m ■HHBI HUB Bookstacks flMHH OUNT NO 76000 [3TD TITLE NO. 578009 STYLE Period xcra JniTetsity of Illinois/Ur nbrary Binding Di-vision .408 W. Gregory Drive Jrbana, IL 61801 / YR. FREQUENCY 1 PERIODICAL If PAGE BLE C0NT. >EX ONT COVER CK COVER S □ PERM. CHANGE □ NEW TITLE BOOK RECASE MOUNT COVER POCKET / CLOTH POCKET / PAPER STANDARD BOOK CUSTOM BOOK THESIS DUSTIE □ FLEX-S □ FLEX-M □ MUSIC □ STRUCTIONS TO BINDERY: 3TD 5:5 LAND VA REPORT 32 1 19 □ □ □ □ □ □ SLOT 1 6 HLLI1 SPINE LETTERING 5/11/02 RICE LAKE TONSERVATION AREA 523.782 [6x fr-2 342 0G/02 Ml f COVER COLOR SET OF 563 PRINT COLOR w :l BINDERY USE ONLY HAND TRIM □ STF □ RECASE □ STUB □ EXTRA TIME RFASON MIN. OTHFR Lot: 161 Shipment: BINDERY COPY tfceni: 106 Fastening Method: ■hhB mil lHHiiHifnnwwB wamaaBKasiBaMmMmssmaimmiasB^^ffSi /*/• /o& ILLINOIS LAND REPORT RICE LAKE CONSERVATION AREA Comments and Responses Appendices References August 29, 1983 Volume II James R. Thompson, Governor Michael B. Witte, Director Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Illinois Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois DOC. NO. LR 83/01 DEPOSITORY SEP 1 6 1983, UNIVERSITY OF ILL'NOfS aturba!va,ch.'.:.:p.>. g .7 MHBHHHH UHH NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN MAR 0?** JAN dStttt L161— O-1096 F RY AIGN ILLINOIS LAND REPORT RICE LAKE CONSERVATION AREA Comments and Responses Appendices References Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Springfield, Illinois 62706 August 29, 1983 DOC. NO. LR 83/01 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN STACKS ■.- ' .. ■ ■ . ! ■■ I^M ILLINOIS LAND REPORT RICE LAKE CONSERVATION AREA Comments and Responses Appendices References Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Springfield, Illinois 62706 August 29, 1983 DOC. NO. LR 83/01 ^mwiiimmuw ii«»MigtwniuiiiMii^i^um]^n m| 1BDHH I^^HK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. RlrOKT NO. IL ENR / LR 83/01 1_ ■ ». 1 1 J • "C • *"••»'« No. «. THIa end SoMlli. 1 Report Date ' - Illinois Land Report Rice Lake Conservation Area August 29, 1983 7. Ai/1Kor,< Final 14. 15. Supplementary Note* Revises a previously published draft land report. Published in two volumes. Volume I contains narrative regarding the area while Volume II contains public comments and response and appendices. 16. Abetract MJmlt: 200 word») This report was authorized by the Illinois Surface Reclamation Act (PA 81-1015).. It was prepared in from a citizen's organization (Save Rice Lake Area the Rice Lake Conservation Area, owned by the 111 i no declared unsuitable for surface coai mining. This ability will ultimately be made by the Illinois Dep provides that ENR must prepare land reports on such demand for coal and the impact which a declaration economy, environment and the coal supply. In addit of mining on state and local land use plans, fragile lands and natural hazard lands. Coal Mining Land Conservation and response to a petition Association) which requested that is Department of Conservation, be declaration of suitability or unsuit- artment of Mines and Minerals.. PA81-1015 lands. The Land Report analyzes the of unsuitability would have on the ion, the report discusses the impact and historic lands, renewable resource 17. Oocunxnt Analyst •. Descriptor. Surface mining Land use Strip mining -* Mining Coal mining Rice Lake Rice Lake Conservation Area Lands Unsuitable for Mining e. cosati run/coop 08I(primary) 08F( secondary) • i«. Availability statamar.: No restriction on di s tri but i on . Available at IL depository libraries or from National Technical Information Service, Springfield VA ??1fi1 19. Security C!««m (This Report) Unclassified 21. No. of Pme«-» 800 2JX Security Claaa (Thl» Pt n ) Unclassified 22. Prlca (Saa ANSI-Z39.lt) OPTIONAL rORU 272 (*- (Formerly NT1S-3S) Department of Commerce Mummm f ?w TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Appendices ±± PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1 Commentor : Richard C. Anderson 3 Audubon Council of Illinois Jj, Christopher Bronny 15 Citizens for the Preservation of Knox County 17 Eagle Valley Environmentalists 23 Freeman United Coal Company 31 Pam Fortado Gibson 37 Kenneth Grigsby 45 Illinois Association for the Advancement of Archaeology 49 Illinois Audubon Society 51 Illinois Department of Conservation 53 Illinois Department of Transportation 85 Illinois River Valley Association 87 James R. Kirk 89 Save Rice Lake Area Association 95 Southern Illinois Audubon Society 97 Glennon V. Tockstein 101 Tri-County Regional Plan Commission 103 Mildred A. Williams 105 APPENDICES A-l REFERENCES REF-1 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS TEL-1 ntfaBflMsi ^MMIHMHnnnHHHi ■■■^■■IHHH ■■ ■H LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Appendix J: Appendix K: Appendix L: Appendix M: Appendix N; Appendix 0: Appendix P: Appendix Q: Appendix R: Appendix S Appendix T: Appendix U: Appendix V: Appendix W: A Petition to Designate the Rice Lake Conservation Area as Lands Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Legal Issues Raised in Petition Geological Data Description of Methods Used to Prepare Plates III-l Through III-9 Soil Properties of the RLCA Soils Animal Species at the RLCA Letter - INHS to DOC Population of Fulton County Methodology for Estimating Residence of Rice Lake Visitors Production and Reserves of Coal Local Coal Consumption Midwest/Illinois Basin Coal Flow Coal Prices Market Value of Coal and Sales Tax Revenues Letter - Freeman United to EEA Seam Output Implicit Price Deflators Seam Findings REMI/ILFS Scenarios Scientific Names for Plants Water Level Data Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity Letters Commenting on the Draft Land Report 11 HMBOIHHfUiaMHiHHMH Hi BB1IBWI iiifUJViMHflRBRnnHHHHnmiRMnnnMHPHmi PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This section of the Land Report responds to written comments made by citizens and organizations on the content of the report. Com- ments were received from 19 citizens and groups, who had over 175 comments. The comment period on the draft Land Report was from July 15 to August 15, 1983. ENR appreciates the Interest shown and has responded to each comment. The format for this section includes each commentor, followed by their comments and ENR responses. Without altering the content of the comment, ENR has shortened many of the comments found within this section. In addition, ENR has omitted the introduction and conclusion to each letter received from commentors. However, a complete copy of each letter received can be found in Appendix W. While some interested citizens may not have been able to respond to the draft Land Report within the comment period, they can still sub- mit comments on the final report, or on the Rice Lake mining issue in general, up to the public hearing date. Such comments should be sent to: The Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals Land Reclamation Division 227 S. Seventh St., Room 204 Springfield, IL 6270 6 The Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) will hold a public hear- ing on this unsuitability petition between October 25 and October 27 at the Canton High School. Notice on exact time and date will be forthcoming. Interested citizens may prepare and give oral testimony at the public hearing. ■ aaaaaumuMBBammmmm HaiMBWIWHIW*M*W8*WW^BgiWMiww »" '' " '''^' ' ''' > '' l *'t l ""^»»i*WB»^w— — i^— COMMENTOR : Richard C. Anderson, Augustana College Comment // 1 In the Summary of Findings, pages 29 & 30, reference is made to 2.3 mil- lion tons of processing wastes containing highly toxic materials low in plant nutrients which will be generated by mining at RLCA. (See page XI-6 for estimated quantities of zinc and cadmium.) Whereas the statement is made that this will require "environmentally sound disposal techniques," no specifics are included regarding how this disposal will be accom- plished. Disposal is of critical importance at Rice Lake because of its floodplain location and potential for degrading both surface and ground water. Although the coal may be cleaned and the wastes disposed of at the Buckhart Mine, the disposal of wastes generated and accumulated at the RLCA is not addressed. ENR Response: The Illinois Surface Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act contains rigorous requirements for the handling and disposal of processing wastes. In addition, the Act requires that specific information be sub- mitted with a surface mining permit application to allow the Department of Mines and Minerals to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of the proposed mine plan prior to onset of mining. Parts 1816.81 through 1816.94 and 1816.103 of the Regulations establish performance standards to be met by a surface mining operation in the area of processing waste dis- posal. These parts are quite specific about providing that the mining operation must show, "using hydrologic, geotechnical, physical and chemi- cal analysis, that disposal of these materials does not — (1) Adversely affect water quality, water flow, or vegetation; (2) Create public health hazards, or (3) Cause instability in the disposal areas." The Act also provides for on-site inspection of disposal facilities, for water (surface and groundwater) control measures around processing waste banks, for construction requirements for waste banks, for time require- ments for completion of covering of wastes, and for treatment of acid- forming and toxic-forming waste materials. These requirements assure that the Department of Mines and Minerals will have sufficient information in its possession during the review of a surface mining permit application to judge the adequacy of the proposed approach. At that time, the Department can stipulate additional safe- guards that must be implemented or can deny the application if the pro- posed waste handling approach is not environmentally sound. Because the Act will require a future applicant to address this issue with site- specific analytical data, the authors feel that the resolution of the questions of the potential toxicity of processing waste at Rice Lake and the adequacy of the applicant's plans to dispose of the waste will be thoroughly addressed by the Department of Mines and Minerals when it reviews a permit application. The composition of the processing wastes generated by the Rice Lake mining operation will depend on the type of processing system used, the mining technique, and the composition of the materials mined. We have no in- formation that suggests that the processing wastes generated by the Rice Lake mining would be any more or less toxic than wastes produced at other mines in the region. It is the authors understanding that Freeman United would not conduct any coal processing or processing-waste disposal operations at the Rice Lake locality. Rather, processing and disposal of wastes would take place at the Buckheart facility. Of course, this understanding is not based on information in a permit application (none has been submitted) and is not binding on Freeman United or any other coal company that might choose to mine the area. If the assumption is made that this plan would be fol- lowed, then no processing wastes would be produced at Rice Lake. The authors do share the concern of Dr. Anderson that processing wastes should not be disposed of at Rice Lake because of its location in the floodplain of the Illinois River. Comment #2 The third paragraph on page 37 of the Summary of Findings states that "since Rice Lake is not a source for water supply in the area, allegations suggesting that its loss will adversely affect regional surface water supplies appear to be unjustified." Similar statements are also made on pages 48, XI-8 and XI-26. Although Rice Lake itself is not used for water supply, it is hydrologically connected with the surface water of the Il- linois River and nearby shallow groundwater aquifers which are used for water supply. Mining will probably not affect the quantity of water available, but it will surely affect its quality. ENR Response: &^ With regard to groundwater, the conclusion reached by the commentor above is similar to that found in the Land Report on pages 49 and XI- 18 which state: "The quality of groundwater in the shallow aquifer underlying the RLCA would be adversely affected by surface mining." With regard to surface water, abundant other existing or potential surface water supplies exist in the area as discussed in the response to Williams Comment #2. mnmnnmnnm Comment #3 At the bottom of page 37 of the Summary of Findings it is stated that "the proposed levee and coal mining operation in Rice Lake will have little or no effect on wetland habitat outside the levee," and at the top of page 38, "that a reclaimed Rice Lake will be better able to meet 1D0C management goals than the existing lake." A similar statement is also made on page XI-28. Surely dewatering of the mine and disposal of this water outside the levee will affect the surrounding wetland habitat, par- ticularly in view of the fact that during mining this water will carry large dissolved and particulate loads. ENR Response: The text has been revised in response to this comment for Preservation of Knox County Comment #5. See also Citizens Comment #4 In the first full paragraph on page 48 of the Summary of Findings, the shallow groundwater is described as "very hard, with a high iron content.' This is substantiated by the data of Table V-l, page V-15. The report does not address the question whether this high iron and high sulfate content might be a result of prior mining upstream at Banner Marsh. ENR Response: This contention is not specifically addressed in the Land Report. How- ever, the presence of a groundwater divide near Copperas Creek, north of the RLCA and between the RLCA and Banner Marsh (p. V-8) , implies that the degradation of water quality in this manner is unlikely. Comment #5 The quality of groundwater in the RLCA is compared with that of Banner Marsh on page 49 of the Summary of Findings and on page XI- 19. I was unable to find the data upon which these comparisons were made. Table V-l contains no information on water quality in Banner Marsh. Table XI- 1 (page XI-30) does not show the location of Sunspot Lakes. They do not appear to be in Banner Marsh. IBHHBBWBBRHRBB^HHHHB ENR Response: The table of data comparing groundwater quality in the RLCA and Banner Marsh was missing in the draft version of the Land Report. It has been included as Table XI-1 in the final version. Comment #6 At the bottom of page 52 and continuing on to page 53 of the Summary of Findings the quality of the water in Rice Lake is considered to depend on whether the lake and the Illinois River are independent. A similar state- ment is also made on page XI-28 and XI-29. This independence is strictly a matter of degree because exchange of water between the lake and the river will occur, if not as surface, then as subsurface flow, and this exchange will be in both directions depending on the stage of the river. Whereas exchange will dilute, hence improve, the mineralized water of the reconstituted Rice Lake, it will degrade the quality of Illinois River wat er . ENR Response: On page 52-53 of the Summary of Findings the report stated that the lake water quality will be similar to that of the river water. The authors agree that Rice Lake and Illinois River are dependent. Construction of a levee will tend to make the land and the river more independent. Comment #7 The effect of withdrawal of 4,500 acres of floodplain storage on flood stages of the Illinois River is considered on pages 60 and 61 of the Sum- mary of Findings and on pages XI-23, XI-25 and XI-27. It is concluded that the effect would be to increase the stage of the 10-year flood by 0.14 foot. What effect would it have on the 100-year flood? Though 0.14 foot may be minimal, it contributes to an accumulative effect of other levees so that the total effect becomes significant. ENR Response: The detailed information for 10-, 50- and 100-year floods is included in Section XID (Surface Water) of the revised report. Comment #8 On page 61 of the Summary of Findings, page 111-57, page XI-8 and page XI-1 6 reference is made to "sand and gravel deposits that are hydrauli- cally connected with lakes or with the river outside the mine area" which "might yield significant volumes of water to the mine pit." This is a potentially serious problem, the solution of which is not adequately considered in the Land Report. ENR Response: The influx of water to the mine pit through sand and gravel deposits was not addressed in the draft version of the Land Report. A statement re- garding this problem has been included in the final version (Chapter XI). See also the response to Comment #3 of the Citizens for the Preservation of Knox County. Comment #9 "Springs and seeps which appear along the bluff ..., in the absence of evidence to the contrary, are assumed to be the result of seasonal surface drainage," (bottom of page V-l 6) . A related statement is made on page V-22, "the small tributaries flowing into Rice Lake are most often dry." According to local residents, many of these springs and seeps, and at least one of the small streams draining the bluff (Baxter Creek), are perennial, suggesting that they are fed by more significant groundwater sources than those supplied solely by seasonal precipitation. Thus the flow duration curve on page V-2 3 (figure V-4) may not be typical of this portion of the bluff, perhaps because of the presence of relatively im- permeable Pennsylvanian bedrock high in the bluff which inhibits downward movement of water and promotes lateral movement toward the bluff face. ENR Response: Two flow systems were considered to explain the presence of seeps and springs along the bluff (Chapter V - Groundwater Flow System). In the first of these, bedrock units were hypothesized as the source of these discharge points. Application of boundary conditions led to the conclu- sion that "flow In the bedrock aquifer system may be measurable, but Is considered negligible" on the basis of comparison with estimated flow in the shallow, non-indurated aquifer. This conclusion, in turn, provided the basis for the statement in question. The conclusion that bedrock flow is "measurable, but negligible" implies that flow contributions from the bluff area are a combination of bedrock flow and recharge derived from seasonal precipitation. Estimates of re- charge are average values, reflecting a period of greater length than a single event or season. Recharge will vary In response to precipitation events, while bedrock flow will remain essentially constant. During dry anHHBHHBHHHH E^B periods, bedrock contributions to flow from the bluff areas could equal or exceed that portion of flow derived from precipitation. Since bedrock flow is essentially constant, these seeps and springs, depending on their individual flow rates, could be considered perennial. The allegation that these seeps and springs are perennial does not alter the concept of the groundwater flow system. Their contribution to the regional hydrologic balance is small. While flow rates from them could be increased during mining (by increasing the head differential), they will "remain after mining, if heads in the affected area return to their ap- proximate premining levels, as is likely" (Section XID). It should be noted that recharge during the first half of 1983 has created near normal water levels in shallow aquifers in west central Illinois (see response to Citizens for the Preservation of Knox County, Comment #4). Comment #10 "If even a remnant of Duck Island remains, the petition area would remain isolated from the head changes in the river because of the extremely low permeability of the bedrock units" (page XI-16). This statement ignores the high permeability of the thick sand and gravel at the south end of Duck Island. ENR Response: The concluding remarks of the section regarding the changes in groundwater flow patterns (Section XID) states: "Flow through the sand and gravel deposits on the south end of Duck Island would gain greater importance." This conclusion was based on the premise that a localized area near these deposits would respond to fluctuations of the Illinois River. The state- ment In question does not acknowledge this phenomenon, and has been amend- ed to read "... the petition area would remain generally isolated from head changes in the river ..." Comment #11 One effect of dewatering the mine would be the dewatering of domestic wells along the base of the bluff (pages 52, XI-21). The prospect of deepening these wells and utilizing significantly lower quality and more expensive water from the deeper aquifer is not very attractive for these residents. ENR Response: The Land Report describes alternate, less desirable sources of water and states that their use may be required near the petition area. Further study of this issue is considered to be beyond the scope of the Land Report. HinBBnmHHHMi SB 1 10 COMMENTOR : Audubon Council of Illinois, Marvin P. Schwartz, President Comment #1 Section XI, page 49, lines 11-15 Delete lines: Although mining and reclamation procedures at Rice Lake probably would differ considerably from those used at Banner Marsh, the two areas have many common features indicating that the most reliable approach to reforestation planning for Rice Lake would be to initiate pilot experiments at Banner Marsh as soon as possible. Reason for change: Banner Marsh no longer has any resemblance to Rice Lake and is a poorly reclaimed area. Soils are no longer similar nor were they ever similar. ENR Response: The sentence has been deleted. Conditions at Banner Marsh have been too greatly altered to reflect any similarity that may have existed between Banner Marsh before mining and Rice Lake at present. Also, reclamation procedures at Rice Lake would undoubtedly be very different from those employed at Banner Marsh. Comment #2 Section XI, page 49, line 17 Change to read: Prediction of Negative long-term change in the value of the timber resources is justified. Reason for change: Previous documentation in land report supports this conclusion. ENR Response: The expected change in value with mining has been changed from "no change" to "unpredictable." Timber management is not currently practiced at Rice Lake so it is possible that if mining and reclamation lead to the establishment of silvicultural practices, timber value of the area could ultimately exceed that of the present forest. If the reclamation plan did not place a high priority on timber management, the long-term value of the timber resource might well be less than at present. 11 HHHBBHBU Comment #3 Section XI, page 50, lines 11-19 Change to read: A well designed and executed reclamation would not result in an overall increase in the value of the area for migratory waterfowl, since recent waterfowl counts as high as 85,000 already tax the area's ability to support such large numbers. This high usage by waterfowl suggests the area already has the ingredients needed to support large numbers of waterfowl and this would be difficult to improve upon by the reclamation after mining . Reason for change: Land Report. ENR Response: Evidence in Chapter VII, page 30, lines 4 and 5 of Currently, the area is only able to support large numbers of waterfowl species that prefer moist-soil food plants. If a reclamation program were designed to provide aquatic and moist-soil food plants, a greater species diversity and total number of waterfowl could be supported by the area. Also, a levee would allow better water level control to optimize condi- tions for migratory ducks and geese. Comment #4 Section XI, page 50, line 20 Change to read: Given relatively clear and stable water levels, Rice Lake again (delete) could be Reason for change: Rice Lake is currently a marsh area as supported by the use of the area by ducks, herons and cormorants. ENR Response: The suggested deletion has been made. Comment #5 Section XI, page 51, lines 11-14 12 (■■■■I M| Change to read: Although remnant forest patches may remain for Wood Duck rearing there will not be water adjacent to these areas and the Wood Ducks will not be willing or able to move their young north through mining area to Round Pond. Reason for change: Mining disturbances and distance will not permit Wood Ducks to move young from nesting area to open water of Round Pond. ENR Response: Mining would not disturb the entire petition area during the entire mining period, so it is possible that Wood Ducks will continue to nest in parts of the area during parts of the mining period. Consequently, remnant forest patches should be carefully protected and water bodies should be maintained until mining of the section under consideration is about to begin. Comment # 6 Section XI, page 5 2, line 6 Change to read: Lowering of the water table to dewater mining areas will render these areas Reason for change: The drying out of these habitats will make them un- suitable for amphibians and reptiles. ENR Response: The text has been changed to reflect this comment. Comment #7 Section XI, page 5 5, line 2-5 Change line starting with "If" to read: Post reclamation food conditions for eagles would not improve over present conditions because, as evidenced by their usage, current water conditions and fish populations are favored by Bald Eagles . Reason for change: There is no supportive evidence In Land Report, or elsewhere, that a reclaimed Rice Lake would be more to the liking of Bald Eagles. From their usage, evidence is clear they prefer the current 13 habitat. The stress of finding different winter habitat could cause the loss of many Eagles. ENR Response: The sentence to which the commentor refers has been deleted. The bald eagles' preference for areas where dead and dying fish are available is provided by Rice Lake in its current condition. 