Diversity and integrity ratings
were kept separate because it is possible to
have
highly intact
communities that are
not
biologically very diverse.
For instance,
species richness expectations for
small or
cold-water streams are expected
to be
low
compared with larger or warmer streams.
Therefore, it is possible
to
have
a
small
stream that would rate high for integrity but
low for
diversity. Additionally, keeping the two
ratings
separate enables stakeholders with
different purposes to consider the rating
that
is most
applicable
to
their needs. The letter
ratings of A-E were maintained for both the
diversity and
integrity ratings
as
these
designations were used in the previous BSC
revision.
Given the
change in focus and
use
for this
project
from
previous
stream ratings,
we
considered
several
aspects
of the previous
rating processes
and
modified the process
accordingly. Because multiple data sources
are
used to
generate
a
rating, there was
a
need to standardize data from different
sources in an
effort to give equal weight to all
communities of organisms found in
streams if
adequate and comparable sampling had
occurred.
Second, we sought a data driven
and reproducible process that did not include
narrative information
(see Hite and Bertrand
1989 and Bertrand et al. 1996 for an
explanation of how narrative information
was
used previously). Third, we envisioned
a
product that could
be
easily
updated as new
information became available.
The general approach for obtaining a
diversity or integrity
rating
is
a
six
step
process:
1. Select data for inclusion in the rating.
2.
Convert
raw data to a class score.
3.
Standardize classes
into a proportional
score (P score).
4. Average the proportional scores within
a
given taxonomic group
to
obtain
a
single
taxonomic score (T score).
5. Average proportional
and/or
taxonomic
score for multiple sites on a valley
segment.
6. Determine the final diversity and/or
integrity
rating
for a valley segment.
3
We
considered all the information that
contributed
to both integrity and diversity
ratings in order
to
identify Biologically
Significant Streams (BSS). Similar
to
the
initial BSS effort, we incorporated
multiple
datasets and identified streams based
on
available taxonomic groups rather
than
relying on the fish
data as the primary stream
integrity indicator.
However, unlike
the
additive approach of the
original
BSS
that
identified
all reaches with appropriately high
threatened
and endangered
species
presence
regardless of
what other
available
information
may have indicated,
the current
process uses a
holistic approach
that
combines
data sources
to determine if
the
biologically significant
stream designation
is
appropriate.
Fish, mussel,
macroinvertebrate, crayfish,
and threatened
and endangered
species
data
collected
by
various
state agencies
were
used
for stream
ratings.
All datasets were
overlaid on the
1:100,000— scale, National
Hydrography
Dataset
(NHD; USGS 2000)
that was
refined for a previous
project
(Holtrop
and
Dolan 2003).
Point
locations
of
data
that were greater than
60m from
the
nearest digitized stream
line
were
visually
inspected
using an overlay
of aerial images
to
determine if
the
point was
associated
with a
large river or a small
stream that was
not
digitized.
Points
that
were
associated with
large rivers and
undigitized streams
were
separated into a
different
file and
omitted
from further
analysis. Points that
did not fall
into
either of
these
categories
were further
investigated
to determine if therewas
an error
with the spatial coordinates.
Errors were
remedied
where possible,
and points that
could not
be
corrected
and
still fell
greater
than 60m from the
nearest stream were
omitted.
Point
data
or
sampling
sites
for the final
ratings were
summarized according
to valley
segment.
Valley segments
are aggregations
of linearly
adjacent, physically
similar
stream
reaches (Seelbach
et
al. 1997).
Physical
characteristics
used
to define
valley
segments
were
related to stream
size
(drainage
area),
surficial geology
(bedrock,
coarse
substrates),
discharge
(flow
yieId)
and
gradient.
Valley
segments were
independently
derived prior
to
this
project
using
a spatially-constrained
clustering
method based
on
the
duster affinity
search
technique (Brenden
et al. 2008).
Valley
segment
numbers were assigned
to datasets
through
a spatial join in
ArcMap
9.2.
Datasets
were then associated
with each
other for
calculation of
the
final
rating
according to valley
segment number in
a
query
performed in Microsoft
Office
Access
2003.•
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Diversity
Ratings
Background
j
iversity simply
defined is the number
of
-‘
different
kinds of things
(Angermeier and
Karr 1994) or the variety
of life
and its
processes
(Hughes
and
Noss 1992).
Although diversity
can be
represented
mathematically
using
summary indices
or a
simple species
number, we
chose to consider
it
more broadly as
the variety
of
taxa within
several
important
aquatic
groups
(e.g.,
mussels,
fish,
macroinvertebrates,
and
crayfish).
In December
2006, project
stakeholders
met and discussed
the
appropriateness
of available
datasets
for
inclusion in
the diversity
analysis.
We
considered data
collected within
the past
decade
(1997-2006) that
were collected
as
part of IDNR,
IEPA,
or INHS
monitoring
programs.
We
limited
data
to
these
institutions
to
ensure
that
collection methods
were
standardized,
repeatable, and
will
be
continued
in
the future
so that data will
be
available
for revisions of these
ratings.
Approach
The
general
approach
for obtaining
diversity rating
is
a six step
process.
Step
1.
Select data
for
inclusion into the
rating.
We considered
only
data that were collected
within the
past decade. However,
if
a
single
site
had more than
one sample from
the past
decade,
we used
the
sample
with
the highest
richness
for inclusion in the
final rating
calculation.
We
used this approach
rather
than
taking the most recent
sample
or
an
average
of
the samples because
the highest
richness
represents
a
conservative
estimate
of the biological
potential for
the
site
and this
approach
accounts
for variation that may
occur
with
sampling. Additionally,
we did not
average
the data from multiple
samples
since
the average could
represent a condition
that
had
not been found
at
the
site.
The following
data were
used in the final diversity
ratings.
Fish
— Fish
data
from
community samples
taken
as part of
cooperative basin surveys
and other
department
monitoring were
provided by the IDNR.
These
data were
reviewed
by regional IDNR
stream biologists
for verification
that
the samples
were
representative
of community
samples
with
adequate sampling
efficiency.
The species
richness metric
was retrieved
from the Index
of
Biotic Integrity
(IBI; Smogor 2000)
summaries
and was used as
a component of
the diversity rating. A
total of 731 sites
were
used
in the diversity
score
analysis (Table
1).
There were fewer
sites with
fish
species
richness
than fish IBI
scores
since
the
individual metrics
scores
used
to
calculate
the fish IBI were not
always
available.
Table 1. The number of
sites from each
dataset used
to calculate diversity
ratings.
Potential
Data
Source
Number ofSites
Fish Species Richness
731
Macroinvertebrate Taxa Richness
452
CTAP EPT Species
Richness
179
S1S2 EPT
Species
Richness
104
Mussel
Species Richness
596
Crayfish
Species Richness
18
Threatened and
Endangered Species Richness
413
Total
2493
a
5
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
— Data
for aquatic
macroinvertebrates
were
compHed
from three different
entities.
Macroinvertebrate
Taxa Richness
First, benthic
macroinvertebrate
data were
compiled
from the IEPA
in Springfield. These
data
were collected following
protocols
established
for
use
in the Stream Condition
Index
(Tetra Tech, Inc. 2007),
but referred to
as the
Macroinvertebrate
Index of
Biotic
Integrity (MIBI) in
this report.
The taxa
richness
metric
was retrieved from
the MIBI,
and a total of 452
sites were used for the
final
diversity
score analysis (Table
1).
Critical
Trends
Assessment Program
(CTAP)
Second,
Ephemeroptera
(may11 ies),
Plecoptera
(stoneflies), and
Tricoptera
(caddis flies;
EPT)
data that
were
collected
since 1997 as
part of CTAP
(http://ctap.inhs.uiuc.edu/index.asp)
were
obtained.
Although the MIBI
contains an EPT
richness
metric, the
CTAP
data
were
used
because these
data
were collected in
the
spring
of the year
prior
to the emergence of
many
of these
species and also typically
on
smaller streams than
those included in the
IEPA
sampling.
A total of 179 sites
were
used
for the
final diversity
score
analysis (Table
1).
S1S2EPT
Third,
we included
information
on sensitive
Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Tricoptera
data
provided
by
Dr. Ed
DeWalt (INHS).
These
data
were included because
currently
no
EPT
species are listed
as endangered
or threatened
by
the
Illinois
Endangered Species
Protection Act
(http
://dnr.state.il.us/espb/datelist.htm),
although some
species within these
orders
have
been
identified
as
critically
imperiled
(Si) or imperiled
(S2) at the state
level by an
INHS
entomologist
(DeWalt
et
al. 2005,
Favret
and DeWalt 2002).
S1S2
refers
to
conservation
status
ranks used
by
NatureServe
(http://www.natureserve.org/).
A total of 104
sites were used for
the final
diversity
score analysis
(Table
1).
Mussels
—
Mussel data were obtained
from
the INHS
mollusk
collections
database
(http:llwww.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/moIl
usk/molluskintro.html)
and I
DN
R.
Records
associated
with freshwater
snails, fingernail
clams,
zebra mussels, and
Asian clams
were
not included, as
well as any records
not
associated
with stream
habitat.
In order
to
query data that
were representative
of
community
samples,
we
restricted
our
data
to a list of
collectors’ names obtained
from
Kevin
Cummings,
the
INHS
malacologist and
mussel
database manager.
A total of 596
sites were
used
for
the final diversity score
analysis
(Table 1).
Crayfish — Native
crayfish
data
were
obtained from the
INHS crustacean
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
collection
database
(http:I/
www.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/c
rustacean/crustaceanintro.html).
Despite
the
lack of
systematically
collected
crayfish
data
across
the
state,
we included
crayfish
in
a limited
capacity
in the
final
diversity
ratings
because
they
are
abundant in
Illinois
streams
and
we
anticipate
that
additional
collections
will
be available
for
future
updates
of stream
ratings.
A
total
of 18
sites
were
used
for
the
final
diversity
score
analysis
(Table
1).
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
—
Data
on threatened
and
endangered
(T&E)
fish,
mussel,
crayfish,
amphibian,
and
plant
species
(see
Appendix
A
for
species
lists)
were
extracted
from
the
Biotics
Database
maintained
by
the
IDNR
Office
of
Resource
Conservation,
Division
of
Natural
Heritage.
A
total
of
413 sites
with
T&E
species
were
used
for the
final
diversity
score
analysis
(Table
1).
Step
2.
Convert
raw
data
to
a class
score.
comparable
sampling
had
occurred.
To
do
this,
we
developed
classes
for
each
dataset
used
in the
analysis
in
an
attempt
to
interpret
raw
data
from
different
sources
and
classify
it
similarly.
Classes
were
independently
developed
for
each
dataset
using
each
sample
collection
as an
independent
record
rather
than
pooling
samples
from
a single
site.
For
example,
if
one
site had
multiple
samples
collected
between
1997-2006,
then
each
sample
was
treated
as
an
independent
record
for the
purpose
of
creating
the
class
scores.
Therefore,
richness
expectations
were
based
on the
number
of
species
you
would
expect
to
find
in
a single
sampling
event.
Once
the
classes
were
established,
only
the
sample
that
had
the
highest
richness
from
each
site
was used
to
calculate
the
final
diversity
rating.
Fish
Species
Richness
—
The
fish
species
richness
metric
was
retrieved
from
the
Index
of
Biotic
Integrity
(lBl;
Smogor
2000)
summaries
and
was
used
as
a
•
component
of
the diversity
rating.
We
used
the
classes
developed
for
IBI because
they
accounted
for
variation
in
fish
species
One
of the
objectives
for this
project
was
to
give
equal
weight
to
all communities
of
organisms
found
in
streams
if
adequate
and
richness expectations
across
different sized
streams, slope,
and region. We maintained
these
classes with a single
modification. In
the IBI, fish richness
metric
scores
range
from
0-6.
Because the “0”
does not represent
a
true absence
of fish, we
added
“1”
to each
class thereby resulting
in class scores from
1-7.
Macroinvertebrate
Taxa
Richness —
The MlBl
did not have classes
associated
with
individual
metrics;
however
the
availability
of least-disturbed
samples
provided
the opportunity to define
classes for
macroinvertebrate
taxa
richness
by using the
same
approach
that was
used to define
classes for individual
metrics within
the fish
IBI (Smogor 2000).
The top class
for
taxa
richness was
set at the 75th percentile
of
reference sites.
Using this approach,
taxa
richness values
for MIBI
ranged from
0
to 35+
and were placed
into seven
classes
(Table
2).
Data were not
further stratified
by stream
size
or
location because
previous
analysis
determined that
neither
affected
taxa
richness
expectations (Tetra
Tech, Inc.
2007).
Table 2.
Number of
taxa corresponding
to each class
in
the
Macro-invertebrate
Index of Biotic
Integrity (Tetra Tech,
Inc. 2007).
Class
Score
Taxa Richness
7
35+
6
31-34
5
25-30
4
19-24
3
13-18
2
7-12
1
0-6
CTAP EPT
Species
Richness
— In
order
to
maintain similarity across
data
sources, we used
the 90th percentile
as the
boundary
for the highest
class
for
datasets
that were not developed
with a
reference site
approach
(i.e.,
mussels,
CTAP
EPT
macroinvertebrates,
Si S2
macroinvertebrates,
crayfish,
and
threatened
and
endangered
species).
Our
rationale
was that by
raising the standard
for
the top class for these
datasets to at
least
the 90th percentile,
the highest class
would
be
similarly
restrictive
as
the
datasets
that
did
have reference
site
data
available.
Using the
90th
percentile
as the cut
for the
top
class,
three
classes were created
(Table 3).
Table
3. Number
of
species
corresponding to the three
classes
developed
for
the Critical Trend
Assessment Program’s Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera,
and
Tricoptera data.
The species
from the
three orders are considered
together.
Class
Percentile
Number
of Spedes
1
<50th
1-8
2
SOth-89th
9-18
3
9Oth+
19+
Mussel
Species
Richness — A mussel
species richness
of ten species
or greater
was
previously
used to
identify BSS (Page
et
al. 1992)
and was also used
as the threshold
for
defining the highest
classification for
the
species richness
factor
in
the Illinois
Mussel
Classification
Index (Szafoni 2002;
MCI).
However,
we investigated
the relationship
among mussel
species richness
across
different
sized
streams
defined
by
steam link
(Shreve
1967) within different
drainages and
subsequently
adopted
new class scores
based
on our analysis.
Three classes were
developed for
mussel
species richness
expectations for each
of the major
drainages
based
on the
percentiles within three
stream
size groupings
of the tributary streams
and
the mainstem
(Table
4).
Class
one
consisted
of samples
that were below average
richness
within
the drainage
(0-49th
percentile), class
two were
above average samples
(50-89th),
and class three
were exceptionally high
scoring
samples (90th
percentile
and
above
(Table 4)).
Bonus
Points —The
final diversity rating
also
integrates information
about
taxa
that
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Table
4.
Class scores for mussel
species
richness
values based
on expectations according
to
drainage and stream
size. Stream size is defined
by link
number, which is the number of first order streams based
on the
1:100,000
National
Hydrography
Dataset
(NHD) upstream of
a
given stream reach. Link codes refer to
groupings
of link numbers.
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Stream Size
Drainage
(<50th
peitentile)
(50th - 90th
percentile)
(90th
percenifie
÷)
Small
(link code 1)
Illinois
<3
3-7
8+
Mississippli
<2
2
-5
6+
Ohio
1
2
3+
Wabash
<3
3-8
9+
Medium
(link
code
2-3)
Illinois
<5
5- 11
12+
Mississippli
<5
5-10
11+
Ohio
<2
2-3
4+
Wabash
<5
2-10
11+
Large
(l.inkcode4-6)
Illinois
<5
5-11
12+
Mississippli
<7
5-11
12+
Ohio
<2
2-5
6+
Wabash
<6
6-13
14+
Mainstem
(Linkcode7)
Illinois
<9
9-10
11+
Mississippli
<15
15-20
21+
Ohio
<6
6-13
14+
Wabash
<3
3-9
10+
were deemed important due to their rarity.
The SI S2 EPT, Crayfish, and
T&E datasets
had
a
limited range of data and subsequently
were used
differently in the final ratings
than
other fish, macroinvertebrate, and mussel
data
described previously. The
rationale for
this is
described in
steps
4 and 6 below.
Class scores for these three datasets
were
based on percentiles, but
were adjusted in
weight based on how these data were added
to
the diversity rating.
Step 3.
Standardize classes into a
proportional score (P score).
All class
scores range from “1” to a greater
number with the greatest number
always
representing the
highest class. In this step,
we
divided the assigned class score by the
total number
of classes available to obtain a
proportional score (P score), which has a
maximum
of I. For example,
a
site that had
26
macroinvertebrate taxa
falls in class 5,
which equates to a P score of 5/7 (0.714).
Proportional scores
were used to
standardize
differing numbers of classes among
variables.
Step 4. Average the proportional scores
for
the
three
different
macroinvertebrate datasets in
order
to obtain a single
taxonomic
score (T score).