111 Bob 14 COMMENTOR : Christopher Bronny Comment #1 [The text on page VII-7 , par. 2] Currently reads: "Most aquatic plant beds have been eliminated and marsh plants have been reduced drastically as the result of decreased light penetration and the unconsolidated nature of the lake sediments" should be changed to: [Should be] changed to read: "Most aquatic plant beds have been eliminated and marsh plants have been reduced drastically as the result of fluctuating water levels , decreased light penetration due to the unconsolidated nature of lake sediments, and the heavy application of herbicides used to control aquatic plant growth during the 1950 's . " The evidence for "fluctuating water levels" is confirmed by the natural and artifical (man-made) influx of water from the Illinois River to Rice Lake. The raising and lowering of Rice Lake water levels through the use of levees and cultverts by the DOC results in lowered lake levels during late spring, and raised levels during autumn. The purpose of this draw- down and flooding, respectively, is to promote small grain crop produc- tion, and to improve hunting in and around the conservation area. A dramatic, sudden rise and fall of water levels (as evidence by waterfowl hunting enhancement techniques in the spring and fall) could have an ad- verse effect on native marsh and aquatic plant communities. The "heavy application of herbicides to control aquatic plant growth dur- ing the 1950' s" is documented by various individuals (Bellrose at Morton Arobretum, 1981; DOC personnel at a Peoria public hearing in 1981; and eye-witnesses to the event). There were two accountable applications: One was the aerial spraying of the herbicide, and the other method was by direct application of the herbicide into the water from the back of a boat. Apparently, the aquatic vegetation interfered with motor boat use in the Rice Lake area. Complaints to the DOC by irritated motor boat users that the aquatic vegeation seriously hampered motor boat performance resulted in the ensuing herbicide application. Unfortunately, the herbi- cide did not contain itself to the designated channels and target areas. The toxin then proceeded to adversely affect the entire marsh and aquatic plant populations in the Rice Lake area. The exact herbicide used has not been identified at this time. ENR Response: Memoranda and reports on file at the IDOC's Division of Fish and Wildlife Resources addressed issues pertaining to the disappearance of aquatic vegetation at Rice Lake as follows. Up through 1957 Rice Lake was densely vegetated with coontail as the dominant submergent and lotus as the dominant emergent. Three chemical applications to control vascular aquatic plants, and one to control algae 15 BraflBBHHHBHH are on record. In June and July of 1951 sodium arsenite was applied to boat channels (50 ft. wide and approximately 2 miles long) to control coontail and elodea. Copper sulfate also was applied at that time for control of filamentous algae. Boat channels again were cleared of veg- etation in July 1957 by application of sodium arsenite. Also during that year an aerial application of a selective herbicide (probably 2,4-D) was performed to control lotus. It was apparent that the gradual disappear- ance of aquatic vegetation began prior to 1957, and by 1958 submerged vegetation had entirely disappeared from the basin. It Is noteworthy that aquatic plants In other bottomland lakes In the middle reach of the river were eliminated at about the same time. Also, the current practice of mid-summer water level drawdown at Rice Lake was initiated In 1971, well after the demise of the plant beds. The presence of carp In the bottom- land lakes exacerbated the turbidity problem by their habit of disturbing bottom sediments while feeding. In addition, following dam improvements in 1960 the water level of the lake was raised which increased wave action leading to increased shoreline erosion and resuspension of bottom sedi- ments. These factors prevent sunlight penetration to the extent that re- establishment of aquatic vegetation Is precluded. It is highly un- likely that this situation Is a result of chemical herbicides which were applied over 2 years ago. H 16 COMMENTOR : Citizens for the Preservation of Knox County; Helen Pence, CPKC Board Comment #1 The Orendorf site, a large temple town, once overlooking Rice Lake, has been destroyed by strip mining. ENR Response: Ms. Pence is correct. However, this site occurs outside the RLCA under consideration in this report. Comment #2 Mining of Lake Rice would destroy the many possible sites for further exploration in this region. These possible sites for exploration are listed, with evidence which suggests earlier civilizations. ENR Response: The best estimate is that mining specific areas of the RLCA will destroy sites of research value unless they are excavated archaeologically or alternatively, avoided completely. Comment # 3 Chapter XI, page 9, Geologic Hazards ... Second, sand and gravel deposits that are hydraulically connected with lakes or with the river outside the mine area might yield significant volumes of water to the mine pit. This could affect the stability of a levee which crosses such a deposit if the difference in water levels across the levee Is large ... This potential difficulty could be miti- gated by moving the mine boundary and levee to an area not underlain by gravel or by designating an engineered solution to the problem." Conclusion: The problem is stated, but either solution for construction of the levee Is not outlined. Obviously, the location of the levee as presented is not feasible. Either solution listed above would change conditions in the area, which means we do not know what we are being asked to respond to. 17 BHH9BHBHNI Therefore, the land report is incomplete and irrelevant, and more work is needed before we can respond in a meaningful manner. ENR Response: It is correct that the Land Report states the problem, but has not out- lined a solution for construction of the levee. Presently, the available mine plan calls for construction of a levee along the eastern edge of Duck. Island, connecting to the Copperas Creek levee to the north and the Duck Creek levee to the south. This plan has not been formally submitted as part of a permit application and, as such, Is certainly subject to change. Along the southern part of Duck Island this levee crosses an area of thick sand and gravel deposits. In the Land Report, the authors have pointed out the potential hazard posed by the geologic and hydrologic conditions in this area. No solution was outlined because there are many possible. Among the possible solutions are a variety of alternate levee alignments that cross thinner sand and gravel deposits. Some of these might decrease the total area available for coal mining; others would increase it. Other possible solutions Include a variety of engineering approaches that could be used along the present alignment or along any of the alternative align- ments. These would generally approach the groundwater problem either by slowing down the flow with grout curtains or other low permeability barriers or by intercepting flow with wells or trenches. The single alternative that is selected to mitigate this problem, if the area is mined, will be selected after thorough engineering and cost/ benefit analyses. These types of analyses are beyond the scope of the present report. However, If the area is found suitable for mining, the proposed approach to leveeing will be subjected to the full scrutiny of the Department of Mines and Minerals and to public review and comment during the review of the application for a surface coal mining permit. Comment #4 Summary of Findings, page 23 "Although it is a possibility, there is no geologic or hydraulic evidence presently available to support the contention that these springs and seeps are perennial and are fed by some source of water other than surface drainage." 18 mninnaH Omission in the Report: A field investigation of these streams would be the best and most scientific way to check for evidence. It could be done through the windshield of a car, and would be very simple to do. In this August of 1983, one of the most prolonged drought periods in recent years, many of the streams were still running. This could not be surface runoff. The report is inconclusive at best. ENR Response: Field investigations of the RLCA were conducted during March, April and May of 1983; inspection of the seeps and springs in question were part of these investigations. The Illinois State Water Survey maintains a network, of 20 shallow ob- servation wells around the state. Three of these wells are located in Mason, McDonough and Logan counties. Month-end measurement of these wells during the Spring and Summer of 1983 indicate that groundwater levels in shallow aquifers in the west central part of Illinois have been near normal, based on comparison with a 15-year average of month-end values. This can be attributed to the amount of recharge received during the Spring of 1983. The response to a similar comment (Anderson Comment #9) acknowledged that these seeps and springs derive a portion of their flow from bedrock sources and found that, depending on the individual magnitudes, these discharge points could be perennial. Despite these findings, the concept of the flow system was not altered. In light of these observations, it is reasonable to expect springs and seeps to continue to flow despite below normal precipitation in -July and August, 1983. Consequently, the conclusion reached in the Land Report (Summary of Findings and pp. V-17) remains unchanged. It should be noted that confusion exists over the phrase "surface drain- age." This term was used to described drainage of infiltrated precipita- tion in shallow geologic deposits; it is imprecise and confusing. The final version of the Land Report has been reworded to incorporate the phrase "local groundwater runoff" to describe this phenomenon. 19 Comment #5 Summary of Findings, page 22 "Since the post-mining area will be enclosed by levees high enough to protect it from the 100-year flood, proper control structures make it likely that a reclaimed Rice Lake will be better able to meet the DOC management goals than the existing lake." Omission in the Report: In what way will the DOC management goals be improved? Rice Lake is already providing food and habitat for wildlife under DOC management. Page 19 — "Rice Lake is presently the only permit duck hunting area in the state open to the public (DOC 1983). During the period 1975-1982, the RLCA has annually hosted an average of 1,517 hunters who bagged an average of 1,363 waterfowl per year ... Both sport and commercial fishing occur at RLCA." DOC management practices would appear to be successful at the present time. The Land Report has not documented the above statement in any way, so it is entirely without supporting evidence. ENR Response: Successful duck hunting as well as sport and commercial fishing presently do occur at Rice Lake, but flooding of the area has caused a deterioration of this success over the past several decades. Documentation for the relevant statements made in the summary is found in Chapter VII. As indicated In the revised text, specific DOC management goals were not addressed. Due to 100-year flood protection, however, management for any purpose could have greater flexibility. Comment # 6 Chapter XI- 6, Non-Coal Resources, Sand and Gravel ... "the mine plan could be Implemented to maximize the time that the existing gravel operation has to operate, delaying the mining of the sand and gravel areas." Omission in the Report: In the first place we do not have a mine plan to address, so anything said here is hypothetical. In any mine plan, the Industry is lost, and the Impact on the community in terms of services and construction materials Is not addressed, and, in terms of jobs lost, the meaning of this to the community. 20 mmmnHni ENR Response: The principal assumption in the comment is that "in any mine plan, the [sand and gravel] industry is lost." This is not necessarily true. As stated in the Land Report, the existing operation might be able to continue to operate while coal is being mined elsewhere. Even if the existing operation is terminated, it is quite feasible that the sand and gravel resource could be recovered by the coal company. This has been demonstrated by a coal raining operation along the Kankakee River in Will County in northeastern Illinois, where the coal company first recovered and sold a fine-grained sand resource before mining the deeper coal. In fact, the best available data suggest that the thickest remaining sand and gravel deposit occurs within the boundary of the RLCA. If this is recov- ered by the coal company the total sand and gravel resource that eventual- ly would be recovered might be greater than that which could have been recovered by the current sand and gravel operation mining only on Duck Island. Comment #7 Summary of Findings, page 2 6 "Although no endangered or threatened species of mammals are known from Rice Lake ..." Ch. VII, page 39 ... "three species are potential inhabitants of the area and cannot be regarded as absent without further study .... the more mature floodplain forests of Rice Lake provide critical summer habitat for the Indiana bat, including both maternity roost sites and foraging areas. However, no studies of the bat fauna of Rice Lake have been conducted. Consequently, the INHS will conduct a study at Rice Lake during the 1983 breeding season. With Its large acreage of wooded shoreline and bottomland forest, the RLCA, in combination with adjacent land, provides many of the habitat requirements of the river otter and the bobcat, both state threatened mammals. Neither species, however, has been documented in the area in recent years . Conclusions: This would indicate that these have been known here. Ap- pendix F lists these as "known or potential" occurrence at RLCA. There- fore, the above statement has been made without consideration of past evidence, and without research Into present population of endangered species. 21 MBflOBUHHHBi ENR Response: Appendix F lists the Indiana bat, river otter and bobcat based on histori- cal data for the central Illinois region. New research at Rice Lake and additional data from the region on bats is included In the final Land Report. Effective methods do not exist for determining the presence of sparse and secretive species such as the river otter and bobcat. ■'■.■'■ ■■' ■ : !x 22 COMMENTOR : Eagle Valley Environmentalists, Inc.; Terrence N. Ingram, Executive Director Comment //l On page VI-36 under Wildlife Habitat Suitability you state that Table VI-10 rates the RLCA for general habitat potential. What Is your source of information for this table? Is this a standard table of soil types or something you developed? ENR Response: The table Is taken from Soil Conservation Service Soils-5 Interpretation files, and Is tabulated for this report without alteration. Comment #2 On page VI 1-9 you state that the lake depth has been increased in 1945, 1953 and 1961. Then you state what effect this has had on the plant life. Because DOC draws down the water level every summer, the time of year when Bellrose' s study was conducted in 1979, could affect his results. ENR Response: Bellrose adjusted his data to mean sea level. Consequently, his conclusions regarding changes in the profile of the lake bottom were not biased by the stage of drawdown. Comment #3 On page VII-10 it is stated that the secluded nature of Round Pond and Fiddler's Slough provides good foraging conditions for herons and eagles. I challenge this statement concerning eagles. These ponds are the first to freeze over and thus, are not able to be used by a majority of eagles as they are primarily In the area during the winter months. What studies have been done to document the eagles' use of these areas? If any had been conducted, It would have recorded far more eagles in the RLCA than you state elsewhere in this report. ENR Response: The statement regarding eagle use of the ponds has been modified to take the frozen over period Into account. The final Land Report includes some higher eagle counts than the draft. 23 Comment #4 From your statements on page VII-10 and VII-11, It seems there appears to be a difference of opinion as to the amount of vegetation in Rice Lake according to the two studies you quote (Paveglio 1979 and Bellrose et al. 1979). ENR Response: Paveglio' s study refers specifically to moist-soil plants, whereas Bellrose et al. refers specifically to aquatic plants. Comment #5 On page VII-11 you state "no biological studies appear to have been con- ducted on the shrub swamps of the RLCA." On page VII-20 It is stated a DOC sponsored bird study was conducted in June of 1983. On page VII-39 the report states "INHS will conduct a study to investigate the presence of the Indiana bat at Rice Lake during the 1983 breeding season." On VII-43 you state that "a systematic winter study is needed In addition to the breeding bird survey." The results of these studies should be con- sidered in the final report. How Is this going to be possible? ENR Response: The schedule for the Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program established by law does not allow sufficient time for new year around biological studies to be conducted. The final Land Report does include a substantial amount of new biological data that was not included in the draft. Comment # 6 When you discuss the use of the area by the only federally endangered species, the bald eagle, there is no recommenation for an Indepth study of the eagle use of the area. Why not? The existing data which you quote Is very limited and misleading. For the public hearing, I will present evi- dence which shows that Rice Lake is important to as many as 7 5-80 eagles foraging along the Illinois River, and several of Its back water lakes and that we know of at least three (3) nighttime roosts within the RLCA. You have available signed affidavits from DOC personnel stating they have seen far more than the misleading 20 eagles stated In your report on page VII-40. 24 ENR Response: The need for an In-depth study of the Rice Lake bald eagle population is stated in the final Land Report. Higher eagle counts have also been included, as has the possibility that more than one night roost exists within the RLCA. Comment #7 We also have a signed affidavit from retired DOC personnel that bald eagles have nested at Rice Lake for many years in the past. Thus, your statement that eagles were first observed at Rice Lake in 1973 Is very misleading. You state that the eagle use is increasing. Perhaps only observations are increasing and no attempt was ever made to determine eagle use of the area in the past. ENR Response: The final Land Report Includes reference to your Information that bald eagles formerly nested at Rice Lake, and the statement that eagles were first observed at Rice Lake in 1973 has been deleted. Comment #8 On page VII-4 6 It Is stated that "the area used by the eagles (on the north end) as a communal roosting site is being considered for Inclusion In the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Mickelson - 1983)". And on page XI-51 you stated that "the central and southern portions of the area would not be mined." What, pray tell, portion of the area will be mined? ENR Response: See Plate III-8 of the Land Report. Comment #9 On page VII-48 it is stated that, "because it Is covered with a productive community of green plants which Is accumulating organic matter, Rice Lake, In contrast to the cornbelt in general, serves as a sink for carbon." This is quite a contrast to your statements from Bellrose on page VII-9. 25 ENR Response: The text has been modified to indicate that the RLCA (vs. Rice Lake proper) serves as a carbon sink. Bellrose referred to aquatic plants only. Comment #10 [Page XI-46 states the following] ... "Furthermore, productivity of existing floodplain trees would be expected to decline because periodic flooding has a beneficial effect on the growth rate of tree species adapt- ed to the floodplain environment (Odum 1979). As species better adapted to post mining conditions become established, productivity probably would be restored." What species could be adapted to both post mining condi- tions and flood conditions at the same time? ENR Response: The discussion indicates a shift in species composition over time in response to changing environmental conditions. Comment #11 [On page XI -49 you state] ... "If reclamation steps were well planned and executed, the value of the reclamation timber resource could equal or exceed that of the present forest." Then you go on to state, "Although mining and reclamation procedures at Rice Lake probably would differ considerably from those used at Banner Marsh." Anyone ... can see that Banner Marsh is not supporting any type of a forest let alone one which has a value equal to or greater than the present forest. ENR Response: The statement on pilot reforestation experiments at Banner Marsh has been deleted. Comment #12 On page XI -49 it is stated that, "Mining would eliminate all of the water- fowl habitat in the RLCA." On page VI 1-30 it was stated that 40-85,000 waterfowl may use the area in a single day. I cannot understand how you can (state) ... "A well designed and executed reclamation plan could, in 26 time, result in an overall increase in the value of the area for migratory waterfowl." Perhaps the construction of a levee and no mining would en- hance the area far more than a "well designed reclamation plan" ever could. ENR Response: The statement on 85,000 waterfowl was in error and has been deleted. The construction of a levee and no mining would enhance the area more than reclamation, but this is not the issue. Comment #13 I believe your whole biological assessment of the mining at Rice Lake can be summed up with your last paragraph on page XI-51. Once Banner Marsh has been reclaimed to produce better habitat than Rice Lake, then we can consider mining Rice Lake - but not one day before then. ENR Response: The purpose of the biological resource section is to provide information regarding the potential impact that mining may have on the RLCA. By Illi- nois Statute, the Land Report cannot contain a recommendation regarding whether mining should be granted or denied. Comment #14 On page XI-52 you state, "Reclamation of the site to a wetland state should provide suitable habitat for many reptiles and amphibians." But what do these animals do until that time? Eighty to one-hundred years from now, some species may not even be alive in this area to use it. ENR Response: The proposed mining plan calls for a maximum of 20 years to mine the area. The impact on surrounding wetlands is anticipated to be minimal. There- fore, the reptile and amphibian populations of those areas will remain undisturbed and capable of repopulating adjacent areas after reclamation. Comment #15 I do not understand your basis for your statement on XI-53 "Department of Conservation personnel have the expertise for specifying desirable aquatic habitat types, stocking appropriate species, and managing a sport fishery at the site" when they are not able to improve the present sport fishing at Rice Lake as detailed on pages VII-33 & 34. 27 ENR Response: The report cited as "Herndon undated" on XI-53 presents in detail the IDOC's plans for fisheries management at the RLCA after reclamation (i.e., development of habitat types, species stocking rates, water control struc- tures, etc.). Sport fish management currently is hampered by siltation, high turbidity, an absence of aquatic vegetation, the frequent ingress of rough fish from the river and extremely shallow water after drawdown. After reclamation, these impacts will be eliminated or minimized by a levee designed to isolate the lake from the Illinois River. Comment #16 What facts do you have on which you base the statement on page XI-55 that "If increased water clarity and fish population levels were achieved post reclamation food conditions for eagles could be improved over the present situation." There is no area that has been so managed, or a study which has been conducted, which will substantiate this claim. ENR Response: The sentence referred to has been deleted. Council Comment #7. See response to Audubon Comment #17 There is no area where artificial roosts have been constructed to provide replacements for preferred diurnal foraging perches as stated on page XI-55. These unsubstantiated statements shouldn't even be considered as possibilities. ENR Response: The statement has been clarified on page XI-64 of the revised text. •■"; : :': Comment #18 In conclusion, I feel that the total sum of the biological effects of the proposed strip mine should lead you to a much stronger statement than, "the loss of habitat during the mining and reclamation periods would tend to counterbalance the predicted improvement." The facts speak for 28 ^m themselves - the RLCA was purchased for and is being managed for waterfowl. Destruction of this habitat through mining would have a devastating effect on many species which presently find their life requirement in the RLCA and are enjoyed by many people, either fishing, hunting, bird watching or conducting nature studies. This long-term destruction outweighs by far the short term economic gain for a few. ENR Response: Nowhere within Biological Resource's sections of the Land Report does it state that the passage quoted above is ENR's conclusion regarding the total biological effects of strip mining on habitat area. 29 >.