When multiple
datasets
(i.e., taxa richness
from MIBI, EPT richness from
CTAF
and
S1S2 EPT species) were available for
macroinvertebrates,
the average
of
the
proportional scores was
used
to
determine
the taxonomic score (i.e., macroinvertebrate
taxonomic score). Creating
a
taxonomic
score allowed us to include information
derived from separate assessments into
a
combined signal for macroinvertebrates.
However, we averaged all available
macroinvertebrate
information
into
a
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
taxonomic
score rather
than keeping
the
datasets
separate
and
averaging
them all into
a
final
score in order
to
give
equal weight
to
fish, macroinvertebrates,
and
mussels
in the
final
diversity rating.
SIS2 EPT
data
were
added
to the
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score
as
bonus
point
data
rather
than averaged
into the
taxa
score in order to ensure
that the
presence of
these sensitive
taxa always
improved
a
stream rating.
The maximum number
of
bonus
points was awarded
to samples with
three
or more species
as this corresponds
to
the 90th
percentile for
the
number
of
species
found per sample.
Samples
with 1-2 species
were awarded half
the maximum.
The
diversity
score prior
to adding bonus
points is based
on the average
of the
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score,
the
fish proportional
score
and the
mussel
proportional
score. Since
the
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score is
potentially 1/3 of
the overall diversity
score,
and
SIS2 EPT potentially
contribute
1/3 to the
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score, the
SIS2 EPT
data potentially
contribute
1/9th (0.11) of the
pre-bonus
points diversity
score.
We
therefore,
assigned
0.11 for
samples
with
3+ and
0.055
for
1-2 species.
Some valley segments
had SI S2
EPT data
available but lacked
other macroinvertebrate
data.
In
these
cases we
added the bonus
points after the
fish and mussel taxonomic
scores
had been averaged
(Step
5).
However,
since the
data were
added at
a
different
point
in the
process, the bonus
points
were
divided
by
three
since
they would
contribute
to
a third
of the diversity score prior
to
the T&E and
Crayfish
bonus points being
added.
Therefore, for
valley
segments
without
other macroinvertebrate
data,
0.037
was added
when there
were
3+
species and
0.018
for samples
with 1-2
species.
Step
5.
Average
proportional and/or
taxonomic score for
multiple sites
on a valley segment
When
multiple sites were associated
with
a
particular valley segment
within
a
dataset,
the
average
of these proportional
or taxonomic
(for macroinvertebrates)
scores was
used
to
calculate the final diversity
score. An average
from the different
sites was used
rather than
considering
the
highest
proportional
score
from
the valley segment
since conditions
within
the
stream segment
may vary between
sites
and an average
for the
whole
valley
segment was
a
better representation
than
the
signal
from a single
site.
Step 6.
Determine
the
final diversity rating
for
a valley
segment
The final
diversity score is
based
on
five
potential data
sources: average of
the fish
proportional
scores available
for the valley
segment,
average of the mussel
proportional
scores
available for the
valley segment,
the
average
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
scores,
as
well
as
crayfish and T&E
species
richness.
Threatened
and
EndangeredSpecies
(T&E)
Aquatic T&E
data were added
to the
diversity
score after
the
fish
proportional
scores,
mussel proportional
scores, and
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic scores
have
been
averaged. Because
T&E species were
one of five potential
values contributing
to
a
final diversity rating,
the 95th percentile
of
T&E values
(i.e.,
2+
species) was
awarded
0.2(1/5) bonus
points. Sites having oneT&E
species
were awarded 0.1 bonus
points.
The
maximum
points
T&E species could
add
to a
final
diversity score was
0.2, even if
more
than
one sample
for
a
given valley
segment
had
2+ T&E species.
10
Crayfish
Similarly
to
T&E
species, crayfish are
added
as bonus points after
available fish,
macroinvertebrate,
and mussel information
had been averaged. However,
bonus points
for crayfish
were only awarded
to
samples
that had three
or more species. Three or
more
species represented
the
95th
percentile
of available
data and resulted in 0.1 bonus
points.
The final diversity score for a valley segment
was calculated as:
Diversity Score = average (average
fish
species
richness P scores
÷
average mussel
species
P
scores
+
average macroinvertebrate T Scores)
+
threatened and endangered
species
bonus
points
+
craysh bonus points, where P score =
proportional score and T score = taxonomic
score.
I
The cut-offs for the final diversity letter ratings
were determined
by visually inspecting the
distribution of
the diversity scores (Figure 1).
We also attempted
to
have
a
similar
percentage
of valley segments within each
letter category as the previous BSC projects.
A total of 1127 valley segments were
assigned
a
diversity
rating of A-E (Figure 2).
This
represents 3% of the total 38046 valley
segments that exist
for the state of Illinois. Of
the valley segments that were rated,
the
percentage with
the assignment of the ratings
A-E is
13,
22, 38, 25 and 1 respectively.
While this procedure
has been developed for
assigning ratings using multiple
datasets,
approximately one half of the
total
valley
segments that were rated had
data
available
from only one
dataset
(Table
5).
Table
5.
Number of
datasets contributing to final
diversity ratings.
Datasets
Total Valley Segments
1
565
2
370
3
134
4
44
5
11
6
3
Total
1127
250
200
J
15
o
p100
50
0
1)isüibution of Diversity Scores
Figure 1. Distribution of diversity scores and corresponding letter rating. The percentage of
valley segments
with
diversity
ratings of A-E is 13, 22, 38, 25, and 1 respectively.
E
E
000
C
C
B
‘0.1-0.19 0.2-0.29
0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.69 0.7-0.79
0.8-0.89
Diversity Rating
and Range in Score
11
Examples of Diversity Ratings
To further illustrate the diversity process,
we
present several examples (Table
6). In the
first example,
only one
dataset is associated
with the valley segment. The fish
species
richness
is 15, which
corresponds
to a class
score
of
5.
To obtain the proportional
score,
5 is divided by the
total number
of classes;
which is 7. Since there are no other
datasets
to
average with the fish species
richness, the
final diversity score is the same as the
fish
proportional
score. A final diversity
score of
0.714 equates to a
letter rating
of
C.
In the second example, data are available
from three taxonomic groups. The
fish
species richness
is 22, which
equates to
a
class score of
6 and a
proportional score of
0.857. The mussel species richness is 6,
which
equates to a
class score of 2 and
a
proportional
score of
0.667.
The
macroinvertebrate taxa richness is 42, which
equates to a class score
of 7 and
a
proportional score of 1. The diversity score
is determined by averaging
these three
proportional scores. The final score of 0.841
corresponds
to a
letter rating of C.
The third example has two sets of
macroinvertebrate
data as
well as fish and
mussel data. The fish species
richness is
10,
equating
to a
class score of 3 and
a
proportional score of 0.429. The
mussel
species
richness is 1,
equating
to
a class
Table 6.
Examples of calculating
diversity
scores
eWthtwonsd
• Exarew
rç4ethbo Eiew
safrn
a
Exarç4ewiUi
jrDTt
noiete SIS2 EPTLms
eia,geispec
seda
gzx
ds
Vä1’Seqnent
21679
39073
37913
3557
44269
FhSpRidrs
15
22
10
33
Fhspiridriess dassscx
5
6
3
7
Fishpolkinscxxe
0.714(5(7)
0.857(5(7)
0.429(3’7)
1 (717)
MLsspesriciTiess
6
1
1
and 13
MLsssdTsdssa
2
1
1
and 3
Mt.ss pnprtbnsce
0.667(2)3)
0.333(113)
0.667(aect0.33arI
1)
Maioëiertehatetaa rbTs
42
31
40
Maioie1ehtetaxa ñdnessdassscon
7
6
7
MaospWx&n4scoi
1(7/7)
0.857(5(7)
1
(717)
CXi7.P EPrspedes ridness
17
20
CLAP Eprspedes
rriesscJssxxe
2
3
C1P
EPTsies richiess p0 lbn score
0.667(213)
1
(3’3)
S1S2EPtsçierthiess
1
S1S2EPtserkfr1esstcnJsph
0.055
Maoi1etdyotetaeyxnicsco4e
1
0.76
1.055
1
Portrspcits[rsitysoDre
0.714
0.841
0.51
1.055
0.889
QMhes
cMspies
ssbis
p
Theaned ad Endageredspedes
ridTeS5
2
TheateJ aid
Eriia,ger&i species rk±ness
0.2
Lms peAls
Fir s1yScore
0.714
0.841
0.51
1.055
1.089
DiesityRatir
C
B
D
A
A
12
score
of
I and
a
proportional
score
of 0.333.
The
macroinvertebrate
taxa
richness
is
31
equating
to
a
class
score
of
6 and
a
proportional
score
of 0.857.
The
CTAP
EPT
species
richness
is
17
equating
to
a
class
score
of
2
and
a
proportional
score
of 0.667.