&! : 30 COMMENTOR : Freeman United Coal Mining Company; M.V. Harrell, Senior Vice President Comment #1 The report does not assess the immediate contribution to the natural re- sources and recreational potential of the area gained by the resulting control of an additional 1,7 64 acres (Fulton and Peoria counties) in the Banner Marsh Area by the DOC, and how this might offset any possible short term losses by mining within the Rice Lake Conservation Area (RLCA). (Note that this acreage is incorrectly described as 338 acres on Page 7 of the summary.) BK ENR Response: The immediate contribution to natural resources and recreational potential of an expanded Banner Marsh State Wildlife Refuge cannot be assessed. No such assessment, provided by DOC or any other party, is part of the public record. While DOC has published a proposed Master Management Plan for that area, no quantitative estimates were made regarding its economic and/or recreational impact. For ENR to conduct appropriate and complete research in this regard would have exceeded the scope of this Land Report. Therefore, any discussion of the suggested but unspecified potential impacts of an enlarged Banner Marsh recreational area, which does not now exist, would be purely conjectural. In any case, whatever impacts occurred would not be "immediate." The relevant lands would have to be prepared for recreational use, which would take time. Moreover, long- term as well a short-term losses would be associated with mining Rice Lake. The draft Land Report specified both long- and short-term losses. Those estimated specifications are retained in the final Land Report. Some disagreements presently exist with regard to the acreages mentioned. DOC claims that they amount to 1,850. ENR research for this Land Report established that the best-available estimate is 1,698 acres, with 838 acres being in Fulton County and 860 in Peoria County. In the draft Land Report the 338 acre error should have read 838. (For further discussion of these acreage findings see the ENR response to the DOC specific Comment #3.) Comment #2 Our proposal would also involve transferring to the DOC after mining an additional 2,382 acres contiguous to the present 2,694 acre RLCA. The future value of a greatly expanded RLCA to the wildlife resources and recreational needs within this area has not been assessed in the draft report. The DOC acquires Banner Marsh and Rice Lake, which becomes an integral resource management unit of approximately 10,000 acres. 31 ■M ENR Response: ENR agrees with the 2,382 and 2,694 acre figures mentioned. They are used in the Land Report. However, the future value of a greatly expanded RLCA is indeterminate, for the same reasons that a similar assessment of an expanded Banner Marsh recreational area cannot be made. It is possible that increased benefits could be realized. However, a comparison of ENR findings regarding the local economic impact of the present RLCA with DOC estimates for an expanded RLCA suggests no substantial increases. (See the ENR response to the DOC specific Comment #50.) This comment implies that the proposed Rice Lake mining plan could pro- duce a combined and integral Banner Marsh - Rice Lake resource management unit of approximately 10,000 acres. As described in the ENR response to the specific DOC Comment #3, detailed and extensive research was conducted for the Land Report regarding land ownership in the Banner Marsh and Rice Lake areas. The following table presents the findings. Acres Owner ship/ Description 2,694 DOC - present RLCA 2,382 Various private owners - located within proposed mining area 1,698 Freeman United - Banner Marsh 860 Freeman United - Banner Marsh County Fulton Fulton Fulton/Peoria Peoria 838 Freeman United - Banner Marsh 1,298 DOC - Banner Marsh 820 DOC - Banner Marsh 478 DOC - Banner Marsh Fulton Fulton/Peoria Peoria Fulton Therefore, if Rice Lake were mined, the final potential DOC acreage re- sulting from additions of present Freeman United lands to present DOC holdings would be 8,072 acres (2,694 + 2,382 + 1,698 + 1,298). Substi- tuting Freeman United's estimate of their Banner Marsh land (1,764 acres) for ENR's estimate (1,698 acres) produces a sum of 8,138 acres (2,694 + 2,382 + 1,764 + 1,298). Using DOC's estimate of Freeman United's Banner Marsh land (1,850 acres) instead of ENR's estimate (1,698 acres) yields a total of 8,224 acres (2,694 + 2,382 + 1,850 + 1,298). All three estimates (8,072, 8,138 and 8,224 acres) are substantially less than 10,000. 32 Bfl Comment #3 As stated on page 29 of the summary, coal raining at Rice Lake would pro- duce an estimated 2.3 million tons of processing wastes. In our proposal to the DOC (as noted on page 5 of Chapter XI), the coal would be processed and the refuse disposed of by burying and covering with non-acid producing material at our Buckheart Mine facilities outside of the RLCA. Given this assumption, then the statement (page 49 of the summary) that the hypothet- ical reclaimed RLCA is assumed to be hydrologically similar to the Banner Mine Area probably will not be applicable especially as to water quality. The assumed slight decrease in alkalinity, as a result of buffering acid drainage (page 49 of the summary) and the pure speculation that concentra- tions of some trace metals, probably lead and cadmium, would exceed recom- mended limits (page 50 of the summary) would probably be mitigated. It should also be noted that the Illinois EPA tested for lead at the Banner Mine in 1976 and found that the concentration was below their level of detection. ENR Response: The processing of the coal in areas outside the RLCA will affect the geo- chemistry of the spoil material. As a result, the assumption of hydro- logic similarity between the RLCA and the Banner Marsh area is suspect. This assumption has been removed from the text. Despite the potential removal of processing wastes from the RLCA and de- spite efforts to minimize acid production, it is felt that some degrada- tion of water quality is inevitable. As a result, the conclusion that groundwater quality will be adversely affected, if the RLCA is mined, must stand. Measures to remove acid-producing coal processing wastes and to neutralize the acid production from remaining coal and shale will tend to mitigate adverse impacts. Illinois EPA data has been examined. The analysis for lead has been cited in the final version of the Land Report. In light of the above findings, it is agreed that trace metal concentra- tions may not exceed recommended drinking water standards. In the event the RLCA is mined, however, this problem should be thoroughly examined, and mining and reclamation plans designed to create conditions minimizing the release of trace metals. Comment #4 In discussing the recoverable reserves within a sixty-mile radius of Rice Lake, the ENR report states "within a relevant six-county region there is about 600 million to two billion tons of other surface mineable coal re- sources with high development potential." These projections were made from ISGS Circular 504, published in 1978. Quoting from page 2 of Cir- cular 504, "This report is an overview and should be used only as a guide 33 to more detailed investigation for specific areas." Almost all of the un- developed blocks of "high development potential" are based on insufficient exploration data to outline proven economically strippable deposits. Al- so, many limiting factors to strip mining could obviously not be assessed in such a state-wide overview. The strippable reserves for this six-county area were mapped in the early 1960s and are influenced (including the "high development potential" re- sources) only by the coal data available to the ISGS at that time. Since the time these reserves were mapped, most all of the present economically proven strippable Springfield (No. 5) Coal has been exhausted. In addi- tion, the Herrin (No. 6) Coal has been determined by the coal operators in this area to be uneconomical at the present time due to the large amount of reject material associated with this seam. Therefore, increased attention in recent years has been given to the Colchester (No. 2) Coal, resulting in additional exploration data which has not been utilized by the ISGS in its strippable reserve determination. Excluding reserves already controlled by coal companies, all the remaining blocks of strippable No. 2 Coal with "high development potential" for which we have additional exploration data, were found to be less than adequate for present mining. Substantial portions of the areas projected to contain No. 2 Coal at depths of less than 75 feet were found to be barren due to the occurrence of thicker than anticipated unconsolidated surficial (drift) deposits resulting in erosion of the coal. Therefore, excessive stripping ratios (due in part to variance in the projected elevation of the coal) and inadequate quantities of coal were found. Several of the outlined strippable blocks consist of areas of the No. 5 and No. 6 Coals abandoned by Consolidation Coal Company and Midland Coal Company; also, Amax Coal Company has announced its intention to suspend operations in the No. 2 Coal in Fulton County. These actions certainly cast doubt as to the "high development potential" of these reserves. ENR Response: Circular 504 (Treworgy, Bengal and Dingwell 1978) was based on information that was available at the time the report was compiled. Since that time few additional data have been released to the state despite a considerable exploration effort in many coal blocks by several coal companies. Con- sequently, with few exceptions, Circular 504 still represents the best available information on the regional aspects of surface-minable coal resources. Undoubtedly, additional data would change aspects of the syntheses pre- sented in Circular 504 and our report. As stated by Mr. Harrell, some blocks have been explored and found to contain less coal, poorer quality coal, or different mining conditions than assumed in Circular 504. Given the specifics of these kinds of data, the staff could revise the discus- sion of regional coal reserves. ENR cannot make such a revision at present. The staff believes it likely that recent exploration efforts have identified some geologic conditions that reduce the minability of some blocks or portions of blocks. However, at the same time, these 34 . IT? exploration efforts have probably discovered new coal blocks or additional coal associated with known blocks that were not previously identified as having a high potential for development. Mr. Harrell states that most all of the present economically proven strippable Springfield (No. 5 ) coal has been exhausted. He further states that coal operators have determined that the Herrin (No. 6) coal in this area is uneconomical to mine at the present time due to the large amount of reject material associated with this seam. The purpose of ENR's analysis in this section of the Land Report was to examine long term trends in regional coal availability. Economic conditions can fluctuate rapidly as they have in the recent past. Marginal or uneconomic reserves under present conditions should not be entirely omitted from such anal- yses; they may be economical in the near future, as they have been in the recent past. In addition, the abandonment of strippable blocks of the Springfield and Herrin Coal by Consolidation and Midland Coal Companies and a block of Colchester Coal by Amax may have little to do with long- term development potential and more to do with the current coal market. >Sr m 35 ] ! 36 • COMMENTOR : Pam Fortado Gibson, Jacksonville, Illinois Comment #1 Chapter VIIC, Wildlife - Species/Habitat Relationships The report states: "Because of the large number of species which occur in the petition area and the small amount of information available on many of these, it is impractical to assess existing resources or to predict how these resources will change on a species by species basis." The above statement is inaccurate; a great deal of information is readily available to any competent researcher, both historical information, local collections, museum specimens and current notes of species documentation that contain documentation for all seasons. Both government agency and private bird documentation is available. Without at least a primary assessment of wildlife species, one cannot possibly ascertain the unsuitability of mineral extraction from this area. Thus, in my opinion, ENR has failed to present the full wildlife picture of this public owned acreage. ENR Response: The statement in question has been deleted. The purpose of the Land Report is to concisely present the kind of information needed by public policy decision makers. Extensive species lists have not proven to be useful for this purpose. Nevertheless, a great deal of information on the biological resources of Rice Lake has been included in the report. Comment #2 Chapter VII-20 - Birds This section is in gross error by stating, "These birds nest in a colony on the east side of the Illinois River approximately 2 miles from the petition area." The statement refers to mixed herons. Extensive documentation exists for heron nesting immediately in the Rice Lake Conservation Area historically, found in Graber and Graber. Black Crown Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) is a documented nester for the Rice Lake Conservation Area, CURRENTLY with multiple observers. It is easily deemed probable that this area will be extensively used for nesting by ALL heron species (AS IT HAS IN THE PAST) as the herons population cycles continue and their nest sites are changed AS PROVEN IN THE PAST FOR THIS SAME AREA. 37 ENR Response: Graber et al. (1978) reported that the great blue heron, the great egret and the black-crowned night heron nested at a colony on Big Lake (Duck Island) In the late 1930s. This is Interesting but insignificant in com- parison to the current use of Rice Lake by these species that Is docu- mented In the Land Report. New Information has been added to the final Land Report, Including the present commentor' s report of current nesting by black-crowned night herons. Comment # 3 Chapter VI 1-20 - Birds The study states, "More complete and reliable Information on the breeding birds of the area will be available after completion of an DOC sponsored study being conducted in June 1983." It is unfortunate that personnel of ENR should choose to say that information gathered by anyone else would be more "reliable" than the information historically gathered by employees of ENR, namely Drs. Richard and Jean Graber. It is a noted lack that overlooks the TYPE of DOC sponsored study which should be detailed. BY DOC DEFINITION, the avian survey is no more than a "sampling method" for comparative use. The guidelines for this specific DOC sponsored survey are rigid and restricted. This survey began by date, AFTER NESTING OF IMPORTANT RAPTORS AND ENDED BEFORE FLEDGING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES and does not incorporate the vital function of both spring, fall and winter use by birds, endangered, threatened or even uncommon species. This same DOC sponsored survey does NOT specifically allow for extensive time in nest documentation or even allow for full coverage of the 2,500+ acres of the Rice Lake Conservation Area because It deals with specific observation points. I object that a mere "sampling method" would be employed as "more complete and reliable Information" to extensive studies available within the ENR (Grabers) with absolutely no effort to obtain or use other information and studies available In the private and public sector. ENR Response: The statement in question has been deleted. The intent was to Indicate that the data being collected by a thoroughly competent field ornitholo- gist in June 1983 would be more complete and up-to-date, and therefore more reliable, than any other available data. Virtually all censuses of free- living birds are mere sampling methods. 38 mm umi — ■■M Comment #4 Chapter VII-30, par. 3 The report states, "Wood Ducks are the only waterfowl which regularly breed at Rice Lake (Eraerick 1982). Again, this statement is in error, one must suppose that Emerick DID NOT CONDUCT AN EXTENSIVE SURVEY OF THE RICE LAKE AREA PRIOR TO HIS COMMENT or he would have DISCOVERED other "waterfowl" species that REGULARLY BREED in Rice Lake Conservation Area. I must assume that members of the Illinois Natural History Survey did not conduct even a primary survey of the area either. Perhaps ENR does NOT Include Mallards, H-Mergansers & B-winged Teal, waterfowl? By all other definitions these species are considered water- fowl and have regularly reproduced in the Rice Lake area and OTHERS. ENR Response: The final Land Report contains data on the use of the RLCA by mallards, hooded mergansers and blue-winged teal during the 1983 breeding season. None of these are common nesters in the area. Comment #5 Chapter VII-40 - Birds The report states: "Eagles were first observed at Rice Lake In autumn during the 1973 sampling and in spring during the 1980 sampling." Historical reference to Bald Eagles at Rice Lake is easily obtained through local references for at least the past 40 years for both winter and breeding seasons. One should pay most particular attention to the SPRING sighting by Illi- nois Natural History Survey; it Is quite commonly accepted that wintering Bald Eagles within the Illinois River Valley LEAVE on a mean average, gen- erally accepted by all government agencies on or near the FIRST OF MARCH. Bald Eagles sighted AFTER March 1st are not considered "winter species." In the early days of March, in direct connection to weather patterns, some Bald Eagles could be termed as "late migrants," individuals. It should be noted that IN the state of Illinois, the breeding season for Bald Eagles, even farther north than Rice Lake actually BEGINS in March. The glaring omission of discussion regarding possible "nesting" of Bald Eagles at Rice Lake Is inexcusable in a competent and unbiased presenta- tion of the natural resources of Rice Lake, historical, current and potentials. 39 In light of the fact that both the Illinois DOC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have both been notified that adult Bald Eagles were ob- served regularly throughout April and May of 1982 and that notification occurred PRIOR to the petition procedure and the Land Report, one must seriously question the efforts made by the ENR staff to present a complete and unbiased data base for the petition area. PLEASE NOTE: The habitat of the Rice Lake Conservation Area does include all known habitat components for use by Bald Eagles during their known nesting season within the Central Zone of Illinois; and that their pre- sence has been observed and documented by multiple observers that include DOC employees, numerous residents of Fulton County, Richard S. Sandburg, W.V. O'Brien, members of the Great Lakes Sierra Chapter and myself. An ENR publication was dedicated to W.V. O'Brien and that same publication includes verified and accepted sightings by O'Brien, Sandburg and myself AND that same publication Is listed In the references used by this very Land Report. These same observers, ALREADY RECOGNIZED BY ENR did observe regularly, adult Bald Eagles during the months of Apirl and May of 1982. Why was this discussion omitted? It Is probably the single most serious deficiency In the entire Land Report. ENR Response: The statement in question referred only to INHS aerial census data and Is quoted out of context. In the final report the bald eagle section has been rewritten and includes comments on the possible nesting of bald eagles at Rice Lake. Comment # 6 STILL on Page VII-40 The use of aerial census to determine Bald Eagle numbers In a heavily wooded area is a questionable procedure with relatively few conclusions verified by ground observers. Aerial tends to be lower totals. The relatively undisturbed part of the petition area being considered for Inclusion in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory: Considering that even the Illinois DOC have taken steps to legally protect this area from future destruction of many types, this report should Indi- cate how this area would be protected from mining and what steps would eliminate the IMPACT from mining nearby on this rare and unique portion of public land. In actuality, the steps taken by the DOC to PRESERVE this area should be viewed as surpassing a request to declare the petition area unsuitable for mining. 40 HIIUMUUM —— »■■ MB—— — ENR Response: The inefficiency of the aerial census method is explained in the final Land Report. It is not the function of the Land Report to develop recla- mation, mitigation or recovery plans. Comment #7 Page X-64 Regarding the economy and this ridiculous statement: "People could go elsewhere within the state for recreation. They probably will." The statement is so faulty, it really does not deserve detailed comment. However, let it be NOTED that no other public owned acreage contains the same components of recreational values as the Rice Lake Conservation Area within a hundred mile drive. To list only a few of these components: In one public property : 1. suitable canoe course during flood season, the ONLY one in the Il- linois River Valley. 2. more than 100 herons easily viewed for more than 5 consecutive months. 3. Bald Eagles, easily observed throughout the winter and breeding seasons. 4. a large variety of rare bird species easily viewed throughout the year. 5. numerous endangered species (avi- an) easily observed both winter and summer. 6. large and diverse species of waterfowl easily viewed in flocks. 7. numerous bars and shallows for shorebirds in all the appropriate seasons. 8. overnight camping. 9. easy access by foot and canoe to natural backwater woodlands and 10. a unique outdoors experience worth driving hundreds of miles for across or down the entire state. The potential of Rice Lake as a midwestern drawing card for increased tourism was totally ignored! In fact, the factual INCREASE of tourism due to publicity of rare bird sightings in the petition are was not even noted. ENR Response: When taken in its proper context the statement regarding people going elsewhere within the state for recreation makes sense. ENR does not disagree with the recreational components cited by the commentor. How- ever, the point of this passage in the draft Land Report is that if people could not spend money in visiting the RLCA, their recreational dollars would be spent in other ways that still benefit the overall Illinois economy. Nevertheless, ENR concedes that the verb in the sentence "They probably will." is too imperative. It has been changed to "they probably would ." With regard to increased tourism at Rice Lake, ENR disagrees. According to DOC attendance records, the attendance at the area was actually slightly less between 1978 and 1982 (98,390 annual average) than the previous five year period (109,566 annual average). ENR concedes that the 1981 and 1982 attendance were higher than average (see Section IXC). However, there is no reliable data which would indicate the specific cause of the higher attendance in 1981 and 1982. 41 Comment #8 Page XI-28, Impact ? to Wetlands ? Incredible that this report would state, "Thus, this area will be removed from wetland- backwater lake habitat for the duration of mining." BUT IGNORES THE IMPACTS OF THIS REMOVAL ... WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THIS REMOVAL???? ENR Response: See response to Citizens for the Preservation of Knox County Comment #4 and Kirk Comment #5. The impacts of surface mining were addressed in Chapter XI of the report. Comment #9 Page XI -50 AGAIN, the erroneous statement that Wood Ducks are the only breeding waterfowl of Rice Lake! A question; It Is suggested by Emerick that some of the migrants probably will be able to meet their requirements by utilizing adjacent lakes, reservoirs and bottomlands. How did Emerick arrive at this questionable conclusion? Are the requirements even known for Double- crested Cormorants and many other bird species? What base does Emerick use for habitat avallabllity+ carrying capacity of what areas ??? Such questionable probabilities have no place in a data base but are only the supposition (without supporting text) of an individual. ENR Response: The statement on page XI-50: "only breeding waterfowl" has been changed to "only commonly breeding waterfowl." Emerick (1982) does not go into detail about the statement paraphrased. It was included as the profes- sional opinion of the DOC's District Wildlife Manager. Comment #10 Page XI -55 - Endangered and Threatened Species (Birds) I find it entirely deficient! Not one word regarding the loss of nesting endangered bird species! Docu- mentation regarding such Is readily obtained. The mere mention of "arti- ficial roosts" without proper reference and text of established success ANYWHERE is unquestionably a piece of far flung theory ... by someone. WHO? 42 Notes regarding endangered and threatened bird species of Rice Lake and KNOWN Illinois CURRENT distribution in relation to their historic distri- bution should be included by SPECIES, individual. By omitting discussion of each individual species, ENR clearly biases this Land Report by an obvious subtraction of Natural Resource values. ENR Response: The commentor misinterpreted the intent of the statement which was to counter any idea that artificial roosts could be successfully employed. The statement has been reworded to clarify the meaning. 3re The discussion of endangered species has been greatly expanded in the final Land Report. 43 MBBBB I 44 COMMENTOR : Kenneth Grigsby; Canton, Illinois Comment #1 Chapter XD, Economic Issues The land report omitted an Important economic loss to Fulton County. Within the proposed mining area Is 1,165 acres of privately owned farm land that would be affected. This does not include approximately 600 acres on Duck Island ... [If Rice Lake were mined, over 15 years] ... $4,849,313 (In corn production) would be lost ... ENR Response: Regretably, ENR did omit this factor In the draft Land Report. Text has been added to Section XD (Economic Issues) of the final Land Report to correct this omission. This addition to the Market Value and Sales Tax Revenues subsection presents an analysis of the potential economic Impact resulting from the disturbance of farm land. However, the comment or' s estimate of relevant acreages Is partially inaccurate; and the computed economic Impact Is Incomplete and, perhaps, misleading. According to notes of the March 24, 1983 meeting of the petitioners and ENR staff, 1,165 acres of farm land do lie within the proposed mining area, including the 600 Duck Island acres. A joint examination of recent aerial photos and the Fulton County plat book bear this out. Moreover, at least 100 acres of this farm land is not underlain with coal. According- ly, they may remain undisturbed. These 100 acres presently are owned by Continental Illinois National Bank and are contained in Sections 21 and 22 of Banner Township. Therefore, the total number of potentially affected acres may be 1,065 (1,165 - 100). In addition, according to the proposed mining plan, the surface mining operation would begin at the south end of the Rice Lake Conservation Area and move northward. Should Rice Lake be mined, all of the relevant acre- age need not be disturbed for the entire life of the mine. This Is espe- cially relevant regarding the 5 65 acres which lie In the northern portion of the proposed mining area. These acres (as well as the 600 Duck Island acres) could remain In farm production until the mining operation reaches them. When this would occur depends both on the life of the mine, which could extend anywhere from 9 to 21 years, and Freeman United' s detailed land use plans, which have not been specified. Moreover, post-mining, the disposition of the land would depend on any proposed reclamation plan de- signed to fulfill applicable federal and state laws as well as any addi- tional Illinois Department of Conservation (DOC) specifications. Since neither a detailed reclamation plan nor precise DOC intentions in this regard have been established, the length of time relevant acreage may be out of farm production after mining ceases cannot be determined. Given all these variables, the total time of non- product ion of food or fiber could be less, or significantly greater, than the 15 years mentioned by the comment or. 45 Finally, it is implied in this comment that the estimated market value of farm production is equal to a potential "economic loss to Fulton County ." This is an erroneous implication. The market value loss would be borne by the property owners and/or, to a lesser degree, any tenant farmers. What all the people of Fulton County could lose would be the potential sales tax revenue generated by the relevant farm production. Potential sales tax revenue would be 0.0098 (the local revenue proportion of the state sales tax) times the estimated market value. This assumes that all of the farm production would be sold at market within Illinois. Any proportion of this produce not sold (for example, used solely by the producer/land owner) or sold out-of-state would not generate sales tax revenue. Accord- ingly, using the commentor's estimate of $4,849,313 for the market value of farm production, over 15 years, Fulton County could lose a maximum of $47,523 in sales tax revenues ($4,849,313 x 0.0098), or $3,168 per year ($47,523/15). These factors, as well as the potential annual sales tax revenue for the State of Illinois, are taken into account in the added section of Chapter X. The potential impact on the property tax revenue generated by these farm acreages is already included in the Land Report. Comment #2 Chapter X, page 49, par. 2 [The draft land report stated] that 65 to 68% of coal will be sold out-of- state and this is normal for Illinois. Therefore, all sales tax revenue that would be received should reflect this data ... ENR Response: ENR disagrees. The commentor has misunderstood other facts presented in the draft Land Report. For example, "At present, for obvious reasons, Freeman United has no contracted or prospective customer for the Rice Lake coal."; and " if Rice Lake coal follows the norm for Illinois coal (65% exported), then the anticipated state sales tax revenue will be approximately $5 to $7 million." (Page X-51, emphasis added.) While the norm for all Illinois coal production is that 65 to 68% is exported, this is not necessarily the case for each and every mine in Illinois. For example, the AMAX Sunspot mine (Vermont, Fulton County, Illinois) has been the sole supplier of coal for the Central Illinois Public Service (CIPS) electric generating plant at Meredosia (Morgan County, Illinois). Since this Sunspot coal (75% of the mine's total production in 1981 and 69% in 1982) was sold in-state, it generated Fulton County and State of Illinois sales tax revenues. The following table presents the relevant data: Year AMAX Sunspot Coal Purchased by CIPS Meredosia Plant (tons) Total AMAX Sunspot Coal Production (tons) Percent 1981 1982 749,797 631,090 1,000,003 917,011 75 69 Source: Federal Power Commission, monthly and Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, yearly. 46 ' ■ - Also, Che Freeman United Crown II mine (Virden, Macoupin County, Illinois) has been the sole supplier of coal for the Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) Duck Creek electric generating plant (near Canton, Fulton County, Illinois). The data is as follows: Crown II Coal Purchased Tota l1 Crown II by CILCO Duck Creek Coal . Production Year (tons) (tons) Percent 1981 731,609 1,113,936 66 1982 1,161,522 1,610,150 73 Source: Federal Power Commission, monthl y and Illinois Depa rtment of Mines and Minerals, yearly. (See also Table X-8, page X-25). Accordingly, it is entirely possible that a Rice Lake mine could have significantly less than 65% of its production sold out-of-state. It could have 65 to 75% sold in-state. Without evidence to suggest exactly what the relevant proportions will be for the proposed Rice Lake mine , ENR is obliged to report all possibilities (scenarios) (Table X-24, page X-50). The 65% (to 68%) exported norm for all Illinois coal is, perhaps, the most probable scenario for a Rice Lake mine; but it is decidedly not the only one possible. 336 47 I I 48 . tinimiiiaaaBWtmiii COMMENTOR : Illinois Association for Advancement of Archaeology; Mr. Eugene Gray Comment #1 [The lack, of a mining plan hampers an evaluation of the impact of mining on cultural reosurces.] ENR Response: The assessment of impact on cultural resources is based on the assumption that the entire RLCA could be mined. Comment #2 [Mining will destroy known and unrecognized sites on lands adjacent to the RLCA. ] ENR Response: Since the petition is limited to the RLCA, the impact of mining on cul- tural resources must be restricted to this piece of property. However, before mining may take place, a mining permit must be issued. The permit process includes a systematic evaluation of cultural resources aimed at determining if there are any candidates for the National Register of Historic Places. This process is completely independent of the Lands Unsuitable petition procedure. Comment #3 [More extensive and complete investigations are needed to adequately assess the impact of mining on cultural resources.] ENR Response: The evaluation of cultural resources in the RLCA was developed primarily from existing data comprised of site location records maintained by the Illinois Archaeological Survey, published archaeological reports, inter- actions with professional archaeologists who have conducted research in the region around the RLCA, research on site locations in areas analogous to the RLCA, and a limited surface reconnaissance. It is notable that a surface reconnaissance, the customary means of searching for sites, is not sufficient for locating sites in the RLCA because of the dense cover of vegetation and the amount of sediment deposited during the Holocene. Shovel testing, a reconnaissance technique used in areas of dense vegeta- tion, would be of limited effectiveness also since recent sediment bodies have considerable thickness. In addition, the RLCA was inundated during most of the period when more intensive site reconnaissance could have been conducted. The lack of data concerning the National Register eligibility of existing sites is problematical, but the Land Report process did not include the resources to conduct systematic surface and sub-surface reconnaissance including extensive excavations at some sites, to recover 49 enough artifacts to determine If a site was eligible. However, as noted above, the mining permit process Includes a systematic assessment of cultural reosurces to determine if there are any sites eligible for the National Register. All things considered, this work has provided a sub- stantial data base from which the probabilities of encountering cultural resources in different geological situations have been formulated. While it is not a perfect substitute for a systematic survey, It provides the best approximation under the circumstances. 50 . COMMENTOR : Illinois Audubon Society; Warren R. DeWalt, Executive Director Comment Particularly noteworthy [in regard to the draft Land Report] are the report's comments on the following: The bald eagles — mining would eliminate overwintering bald eagles during the mining period, with low likelihood of reestablishment afterward. The roost would be destroyed. Colonial nesting birds — populations would be vulnerable, and losses prob- ably would not be counterbalanced by reclamation. Bottomland forests — mining would destroy another of the largely diminished bottomland forests in the Illinois River Valley. Also, the bluff near Rice Lake would most likely be dewatered, subjecting this valuable bio- logical site to drought stress and possible mortality. Endangered plants — mining would destroy the last remaining and best popu- lations in Illinois of Boltonia asteroedes var decurreus , which is a plant proposed for federal endangered status. Waterfowl — mining would eliminate all of the waterfowl habitat in the Rice Lake conservation area during the mining period, and the effects on re- gional waterfowl population levels could not be stated with confidence. Counterbalancing these negative impacts is the proposed reclamation, de- pending on "a well designed and executed" plan. Ecological diversity — destruction of the soils by surface mining would permanently alter the ecosystem. The diversity of biota now enjoyed in the area would be slow, if ever, in reestablishing itself. Habitat preservation — (in regard to the draft 1983 Scorp) mining would be incompatible with DOC's goals of habitat and forest preservation, particu- larly in regard to wetlands and natural areas. ENR Response: The comment above generally synthesizes the biological sections of the Land Report. However, the authors feel that the commentor has mis- interpreted some of the statements made within the draft. In particular, it is incorrect to say that the bluff would most likely be dewatered. The bluff is in the area most likely to be dewatered, but the probability of dewatering is unpredictable. Mining Rice Lake would not destroy the last remaining population of Boltonia asteroides var. decurrens ; several others are known. Some waterfowl habitat would probably be maintained in the RLCA during at least part of the mining period. Finally, the report does not say that mining would be incompatible with DOC's goals. It says only that it appears to be incompatible for their statewide goals. 51 nOBMBBHM «■* 52 . 7S mmnsn COMMENTOR : Illinois Department of Conservation; David Kenney, Director General Comments Comment #1 The material in the draft report is presented In an Inconsistent manner. Some sections deal with RLCA almost irrespective of its relationship to surrounding lands while other sections address impacts on a local, re- gional and statewide basis. Further, some sections present Information based on the short-term while long-term projections are made In others. There are numerous statements throughout the report such as, "clear trend towards increased use", "used heavily by white tailed deer", "high di- versity", "ranked number 10 in State water bodies producing commercial fish" which are suspect unless placed in perspective through appropriate comparisons or more detailed explanation. &@* ENR Response: The material was presented in accordance with statutory requirements. The petition area identified by the Save Rice Lake Area Association, Inc. was the Rice Lake Conservation Area (RLCA). ENR's detailed natural resource analysis centered on this area. Where appropriate natural resource In- formation obtained from the analysis of RLCA was also discussed in a re- gional and statewide context. Socioeconomic information was presented and discussed in a local, regional and statewide context. The demand for coal resources was addressed on a local, regional, state and national level. Comment #2 The DENR should not attempt to interpret the policies and goals of the DOC. It was suggested on page 7 of the report that mining "would appear to be Incompatible with SCORP goals." The report also states that DOC funding and acquisition problems must be balanced against our stated goals for preservation of wetlands, natural areas, cultural heritage and forests when, in reality, these are not mutually exclusive issues and mining could potentially have provided a vehicle to preserve or further all the above goals Instead of requiring tradeoffs between them as is Implied. As a result of the proposal from Freeman, for Instance, an additional 1,850+ acres of habitat at Banner Marsh would have come under State ownership. Also, In addition to our current holdings at RLCA, approxi- mately 2,300 acres of lands adjacent to the RLCA would have come under State control after mining. Depending on how a reclamation plan for this entire area was devised, the result in time could be an increase In the forest acreage, wetland acreage, and habitat types currently not present (or present in small quantities). Additionally, these areas would be surrounded by a levee providing protection from the Illinois River and its continual degradation of all the backwater areas associated with It. 53 HinwailMiiMNMMHBHDMiMHHMBMHMBHBMBI ENR Response: ENR has made every effort to be objective regarding DOC's published policies and goals, frequently quoting directly from DOC documents. While page 7 of the Summary of Findings does state that mining would appear to be incompatible with SCORP goals, the DOC comment fails to take into ac- count the qualification provided in the same paragraph: "SCORP goals ... were developed on a statewide basis (macro level) and should be examined • in that light". In other words, ENR has acknowledged that SCORP goals for individual areas need to be examined on a site-by-site basis. Further- more, on page XI-73 of the draft land report it is stated that mining RLCA is not completely incompatible with DOC's plans. ENR did not mean to imply that funding and acquisition problems are ex- clusive of DOC's preservation goals. The sentence on page 7 concerning this comment by DOC has been changed to read: "In determining whether mining is incompatible with SCORP plans it is necessary to: 1) balance DOC's acquisition and funding problems and stated preservation goals for wetlands, natural areas, cultural heritage, and forests ..." Further clarification of ENR's intent in this discussion is provided in Section Xl-G, which states that "DOC's funding and acquisition goals are compat- ible with the proposal to mine Rice Lake insofar as the mining proposal provides for additional lands to be given to DOC prior to and after mining. Regarding the second paragraph of comment #2, DOC states that an addi- tional 1850+ acres of habitat at Banner Marsh would come under State ownership as a result of the Freeman proposal. This appears to be an overestimate, as DOC's Master Management Plan for Banner Marsh State Wildlife Area states Freeman's holdings at 1,695 acres. Comment #3 As for the cultural resources, no determination has been made that the value of the sites at Rice Lake can only be realized through preservation in place and since such instances are in fact rare, it would seem quite speculative and most likely inappropriate to deem mining as being in- compatible with our goal of protection of cultural heritage. ENR Response: In no section of the draft land report has ENR suggested that the value of sites can be realized only through in-place preservation. In fact, ENR acknowledges the possibility of pre-mining excavation by stating In Chapter XI: "With regard to Rice Lake ... DOC has stated that if Rice Lake were to be mined, an archaeological survey should be completed and significant sites should be salvaged prior to mining." 54 Comment #4 It is likewise inappropriate to state that mining would be incompatible with our goal of preservation of natural areas. There is no area within RLCA currently designated as a natural area. The documented eagle com- munal night roost indeed would make that site eligible for inclusion in the Natural Areas Inventory; however, a detailed process must be followed including further study to determine the significance of such a discovery before actual listing would occur. To automatically assume listing is highly speculative and it is erroneous to further make the assumption that mining is therefore incompatible with our goal of natural areas preserva- tion. 59 ENR Response: ENR recognizes that no part of the RLCA has been officially designated for inclusion on DOC's Natural Areas Inventory and does not assume such an inclusion in the case of the eagle communal night roost. But ENR does believe that the RLCA possesses intrinsic value as a natural area and, as such, to mine the area appears to conflict with DOC's published statewide SCORP goals/objectives of protecting, maintaining and acquiring Illinois' few remaining "natural areas." Comment #5 In the future, to avoid such misinterpretations of policy, it would be best to inquire of the organization/agency whose policy is being ref- erenced how their policy or policies applies to a given proposal, rather than to attempt independent interpretation. ENR Response: See ENR Response to DOC Comment #2 above. Comment #6 In many cases, identical material was used in three separate locations in the report; in the summary, in the existing resources section and in the impacts section. This added to the overall bulk of the document and should be avoided. ENR Response: The organization of the RLCA Land Report consists of the following parts. In Chapters I & II the petition process and petition area are described. Chapters III - IX describe the existing natural and socioeconomic 55 ■HBHHMBMH resources of the area. In Chapter X, as required by Illinois State Stat- ute, the demand for coal is discussed. Chapter XI presents an analysis of the potential impacts that mining may have on the RLCA. Some of the data presented in Chapters III - X is stated again in Chapter XI In summary form. Due to the amount of data presented in the Land Report, ENR thinks this assists the reader In understanding ENR's assessment of the potential Impacts of mining on the RLCA. To better enable decision makers and the general public to assess the findings of the RLCA Land Report, the Summary of Findings was organized to address two issues. First, the potential Impact that mining may have on existing land use plans or programs, fragile or historic lands, renewable resource lands, natural hazard lands, and socioeconomic resources and the supply of coal were examined. Secondly, the Summary of Findings addresses petition allegations as they relate to the impacts listed above. To un- derstand the basis on which ENR's findings were made, information regard- ing the existing resources in the area and the potential Impacts of mining on the area were extracted from relevant chapters in the Land Report. This resulted in a rather long Summary of Findings but provides the reader with a cohesive presentation of ENR's findings (and the basis on which they were derived) with regard to the statutory requirements of the Act and the allegations made by the petitioners. Comment #7 A summary of 71 pages is excessive and it is recommended it be shortened. ENR Response: See ENR response to DOC Comment #6 above. Comment #8 The DOC was pleased that Issues raised n the report were for the most part the same ones identified in our "Rice Lake Mining Issues." We were surprised, however, that overall the report answered very few of the out- standing questions surrounding mining at Rice Lake. Is it DENR interpre- tation that the land report should only Identify what Is known and not make an attempt to further identify existing resources and answer out- standing questions? ENR Response: By Illinois Statute the Land Report "shall state objectively the Informa- tion which ENR has, but shall not contain a recommendation with respect to whether the petition should be granted or denied." Each Land Report must evaluate the effect of mining operations on existing state or local land 56 use plans or programs, fragile or historic lands, renewable resource lands, and natural hazard lands. The Land Report must also contain a detailed statement on the potential resources of the area, the demand for coal resources, and the impact of a designation of unsuitability on the environment, the economy and the supply of coal. In addition to using existing information to address these issues, ENR personnel did perform some on-site surveys and met with members from the Save Rice Lake Area Association and Freeman United Coal Company. It was not within ENR's mandate to address questions that were not specifically related to the requirements of the Act or the allegations presented by the petitioners. Comment #9 References to Becker, 1982 should be changed to Sweet, 1982. The authors assumed the cover memo dated February 8, 1982 from Carl Becker to Randy Vogel transmitting comments on Issue 4 regarding the Rice Lake Mining Proposal indicated authorship. The author of that document is Michael Sweet. ENR Response: ENR appreciates this correction. Appropriate changes in the text and references section have been made. Comment #10 References are made throughout the text to land features which are not labeled on any of the maps: Round Pond (VII-10), Fiddlers Slough (VII-10), Ridge Field (VII-12), Barton Field (VII-12) and numerous others such as Hoxie Ridge and Miserable Island. Identification of these areas on a map would be helpful. ENR Response: Hoxie Ridge and Miserable Island are identified on Plate III-2. features are described in the revised text. The other Comment #11 We recommend only common names of species be utilized in the text with the concomitant sicentific nomenclature given in an appendix. 57 ENR Response: Only common names have been used In the text of the final Land Report with the exception of cases where common names do not exist and where taxonomic confusion might occur. Comment #12 A general discussion of alternative reclamation plans Is needed. The factors used in making judgements of impacts should be projected into such a scheme. ENR Response: According to the Surface Coal Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act (PA 81-1015, Sections 7.02 & 7.04), the Land Report is not required to address reclamation. Although the Department of Mines and Minerals must declare the RLCA unsuitable If reclamation is not feasible, it is not within the scope of the Land Report to discuss specific reclamation plans. The Department of Mines and Minerals will use the Information within the Land Report, information from the public and other stage agencies, and information that they have to determine the economic and technological feasibility of reclamation. To assist them In this determination, the Land Report includes general discussions of reclamation throughout the report. With regard to specific alternative reclamation schemes, It is the responsibility of the coal operator to submit these if the land Is declared suitable for mining. In such a case, DMM would judge the fea- sibility of the specific reclamation plan during the mine permitting process. Specific Comments Comment #1 Page 2, par. 4 The report states "a description of the existing (and future) resources in both the petition area and the surrounding region is presented." In our review we note that no description of the plans for the adjacent Banner Marsh area is presented, and its Integral relationship to the proposal presented to the Department of Conservation by Freeman United Coal Company Is not discussed. ENR Response: Throughout the Land Report the specific resources of the petition area are discussed while the resources of the surrounding region are only described 58 In a general way. It is not the intent of the Land Report to describe the region other than to explain the area within which the RLCA is located. With regard to the plans of DOC and Freeman United Coal Company, these were not discussed in great detail. The function of the Land Report is to present the facts regarding the potential impacts that mining may have on the RLCA, not to describe the suitability of an expanded Banner Marsh area as a DOC wildlife facility. ?.. Comment #2 The Master Management Plan for the Banner Marsh State Wildlife Area should be listed as a Land Use Plan pertaining to the RLCA and surrounding region as it outlines the proposed use of over 5,000 acres of adjacent lands. ENR Response: ENR agrees. The Master Management Plan has been added to the list of relevant plans In Section XIG. For the reasons stated in the ENR response above, the Master Management Plan for the Banner Marsh State Wildlife Area was not considered in detail. Comment #3 The report states "A proposal to mine the RLCA could result in DOC receiv- ing approximately 338 acres north of the Conservation Area in exchange for the right to mine Rice Lake." We are unsure of the source of this data as, under the proposal by Freeman United, the Department would have received approximately 1,850 acres at Banner Marsh immediately and would receive approximately 2,300 additional acres of land adjacent to RLCA after mining and reclamation were completed. ENR Response: ENR regrets the confusion caused by this passage. The relevant sentence should have read "A proposal to mine the RLCA could result in DOC re- ceiving approximately 838 acres of land in Fulton County north of the Conservation Area In exchange for the right to mine Rice Lake." The appropriate corrections have been made in the text of the final land report. In this regard, significant differences exist among the various extant estimates of the amount of Banner Marsh land DOC would receive from Freeman United. On pages 41, 42 and 67 of the Banner Marsh State Wildlife Area Master Management Plan, DOC estimated the acreage at 1,695. Freeman United affirms that 1,7 64 acres are Involved. (See the Freeman United Comment # 1.) This DOC comment refers to 1,850 acres. 