Before
the
diversity
score
can
be
calculated,
available
macroinvertebrate
data
are
combined
into
a
taxonomic
score.
The
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score
is determined
by
averaging
the
macroinvertebrate
taxa
richness
proportional
score
and
the
CTAP
EPT
proportional
score.
The
final
diversity
score
(0.51
with
a
diversity
rating
of D)
is
calculated
by
averaging
the
fish
and
mussel
proportional
scores
and
the
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score.
The
fourth
example
also
has
two
datasets
available
for
macroinvertebrates.
However,
one
of the
datasets
is
Si S2
EPT
bonus
data.
The
CTAP
ETP
species
richness
is
20,
which
represents
a
class
score
of
3
and
a
proportional
score
of
1.
There
is
one
Si
S2
EPT
species
associated
with
the
valley
segment
that
is awarded
0.055
bonus
points.
The
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score
is
therefore
the
CTAP
EPT
proportional
score
plus
the
SIS2
EPT
bonus
points.
Since
no
other
data
are
available,
the
final
score
is
equal
to
the
macroinvertebrate
taxonomic
score
(1.055
with
a
diversity
rating
of
A).
The
final
example
illustrates
the
procedure
for
dealing
with
valley
segments
that
may
have
more
than
one
sampling
site
associated
with
them
and
for
calculating
a
final
diversity
score
using
threatened
and
endangered
species
bonus
points.
The
fish
species
richness
is 33
equaling
a
class/metric
score
of
7
and
a
proportional
score
of
1.
There
are
two
mussel
sites
associated
with
the
valley
segment
with
species
richness
of 1
and
13.
These
correspond
to
class/metric
scores
of
1 and
3
respectively.
To determine the
final
proportional
score
for
the
mussels,
the
average
is
taken
of
the
two
site
proportional
scores.
The
fish
and
mussel
proportional
scores
are
then
averaged before
bonus
points
are
awarded.
Two
threatened
and
endangered
species
are associated
with
the
valley
segment
equating
to
0.2
bonus
points.
Once
these
are
added
to
the pre-bonus
point
diversity
score
of
0.889,
the
final
diversity
score
is 1.089,
which
equals
an
A
rating.
G
T
13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
.W%
B
D
E
[]
County Boundaries
Map
of Diversity
Ratings
Figure
2.
Geographic
distribution of diversity
ratings.
Three
percent of all valley segments
for Illinois
have
a
diversity rating.
Access to the diversity
data associated
with individual streams is
available at:
http://www.dnr.state.il
.us/orc/BioStrmRatings/.
C
Diversity Ratings
A
ThI Oar and erSams
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Integrity
Ratings
Background
B
iological
integrity
refers
to a
system’s
wholeness
(Angermeier
and
Karr
1994) and
the ability
of a
system
to
support
organisms
and
processes
comparable
to
natural
habitat
of the region
(Hughes
and Noss
1992).
Indices
or
assessment
measures
like
the fish
and
macroinvertebrate Indexes
of Biotic
Integrity
(Smogor
2000,
Tetra Tech,
Inc.
2007)
measure
how closely
a
test
community
resembles
a natural,
least-
disturbed,
or
intact community
(see
Stoddard
et aI. 2006
for
a
discussion
of
these
terms).
Intactness
for fish
and
macroinvertebrates
was
determined
from
the indices
of
biotic integrity
in comparison
to least
disturbed
or reference
sites.
Intactness
for
mussels
was determined
in
comparison
to
historical
species
richness
expectations
for
a
site.
In December
2006,
project
stakeholders
met and
discussed
the
appropriateness
of available
datasets
for inclusion
in
the
integrity analysis.
We
considered
data
collected
within the
past
decade
(1997-2006)
that were
collected
as
part
of IDNR,
IEPA,
or
INHS monitoring
programs.
We
limited
data to
these
institutions
to
ensure that
collection
methods
were
standardized,
repeatable,
and
will
be
continued
in the future
so that
data
will
be
available
for revisions
of these
ratings.
Approach
The
general
approach
for
obtaining
an
integrity
rating is a
six
step
process.
Step
1. Select
data
for
inclusion
into the
rating.
We
considered
only
data that
were
collected
within
the
past
decade.
However,
if
a single site
had
more than
one sample
from
the past decade,
we used
the sample
with
the highest
value for
inclusion
in
the
final
rating calculation.
We
used this
approach
rather
than
taking the
most
recent
sample
or
an average
of the
samples
because
the highest
value
represents
a
conservative
estimate
of the
biological
potential
for the
site and this
approach
accounts
for variation
that may
occur
with sampling.
Additionally,
we
did
not average
the
data from
multiple
samples
because
the
average
could
represent
a
condition
that
had not been
found at
the site. The
following data
were
used
in the final
integrity
ratings.
Fish—
Fish data
from
community
samples
taken
as
part of
the
cooperative
Basin
Survey
Program
and
other
department
monitoring
were provided
by
the IDNR.
These data
were
reviewed
by
regional
IDNR
stream
biologists
to verify
that the
samples
were
representative
community
samples
with
adequate
sampling
efficiency.
Fish
Index
of
Biotic Integrity
(lBl)
scores from
the compiled
samples
were used
to calculate
integrity ratings.
A
total
of 744 sites
with
calculated
Fish Index
of Biotic
Integrity
(IBI; Smogor
2000)
scores were
used
in the
final integrity
score analysis
(Table
7).
Table
7.
The number
of sites from
each
dataset
used
to
calculate integrity
scores.
lntegiity
Dataset
Number
of Sites
Fish IBI
744
Macroinvertebrate
181
452
Mussel
Classification
Index
134
Mussel
Single
Sample
Intactness
329
Mussel Historical
Intactness
366
Total
2025
Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates
— Benthic
macroinvertebrate
data
were
compiled
15
from
the IEPA
in
Springfield.
These
data
were
collected
following
protocols
established
for use in their
Stream
Condition Index
(Tetra
Tech, Inc.
2007),
referred
to as
the Macroinvertebrate
Index
of Biotic Integrity
(MIBI)
in this
project. A
total
of 452 sites with
total MIBI
scores
were
used
for
the final
integrity score
analysis (Table 7).
Mussels —
Mussel
data
were obtained
from the
INHS mollusk collections
database
(http:llwww.inhs.uiuc.edu/cbd/collections/mol
lusk/molluskintro.html)
and IDN R. Records
associated
with
freshwater
snails,
fingernail
clams, zebra mussels,
and
Asian
clams were
not
included,
as well
as any
records
not located in
streams. In order
to
query
data that
were representative
of
community samples,
we restricted our
data
to
a list of
collectors’ names obtained
from
Kevin Cummings,
the INHS malacologist
and
mussel
database manager.
Three
variables
were used to determine
integrity
ratings for
mussels:
mussel
community
index
(MCI), single sample
intactness, and
historical
intactness.
Freshwater
Mussel
Classificalion
Index
MCl)
Data were obtained
from Bob Szafoni
(IDNR)
for sites where
the MCI has been
calculated (Szafoni
2002).
The
MCI
is
comprised of four
metrics:
species
richness,
abundance,
presence
of
intolerant species,
and
recruitment
(Szafoni
2002).
Each of these
metrics
is
scored and
the scores are then
summed
to
determine an index
score. Although the
MCI
is comprised of
multiple
metrics
like
the fish IBI and MIBI,
it differs from these
because
the
response of metrics
included
in MCI to human
impacts
in watersheds
has
not been considered
as part of the
MCI development.
Because
reference
conditions
were not
used to evaluate
metrics, the resulting
MCI scores
do not
represent
how far
a
sampled
mussel
community
is from a natural or
reference
condition.
Rather,
they
were selected
to
represent
the characteristics
of a healthy
functioning community.
Fundamentally
this
is
different
than
the
fish
and
macroinvertebrate
IBIs, however
we
included the MCI
in this project with
the
expectation
that the index will be
refined in
the future and
the availability of data
will
increase.
A total of 134 sites
were
used for
the final integrity
score
analysis
(Table 7).
Intactness
One metric currently
considered
for
inclusion
into the MCI
is community
intactness, which
is simply defined
as the
proportion of live
species
found
at site
to
what is
expected.
Initial
analysis
suggested that
the expected
value
increased
with the number
of samples
available for
a site.
Therefore,
we
calculated
both single
sample and
historical intactness
values to account
for
different numbers
of samples among sites.
16
Both
intactness
values were
calculated
for
a site
using
the
community
sample from
the past
decade
with the
highest
species
richness
of live
mussel
species
divided
by
the total
number of
species
including
dead
(dead
and newly
empty
shells) and
relict
(old
shells) specimens.