59 In preparing the draft land report, ENR analyzed this issue. The current plat books for Fulton and Peoria counties were used. In addition, the respective staffs of the Office of the Fulton County Supervisor of Assess- ments and the Office of the Peoria County Assessor were consulted. These telephone consultations involved a joint sectlon-by-section examination of the plat books in order to determine ownership of lands In the Banner Marsh and Rice Lake areas. On their end, the respective Assessors staffs also utilized the listings of acreages in their property tax rolls, and made some planlmeter measurements of their larger and more detailed sec- tion maps. This analysis revealed that the amount of Banner Marsh land which DOC would receive from Freeman United amount to approximately 1,698 acres. Since this total agreed substantially with another independently derived figure (the 1,695 acres noted in the DOC Banner Marsh State Wildlife Master Management Plan) , it was viewed as being the best-available esti- mate. Moroever, this ENR analysis determined that about 838 of the rele- vant Banner Marsh acres lie in Fulton County, and roughly 860 in Peoria County. Since acreage estimates were crucial to an assessment of the potential Fulton County property tax Impact, only the 838 acre figure was used in the draft land report. That estimate is retained In the final land report. I Comment #4 Page 12, par. 3 The narrative on floodplain forest is confusing. Species are listed which make up the forested area east of U.S. Highway 24. It further lists the species occurring in the remaining area of floodplain forest which must, therefore, be west of Highway 24. None of the RLCA west of Highway 24 contains floodplain forest. In addition, pin oak should be added to the former list as on page 13 of the report, "several stands of mature pin oaks" are mentioned. ENR Response: The listing of floodplain forest tree species has been deleted from the summary and clarified in Chapter VII. Comment #5 Page 14, par. 2 It is incorrect to state that the genus Boltonia is endemic to the Illi- nois River bottoms and that Boltonia species have been declining rapidly. Both statements are only attributable to B. asteroides var. decurrens and 60 not to all species of the genus Boltonia or even other varieties of B. asteroides . It Is also appropriate to note that the population of this species (mentioned on page VII-16) occurs in an agricultural field Indi- cating its ability to persist on disturbed sites. This field was not planted in 1982 due to wet conditions. ENR Response: Suggested changes have been made In the final Land Report. Comment # 6 Page 14, par. 3 In referencing Indiana bats, use of the phrase "critical summer habitat" Is incorrect. Critical habitat for the Indiana bat are the hibernacula (caves) and no other critical habitat has been identified by either the USFWS or the DOC. ENR Response: The term "critical" is no longer used in reference to the summer habitat of the Indiana bat. Comment #7 Page 15, par. 1 The Illinois River valley, in general, does meet all the habitat require- ments for overwintering eagles, but Rice Lake Conservation Area does not. Open water may be the most important feature of bald eagle wintering habi- tat as food supply is probably the most critical feature of the biology of wintering bald eagles (Steenhoff 1978). During normal winters, Rice Lake freezes which would force many eagles to move to areas of open water for foraging. In addition, based upon what Is known about severe weather roosting sites, there does not appear to be habitat available at RLCA to provide suitable protection. A communal night roost was documented at RLCA during the winter of "82", "8 3". It does not, however, exhibit char- acteristics typical of communal night roosts. Most winter roosts used by bald eagles are well protected from wind and, In fact, roosts along the Illinois River are usually on east- facing slopes protected from prevailing westerly winds (Steenhoff 1978). It is quite possible that establishment of this roost occurred due to the abnormal conditions of the winter of "82", "8 3", specifically extremely mild weather and record flooding. Therefore, in judging the significance of this roost, further monitoring Is required as roost sites are normally used by eagles for several years (Steenhoff 1978). 61 tliMTIIHHMIHIHIfl In order to maintain proper perspective, additional narrative is needed explaining the statement "There appears to be a clear trend toward in- creased use of the RLCA by wintering eagles". The INHS aerial censuses would indicate this is not a pehnomenon associated only with Rice Lake, but is, in fact, occurring in the entire lower Illinois River Valley. There does not appear to be a trend toward greater usage of RLCA in com- parison with increases associated with other areas. Perhaps more detail on overall population trends and usage patterns would be helpful. ENR Response: The final Land Report has been modified to include ice considerations, and the need to further document eagle use of Rice Lake is pointed out. More detail on overall population has also been identified. Comment #8 Page 15, par. 2 Double-crested cormorants have also been documented utilizing the Rice Lake/Big Lake area this summer (1983); however, these were also apparently non-breeding individuals as no evidence of nesting activity could be found. ENR Response: Birkenholz's 1983 data has been included in the final Land Report, speci- fically that on double-crested cormorants and brown creepers. Comment #9 Page 3 This Summer (1983) brown creepers, a State endangered species were docu- mented at RLCA. This species is a common migrant and winter resident in Illinois and has also been observed at RLCA during these periods. It is a rare summer resident and nester, however, and cypress swamps and flood- plain forests are apparently the habitat types utilized (Sheviak & Thorn 1981). ENR Response: See ENR response to DOC Comment #8 above. 62 Comment if 10 Page 15, par. 4 A statement Is made that the habitats of the RLCA are generally of high quality for supporting amphibians and reptiles due to the diversity of both terrestrial and aquatic areas. Further discussion is needed on the Impacts of the fluctuating water levels, turbidity and lack of aquatic vegetation especially during breeding season. ENR Response: Turbidity, sedimentation and the demise of aquatic plant beds have ad- versely affected the reptile and amphibian populations of the RLCA. These Influences, as well as industrial and municipal pollutants, were prevalent in the 1950s and thus were of considerable Importance in governing distributions and abundances of species as reported by Smith (1961). Nonetheless, at that time the Illinois River Valley generally supported a greater diversity of these animals than the uplands due to the extensive draining and clearing of the upland prairies. Some species have been eliminated and probably many have been reduced In numbers or range, but In general the forests and extensive land-water Interface areas of the river system, including the RLCA provide more suitable habitat for amphibians and reptiles than the predominantly row-cropped uplands. Comment #11 Page 17, par. 2 and Page 18, par. 1 It should be noted there Is a probable occurrence of at least three spe- cies of mussels in Rice Lake based on a collection made by the petitioners and identified by Dr. Richard Sparks of your staff. In addition, the narrative In this section is misleading. The statement Is made that gen- erally the Illinois River mussel fauna has been more decimated than the Mississippi River fauna. Then, a study of the upper Mississippi River is referenced wherein seven species were considered rare, leading the reader to the erroneous conclusion that these species could therefore be con- sidered even more uncommon In the Illinois River. One of the seven spe- cies listed in the Mississippi River study, the flat floater (Anodonta suborbiculata ) , is also one of the three species collected by the peti- tioners and identified by Dr. Sparks. Appendix G is a letter from Dr. Sparks regarding his identifications wherein he states "None of these are rare or endangered species and all of them are found In still or slow-moving water." ENR Response: ENR now has circumstantial evidence of at least seven species of mussels occurring at Rice Lake. The text has been modified to clarify the analogy between the upper Mississippi River fauna and that of the Illinois River. 63 (WMOUHMHI HHHHB Comment #12 Page 18, par. 2 The information on the fall migration of waterfowl is misleading. Daily waterfowl populations of 40,000 birds are common in that portion of the Illinois River valley containing Rice Lake Conservation Area; however, such numbers are not commonplace at Rice Lake itself as evidenced by the INHS aerial censuses. Out of a total of 162 individual autumn censuses conducted over the past eleven years, only once has a waterfowl population in excess of 40,000 birds been noted and never was 85,00 attained. We note the DOC source document used in making this reference is misleading in this regard. Although the RLCA does support a mean autumn duck and goose population of over 5,000 birds, the area generally supports less than 5% of the total waterfowl censused on the lower Illinois River (INHS census data) . ENR Response: The data refered to has been omitted. Comment #13 Page 19, par. 2 The statement is made that hunters in the surrounding areas bag many waterfowl which utilize Rice Lake as a feeding and resting area. It should be equally appropriate to assume that, in addition to the bag by hunters on these private lands, many waterfowl utilizing private areas for resting and feeding are bagged by Rice Lake hunters. This Is especially true considering the adjacent privately owned Big Lake historically holds substantially larger numbers of waterfowl in the autumn than does Rice Lake. ENR Response: Suggested additions have been Incorporated in Chapter VII. Comment #14 Page 20, par. 1 Spawning by most fishes is completed well before the summer drawdown of Rice Lake occurs. In addition, Dr. Frank Bellrose was questioned at the fall 1981 annual meeting of the IEC regarding the possibility of total draining of Rice Lake in order to consolidate bottom sediments. It was his opinion, and we would agree, that due to the physical nature of the 64 sediment, it would require a period of several successive years of drying to accomplish this. ENR Response: The statement was made in reference to fishes spawning during the spring following summer drawdown. Several years of consecutive drawdowns would tend to consolidate the sediment along the margin of the lake and thus make these areas more attractive as a spawning substrate. The statement In question, however, has been removed from the text. Comment #15 Page 20, par. 3 Barring changes in surrounding land uses, a wildlife dispersal corridor would still exist in the event of Rice Lake mining. The "corridor" also could be enlarged after mining dependent upon the specifics of a given reclamation plan. ENR Response: The text of Chapter XI has been modified to Indicate that mining would result in a temporary and partial barrier to wildlife dispersal. Comment #16 Page 22, par. 2 Mining would probably have an effect on the natural drainage pattern. It is. standard procedure to divert drainage from the unaffected area around a mining operation. Such would undoubtedly be the case in the event of Rice Lake mining with the construction of a perimeter ditch along the west permit boundary to direct flow away from the operation. Whether these drainage patterns would be restored would be dependent on the reclamation plan and specific management goals. ENR Response: Bluff runoff could be diverted around the leveed area or pumped to the Illinois River as Indicated in the revised text on pages 48 and 49. 65 » «tMa^ IBMf M Comment #17 Page 25, par. 1 There is no evidence to support the statement "the impact of mining Rice Lake on endangered and threatened plants will be to eliminate potential habitat for four state-listed wetland species once known from Fulton County." Exact requirements of these species are unknown and because of this it cannot be assumed that a reclaimed Rice Lake would not be poten- tial habitat. In addition, there are two areas of RLCA, one centrally located and one on the southern border, which are not underlain by coal and would, therefore, not be mined. Even if undisturbed moist soils were required for the ex- istence of these species, such areas would still exist after mining. ENR Response: The statement has been modified to indicate that the elimination of potential habitat might be temporary . Comment #18 Page 25, par. 4 There should be minimal threat to fishes in adjacent areas from increased turbidity and sedimentation as a result of mining. Both IEPA and DMM have strict standards for control and treatment of affected drainage and for revegetation and stabilization and there is no reason to assume these agencies will not enforce their standards. The turbidity and sedimenta- tion from a mining operation should be miniscule when compared to the effects of the Illinois River on the areas in question. ENR Response: ENR agrees. The revised text incorporates these changes. Comment #19 Page 26, par. 2 There appears to be no basis for the assumption that "mining the area would most likely result in smaller forested areas" and thus would further reduce the regional availability of suitable habitat for the Indiana bat, river otter and bobcat. As stated previously, the Department could have received an additional 2,300+ acres in adjacent lands representing a 90% increase in the size of the Conservation Area. Dependent upon the 66 reclamation plan and management plans, the forest acreage in time could increase over current levels. In addition, because exact habitat require- ments are not known for the three mammal species mentioned, there would seem to be no reason to assume that the reclaimed area would be less suit- able to their needs especially since the Conservation Area would be 90% larger and additional habitat diversity would probably result. This entire section (pages 24 through 2 6) seems to perpetuate the common myth that from the moment a mine Is opened, all habitat within a permit area Is lost for the life of the operation. Mining operations, however, disturb and subsequently replace habitat Incrementally. As the operation slowly advances, the zone of disturbance likewise slowly advances a short distance in front of it. Reclamation follows the advancing pit occurring directly behind the operation. At Rice Lake, if mining started in the southern portion advancing north, it would be many years before disturb- ance would occur in the northerly areas. The lake proper would be drained at the start of the operation and this habitat would be removed. Lush plant growth would then occur on the exposed lake bed, however, providing a different type of habitat and the trees in these northern areas would also still exist until removed by the advancing pit. ENR Response: The section has been modified to indicate that the predicted impacts may be gradual, partial and temporary. However, the best available data Indicate that the three mammal species mentioned prefer relatively mature and undisturbed forests. Comment #20 Page 29, par. 3 Provisions for handling and disposal of toxic processing wastes are currently contained in State law. In addition, it should be noted here that coal processing and disposal of refuse would most likely not occur in the petition area. ENR Response: The following statement has been Inserted on p. 29: "in Freeman United' s proposal mine plan, waste materials would not be disposed of in the RLCA." See also the discussion of processing wastes in Chapter XI and the response to R.C. Anderson's Comment #1. 67 H BE Comment #21 Page 4 1, par. 1 The Report Indicates an average of 100,000 persons per year visit Rice Lake. The 100,000 figure refers to visits , not visitors. It is likely that many of Rice Lake's visitors are repeat visitors. ENR Response: Thank you for pointing out this error, been changed to reflect this comment. The text of the Land Report has Comment #22 Page 50, par. 3 The statement regarding the potential for trace metals exceeding recom- mended limits should be clarified. Recommended limits for what? The area should certainly still be quite suitable for fish and wildlife and recrea- tion use. ENR Response: The statement referred to drinking water standards, in the final version of the Land Report. It has been retracted Two comments in the Land Report refer to the quality of water with respect to other uses. In Chapter XI a study Is cited which found water quality in final cut lakes to be adequate for livestock. In both the summary and Chapter XI, ENR states that water quality in final cut lakes was judged "acceptable for general water use." While water quality is expected to be somewhat degraded at the RLCA, it should be of sufficient quality to support fish, wildlife and recreation use. Comment #23 Page 5 3, par. 3 The assumption that a dragline would be used to move the geologic materials is probably Incorrect. Freeman United Coal was the most likely candidate to mine the area and their operations typically are shovel or wheel/ shovel operations. 68 ENR Response: This assumption was made for convenience, and has been withdrawn in the final version of the Land Report. Comment #24 Page 64, par. 2 The Report implies visitor-induced statewide economic impacts would be eliminated. However, if visitors went elsewhere in Illinois, then no decrease in statewide economic impact would occur. ENR Response: This paragraph merely states the situation as it now exists. Caveats regarding the utilization of other recreation facilities if Rice Lake is mined are mentioned a number of times, and are contained, in other parts of the Land Report. (See the State Economic Impact subsection of Chapter IX and the Impact on Illinois Economy subsection of Chapter X.) Comment #25 Page 69, par. 2 The discussion on property values should be expanded. While it is true that adjacent property values would most likely decrease during mining, they could potentially increase after mining due to proximity to a very large Conservation Area. ENR Response: Since data on this point are not available, any further discussion of this matter could involve only assertions, speculations and conjectures which could not be substantiated. Comment #2 6 Page 11-28, Fig. II-3 The delineation of DOC Region I boundary is Incorrect. It should extend from the LaSalle County/ Kendall County border north to McHenry County then 69 west along the DeKalb County/McHenry County border, then north along the McHenry County/ Boone County border to the State line. ENR Response: The delineation of the DOC Region has been revised to say Region lb which is part of the DOC Region I. Region la Is to the north of Region lb and includes the northwest corner of the state. Comment #27 Page V-37 The adjusted figure for average sediment accumulation given in Table V-3 (.3 ft.) Is not explained in the text. The annual loss of depth is given as .01 ft. on page V-34. ENR Response: The loss of depth in Rice Lake Is based on a comparison of 5 survey points between 1964 and 1983. The 1983 survey had 36 survey points while the 1964 survey only had 5 survey points. The average sediment accumulation based only on this comparison was 0.3 foot during the 19-year period (from 1964 to 1983) as shown in Table V-3. The annual loss of depth would amount to about 0.015 feet. Comment #28 Page V-38 The annual flooding of backwater lakes and the resultant fresh sediment deposits may enhance the productivity of the lake through the cycling of nutrients but the amount and nature of sediment deposited also has a detrimental effect on the plant and animal populations (decrease oxygen, increase turbidity). ENR Response: The authors agree with this comment and the text on page V-38 has been changed to include the following: "This cyclic process of flooding of backwater areas and the resultant fresh sediment may enhance the productivity of the lake but long term sediment deposits have a detrimental effect on water related plant and animal populations." 70 Comment #29 Page VI-4, Page VII-6 The figures given on these pages are illegible and should be redrawn or removed. ENR Response: The figures have been redrawn and incorporated into the final Land Report, Comment #30 Page VI- 31 and VI- 32 The rating system used to construct Table VI-7 is misleading. The rating categories are very limited in their scope and only portray some of the characteristics of these soils. The Hickory series, for instance, was considered the most productive based on this classification. Since the Hickory series only produces 225 BF/A/Yr., it can hardly be considered the most productive. All of the other soil series, with the exception of the Rodman and Timula, are capable of producing between 400 to 700 BF/A/Yr. ENR Response: ENR agrees. It is peculiar that the SCS would rate Hickory with the high- est ordination symbol (lr), yet potential productivity is less according to Cooperative Extension Circular 115 6. The two parameters were arrived at independently from different characteristics and this apparently is one case where the two estimates don't correlate well with each other. Comment #31 Page VI-33 The report mentions the absence of Silver Maple from the "Common Trees" column in Table VI and points out that pines are often mentioned as suggested trees to plant. The data was undoubtedly taken from SCS soil interpretation print-outs which often do not consider inclusion of all species found naturally on a given soil and will often recommend exotic or non-native species which may be economically Important, but are not necessarily ecologically important. ENR Response: The data indeed comes from SCS soil interpretation printouts which are biased toward economically important species. The text has been amended accordingly. 71 Comment #32 Page VI 1-4 In formulation of Table VII-1 so many assumptions are made that the Information becomes meaningless. For example, it assumes there would be increased value for endangered species without mining and decreased value with mining; for waterfowl there will be no change without and increased value with; for fish the change is unpredictable without and Increased with. It would seem different and varying assumptions were made for each circumstance and equally viable but different assumptions could have been made for each resulting in changes to the assigned values. In fact, page VII-1 9 states that "It is impractical to assess existing wildlife re- sources or to predict how these resources will change on a species by species basis." Perhaps a discussion of potential changes without con- clusions would be more appropriate. ENR Response: The predictions presented in Table VII-1 do not constitute conclusions, but rather the authors' informed opinions regarding the most likely future events. The main value of the table is to summarize the Important biological questions that must be answered. Comment # 33 Page VII-9 One factor contributing to the slower sedimentation rate was not men- tioned, DOC management, specifically the presence of the dam separating Rice Lake and Big Lake, is a positive factor. In addition, Rice Lake is not "representative of the once abundant and productive backwater lakes of the Illinois River Bottomlands Division." The numerous changes both phys- ical and biological have rendered it quite different from it' s condition prior to 1900. It should be noted that the disappearance of aquatic vegetation and its subsequent effects was not unique to Rice Lake and, therefore, other contributing factors were probably Involved. ENR Response: The comment on the dam has been added, and the text has been modified to indicate the degraded nature of Rice Lake as an example of the Illinois River Bottomlands Division. 72 ■ Comment #34 Page VII-14 In discussing the natural area value of undisturbed forest in the last line on this page "successful" should be "successional." ENR Response: ENR agrees. The suggested substitution has been made in the text of the final Land Report. Comment #35 Page VII-16 The habitat given for Boltonia asteroides var. decurrens on pages VII-16 and page 14 is "muddy shore of the floodplain forest." This is taken from the status report by Bowles for USFWS, but Is a confusing statement. We suggest the habitat be changed to "moist soil of open bottomland forests, river and lake margins and fields." Bowles agrees it should be changed. ENR Response: ENR agrees. The suggested change has been made in the final Land Report. Comment #36 Page VII-18 The statement that 1 million dollars In timber value refers to the poten- tial productivity of the area lost over a mining period. To consider this an actual monetary loss, however, assumes logging would otherwise have occurred during this period or will occur in the future. It is highly doubtful this is the case. ENR Response: A sentence has been added to cover this point in the final Land Report. 