For
single sample
intactness,
the
total number
of species
was
from
the single
sample
while
for historical
intactness
it
included
all the species
found
at
the site
from all
available
samples.
If
both
historical
and single
sample
intactness
were
calculated
for
a
site,
then
historical
intactness
was
used in the
final
integrity
ratings.
A total
of
366
historical
intactness
sites
and
329 non-overlapping
single
sample
intactness
sites
were used
for
the
final
integrity
score analysis
(695
total
mussel
sites,
Table
7).
Step
2. Convert
raw data
to a
class
score.
One
of the
objectives
for
this project
was
to
give equal
weight
to all communities
of
organisms
found
in
streams
if adequate
and
comparable
sampling
had occurred.
To
do this, we
developed
classes
for
each
dataset
used
in the
analysis
in an
attempt
to
interpret
raw
data from
different sources
and
classify
it similarly.
Classes
were
independently
developed
for each
dataset
using
each
sample
collection
as
an
independent
record
rather than
pooling
samples
from a
single site.
For example,
if
one
site
had
multiple
samples
collected
between
1997-2006,
then each
sample
was
treated
as
an
independent
record
for
the purpose
of creating
the class
scores.
Therefore,
integrity
and
intactness
expectations
were
based on
the
number of
species
you
would
expect
to
find in
a
single
sampling
event.
Once the
classes
were
established,
only
the
sample that
had the
highest value
from
each
site was
used
to
calculate
the final
integrity
rating.
Fish
Index
of Biotic
Integrity
—
The
fish Index
of Biotic
Integrity
(IBI;
Smogor
2000)
scores
were used
as a
component
of the
integrity
rating.
Because
the lBI
already
had five
integrity
classes
associated
with the
index (Smogor
2005),
we maintained
these
classes
with
little
modification.
In the IBl,
the integrity
classes
ranged
from one
(best) to
five
(worst).
We
reversed
the
numbering
of the
classes
to give
the sites
with
the highest
IBI
score
a
5
instead
of
a 1.
Macroinvertebrate Index
of Biotic
Integrity
(MIBI)
— The
MI Bl (Tetra
Tech,
Inc. 2007)
scores, based
on
seven metrics,
were
used as
a
component
of the
integrity
rating. In
the MlBl,
final
scores are
placed
into
one of four
classes, with
one
being
the
worst
and four
being
the best.
We
maintained
these four
classes
for
this
project.
Mussels
Mussel Classification
Index
(MCi)
Szafoni (2002)
defined
five
classes
for the
MCI ranging
from
0-4. We
maintained
classes
I through 4
for
the integrity
ratings.
Sites
with
a total
score
of 0 had no
live
mussels present
and
were not
included
in
the
final integrity
rating
calculations.
Intactness
We
used
the
90th
percentile
as
the
boundary
for the
highest class
for datasets
that were
not developed
with
a
reference
site
approach
or did
not
have classes
already developed
for the index.
Our
rationale
was
that
by
raising
the
standard
for
the
top class
for
intactness
the 90th
percentile,
the
highest
class
would
be
similarly
restrictive
as
the
datasets
that
did
have reference
site
data available.
We
developed
classes for
historic
and
single
sample
intactness
independently.
For each,
17
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
intactness classes consisted
of the 1-10th percentile for
class 1 and the 11-50th, 51-
89th
and 9Oth+ percentile
for
classes 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
Similar
to
mussel species
richness expectations, c I asses
were
assigned according
to
drainage and stream size
(Tables 8 and 9).
Step 3.
Standardize classes
into a proportional
score (P score).
Proportional scores were used
to standardize
differing numbers
of classes among variables. All
metric/class
scores range from
“1” to a
greater number with
the
greatest number always
representing the highest class.
In this step, we
divided
the
assigned
class score
by
the
total
number of classes available to
obtain a
proportional score (P
score), which has a maximum of 1.
Step
4. Average the
proportional
scores
within a given
taxonomic group
to
obtain a single
taxonomic
score
(T score).
Three
datasets were potentially
available for mussels: MCI score
(Szafoni
2002), single sample
intactness, and historical
intactness.
If both historical and
single
sample intactness were
available
for a site, then
historical
intactness was used in
the final
integrity
ratings. When MCI and intactness
scores
were both
available
for mussels,
then the
average
of the
proportional
scores
was used to determine
the
taxonomic
score (i.e., mussel taxonomic score).
Creating a taxonomic score
allowed
us to
Table
8. Class scores for mussel single sample
intactness
percentages
based on expectations according to drainage and
stream
size.
Stream size
is defined by
link
number,
which is the number
of
first order
streams based on the 1:1 00,000
National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) upstream of a
given
stream
reach. Link codes refer to groupings of link numbers.
Singje Sample
Intactness Percentage
Stream Size
Drainage
Class 1
Class
2
Class
3
Class 4
Small
(link
code
1)
Ilinois
1 -27
28 -65
66-83
84+
Mississippli
1
- 19
20-50
51
-83
84+
Ohio
1
-20
21 -42
43-54
55+
Wabash
1 -33
34-60
61 -79
80+
Medium
(link
code
2-3)
Illinois
1 -26
27-71
72-90
91 +
Mississippli
1
-35
36-71
72-88
89+
Ohio
1 - 12
13 - 44
45 - 76
77+
Wabash
1 -20
21
-50
51 -82
83+
Large
(link
code
4-6)
Illinois
1 -21
22-50
51 -83
84+
Mississippli
1 -32
33-64
65-77
78+
Ohio
na
na
na
na
Wabash
1 - 24
25
- 55
56
- 88
89+
Table
9. Class scores for mussel single sample
intactness
percentages
based on expectations according to drainage and stream size.
Stream size is defined by link number, which is the number of
first order streams based on the 1:100,000 National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) upstream of a given stream
reach. Link
codes
refer
to
groupings of link numbers.
Historical Intactness Percentage
Stream Size
Drainage
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Small
(link code 1)
Illinois
1 -22
23-50
51 -79
80+
Mississippli
na
na
na
na
Ohio
1 -15
16-27
28-59
60+
Wabash
1 -17
18-50
51
-71
72+
Medium
(Link
code 2-3)
Illinois
1 -20
21
-62
63-79
80+
Mississippli
1 -20
21 -57
58-79
80+
Ohio
1 - 14
15 - 31
32 - 53
54+
Wabash
1 -14
15-41
42-71
72+
Large
(Link
code 4-6)
Illinois
1 - 11
12 -44
45-69
70+
Mississippli
1 -16
17-45
46-63
64+
Ohio
na
na
na
na
Wabash
1 - 13
14
- 40
41
- 62
63+
18
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
include
information
derived
from
separate
assessments
into a combined
signal
for
mussels.
However,
we averaged
all
available
mussel
information
into
a
taxonomic
score
in order
to
give equal
weight
to fish,
macroinvertebrates,
and
mussels
in the
final integrity
rating.
Step
5. Average
proportional
and/or
taxonomic
score
for multiple
sites
on a valley
segment.
When
multiple sites
were
associated
with a
particular
valley
segment
for
a
dataset, the
average
of these
proportional
or taxonomic
(for mussels)
scores
was
used
to calculate
the final
integrity
score.
An average
from
the different
sites
was
used rather
than
considering
the
highest
proportional
score
from the
valley segment
since conditions
within
the
stream
segment may
vary and
an average
for the
whole
valley
segment
was a
better representation
than the signal
from
a single
site.
Step
6.
Determine
the
final
integrity rating
for
a
valley segment.
=
E
Cl)
The
final integrity
score
for
a valley
segment
was calculated
as:
Integrity
Score
= average
(average
fish
lBl
P scores
+
average
MIBI
P scores
+
average
mussel
T scores),
where
P
score
= proportional
score
and T score
=
taxonomic
score
The
cut-offs
for
the
final integrity
letter
ratings
were
determined
by
visually
inspecting
the distribution
of the
integrity
scores
(Figure
3).
We
also
attempted
to
have
a similar
percentage
of rated
valley
•
segments
within
each
letter
category to
the
previous
BSC
projects.
A total
of 1019
valley
segments
were
assigned
an integrity
rating
of
A-E
(Figure
4). This
represents
• 2.7%
of the
total
valley
segments.
The
percentage
of valley
segments
with
the
• assignment
of
ratings A
- E is
9,
31,
45, 10
and
5
respectively.
While
this procedure
has
been developed
for
assigning
ratings
using multiple
datasets, approximately
one
half
of the
total valley
segments
that
were
assigned
an
integrity
score
used
data from
only
one
dataset (Table
10).
Disuibufion
of
Integrity
Scores
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
13
A
0.8-0.89
0.9-0.99
Figure
3.