73 lamflHBmHH Comment #37 Page VII-20 The information on relative abundance for mammals references central Illinois, whereas the relative abundance for birds does not reference any geographic area. Are the bird relevant abundance notations statewide, regional or site-specific? If site-specific, species such as the Upland Sandpiper and Henslow's Sparrow should be deleted. If of regional scale, then they should be included. It makes a difference on relative abun- dance; the great egret may be common on a site-specific scale but it Is not on a regional or statewide scale. ENR Response: Appendix F has been corrected to include the intended reference to the central Illinois region for bird abundances. Site-specific data (Birken- holz 1983) have also been added. Comment #38 Page VII-20 The value placed on any one group of birds is subjective. Waterfowl and endangered species may be of utmost importance to hunters , preservation- ists, scientists, etc., but the role of the heritage species (insect and predator control, aesthetic, etc.) cannot be overlooked. ENR Response: The authors believe that public policy decision makers require information on the relative value of resources. Comment #39 Page VII-33 Even with DOC addressing sedimentation problems, there appears to be no basis for the conclusion that the value of the area for waterfowl will im- prove as the detrimental conditions currently present at RLCA will remain even if the overall rate of decline is slowed by DOC management activi- ties. ENR Response: ENR agrees. The text has been changed accordingly. 74 Comment //40 Page VII-41 In examining the INHS waterfowl censuses, we were unable to ascertain how the mean numbers of eagles per census given in Figure VII-5 were deter- mined as our calculations for autumn means resulted in smaller numbers. In addition, the line extending from the Intersection of the X and Y axes would indicate that no eagles were present prior to 1973. Likewise the line between the year 1979 and the mean number for 1980 would lead the reader to the conclusion that spring use by eagles only began In 1980 when a dramatic increase occurred. Further discussion of this should be pro- vided. v:^2 ENR Response: To calculate autumn eagle numbers, we used census weeks #10-16 only because these weeks bracket the period in which eagles were observed. It would, of course, be highly misleading to include census flights before eagles return to the area. The text has been modified to clarify this point. Further discussion of general eagle trends in Illinois has been provided. Comment #41 Page VII-42 Table VII-9 is incorrectly labeled as Tazewell County, the heron rookery is Mason County. The location of ENR Response: The error has been corrected. Comment #42 Page VII-43 Why and how is It noteworthy that the sand areas immediately across the river to the east support a unique assemblance of herps? ENR Response: The reference to this area has been deleted from the text. It is now noted on Page VII-43 that the IDOC publication "Rice Lake Mining Issues" stated that suitable habitat for the state-endangered Illinois mud turtle may exist at the RLCA. #ftga 75 Comment #43 Page IX-29 Interviewing at Marshall County and Rice Lake did not occur from May, 1981, to February, 1982. Interviews at all 2 6 sites surveyed in the Department's Visitor Expenditure Study occurred during this nine-month period. Interviewing at Marshall County and Rice Lake occurred over a 2 day period In June, 1981. ENR Response: The article referenced in the footnote on page IX-29 indicates that on-site interviews occurred between May, 1981 and February, 1982. The reference has been changed to reflect this new information. Comment #44 Page IX-3, par. 2 Income In the form of wages and salaries paid to employees and proprietors of businesses selling goods and services to Rice Lake visitors and the Department is also part of the Income impact. Based on the 1977 Census of Retail Trade, for Fulton County, wages and salaries represent roughly 10.5 percent of sales. If this figure is applied to the visitor and DOC- induced sales impact ($182 ,000-$ 348,000) , then this portion of the income impact would be an additional $ 19, 110-$ 36, 540 per year. Comment #45 Page IX- 32, par. 3 The portion of the total tax impact attributable to income taxes ($1,400 in the Report) would increase as indicated in the comment above. Comment #46 Page IX-33, par. 1 Sales, income and tax impacts should not be added up to obtain a "total economic impact." These are simply different measures of local economic impact. In fact, double counting may occur since income and tax impacts are included In sales impacts. ENR Response: Since the three comments stated above deal with the local economic impact of the RLCA on Fulton County, the ENR response to them has been consoli- dated Into a single response. 76 In calculating the local economic Impact on the county, ENR altered the DOC methodology so that the tax, income and sales Impacts could be to- talled for a figure which represents the total economic impact on the county. However, DOC Is correct in pointing out that double counting has occurred in such totalling. With regard to the first of the three comments above, ENR intentionally omitted the Income paid to proprietors of businesses selling goods and services to Rice Lake visitors and DOC in order to avoid double counting the sales and Income impacts. Regretably, ENR did not consider the fact that the entire tax impact is included within the sales Impact (in the case of sales tax) or the income impact (in the case of real estate and Income taxes). While the authors agree that the impacts should not be added up to obtain a total economic impact if the income of proprietors or tax impacts are included, we feel that by omitting those elements, a total economic Impact can be calculated. Thus, those impacts which DOC discusses In their first two comments above were intentionally omitted. Also, the total economic Impact shown in Chapter IX has been reduced by $5,800-$7,400 to correct the error (double counting) previously found in the draft. Comment #47 Page IX-48, par. 2 Delete "prior to 1983 were" and insert (in place) "are." The L&WCF pro- gram was funded in federal fiscal year 1983 and is expected to be funded again in federal FY' 84. ENR Response: The text has been changed to reflect this comment. Comment #48 Page IX-49, par. 1 The Report refers to discussion of SCORP program commitments in Chap- ter IV. Chapter IV is "Atmospheric Resources." The discussion Is in Chapter XI. ENR Response: Again, thank you for pointing out this error. The text has been changed accordingly. 77 Comment #49 Page X-55, par. 2 According to the Illinois Revenue Act, land owned by the state, but leased, e.g., to a farmer, can be assessed property taxes. If some of the eventual 2,382 additional acres were leased from the Department, e.g., for farming purposes, then the "net permanent loss" would be less, depending on the acreage leased per year. ENR Response: ENR agrees. However, a DOC plan or statement of intention to lease out reclaimed farm land contained in an expanded Rice Lake Conservation Area does not exist as part of the public record. Therefore, an assessment of this potential factor cannot be made at this time. Comment #50 Page X-55, par. 2 (cont.) In addition, it could be assumed that the additional 2,382 acres, if developed for recreational use, would increase visitation substantially. If this occurred, then some of the "net permanent (property tax) loss" would be offset by the eventual gain in local sales tax revenues associ- ated with the increased visitation. ENR Response: While this is probably true, at this time, any analysis of this point would be purely speculative. No detailed DOC plan for management of an expanded Rice Lake Conservation Area exists as a part of the public rec- ord. Accordingly, how substantial the increased visitation would be is Indeterminate. Nevertheless, DOC has made estimates for an expanded RLCA. According to Rice Lake Mining Issues (page 7, last paragraph), an expanded RLCA, lead- ing to Increased visitation and operating expenditures, would generate "about $289,000 per year in sales and approximately $110,000 per year in personal Income ... in Fulton County. Sales tax revenues to Fulton Co- unty would be about $2,800 per year." According to ENR research for this Land Report, the present RLCA annually generates $228,000 to $394,000 in sales, about $65,000 In personal income and $1,800 to $3,400 in Fulton County sales taxes. (See the Local Economic Impact subsection of Chapter IX.) Comparing the figures for the present RLCA with DOC's estimates for an expanded RLCA, substantial Increases are not apparent. 78 Comment //51 Page XI-23, par. 2 Considering the dominant soil series in the area, will the increases in velocity fall within IDOT/DOWR guidelines? ENR Response: Stream velocity at the River Mile 135 with the new levee condition was computed as 1.80 ft. /sec. for 50- and 100-year floods (Hanson Engineers, Inc., 1982). The maximum permissible velocity in the Illinois River was computed in the range of 3 to 6.5 ft. /sec. (Bhowmik and Schicht , 1980). There is a safety margin as far as bank erosion is concerned. Comment #52 Page XI-40 Regardless of the slope of the levee, any surface water directly contact- ing it would be shallow so enhancement of littoral zone regeneration does not appear to be a factor. ENR Response: ENR agrees that the main reason for low slope angle on the levees is for increased stability and that littoral zone regeneration is a very minor aspect . Comment #53 Page XI-42 The paragraph on prime farmland indicates "these areas would have to con- form to federal and state regulations regarding return to equal or greater productivity than equivalent reference areas" as though this is a require- ment unique to agricultural lands. Section 1816.116(a)(2) of the State's mining regulations, requires that all revegetated areas must, at a mini- mum, equal the productivity based on the use of reference areas or technical guides. ENR Response: ENR agrees. Equal or greater productivity requirements are not unique to croplands. However, there are special requirements for prime farmlands as discussed in Sections 1785.17 and 1823 including elaborate documentation on the suitability of the plant growth media, minimum depths of soil re- placement, and that the A horizon should equal or exceed original in depth. The text has been amended to clarify this point. 1 Tin 79 Comment #54 Page XI-24 There is absolutely no basis for the assumption that if mining occurs, "the diversity of biota now enjoyed in the area will be slow if ever in reestablishing. (See comments regarding pages 3 and 2 6). As an example, bird surveys were conducted at both RLCA and Banner Marsh. The diversity of species present on the two sites were virtually identical with 75 species at Banner Marsh and 7 3 species at Rice Lake. In addition, all inclusive surveys of the biota were not done at the site, so how was the diversity determined? ENR Response: The statement was meant to refer the plant diversity and composition and indicate that it would be slow, if ever, in reestablishing, depending on the intensity of human replanting efforts and the proximity to natural seed sources. The authors have no knowledge of a large-scale revegetation effort whereby plant diversity has been quickly recovered to that of the pre-existing natural community. There are so many complex, subtle inter- actions that have occurred over a long period of time which are respon- sible for the natural community. These cannot be replicated over the short term. The authors agree that animal diversity would not necessarily be slow in recovering but believe that the composition would differ between the pre- and post-mining states. Comment #55 Page XI-44 How could aquatic vegetation, as it occurred prior to the late 1950s, be re-established even if siltation into the lake bottom were controlled? Further explanation is necessary. ■ ENR Response: If siltation Into Rice Lake were nearly halted, turbidity of the lake would be lessened and the buildup of the super-saturated bottom sediment would be reduced. Dry downs over successive years would then possibly solidify the bottom sediment and reduce turbidity sufficiently to allow the establishment of aquatic vegetation. 80 ■i i miuiiwmi ■ •/••'•"'■; " ■ ■ Comment #5 6 Page XI-47 The statement on Impacts to the bluff Is very speculative for the fol- lowing reasons: Dewatering may not occur; even if it does, Impacts are not known; even if impacts were known, specific requirements of the species referenced are unknown so It cannot be determined the area would be less desirable (degraded) for these species. ENR Response: The statement is clearly qualified as a possibility only. Comment #57 Page XI-48 Timber harvest is not one of the management objectives at Rice Lake so discussion of silvicultural and agroforestry techniques is not pertinent. ENR Response: The purpose of the Land Report is to discuss the resources of the petition area, and is not limited to DOC management objectives. Comment #58 Page XI-49 A reforestation project at Banner Marsh would not be reliable in predict- ing success of reforestation at Rice Lake. Reclamation techniques were very different at Banner Marsh as compared to the current requirements which would be imposed at Rice Lake. ENR Response: The authors agree and have deleted the sentence In question. 81 •y. :■'.'' Comment #59 Page XI-52 The reference regarding Herpitle repopulation of unreclaimed sites is not pertinent . ENR Response: Agreed - it has been deleted. Comment #60 Page XI-70 & XI-71 Further discussion on the recreational impacts is necessary. For instance, no discussion on an expanded Banner Marsh, including hunting, was presented. Again, it would have been appropriate to inquire of DOC how recreational impacts would be treated under a mining scenario. ENR Response: The expanded Banner Marsh area was not analyzed as part of this report. The function of the Land Report is to discuss the land and land use within the RLCA; not to do a detailed comparison with Banner Marsh or any other area. Moreover, any discussion of the potential recreational impacts of an expanded Banner Marsh Wildlife Refuge (which does not now exist) would be pure conjecture. Comments #61 & #62 Page XI-74, Pages XI-78 & XI- 79 Funding and acquisition are treated as two separate issues in the draft 1983 SCORP. Listing them as "Funding/ Acquisition" in the Report implies they are one issue. ENR Response: ENR has changed the final report to reflect the above comments. 82 Comment #63 Pages XI-7 6 & XI-77 While it Is true that bottomland forests are considered wetlands, the 50,000 acres referenced does not include such areas. This figure repre- sents areas which the general public views as wetlands such as swamps, bogs and marshes. Likewise the majority of Rice Lake itself would not be included. ENR Response: The authors appreciate this information. The content of the final Land Report has been clarified to reflect this comment. Comment #64 Appendix F The thirteen-lined ground squirrel is not State-threatened. ENR Response: This typographical error has been corrected. Comment #65 Appendix I, page 1-4, par. 1 The exponent is assumed to be "2". clear. The basis for this assumption is not ENR Response: The methodology utilized in Appendix I is a conventional gravity model. Its purpose is to explain the geographic distribution of visitors to Rice Lake from within 50 miles (75% of the visitors). The exponent 2 was used in this case because no emperical data is available which would indicate whether the exponent should be larger or smaller than 2. If one assumes that the RLCA is not unique, then the exponent should be larger. If so, the methodology would indicate that persons would not travel as far to the area. On the other hand, if one assumes that the RLCA Is unique, the exponent would be smaller, and more persons would be shown as traveling greater distances to reach it. Because no data (such as interviews with visitors) are available to in- dicate how far people travel to reach the area, it was assumed that the exponent would be 2. In any case, because only visitors within 50 miles are being discussed, the results are not that sensitive to the exponent chosen. 83 RBHK m. ■ ■ ■ m m • ■'''' m 84 m nm i MitMimiimMiiuumi i i n m mtimumiii COMMENTOR : IL Department of Transportation, Div. of Water Res., D. Boyce Comment #1 Under the authority of an Act in Relation to the Regulation fo Rivers, Lakes and Streams (II. Rev. Stat. ch. 19, par. 52 et seq.), the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Water Resources would require that a permit be obtained for any construction within the floodway of the Illinois River. The review of such a permit application would include an evaluation of the construction's effects on the flood carrying capacity of the river, i.e., the river's ability to convey and store flood waters. For construction such as levees, this evaluation would Include an assess- ment of the cumulative impacts which would occur due to encroachments from other reasonably anticipated flood plain uses. Although we are not dis- puting the conclusions contained In your draft report concerning the hy- drologic and hydraulic impacts, we do question whether an appropriate cumulative effects' analysis has been performed. ENR Response: The appropriate cumulative effects analysis of the Rice Lake levee has not been made. Encroachments from other reasonably anticipated floodplain uses, however, already exist in the form of levees upstream and downstream from the proposed Rice Lake levee. The increase in flood stages due to loss of storage caused by construction of the Rice Lake levee needs further study. As indicated in the revised text of the land report, the increase in stage for certain floods could exceed the 0.5 foot increase used by the Division of Water Resources to Indicate "significant" stage rise in rural areas. This effect as well as the loss of conveyance should be investigated as part of the permit pro- cedure. A permit to construct the Rice Lake levee has not been requested as of this writing. 85 .&/, H 888 86 COMMENTOR : Illinois River Valley Association; Chillicothe - Rome - Peoria Area; J.W. Baldwin Comment #1 This Association Is not convinced by the facts provided in the report that the proposed Rice Lake levee will not have a significant effect on up - stream flooding of the Illinois River. By restricting the flow of water, the levees already built on the Illinois River south of Peoria have helped Increase the frequency of serious floods (above 24 ft. level) In the Chil- licothe, Rome and Peoria area. Since 1943, the Illinois River has flooded above the 24 ft. level eight times, of which seven of the eight times have been since 1970. Any aggravation to this already serious problem would not be acceptable to the hundreds of homeowners In the flood plain. Our Association feels that before the Rice Lake project is approved, a much more in-depth study should be conducted by state and federal agencies to insure that no increased upstream flooding will be caused by Rice Lake levees. We believe further study by the Corp of Engineers will prove the levee project Is more serious than first thought. ENR Response: In the revised Land Report text, tables XI-1, XI -2 and XI-3 from Hanson Engineers, Inc., 1982 show that for floods up to the 100-year event, construction of the Rice Lake levee would increase stages upstream by a maximum of 0.14 feet due to a loss of conveyance. Existing levees have already restricted conveyance in the floodplain to the extent that this new levee would have minimal impact. The loss of storage volume, however, as Indicated In the revised text, may aggravate flooding more than allowable for approval of a state permit for construction of the levee. A detailed study would have to be done to assure that storage reduction caused by the levee does not significantly Increase flood stages. This study would be undertaken by the party that requests the construction permit and would be reviewed by the Illinois Division of Water Resources. No permit has been requested to date. Comment #2 We also believe that the additional study should include the effects that restricted river flow has on Increased siltation upstream. According to the Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes #119 published in April, 1983, Peoria Lake has only an average half-life of 24 years due to siltation. If not remedied, this means the loss of the use of Illinois' largest lake In the not too distant future. This natural resource must be preserved and not threatened further. 87 ENR Response: Based on the available Information (Lee and Stall, 197 6; Lee and Stall, 1977; Bellrose et al., 1983), the siltation conditions in the Illinois River are severe Indeed. The authors agree that additional study is needed to identify the effects of sedimentation in the Illinois River. 82 "■■■.' ■.■:■■■■ ' ' '■ !.• 88 mmiiiwuMMnwninm w)wwwwinnm COMMENTOR : James R. Kirk; Champaign, Illinois Comment #1 The model in Appendix I Is based on the erroneous premise that the RLCA is not unique. Even though pages 19, 43, & XI-70 Indicate it is the only "permit duck hunting" area in the state. On page 43 the RLCA is said to not have electricity, true then, but on July 17th I saw electricity being installed at RLCA camping sites. Does Anderson Lake or Banner Marsh have the wide diversity of plants or of migratory and resident wildlife? RLCA is unique; it is part of the public domain, a public trust, held by IDOC; yet pages 42 & XI-72 Indicate Anderson Lake and Banner Marsh have similar facilities. K§S| ENR Response: The model provided In Appendix I is based on the number of visits to the RLCA, and includes no variables other than distance and visits. Uniqueness recreational activities available, and diversity are not accounted for in the model, because we know of no method to measure such variables. While the availability of "permit duck hunting" does make Rice Lake unique, hunters account for less than 2% of annual RLCA visits (see Chapter IX Recreational Use and Value Section) and thus have minimal impact on the model provided in Appendix I. Electricity is now available at the RLCA... the text has been changed to reflect this fact. (See also response to DOC specific Comment #65). Comment #2 How was the average number of visitors in Appendix I found? In my visits to RLCA I have yet to see any IDOC employees, therefore must assume the visitor figures are low. With these figures and a model based on an erroneous premise, the estimates of the economic losses due to mining the RLCA is understated. ENR Response: The number of visits to the RLCA was calculated by averaging the Depart- ment of Conservation's Attendance Report figures for the last five years. DOC uses a car counter at many of their sites (including Rice Lake) to estimate annual attendance. As indicated in Chapter IXG-Recreational Use and Value section, DOC estimates that each car at RLCA contains 3.5 per- sons. The 7 3,749 visits indicated in Appendix I represent those visits by persons residing within 50 miles. As shown in Chapter IXG, Recreational Use and Value section, the site superintendent estimates that 75% (approx- imately 73,749) of the RLCA visits come from within 50 miles. 89 ■Hrafl Comment #3 [In the draft land report, there is an Inconsistency between figures reported on page XI-71 and those reported In Table X-30 (page X-66). These numbers refer to the statewide economic impact of the RLCA. ] ENR Response: The larger values reported, in the draft on page XI-71 ($33.5 million and $8.8 million) are the results of a REMI-ILFS simulation. However, further consideration of this particular simulation suggested that the policy variable used to estimate the economic value of the RLCA was inappropri- ate. The policy variable involved treating all 98,000 annual visits to the RLCA as being visits from out-of-state tourists. This is not the case; therefore, the larger reported values are not accurate. They should have been deleted from the text. The reported $25.8 million and $6.6 million magnitudes are accurate; are the only values reported in the final report; and are consistent with the values reported in Table X-30. An explanation and justification of the REMl/lLFS models is contained in the Impact on Illinois Economy subsection of Chapter X as well as the State Economic Impact subsection of Chapter IX. ENR regrets any confusion or misunderstanding which resulted from this oversight In editing the draft land report. Comment #4 Finally there is no mention of the RLCA's intrinsic value. What Is the value to the citizens of Illinois just knowing a place like the RLCA exists? ENR Response: Although the RLCA undoubtedly has Intrinsic value to some citizens, we are unaware of any method by which to measure such a value. Comment #5 It would have been less confusing to have In the appendix some of the reference material noted on page REF-11, such as: Rice Lake Mining issues, Banner Marsh management plan, and Rice Lake/ Banner Marsh development and operations memo. Page 23, 38, & XI-28 indicate that a mined RLCA will be better able to meet the IDOC management goals. Page 11-10 say RLCA is operated and maintained for the primary purpose of waterfowl management, Page V-18 says "The Conservation Area was utilized 90 to provide an optimum environment for waterfowl migration during autumn and for fishing, hunting and camping.", I guess this Is no longer the case. While page V-38 indicates RLCA is managed to improve waterfowl habitats to obtain better hunting, and pages VI1-33 & 34 speak to manage- ment plans and practices about sedimentation and commercial fishing. Without the reference materials I am confused about what IDOC is trying to do in the RLCA, or maybe they don't know either. ENR Response: The reference to IDOC meeting management goals was not directed at spe- cific IDOC goals. The proposed levee would provide protection against flooding for the area up to the 100 year flood (1% chance of occurrence In a given year) . This would allow management to pursue the development of facilities or uses with the knowledge that they would not be subjected to frequent flooding. This response has been incorporated in the text of the revised Land Report. Comment # 6 This same confusion carries over into the reclamation parts of the draft report. Each saying about the same thing; a well designed and executed reclamation plan could , in time result in an overall increase in the value of the area for ??????, assuming that %%%%%% would be available. But if deep waters are provided for sport fish then the wading birds will need to be issued stilts, and if shallow waters are provided for the wading birds then the chemical condition of the water will change from what is provided in the report, (pages 25, 26, 53, XI-28:29, XI-46:53) But in the Table on VII-4 we can tell that the expected change will be better for both waterfowl and sport fish. And anyway with "state of the art"reclamation we can grow sugar maple (34" dbh) and red and white oak (40" dbh) in 75 to 100 years — 5 generations, (pages 24, 39, VII-14) ENR Response: See response to DOC general comment #12. Comment #7 Pages 111-10:13, 111-52:57, X-2, X-17:21, X-66:67, & Appendix J; indicate the reserves of coal for the area. These are generally couched in the context of "other surface-minable coal reserves with high development potential". RLCA doesn't even fit into this class of reserves, because it has minor obstacles. 