Distribution
of integrity scores
and
corresponding
letter
ratings.
The percentage
of valley
segments
with
integrity
ratings of A-E
is
9,31,45, 10,
and
5
respectively.
19
Examples of Integrity Ratings
We provide several examples
to further
illustrate the integrity rating
process (Table
11). In the first example only
the single
dataset
of
macroinvertebrate IBI
is
associated with the valley segment.
The
MIBI
score is 39.99 which equals
a class 2
Table
10.
The
number of
datasets contributing
to
final integrity ratings.
Datasets
Total Valley
Segments
1
515
2
306
3
104
4
80
5
12
Total
1019
out of 4;
therefore the proportional
score is
0.5.
Since there are no other
datasets
Table 11.
Examples of calculating integrity
scores.
available for this valley segment the final
integrity rating is also 0.5 (Integrity Rating
C).
In
the second example both the
MlBl
and
fish IBI are available. The fish 181 score
is
47
corresponding to class
4 and
a
proportional score of
0.8.
The MIBI score
is
65.39 corresponding to
class
3
and
a
proportional score of 0.75. The average
of
the fish 181 and MIBI
proportional scores
is
calculated to determine the final integrity
score of
0.775,
which
equates to an
integrity
rating of B.
In
the third example, the
fish IBI, MIBI,
and
two mussel datasets are available. The
fish IBI
score is 55,
which is
a
class 4
score
with
a proportional score of 0.8. The MIBI
score is 78.23 with
a
class score of 4
and
a proportional score of 1. The mussel
Example
based
on Fish
Examplewftht
Fxamplewilh
and Ma ninvetteixate
average of
sedataset
mr
VI’Segmait
38663
29766
44269
FshIBIscot
47
55
FhIBIdassscoin
4
4
Fish IBI poçortbr
scxxe
0.8(45)
0.8(4/5)
MairñeilebateIBlnxxn
39.99
68.39
78.23
MarbateIBIclassso
2
3
4
MaiotebateIBI
ptçxwtbri’4
sa’e
0.5(214)
0.75(2/4)
1 (4/4)
Missd
Oassatbn Irriesoe
16
Mtssd Oasstbn lniecdassscx
4
MLssd
Oasska&i Irvin
p4oçx*n
1 (4/4)
MLnsdsrçesaTçAe
spatne
29
M1sssisarçAehsdassscxD1e
2(2/4)
MisisaTçeintas
*tpt*,scxDie
0.5
Ms
hiskaicA itadrs
peitentage
Msd
hisbt__sdassscx
Mi.nsd hisbic htar
popDrtbnsoDie
Msuørcscx
0.75
htegityniore
0.5
0.775
0.85
hratfr
C
B
B
20
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
classification index score is 16 with a class
score of 4 and a proportional score
of 1.
The single sample intactness percentage
is 29, which is a class 2 score and a
proportional
score of 0.5. The
two mussel
proportional scores are averaged for a
mussel taxonomic score of 0.75. The
final
integrity score is then the average of the
fish IBI proportional score, the MIBI
proportional score,
and the
mussel
taxonomic score. The final score equals
0.85,
which is equivalent
to
an integrity
rating of B.•
21
Integrity Ratings
‘‘d A
B
Map
of Integrity Ratings
———
E
Third Order and Larger
Streams
[Z]
County
Boundaries
Figure 4.
Geographic distribution
of integrity ratings.
Of the total 38,046 valley
segments
for the
state, only 2.7%
have
an integrity rating.
Access to the integrity data
associated with
individual streams
is available at: http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orc/BioStrmRatings/.
C
22
Biologically
Significant
Streams
B
iologically Significant
Streams (BSS)
are
defined as
streams
that
have
a
high rating
or score
based
on data from at
least
two taxonomic groups.
This can be
achieved
by obtaining an A rating
either
for
diversity
or for
integrity
that
is
based
on
data from two
or more taxonomic
groups.
A
second
way to
achieve
this
status
is for
a stream segment
to have class scores
in
the highest
class
for
at
least
two different
taxonomic
groups when
considering the
combined
data
from the diversity
and
integrity
ratings. While these
criteria
may
seem
more
rigorous
than the previous
BSS assessment,
we believe
this is
merited.
By
requiring
BSS segments
to
have either an
A rating or high class
scores
from separate
assessments,
we assured
that only the highest
rated reaches
are
given biologically
significant
status.
By
considering
two taxonomic
groups, we
have more
confidence in
the BSS
designation
because at least
two
signals
are
indicating
high biological significance
within the
stream.
A
total of 1366
valley segments had
data
associated
with them. Our
primary criteria
requiring
a
valley
segment to contain
the
highest
class
score from two
different
taxonomic
groups
accounted
for 84% of all
BSS
identifications.
However, most
valley
segments (56%)
that were
identified as
biologically
significant
also received an A
rating
for Diversity
and/or Integrity
(Table
12).
Stream segments
identified as
biologically
significant
are
unique
resources in
the
state
and
we
believe that the
biological
communities
present
must
be
protected at
the
stream reach,
as well as
upstream
of
Table 12. The
underlying qualifications
for
designation as a biologically
significant
stream (BSS). All
BSS were
evaluated
based on information
from at least
two
datasets
from differing taxonomic
groups.
For streams rated A for diversity
or
integrity,
at least
two datasets
from
different taxonomic groups
had
to
contribute to the final
rating.
For streams
that had the highest
class score,
the two
different taxonomic
groups
could
be
derived
from a
combination
of both the
diversity
and integrity datasets.
Rationale
Count
2+ highest classes
but
no A ratings
54
Total
with A rating
68
Total
BSS
valley
segments
122
Breakdown
2+
highest class ratings
Integrity A & 2+ highest
classes
5
Diversity A
&
Integrity
A & 2+ highest
classes
11
Diversity A
& 2+ highest classes
33
2+ highest classes
but
no A ratings
54
Total with 2+ highest classes
103
Breakdown A ratings
Diversity
A
&
Integrity A
1
Integrity
A & 2+ highest classes
5
Diversity
A
8
Integrity A
10
Diversity A
&
Integrity
A
& 2+ highest
classes
11
Diversity
A & 2+ highest classes
33
Total with A
Rating
68
the reach.
It is well documented
in the
scientific literature
that
the
physical
and
chemical
properties of water
at a stream
site reflect
upstream influences
(Omernick
et al. 1981, Smart
et
al. 1981, Hunsaker
and Levine
1995).
However,
we are
unaware
of any criteria that
can definitively
identify
the
upstream
extent
of influence on
biota
within each
stream
reach
identified
as biologically significant.
Therefore,
we
used
some
simple,
practical
constraints for
extrapolating
from site-specific
information
to upstream stream
segments to
arrive
at
the final
segments identified
as
biologically
significant.
Stream
reaches (i.e.,
arcs
defined
as
confluence
to
confluence
reaches)
upstream of a
valley
segment
that was identified
as
BSS were
also
23
identified
as biologically
significant if ALL
of the
following criteria
applied:
1) The
nearest downstream
valley
segment has
sufficient
biological
information
to warrant BSS
status.
2)
The stream reach
is
part of the
BSS
and not
a
tributary
connecting
to
it.
3)
The stream
reach is not
smaller than
third order
in size.
Stream order
is
a
relative
measure of stream
size; larger
orders represent
larger
streams.
Using
third
order as a size limit
is consistent
with
the
extent of range
for the
majority of fish,
mussel,
and macroinvertebrate
information
used, which predominately
was collected
from third-order
streams and
larger.
Importantly,
not
all
stream
segments
smaller
than third order were
denied BSS
status
outright. As
per the first
criterion,
regardless
of stream
size, if sufficient
biological information
was available
from
the valley segment
and the information
indicates
high
integrity or diversity,
the
segment was
identified for BSS status.
4) The
stream
reach
is free-flowing,
i.e.,
not
obviously part of
a lake, reservoir,
or
large river.
•
24
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
I
Map
of Biologically
Significant
Streams
—-
Biologically
Significant
Streams
ThlixI
Order and
Larger
Streams
[]
County
Boundades
Figure
5.
Geographic
distribtition
of biologically
significant
streams.
Access
to the
data
associated
with
individual
streams
is available
at:
http://www.dnr.state.
ii .us/orc/BioStrmRatings/.
25
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Conclusions
Data
Issues
he
ratings
proposed
in this
document
incorporate
aspects
of both
previous
BSC
and BSS
processes.
Since
the
publication
of BSC
and BSS,
new
initiatives
have
been
implemented
to
collect
biological
information
relevant
to
streams
such
as the
Critical
Trends
Assessment
Program,
Mussel
Classification
Index,
and
the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Stream
Condition
Index (MIBI
in
this report).
The fish
IBI
has
also
been
revised
and the list
of threatened
and
endangered
species has
changed
since the
original
publication
of
BSS.
With
the
additions
and
changes
to these
data
sources,
it was
pertinent
to reassess
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the previous
stream ratings
in
the context
of
supporting
implementation
of
Illinois’
Wildlife
Action Plan.
The Illinois
Wildlife
Action
Plan identifies
a
broad
array of
species in
greatest need
of
conservation,
and
therefore
it
was
appropriate
to
consider
multiple taxonomic
groups
in this
project.
In keeping
with
the
Illinois
Wildlife
Action
Plan’s stream
habitat
goal
that:
“High—quality
examples
of all
river
and stream
communities
. .
. are
restored and
managed
within
all natural
divisions
in
which
they
occur”,
the current
stream
ratings
and
identification
of
biologically
significant
streams
provide
a
new
and
updated
tool
to
identify
and target
such areas.
By combining
multiple
datasets
from
different
taxonomic
groups
into a
single
rating,
this project
gives
ratings
that
are
a
holistic representation
of
stream
biological
resources.
Because we
considered
data in
addition
to fish,
ratings
were
applied
to
an additional
483 valley
segments
that
lacked
fish
data.
Other
taxonomic
groups
were
investigated
but
not used
because
of
limited available
data.
For example,
information
on amphibians
and
reptiles
in
Illinois
were
obtained
from the
INHS
amphibian
and
reptile
collection.
Of the
listed
amphibian
and
reptile
species,
the
Dusky
Salamander,
is
a
species
found
in
stream
habitat
(Phillips
et
al. 1999)
and
is
considered
an
indicator
species in
small
streams
without
fish
(Southerland
et
al.
2004).
While
we
included
the Dusky
Salamander
in
with
the T&E
species, we
did
not
include
other
reptiles
and
amphibians
because
we
lacked
sufficient
statewide
information
on
the distribution
of
herpitiles
inhabiting
streams.
Plant
information
was
also
pursued
because
multiple
species were
included
previously
in
the
Biologically
Significant
Illinois
Streams
(Page
et al. 1992)
publication.
However,
of the
plant
species
that
are
still
protected
under
the Illinois
Endangered
Species
Protection
Act, only
the
heart-leaved
plantain
(Plantago
cordata)
is
considered
an
associate
of
stream
habitat
(Herkert
and
Ebinger
2002).
Many
of the
species
included
in the original
BSS
were aquatic
plants associated
with
pond habitats
and
therefore
were
not
included
in
our
analysis.
We
consulted
State experts,
including
INHS personnel
previously
involved
with BSS
(Page
et al.
1992),
to determine
if other
potential
botanical
datasets
were
available.
However,
no
additional
plant
species were
included
in our ratings
since there
have not
been
systematic
statewide
surveys
of
plants
associated
with stream
habitat.
26
Updates and Revisions
One of the goals of the previous BSC
initiatives
was to update
stream ratings on
an annual basis and to publish the
revised
ratings every five years.
However, the
original
BSC
stream ratings were
updated
only
once based on data
that were
collected through
1993. Similarly, the BSS
project was
based
on
data
collected
through 1991 and has not been updated
since. Therefore, stream designations
identified in these projects are based on
data that is at least
14 years old. Given
that these ratings are used by a
diverse
group of
stakeholders, it was clear that an
updated
version was required.
Several reasons may
explain why previous
stream ratings
have changed through this
project including: a new process
evaluating
diversity and integrity data, addition of data
previously
unavailable, revision to
the fish
IBI and T&E species list, and changes in
stream condition.
Because
previous
stream ratings may have changed for
these reasons, comparisons of
new
ratings
to previous ratings (from
Hite and
Bertrand 1989, Page et al. 1992, Bertrand
et
al.
1996) are not
appropriate. For
example,
a
stream
reach rated as C in this
report
that was
previously B should not
be
interpreted
automatically
as a
degradation
in stream quality. In addition to a revised
process for
assigning
letter grades,
biologically significant streams must now
have
data
from two different taxonomic
groups.
Therefore,
some
streams
previously identified
as
BSS did not
receive the BSS designation in this effort
because
they
lacked
sufficient
data
given
the change in criteria.
27
The ratings included in this
report can
assist in identifying streams that
are in
need
of
restoration
or
improved
conservation. Given that less
than 5% of
the valley segments in the state have
data
associated with them, this
project also
indicates data gaps and can help
prioritize
future survey efforts. Current
fish and
macroinvertebrate indexes are
only
applicable
to
wadeable streams,
thus we
limited ratings to
wadeable
conditions.
Development of assessment
tools for
headwaters and larger rivers
would allow
broader application of ratings in the
future.
Systematic surveys
of mussels and
crayfishes would support index refinement
and
broader inclusion of these
taxa. As
statewide
surveys increase,
the inclusion
of
other taxa such as herpitiles
or aquatic
macrophytes may be possible
in future
updates of the
stream
ratings.
The final product of diversity and integrity
ratings and biologically significant
streams,
available
at
http://
www.dn r.state. i I. us/orc/BioStrm Ratings!,
indicates the data sources that
contribute
to
each final rating and includes
the proportional scores for these data. This
information
will
enable
different
stakeholders
with varying
goals to use the
ratings and contributing data for their
particular
purposes. For example, if
a
stakeholder wanted to target their efforts
at
streams with high mussel species diversity
they would be able to
identify
those
streams
according to the mussel species
richness
proportional score contributing
to
the final diversity score. Similarly, efforts
focused
at
streams with a high fish
IBI
score could consider the fish IBI
proportional score contributing to a final
integrity score.
28
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
The major
data
collection
programs
(collaborative
basin
surveys,
CTAF
Endangered
Species
Board
updates)
used
in this
project
operate
on
a
five
year
interval
to
assess
streams
statewide.
Therefore,
the
IDNR
intends
to
update
ratings
annually
at
http://
www.dnr.state.iI.
us/orc/BioStrmRatings/
and publish
new ratings,
including
designating
biologically
significant
streams,
after the
completion
of
each
round
of
basin
surveys.
A published
revision
of ratings
should
be available
approximately
every 5-6
years.
With each
published
update,
a
new
range
of data
from each
of the sources
will be
selected
to
encompass
the last
ten
years.
For
certain
datasets
such
as
the
fish
and
macroinvertebrate
IBIs,
the
values
that
correspond
to
the class
scores will
not
have
to be
recalculated
since they
were
already
established.
However,
for other
datasets
such as
the
mussel species
richness
and intactness
data,
the number
of
species
that
correspond
to the
percentiles
that
were used
to determine
class
scores will
undoubtedly
change
with
the
collection
of
additional
data. For
these
datasets,
the
values
that
represent
the
different
class
scores
should
be
recalculated
using the
new data
for each
revision
until
these
values can
be
more
formally
established.
In
addition,
the cut
offs for
the letter
ratings are
based on
the
distribution
of the final
scores.
In the future
these
cut-offs
could
change
as new
data
are
analyzed.
Therefore,
the
final scores
that
correspond
to
the
letter ratings
A-E
should
be
reevaluated
with
any update.
29
Literature
Cited
Angermeier,
P.L. and J.R. Karr.
1994. Biological
integrity versus
biological
diversity
as
policy
directives.
BioScience
44:690-697.
Bertrand,
W. A., R. L. Hite,
and D. M.
Day. 1996. Biological
stream characterization
(BSC): Biological
assessment
of Illinois
stream quality through
1993. Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency, Bureau
of
Water,
Springfield,
IL.
I EPAIBOWI96-058.
Brenden,
T.O., L. Wang,
RW. Seelbach,
R.D. Clark,
Jr., M.J. Wiley, and B.L.
Sparks-
Jackson. 2008.
A
spatially
constrained cluster
program for river valley
segment
delineation
from GIS
digital
river networks. Environmental
Modeling
and
Software
23: 638-649.
DeWalt, R.
E.,
C.
Favret,
and D. W. Webb.
2005. Just how
imperiled are aquatic
insects? A case
study of stoneflies
(Plecoptera)
in Illinois. Annals of the
Entomological
Society of America
98(6):
941-950.
Diamond, J.M.
and V. B. Serveiss.
2001. Identifying
sources of stress
to
native
aquatic
fauna
using
a
watershed
ecological risk
assessment
framework.
Environmental
Science and Technology
35:4711-4718.
Favret, C. and R. E.
DeWalt. 2002.
Comparing the
Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera
Specimen Databases
at
the Illinois
Natural
History Survey
and Using Them to
Document
Changes in
the Illinois Fauna.
Annals of the Entomological
Society
of
America
95(1):
35-40.