91 1 ENR Response: The Rice Lake coal block Is not Included in the estimates of other surface minable coal reserves with high development potential; the amount of coal In the Rice Lake block is compared to other surface-minable coal reserves with high development potential. The draft land report was very explicit in making this point, especially on pages X-17 and X-18. Moreover, as explained on page X-8, the presence of minor obstacles does not preclude a coal block from having a high development potential. Comment #8 Underground minable reserves are not even mentioned even though between 1970 and 1980 half of the coal mines opened in Illinois were underground mines. The reserves of minable coal in the region are understated. ENR Response: Deep-minable reserves were considered. However, according to Treworgy and Bargh (1982), there are no deep-minable coal resources in Fulton, Knox, McDonough, Peoria, Schuyler and Warren counties that have a high develop- ment potential. As explained on Page X-9, coal blocks with a high devel- opment potential are those that can be economically and profitably mined. For these reasons, no mention was made of deep-minable coal resources in the draft land report. However, text has been added to Chapter III, Mining History and Coal Resources Section of the final land report which delineates and explains the absence of minable deep coal in the six-county region. The estimates of coal reserves (all surface-minable) used in the draft and final land report are appropriate and complete. Comment #9 Page XI-61 speaks of new jobs, but are we talking about new jobs or just the loss of fewer jobs. Pages 63, IX-10, & XI-69 indicate that Buckheart 17 will be closing in 3 to 4 years and projected openings for a mine In RLCA Is placed as 198 6 (page 69). Therefore It would be a net loss of 60 to 1 10 jobs. ENR Response: ENR agrees. The reference to "new" jobs on page XI-61 of the draft land report was made only for the purposes of explaining how a SEAM analysis works. It does not refer to actual findings. 92 MSSS ■ Comment #10 Page Xl-19, I always thought of high sulfate levels in water to be more than an aesthetic problem, but then I guess a laxative could cause some aesthetic problems. ENR Response: The statement in question is: While limits for total dissolved minerals, sulfate, and manganese are established for aesthetic purposes (taste, color, odor, etc.), limits for lead and cadmium are based on limits of toxicity." Waters with a sulfate content greater than 600 mg/1 can produce temporary cathartic effects, which, in turn, have resulted in establishing limits for sulfate content (Lehr, et al. 1980). The state- ment in question was intended to differentiate between toxic limits and those established for other reasons. Consequently, this statement is changed to read: "Total dissolved minerals, sulfate and manganese are not usually toxic; limits for lead and cadmium are based on limits of toxicity. Comment #11 Page XI-17, if the alleged groundwater discharge zone could be accounted for by the presence of a coal subcrop, will not the area be disturbed by mining said coal, or coal up-gradiant from the subcrop. ENR Response: The mechanism for the alleged discharge zone was speculated to be a pref- erential path of flow created by the presence of a remnant of sand and gravel in proximity to a coal subcrop. The mining in the area would result in the removal of this sand and gravel, as well as changing the location of the coal subcrop, thereby by removing this preferential path. Consequently, the local discharge area, if it exists, would be removed by mining. The removal of this local discharge zone should not significantly disrupt the regional hydrologic balance. Flow in the bedrock aquifer system is considered negligible when compared with the estimated magnitude of flow in the shallow, non-indurated aquifer (page V-8). Thus, the flow through any single unit is a fraction of the total flow in the Pennsylvanian system, and must also be considered negligible. The final version of the Land Report has been amended in Section VA- Groundwater Flow System and Section XI-Groundwater to reflect this clarification. 93 Comment #12 Pages 15, 1-15, II-7, VII-10, VII-40-43, XI-55, and F-4 say that a reason- ably well documented use area of a federal endangered species (eagles) will be destroyed. They only indicate that overwintering eagles use the RLCA and they will lose both their food supply and roosting sites. It may surprise some to learn that we watched a pair of Bald Eagles tumbling In their mating flight May 2nd, 1982 over the north end of Hoxie Ridge; this is after the usual migration period. These eagles would lose more than a winter roost. ENR Response: The final Land Report Includes a reference to your observations. Comment #13 Pages 7 and XI-79, the mining of Conservation' s lands are also Incompat- ible with those same funding and acquisition goals. As a citizen I am less likely to support an agency which destroys the lands it is suppose to protect. Also those who give donations, life estates, and gifts are less likely to do so as the IDOC continues to allow highway construction and other non- conservation uses of conservation lands (mining). I know of many cases where such lands were given to private groups like Nature Conservancy and Audubon because of the lack of trust in IDOC's willingness to protect such lands. These loses outweigh any gain from the mining of the RLCA. ENR Response: Insofar as DOC would receive additional land as a result of leasing the RLCA to be mined, it is not, in the authors' opinion, incompatible with their funding and aquisition goals. Comment #14 Pages 2 and 1-11 says the land report will address all of the petition's allegations. The petitions first allegation Is never fully addressed — reclamation is not feasible. Many conditional statements are made which Indicate that it may in time be technologically feasible, but none prove It to be so. In fact several places the land report Indicates that before mining maybe we should prove that reclamation is technologically feasible, using Banner Marsh as the testing grounds. The economic feasibility of reclaiming RLCA after mining never mentioned. (Pages XI-8, XI-45, XI -51.) ENR Response: See response to DOC general Comment #12. 94 COMMENTOR : Save Rice Lake Area Association; John Grigsby, Sr . , President Comment #1 Page 4 3 (summary), line 13 Reads: "The area affected by reduced visibility would be restricted to only a few feet down-stream from the mine." Delete: The word downstream. Should read: Due to the prevailing wind direction at Peoria which is from the south during all months except February and March, the affected area would have reduced visibility for several hundred feet upstream . Reason for change: If the wind is out of the south it is impossible for the mine dust and aerosols to drift downstream. ENR Response: The word down- stream has been changed to down-wind in the revised text. Comment #2 Page 44 (summary), par. 2 Reads: It is not known where specific mining might take place in the RLCA and therefore assessment of impacts regarding buffer area is not possible. However, it is anticipated that any potential conflict could be mitigated. Delete: The statement - "However It is anticipated that any potential conflict could be mitigated." Reason for change: How can ENR anticipate mitigation of a potential conflict of which they have not knowledge of the magnitude or the location: ENR Response: The sentence referred to has been deleted. Comment # 3 Page 11-2 6, figure 11-2 (chart) You omitted the review and recommendation by the Conservation & Natural Resource Committee of the Fulton County Board. Please re-address this exclusion. 95 ENR Response: Thank you for pointing out this omission. The final Land Report has been corrected. Comment #4 Page 49 (summary), line 1 Reads: Inflow to this area, instead of being held by the lake, will be pumped away. Please clarify: Pumped away to where? Reason for question: This is not clear and should be addressed in great detail the discharge area, the discharge rate, the size and description of the reservoir from which it is pumped away . ENR Response: Bluff runoff could be diverted around the mine area or could be pumped Into a retaining area and eventually Into the adjacent drainage ditch or the Illinois River as indicated in the revised text. ■ 96 COMMENTOR : Southern Illinois Audubon Society; W. Clark Ashby, Conservation Chairman Comment #1 I wish to commend the preparers of the draft Land Report for a thorough and comprehensive presentation, given time constraints and limitations in the present data base for such studies. Its strength is greater in postu- lating expected short-term losses (costs) in present values of the Rice Lake area from mining compared to possible long-term gains (benefits). More attention could well be given to the processes of succession in com- munity development, and to the significance of introduced species (weeds) in the early stages of succession. ENR Response: The report is stronger in postulating short-term losses than long-term gains that would result should RLCA be mined. Because of the lack of a reclamation plan, it is impossible to comment on all the possible scenari- os and their respective long-term benefits to the system. ENR agrees that if mined, during the revegetation process, early successional species, be they introduced or native species, should be utilized for rapid slope stability and early wildlife diversity. These early successional species often create conditions suitable for later successional species establish- ment, which results in the displacement of the earlier species. The text has been amended to clarify this point. Comment #2 The Petition is the first instance known to me in which a citizens group has endorsed natural communities as a higher and better land use, compared to corn for example, under P.L. 95-87. This action could well herald a new and important change of philosophy toward reclamation. The societal values of natural areas and wildlife have too long been neglected in land- use planning of surface-mined areas. Rice Lake has high value for possi- ble demonstration of both aquatic and terrestrial reclamation techniques for non-agricultural needs. ENR Response: If the RLCA were mined, it indeed would be one of the largest parcels of land ever to be reclaimed to the wildlife end use. It would be an oppor- tunity to study and demonstrate various reclamation techniques hitherto utilized only in small segments of land/water in the Midwest. 97 Comment #3 ... I feel a serious omission in such a Report is a failure to document, or even recognize, the possibilities of improved soils and vegetation in reclamation. Restoration may not be good enough. With reference to page XI-31, par. 1, much research information is already available showing the value of using materials lower in the overburden for constructing post-mining soils. Attention must be paid to particle sizes greater than 2 mm in building minesoils. Coarse fragments contribute to improved soil, air and water relations, to better pH and nutrient levels, and lessen compaction damage. The literature cited emphasizes agricultural studies which are scarcely appropriate for the land uses proposed in the Rice Lake plan. ENR Response: The report is deficient in discussing the possibility of improving soils and vegetation through the utilization of coarse materials. It has been shown by your group (SIU) to be a beneficial technique in establishing woody vegetation in southern Illinois. It would also likely be benefi- cial, in the event RLCA were mined, to create varying soil conditions such that greater plant diversity, and consequently wildlife diversity, would be possible. ENR maintains, however, that the Rodman soil (a gravel soil) or the gravel overburden materials (see Plate III-6) would not be good plant growth media by themselves, but would have to be mixed with silty materials to Increase water holding capacity and cation exchange capacity. In general, since the RLCA soils do not suffer acidity or nutrient- deficient problems, the main advantages to incorporating coarse material would be reducing compaction and increasing permeability. Advantages from additions of coarse material to southern Illinois soils would likely be greater because of generally older, nutrient- poor and acid soils such that overburden material improved soil quality. Thak you for this contribu- tion. Regarding the literature emphasizing agricultural studies, this is true because most research from that part of the state has been agricultural in nature. In Chapter XI, subsection "Plant Selection," seven references, including two of yours are mentioned which should be consulted before designing the reclamation plan. These references are appropriate to Rice Lake. Comment #4 Page XI-36, par. 3, speaks of "... best current practices ...", which needs clarification. "Current practices" have yet to merit a connotation of "best." Mining an area such as Rice Lake should be planned to use reclamation practices which maximize the potential for productive eco- systems. Alternative practices should be implemented under P.L. 95-87 98 as variances and as experimental practices to the prevailing requirements. Examples of potentially better practices are use of dragline pullback for approximate grading to lessen compaction, greater mixing of overburden materials, and band plantings of trees and grass-legume mixes to eliminate the problem of herbaceous cover overwhelming tree seedlings. Use of these practices will fulfill the intent of the Act for better long-term reclamation. ;-:<•: ENR Response: ENR agrees that, if RLCA were mined, alternative practices other than those mandated by P.L. 95-87 should be implemented as variances and as experimental practices. When "best current practices" were referred to, ENR intended to not only include the mandated requirements, but also the techniques such as you cite which would often be better in fulfilling the desired RLCA end uses. The text has been amended to say "innovative" rather than "best current." Comment #5 Clarification may be needed in the Report that mining is a process which takes place over a number of years. Habitats are improved for some spe- cies and degraded for others. Species are displaced to other habitats over a period of time, and the reclaimed areas rapidly become available for wildlife use as shown by the return of the giant Canada goose to Knox and Fulton counties on strip mined lands. ENR Response: The summary and Chapter VII of the final Land Report have been modified to indicate that some of the predicted negative impacts of mining on wildlife would not necessarily occur at the outset of mining and might also be only temporary. 99 vB 100 MfMMBMlWJ COMMENTOR ; Glennon V. Tockstein, SIU School of Medicine Comment I have observed adult bald eagles on two separate days In May of 1982 In both defensive and mating behavior at Rice Lake. Nesting adult bald eagle habitat at Rice Lake has been documented with the Department of Conserva- tion Jbefore this report was Initiated. ... there are other endangered species at Rice Lake that also were not included In the report ... ENR Response: Reference to the sighting of adult bald eagles at Rice Lake in May 1982 has been Included In the final Land Report. Further documentation of other endangered species has also been provided. Y&flm&L '■ J 'V92B& j' Although no permit application to surface mine the coal under the rlce lake area has been filed, newspaper articles and the booklet, "rlce lake mining issues", ' pu3lished-3y il dept of conservation and senate blll • It 1065 CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS sought to legally designate the rlce lake conservation Area as property eligible for surface mining for coal and other minerals or for leasing to a mining company ■■'■ within the next five years, Therefore the petitioners request timely and proper consideration of this petition 3elieving that the potential still exists which could -seriously affect- the enjoyment and exercise of the petitioners 3est . interests. 3ased upon extensive' research and analysis 3y private and governmental agencies, the petitioners conclude that a combination of alternative energy potentials exists which could provide an energy yield without irrepara3ly damaging one of the state's most valua3le and important cultural and scenic natural areas, The Act and Regulations, 30 USC §1272 Co); 30 CFR §769, 17(e). and NEPA, 42 USC §4332(2)(E): 40 CFR §1501. 3(c), 1507.2(d), require OSM TO "STUDY, DEVELOP AND DESCRI3E •' THESE ALTERNATIVES IN CONSID- ING THIS PETITION, A-7. tHHJIimfllHllflt PA6E S ARFA SO UGHT TO R F D£S:l£"iIE0 tlfj&fJLTMf FOR SURFACF COAL MINTNE QREHAIMS 5. An Unsuitability Designation is sought for those state lands in the following townships in fulton county, 'illinois: Township 6 North, Range 5 East of the 4th P.M. 1. • Part of South half (S%) of Section twenty-one (21) described as follows: Beginning at a point forty (40) rods south of 'the northeast corner of south half (Sk) of said Section twenty-one (21), thence West eighty (SO) rods; thence South twenty-six and* two-thirds- .(26 2/3) rods; -thence Vest to the East . . line of the right of way of a public highway known as State Route 100, thence in a Southwesterly direction • along the East line of the right of way of said Route 100, to where' the same, intersects the South line of said Section twenty -one (21), thence East to the Southeast -. corner of;. said Section -.twenty-one (21), thence North along the East side of said Section twenty-one (21), to .the place of beginning,- excepting therefrom the following described tract or parcel, 70-wit: beginning at a point 240 rods East and twenty-seven (27) rods north of the Southwest corner of said Section twenty-one (21), thence hest to the public highway known as state route 100, thence in a southwesterly direction along the east side of said road to a point twenty (20) rods directly north of the south line of said section twenty-one (21) thence East to a point directly south of the point of beginning, thence north seven (7) rods to the place of beginning, containing 124. acres, more or less, A-8 2. /^SE & The Northeast Quarter (NEV) of Section twenty-two (22) and also the South One-half (S*s) of Section twenty- two (22) and also a part of the Northwest Quarter (NW<) of Section twenty-two (22) described as follows: Beginning . at a point fifty (50) rods South of the Northeast corner of said Quarter Section running thence West forty (^0) rods thence south thirty-five (35) .rods, thence West seventy (70) rods, thence south seventy-five (75) rods, more or. . less, to the south line of said quarter section, thence- EAST'ALONG THE SOUTH-LINE OF'SAID quarter section TO THE- Southeast corner thereof, thence north along the east side of said quarter, section to the place of beginning, contain- ing 541 ACRES, more or less. . .••... 3 « ■'■''. The North one-half (Uh) of Section twenty-three (23) and the North one-half (N%)- of the .'Southwest Quarter of said Section Thirty-two (32) lying EAST OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY KNOWN AS STATE ROUTE 100, CONTAINING -106 ACRES, MORE- OR LESS, ■ '8, . The Northwest Quarter (NK\0 of the Northeast Quarter (NE*) of the Section thirty-three (33), and the Northwest Quarter (NWV) of said Section thirty-three (33), and the Southwest Quarter (SW'O of said Section THIRTY -THREE (33) EXCEPT THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEV) of the Southeast Quarter (SE^) of the Southwest Quarter (SWV) of said Section thirty-three (33), containing 3s0 acres, more or less. All of the above premises conveyed subject to all existing highways, easements and covenants running with the land, if any. State of Illinois Liverpool Township 325 18-5 N pt m & W % SW NW Sec. 4 328 18-9 pt N ? ME & E of Rt 24 & S h NE F. of Rt 24 Sic, 5 A-IO PAGE 3 ID£NIIF.ICATION.AND_I^TERESI.OF_P£TITJONERS 6. Petitioner, the Save the Rice Lake Area Association, Inc., is a non-profit Illinois - corporation 'with its principal office at Route Three, Canton, Illinois 61520. It is a local conservation organization dedicated to preservation of the . • waters, wildlife and wilderness of the rlce i.ake conservation Area. Although its membership is state-wide, most of its members reside in close proximity to the area. The Association has actively devoted its time and resources to issues concerning the management of rlce lake and its surrounding area. the association is vigorously supported by other conservation groups namely: the national wlldlife federa- TION, Illinois Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Chapter Sierra Club, Migratory Waterfowl, Inc., Eagle Valley Environmentalists, Duck and Goose Hunters Alliance, Illinois River Valley Residents • Association, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Audubon Council_of Illinois, Illinois Audubon Society, Pekin Park District, Citizens' for the Preservation of Knox County, Bald Eagle Research, Green Peace and Defenders of Wildlife. The Association pursues .its goals of protection and preser- vation of the Rice lake Conservation Area 3y devoting many volunteer man-hours to the rehabilitation and enhancement of the area proper and 3y interacting with other organizations dedicated to the same goals of protection of the natural environment. the Association has conducted extensive research, participated in numerous meetings, legislative and administrative hearings and has engaged in many efforts to affect the development of conserva- tion policies in its locale. 7. This organization and its members will be adversely affected 3y the environmental consequences of surface mining the Rice Lake Conservation Area for coal." Thus, they have a substantial interest in seeking an unsuita3ility designation for this fragile, historic and scenic land. petitioners 3elieve that they as. well as other public will be adversely affected if surface mining A-ll p^^ggm^gmmg^ WKwHRjS* M6E <* commences in the rlce lake conservation area because the conservation » Area is in reality a publicly owned wildlife refuge and conservation area purchased and maintained with federal. plttman-robertson funds, THE OPERATION WOULD DEPRIVE ALL CITIZENS OF THIS STATE OF THE USE of a valuable land and water area belonging to them. Clearly 'the intent of Congress was to include in Public Law 95 - S7 protection of publicly owned wildlife refuge and conservation areas 3y prohibiting surface coal mining operations in them. Some of the present recreational and. aesthetic uses that will ' be adversely affected - are: a. Fishing b. Duck and Goose Hunting c. Hiking ' •d. Canoeing e. Tent and Trailer Camping f. Bird Study g. . Plant Study and Collection h. Wildlife Study . i. Wildlife Photography and Palnting j. Sport, Nature and Social Clu3 Meetings Since the Rice Lake Conservation Area was purchased and is maintained with Federal Pittman-Robertscn funds, leasing .the mineral rights for surface coal mining operations in the conservation area would constitute a diversion of funds. loss of the nrea as. .a wildlife preservation area would require that a property of equal value at current market prices with commensurate 3enefits to fish and wildlife 3e acquired to replace it. The Save the. Rice Lake Area Association, Inc., contends that Rice lake and the surrounding area can in no way 3e replaced with an area of comparable value. Members of the petitioner organization who reside in the affectei and adjacent areas, as well as those who will 3e visitors to this area, are threatened by diminished and polluted groundwater supplies, A-12 mmtfMJWIilWHUMMHW MGE ID 3Y A REDUCTION OF VISIBILITY AND AN IMPAIRMENT OF A I R QUALITY, 5Y THE LOSS OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND 3Y DAMAGES TO AESTHETIC QUALITIES FROM SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATIONS, ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES and facilities. members of the petitioner organization and affiliates who are vitally concerned with processes necessary to protect archeological sites on lands threatened 3y mining activities are alarmed 3y the rapid rate that sites are being destroyed in illinois 3y increased coal mining activities and, therefore, protest any plans to surface mine the area 'before archaeological surveys can 3e arranged to adequately inspect, evaluate and record the known sites. Some of the early historic sites dating from pioneer times in Banner Township are still visile in areas that would 3E destroyed' 3y construction of a levee raised to facilitate surface coal mining . the Rice Lake Conservation Area. members of the petitioner organization and affiliates are much concerned that surface mining the conservation area would, destroy the valua3le wetland ha3itat at rlce lake that a3cunds with many and varied forms of wildlife, several of which are listed on the State and National Endangered Species lists. ' If groundwater is withdrawn from the rlce lake area the adverse impact on' wildlife would 3e long-term and irreversible. . 