Fruend,
J. G. and J. T.
Petty. 2007.
Response to fish and
macroinvertebrate
bioassessment
indices
to water
chemistry
in a minded Appalachian
watershed.
Environmental
Management
39:707-720.
Herkert,
J. R. and J. E. Ebinger.
2002.
Endangered and Threatened
Species of Illinois:
Status
and Distribution.
Volume
1: Plants. Illinois Endangered
Species
Protection Board,
Springfield,
Illinois. 161
pp.
Hite, R.
L., and W.
A. Bertrand.
1989. Biological
stream characterization
(BSC): A
biological assessment
of Illinois
stream quality. Special
Report #13 of
the Illinois
State Water Plan
Task Force.
IEPA/AC/89-275.
Holtrop, A. M.
and C. R. Dolan. 2003.
Assessment
of streams and watersheds
in Illinois:
Development
of
a
stream
classification system
and
fish sampling
protocols.
Aquatic
Ecology
Technical
Report
03/15. 28
pp.
Hughes,
R.M. and R. F. Noss.
1992. Biological
diversity and
biological integrity:
current
concerns for
lakes
and
streams.
Fisheries 17:11-19.
30
Hunsaker,
C.T. and
D.A.
Levine.
1995.
Hierarchical
approaches
to the
study
of water
quality
in
rivers.
BioScience
45:193-203.
Kilgour,
B. W.
and
D.
R. Barton.
1999.
Associations
between
stream
fish
and benthos
across
environmental gradients
in southern
Ontario.
Freshwater
Biology
41:553-566.
Lammert,
M.
and
J.
D. Allan.
1999.
Assessing
biotic
integrity
of streams:
Effects
of
scale
in
measuring
the influence
of land
use/cover
and habitat
structure
on fish
and
macroinvertebrates.
Environmental
Management
23:257-270.
Omernick,
J.
M.,
Abernathy,
A. R., and
L.
M.
Male.
1981.
Stream
nutrient
levels
and
proximity
of
agricultural
and
forest
land to
streams:
some
relationships.
Journal
of
Soul
and
Water Conservation
36:227-231.
Page,
L.
M., K. S.
Cummings,
C. A. Mayer,
S. L.
Post,
and
M. E.
Retzer.
1992.
Biologically
Significant
Illinois
Streams:
An
Evaluation
of
the Streams
of
Illinois
based
on Aquatic
Biodiversity.
Center
for
Biodiversity
Technical
Report
1992(1).
485
pp.
Paller,
M. H.
2001.
Comparison
of fish
and
macroinvertebrate
bioassessments
from
South
Carolina
coastal
plain
streams.
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Health
and
Management
4:175-186.
Phillips,
C.
A.,
R. A.
Brandon,
and
E.
0.
Moll. 1999.
Field
Guide to
Amphibians
and
Reptiles
of
Illinois.
Illinois
Natural
History
Survey
Manual
8. 300
pp.
Seelbach,
R W.,
M.
J.
Wiley,
J.
C. Kotanchik,
and
M.
E. Baker.
1997. A
Landscape-
based
Ecological
Classification
System
for
River
Valley
Segments
in Lower
Michigan.
Michigan
Department
of Natural
Resources
Fisheries
Research
Report
No.
2036.
51
pp.
Shreve,
R. L.
1967.
Infinite
topologically
random
channel
networks.
Journal
of Geology
75: 178-1
86.
Smart,
M.
M.,
T. W.
Barney,
and
J.
R. Jones.
1981.
Watershed
impact
on
stream
water
quality:
a
technique
for
regional
assessment.
Journal
of
Soil and
Water
Conservation
36:297-300.
Smogor,
R.
2000.
Draft
manual
for calculating
Index
of
Biotic
Integrity
scores
for
streams
in
Illinois.
Prepared
for:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
23
pp.
Smogor,
R.
2005.
Draft manual
for
Interpreting
Illinois
Fish-IBI
Scores.
Prepared
for:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
26
pp.
Southerland,
M.
I, R. E.
Jung,
D. P Baxter,
E. C.
Chellman,
C.
Mercurio
and
J. H.
Volstad.
2004.
Stream
salamanders
as
indicators
of
stream
quality
in Maryland,
USA.
Applied
Herpetology
2:23-46.
31
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
State
of Illinois.
2005.
The Illinois
Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation
Plan and
Strategy — version
1. Prepared
by the Illinois
Department of Natural
resources
and approved
by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Stoddard, J.L.,
D.P Larse,
C.P Hawkins,
R.K. Johnson, R.H.
Norris. 2006. Setting
expectations for the
ecological condition
of streams:
the
concept of reference
condition. Ecological
Applications
16(4): 1267-1276.
Szafoni, R.E. 2002.
Freshwater
mussel
classification
index. In Illinois
natural areas
inventory
- approved
standards and
guidelines.
pp.
66-71.
Tetra Tech,
Inc. 2007. Illinois
benthic macroinvertebrate
collection method comparison
and
stream condition
index
revision. Prepared for:
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency.
11
pp.
United States
Geological
Survey.
2000. The
National Hydrography
Dataset:
Concepts
and Contents.
Available
at:
http ://nhd .usgs.gov/chapterl
/chpl
_data_users_guide.pdf
32
Appendix A.
List
of
threatened and endangered species
included in stream ratings.
Amphibians
Endangered
Spotted
Dusky
Salamander
(Desmognathus
conanti)
Crayfish
Endangered
Indiana Crayfish
Orconectes indianensis
Kentucky Crayfish
Orconectes kentuckiensis
Shrimp Crayfish
Orconectes lancifer
Bigclaw Crayfish
Orconectes
placidus
Fish
Endangered
Lake Sturgeon
Acipenser
fulvescens
Western
Sand Darter
Ammocrypta
clarum
Bluebreast Darter
Etheostoma
camurum
Harlequin Darter
Etheostoma histrio
Cypress Minnow
Hybognathus
hayi
Bigeye Chub
Hybopsis
amblops
Pallid Shiner
Hybopsis
amnis
Northern Brook Lamprey
Ichthyomyzon
fossor
Sturgeon
Chub
Macrhybopsis gelida
Greater Redhorse
Moxostoma valenciennesi
River Chub
Nocomis micropogon
Pugnose Shiner
Notropis anogenus
Bigeye Shiner
Notropis
boops
Blacknose Shiner
Notropis heterolepis
Taillight
Shiner
Notropis
maculatus
Weed Shiner
Notropis
texanus
Northern Madtom
Noturus stigmosus
Pal lid
Sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus albus
Threatened
Eastern Sand
Darter
Ammocrypta
pellucidum
Longnose Sucker
Catostomus
catostomus
Cisco
Coregonus
artedi
Gravel Chub
Erimystax
x-punctatus
33
Iowa Darter
Etheostoma exile
Banded
Killifish
Fundulus
diaphanus
Starhead Topminnow
Fundulus dispar
Least
Brook
Lamprey
Lampetra
aepyptera
Redspotted
Sunfish
Lepomis
miniatus
Bantam
Sunfish
Lepomis
symmetricus
River
Red horse
Moxostoma
carinatum
I roncolor
Shiner
Notropis chalybaeus
Blackchi
n Shiner
Notropis
heterodon
Mussels
Endangered
Spectaclecase
Cumberlandia
monodonta
Fanshell
Cyprogenia
stegaria
Snuffbox
Epioblasma
triquetra
Pink Mucket
Lampsilis abrupta
Wavy-rayed
Lampmussel
Lampsilis
fasciola
Higgins Eye
Lampsilis higginsil
Orangefoot
Pimpleback
Plethobasus
cooperianus
Sheepnose
Plethobasus cyphyus
Clubshell
Pleurobema
clava
Ohio
Pigtoe
Pleurobema
cordatum
Fat Pocketbook
Potamilus capax
Kid
neyshel I
Ptychobranchus
fasciolaris
Rabbitsfoot
Quadrula
cylindrica
Salamander Mussel
Simpsonaias
ambigua
Purple
Lilliput
Toxolasma
lividus
Rainbow
Villosa
iris
Threatened
Slippershell
Alasmidonta
viridis
Purple Wartyback
Cyclonalas
tuberculata
Butterfly
Ellipsaria
lineolata
Elephant-ear
Elliptio
crassidens
Spike
ElIiptio
dilatata
Ebonyshell
Fusconala
ebena
Black Sandshell
Ligumia
recta
Little
Spectaclecase
Villosa
lienosa
Plants
Endangered
Heart-leaved
Plantain
Plantain
cordata
34
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 2, 2009
* * * * * PCB 2010-003 * * * * *
Printed by the Authority
of the State of Illinois
XM - 8/08
10Cl0048-09