8. .Association members Ken Grigsby, Levern Yeske, John R. Grigsby, Sr., and Keith Fuller own real property directly adjacent to the Rice Lake Conservation-. Area previously considered for permitting Surface coal mining would adversely affect the health, economic, recreational, aesthetic and environmental interests of these petitioners. they depend on local surface water and groundwater for domestic and agricultural uses and are particularly concerned about the diminution of water supply and degradation of water quality. They are much concerned with loss of property values that would ensue if surface coal mining operations were to 3e permitted FOR THE AREA. A-13 PAGE 11 . The impacts of planned coal-hauling traffic would overwhelm useage of Routes 24 and 9 (already in deplorable condition) and cause a complete breakdown of roads serving .the affected area. Present unstable economic conditions'are causing hardships where local county governments try to cope with the need for road repairs and additional services, fulton county is no exception due to losses its tax 3ase suffered when new state laws mandated tax rates 3ased upon land productivity, tax revenue from cropland assessments has steadily declined in this county, more and more land is devaluated as surface mining for coal continues, the petitioners particular life-styles as avid hunters and fishermen and wildlife enthusiasts would be thwarted if surface mining for coal was permitted in the rlce lake conservation area. : ' the petitioners livelihoods and those of other rlce lake area residents are not dependent upon an income to be derived from surface mining Rice Lake, State revenue is generated from-.tourists visiting, this area the year around. nn evaluation of the environmental -resource of Rice Lake and the annual returns realized from waterfowl hunting "and fishing (sport and commercial) and trapping_ indicates that economic 3enefits are realized cons istantly , ' THF AFFFCTR ARFA CPU! D NOT BF RFC! AT MET) IN ACCORDANT WITH THF RFQUTRFMFNTS OF THF ACT AFTFR SURFACF C0A1 MINING OPERATIONS. 9. An area must be designated as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations if reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Act "is not technologically and economically feasible". 30 USC §1272(a)(2) 30 CFR §762, 11(a) The reclamation requirements of the Act and its regulations include a systematic and comprehensive regulatory scheme designed to protect the hydrologic balance and water quality and guantity in surface water and groundwater systems in both the affected and adjacent areas. These requirements include, mm alia,; restoration OF THE "RECHARGE CAPACITY OF THE MINED AREA TO APPROXIMATE PREMINING CONDITIONS," A-14 PAGE 11 30 USC §1265(3) (10) (d) 30 CFR §816,51 AND PRESERVATION "THROUGHOUT THE MINING AND .RECLAMATION PROCESS OF THE ESSENTIAL HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM OF WETLANDS." 30 USC §1272 (a)(3)(B) 30 CFR §822.11, 822.12 the essential hydrologic functions of natural wetland areas is to serve as a water storage area when the main stem .of the system is in flood, to recharge aquifers and to filter sediment from surface waters flowing into them. The Act and its regulations also require that all disturbed " LANDS' 3E REVEGETATED '3Y ESTABLISHING "a DIVERSE, EFFECTIVE AND PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER" OF NATIVE SPECIES, OR OF SPECIES THAT SUPPORT AN APPROVED POSTMINING USE. 30 USC §1255(3) (19) 30 CFR §815.111 ' 10. Surface coal mining operations in the affected area would irrepara3ly harm the hydrologic 3alance and diminish water quality and quantity in the affected and adjacent areas and the establishment of a suita3le vegetative cover would not 3e possi3le following any proposed operations. 11. the hydrologic 3alance of the affected and adjacent areas involves, among other processes, the critical and complex relation- ship 3etween surface water and groundwater. the affected area is underlain with a localized sizea3le aquifer which provides water for recharging the wildlife ha3itat. The aquifer is also the frincipal water supply for domestic and agricultural use in this area. 12. Surface coal mining operations in the Rice Lake Area •would irrepara3ly damage the hydrological 3alance of the area 3y destroying the major and other localized aquifers and permanently altering aquifer recharge capacity, storage and transmi ssi vity. . A-15 WKSSSSSSSIBBtKmSm 'PAGE 13 Damaging these spuifers would destroy springs and bogs essential to the maintenance of the areas wildlife resource. The loss of THESE SPRINGS AND BOGS COULD NOT BE MITIGATED, 13, Surface coal- mining operations would accelerate erosion,' increase flood flows" and significantly increase sediment loads carried into streams draining the. affected mine area. thirteen unnamed tributaries drain into rlce lake. this problem would be exacerbated 3y revegetation failure and long term decreases in permea3ility of reconstructed soil profiles. increased sediment loads would cause aggradation of these stream channels, altering • their flow characteristics, increasing bank erosion and destroying- valuable wetland functions, The alteration 'of surface flow and aquifer recharge and storage capabilities would damage the essential hydrologic functions that maintain the wetlands. Streams, bogs and springs drain 'into the aquifers in the rlce lake conservation area. digging up land that drains into these aquifers will permanently alter the natural drainage pattern essential for maintenance of the wetlands. m. The Rice Lake Conservation Area presently is characterized ' by a diverse vegetative cover composed of native plants which provide ha3itat and an ideal feeding ground for a variety of wildlife including endangered 3 1 rd and fish species as well as various important mammals, amphi3ians and insects. th'e petitioners 3elieve that the areas .ecological system is relatively fragile and that'-a return to a steady state following surface coal mining operations could take hundreds of years. 15. The petitioners are concerned 'about an operators ability to restore the physical and chemical characteristics of the soils and overburden in the rlce lake conservation area after strip MINING. IF RECLAMATION IS NOT CAREFULLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY PROGRAMMED, POOR SOIL RECONSTRUCTION" WILL RESULT IN LOW INFILTRA- tion, inadequate root penetration, poor gas exchange and accelerated erosion. These factors would s-ignificantly impede or. prevent the establishment of a suitable vegetative cover. A-16 mi i MMi i iimwHimtauMM i iuM PAGE 1^ 16. Surface coal mining operations in the Rice Lake Conser- vation Area would destroy the 1060 acres of rich bottomland forest. Where groves of hardwood and softwood trees now stand and have stood for over a hundred years', the landscape would likely be REPLACED 3Y some admixture of shrubs and forbs slow to root and spread. . m ore likely the wetlands and bottomlands would be converted to bare eroding areas. Destruction of the present forest cover would reduce wildlife ha3itat, damage the aestetic and recreational value of the area and permanently alter the ecosystem, SURFACF CPAI MJNIMP QPFRATTONS IN THF RICF f AKF ARFA'wQUID SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAfiF THF FPAfill.F LANDS OF PICF I AKF 17,. AN AREA MAY 3E DESIGNATED AS UNSUITABLE FOR SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATIONS IF THOSE OPERATLONS WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO HISTORICAL,' CULTURAL, SCIENTIFIC AND AESTHETIC VALUES. AND NATURAL SYSTEMS OF FRAGILE LANDS, • 30 USC §1272 (a)-(3)(B) Fragile lands are • • « GEOGRAPHIC AREAS CONTAINING NATURAL, ECOLOGIC, SCIENTIFIC OR AESTHETIC RESOURCES THAT COULD BE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATIONS. EXAMPLES OF FRAGILE LANDS INCLUDE VALUA3LE HABITATS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDORS CONTAINING A. CONCENTRATION OF ECOLOGIC AND AESTHETIC FEATURES AREAS OF RECREATIONAL VALUE DUE TO HIGH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WHERE SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATIONS ARE PROM 3 1 TED ' 30 CFR §762.5 18. Surface coal mining operations in the Rice Lake Conser- vation Area would threaten the fragile and unique lands adversely 3y removing approximately 4500 acres from the federal flood plain. Homes and businesses up and down the Illinois River would 3E THREATENED 3Y INCREASED ELEVATED FLOOD LEVELS, ACCORDING TO A 1982 STUDY ON THE PROPOSED P.I CS. LAKE LEVEE, THE MAXIMUM INCREASE IN SURFACE ELEVATION' WOULD 3E 0.14 FT. WHERE THE STATUATCRY LIMIT A-17 BBTC PAGE 15 is O.I ft. Leveeing Rice Lake to make it safe for surface coal MINING WOULD VIOLATE THE FEDERAL FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT AND Protection of. Wetlands Act managed by the # Federal Emergency Management Agency, W CFR §9.2(a)(5)(7)(8)(9)Q0) k. 2Z1, The operator would be in violation of the Fulton County- Flood Plain Zoning Resolution and Ordinance Sections 1, 3, 5, 13 adopted July 10. 1979, which regulates development in relation to flood hazard areas, . Should the flow of certain streams draining into the Rice Lake Conservation Area 3e impeded or altered by surface coal mining operations, adjacent landowners could envoke illinois water Riparian Rights if those rights w£re violated, . IRS Chpt, 19 - §55 If the fragile, and unique lands of the Rice Lake Conservation Area were adversely impacted or destroyed completely, the educa- tional, AESTHETIC AND RECREATIONAL EXPERIENCES OF THOSE LIVING near the area and those visiting or working in the area would be diminished, 19, The vistas from the bluffs in the Rice Lake Conservation Area are important aesthetic resources of the forest land and the 30ttomlands of the area, destroying so important a social pleasure is not in the public interest because the pu3lic has need of serene places in which to stabilize emotional well-3eing, 20. Surface coal mining operations would disrupt the areas natural systems if non-native species were used in revegetation efforts altering the natural character of plant communities at Rice Lake. •21. Surface coal mining operations in the Rice Lake Conser- vation Area would most certainly destroy a scientific opportunity offered at Rice Lake where available". data indicates that some of the archeological sites pr03a3ly date-3ack to the paleo epoch and would 3e of national register significance. 30 USC §1272 (a) (3) (B) A-18 PAGE 16 Other losses to the scientific community would 3E in the fields of ornithology and taxonomic classification. students and avian research experts have confirmed that certain endangered federally protected species use the rlce lake area to raise their ' young. Good cover exists at Rice Lake in proximity to good feeding areas which creates ideal conditions. for fish-eating and rare birds and other forms of wildlife, Several species of punts which are on the State Endangered List have been sighted at Rice Lake. Some of those recognized in • the Area require a moist soil or wet wood habitat. The petitioners do not believe that coal mining companies possess the technology necessary to restore the Rice Lake Conser- vation Area to its .original native state. The petitioners have seen no examples of the a3ility to do so and foresee no acquisition of this knowledge in the future, near or far. SURFACF COAL MININfi OPERATIONS WniQ RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIA! l.QSS OP REDUCTION OF Th'F LONP-RflNIPF PRODUCTIVITY OF WATFR ' S1JPPIY IN THF RICF I AKF AND ADJACENT ARF&S 22. AN AREA MAY 3E designated as unsuitable for surface coal MINING' OPERATIONS IF THESE OPERATIONS COULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OR REDUCTION OF LONG-RANGE PRODUCTIVITY OF 'WATER SUPPLY ON RENEWABLE RESOURCE LANDS. 30 USC §1272 (a)(3)(C) 30 CFR §762.11(6) (3) Renewable resource -lands include .... aquifers and areas for the recharge of aquifers and other underground waters , . , 30 CFR §701,3 Wetlands are dependent on hydrological functions supplied from surface and groundwater resources, without this supply wetlands . fail in their functions of maintaining water table levels, filter- ing silt and removing toxic metals, phosphates and sulfates from THE WATER . A-19 WEIBMBKMKBSBSSSBISmBfSBmmmaKsmaaam PAGE 17 Residents in and near the Rice .Lake Conservation Area depend on the hydrological functions of the areas wetlands to maintain a long-range domestic and agricultural water supply, • CONCLUSION Wherefore, the petitioners request that the Rice Lake Conser- vation Area be designated as. unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, fw; "jjjJk^oIuJL 1 jpHN 6rigs3y, President Save Rice Lake Area Association. Route 3, Canton, IL 61520 (^4^i2^^z-V, Pres-, Officers ai&* Members STJ3SCHI3ZD XS"D SWOHS 20 before ae this T/Z^t. day of October, 1982. Hutf. Notary Public A-20 ■/''•■■■■ X '.' APPENDIX B LEGAL ISSUES RAISED IN PETITION B-l IsSflfinHHHSII B-2 ■ ■■•■■••'. Appendix B LEGAL ISSUES RAISED IN PETITION While it is beyond the scope of this land report to address the legal procedures required prior to mining, the petition raises questions about certain state and federal laws and their implications for mining Rice Lake. This appendix is offered as a brief overview of the laws in question, and not a legal opinion on the applicability of the laws on the Rice Lake area. National Environmental Policy Act The petition states: "The designation of Lands Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining is sought under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, ... and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC §4321 et. seq. , ("NEPA") ."(page 2) In general NEPA declares a national policy of protection of the environment and instructs the federal government to take environmental concerns into account in all federal actions and federal legislation. It also requires that environmental impact statements be prepared for proposed federal legislation and other major federal actions. It makes no statements regarding mining nor does it direct any state actions. B-3 tmm Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts The petition alleges that the mining of the Rice Lake Conservation Area would constitute a diversion of funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior through the "Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act" (commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act). The Act was originally passed in 1937 with the purpose of providing funds to the states for wildlife restoration projects including the "selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improve- ment of areas of land or water adaptable as feeding, resting, or breeding places..." (Section 2-50 stat.917). In addition to Pittman Robertson Funds, funds from the "Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act" (Dingell-Johnson Act) have been used to support the Rice Lake Conservation Area. This Act provides, through the Department of Interior, funds for "projects designed for the restoration and management of all species of fish which have material value in connection with sport or recreation in the marine and/or fresh waters of the United States..." (Section 2-64 Stat. 430). To date, almost $1 million from these funds have been invested at the Rice Lake Conservation Area. The Illinois Department of Conservation has indi- cated that, indeed, the mining of Rice Lake would be considered a diversion of these federal funds under the federal regulations. However, in "Rice Lake Mining Issues" DOC states: B-4 BBSBUBBBOmB "Two options are available to the Department of Conservation to satisfy the declaration of a diversion: 1. Federal aid funds used for purposes or activities which &re not a part of an approved project are replaced. This could include development as well as acquistion costs, or 2. Federal Aid financed real property which has passed from the control of the State Fish and Game Department is restored to that control, or a property of equal value at current market prices and with commensurate benefits to fish and wildlife is acquired with non-Federal Aid funds to replace it." According to the issue paper cited, DOC believes they can meet the conditions of option 2 above. Federal Flood Plain Management and Protection of Wetlands The petition also alleges that "according to a 1982 study on the proposed Rice Lake Levee, the maximum increase in surface elevation would be 0.14 feet where the statutory limit is 0.1 feet. Leveeing Rice Lake to make it safe for surface coal mining would violate the Federal Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Act managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency." (petition page 15). B-5 K&HBBinHHHHHHnHHlaHMHHH The issue raised here is in fact two separate issues since the Federal Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands Act does not address surface elevations at all. The statutory limits for surface elevation are found in the Illinois Deparmtent of Transportation (IDOT) "Rules for Construction in Rivers, Lakes and Streams" (see following section). The "Federal Floodplain Management and Protection of Welands Act" cited in the petition is actually a set of federal regulations (44 CFR §9.2(A)(6)(7) (8)(9)(10) et. seq.), authorized by a number of Executive Orders (11988, 11990 and 12127), the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, the Flood Disaster Pro- tection Act of 197 3 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In essence, the regulations deal solely with the responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management and Assistance Agency (FEMA) with regard to floodplain management and protection of wetlands. The Regulations state "The Agency (FEMA) shall take action to: (1) Avoid long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and the destruction and modification of wetlands; (2) Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative; (3) Reduce the risk of flood loss; B-6 MHMHIBUMIIBI (4) Promote the use of nonstructural flood protection methods to reduce the risk of flood loss; (5) Minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety and welfare; (6) Minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands; (7) Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains; (8) Preserve- and enhance the natural values of wetlands; (9) Involve the public throughout the floodplain management and wetlands protection decision-making process; (10) Adhere to the objectives of the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management; and (11) Improve and coordinate the Agency's plans, programs, functions and resources so that the Nation may attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation or risk to health and safety. Overall, the regulations deal only with FEMA actions, responsibilities, and FEMA approved or managed projects. B-7 -??Ji-« Rules for Construction in Rivers, Lakes and Streams The IDOT "Rules for Construction in Rivers, Lakes and Streams" are authorized by the Regulation of Rivers, Lakes and Streams Act (Chapter 19, Sections 65-78). While the Rules have never been formally adopted, they are used by IDOT as guidelines for the permitting of levees and other construction. The rules state: "Section 700.010 PURPOSE The purpose of these rules is to protect the public safety and welfare by preventing construction or other uses in or adjacent to rivers, lakes and streams which would: (a) Improperly encroach upon any public body of water or infringe upon any rights or interests of the People of the State in any public body of water; (b) Obstruct the navigability of any public body of water; (c) Result in flood damages or potential flood damages due to increases in flood heights or velocities, or changes in current or wave action; or (d) Result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural conditions of any river, lake or stream of the State." Among other things, the rules specify that a permit from IDOT is required for construction in floodways or any public bodies of water. The Rules also specify that: i. New levees shall not be constructed such that for any frequency flood up to and including the one-hundred (100) year frequency flood; B-8 1) The natural water surface profile is increased by 0.5 feet or more in rural areas or 0.1 foot or more in urban areas considering cumulative effects,* 2) The downstream discharge rate is increased by ten percent (10%) or more considering cumulative effects, or 3) The average channel velocity is increased beyond the scour velocity of the predominant soil type at the project site considering cumulative effects. (If average channel velocity naturally exceeds the scour velocity of the predominant soil type, velocity increases shall be limited to ten percent [10%].) Rules 1 and 2 above may be waived if "a permanent flood easement for the increased flood risk is given or obtained on all affected properties" or "if a permanent easement is given or obtained on all appropriate properties to effectively prevent adverse cumulative impacts which would otherwise result from additional development". Fulton County Floodplain Zoning Resolution and Ordinance With regard to county regulations, the petition alleges that the coal company which mines Rice Lake will be in violation of the Fulton County Floodplain Zoning Resolution and Ordinance, Sections 1,3,5 and 13. The purpose of this county ordinance is "to avoid the hazards to persons and damage to property * For the purposes of the IDOT Rules, urban areas are defined as: "Areas of the State where urban development currently exists or is ex- pected to occur within a ten-year period. In determining urban areas, the expertise of local officials, regional and local planning commis- sions, city and county planners, private development planners and others may be utilized." Urban Development is defined as "Residential, commercial or industrial uses, excluding farm buildings." B-9 resulting from flooding and to comply with the Rules and Regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program..." (Section 1). The ordinance is meant to regulate development within zones of Flood Hazard Boundry Maps as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Ad- ministration. It requires that a permit be received from the county Zoning Enforcement Officer prior to construction or development within these zones. The ordinance does not make any statements regarding areas where development cannot take place; it only defines those areas for which a permit must be received. B-10 ggjBgg&Hg! : ' . • APPENDIX C GEOLOGICAL DATA C-l ■■sfflHfaaasBmi C-2 en en en en m £ X £ £ sz So bO n bO bo cn 3 3 3 3 3 CU O O O O O j-i u M u l-i h o J= X SI J= SI T3 0) "O CD T3 0) "O 0) "O 0) >— ajcvcucucucucDcucucun: ^H>^H > .H > r-l > iH >C H 41 H 0) i— I CD i— I x « o cu -o •-H CO O i-l Z 3 & O z .„ t« H rH a CO o i-l O •u u c CO C GJ » OB 0) XI H m nO m ON m • • • • • m CM CM CN CN vo o en n \o m ao • | • • • • • • — I — I CN CNI CM O O ONN c CO — s o u to c CO o CO •v OJ c c CO e o CD U >N .O •o 0) -a •H > o a CO bo O o si N M CO 3 CO u-i a. o o H . > fH I D CO ' iH O 14-1 o J«J CJ "-» • O 4-1 > U u-i V "Q >«• r-4 a) U pa rH )-i CO 4) /-v 1-1 > 4J o O U-I Sri u w CO CO Q) J^ c ^ u ^ JJ o CJ <4-| DS •H ^— ' £ CO CO 4-1 0) vw C •H .* u u a * On nO O r» sr en m CN CM CNI sr -3- r*» oo en ON o ■-! en <• «* ON m r-«. cm — i en -h en CM cm m cm sr -M sr O CM — I sr O ^H H CM cm m CM 1 -• sr sr sr sr sr sr sr -i -a- cm oo en cm en o m — i cm cm r-» cn CM CM a- CM CM 00 ON 00 V40 I CM | -H o m O vO o o o> <• cn -i CM 1 «"H -H CM sr CM 00 p^ r^ . vn o m o m m o o o o o m o O 4J CL 4-t NO r^ r* r^ NO on oo o sr sr no sr r>» r>» O '-n o en cn o o o o m oo on oo m ON CM U-| CD 4J -a- -a- > CO >> en CJ o CD .£> I I I O • o oo m co • • • • • "H CN fH CN -H IUI a. o •»—> • AJ > r-l U-l cu CO 'w' H o W CJ IW J*s /— \ • o AJ > M M-i 5J T3 s.-^ rH a> fa =3 rH Sj CO CD ^"> AJ > AJ o O 4-1 H CJ CO co CD ^^ -^ c /— V cj ^ AJ o «A-I Qi •H N^ co AJ 01 <-i c •H jx! on CN -3" I t -a- O CO en v© I— • en —* CN CN —I -3- 3- m co m er> O -h O CTi •* -3 <■ CO H CO H S •H -H ,— I CN <• -3" ^3- «3" sO I I I I I I CN 00 — < f^ CO CN CN CN CN CO sO vo m\oco CN cr> <-* o r>- md CN -H rH CM — H CN CT» iH I 60 CO a rH X. s« AJ -*"\ o co /—s OS <* CO CO CO uj V AJ CO ro CO co CO u rH IH •3- u 3 CO u to o 1— I o 8 4.) co j-> co >% -a TJ E O H CM CO bO O o s: CJ o CM O w CO s E 3 CO O bO • • ^^ rH * ■ cn •> m •H CU rH CU m CO •H co "v„ CO rH ^3- -^. r~- CJ cu CU • * — m m CO ■^^. u-i ■^^ •H 00 ■H 9 rH o LO rH • ■•^^ m CM o cn m • ■ CO •H CO • ■H o fM • • • ^N„ rH ^H rH ^^ fl /""* rJ j= ■ LO O CO • o m CM o CO •H O to CO CO cu • ^^. • O • 01 co • •■^^ CO CU rH O •> m rH •> ■1 o m •> cn l^J r-i ^^. m m cu > o CO iH • CO m rH rH • • CU CJ O • c o • Xi •> bOO ^^ bO CO CJ r— A o c « rH •H • 0k o 60.* u r^H CO 0) *^^ o ■•^^. "^^. •H o rH •H co cn —t o o o in ■^■^ r-^ m M • m o CO m « u CJ CO ***^ ■H — J M * • o ed • to ■■H • • "**^ b0"H CO •H *^^„ CM m CO tH A M CO — H • jr LO ^_ —l m cn o »>^. CO •a CO o • r-{ s bO T} u CO o ~H to m • m ■*^ c "\ • o 00 • — i ■^^ cu o CJ r* -^. •> r~- M « •> sr • m CO o CM ■»»«, • O M . --^, m bO • O in rH • rH rH rH ^H • CO • p o rM • ■a sn m vO • to ♦ • •H MD •H •H •H «k •— i — -« •H «• CO • rH •H bC • • -H v« o <# — i — « CO co CO co rH * o rH ^ •-H A u o *H o • ^ — « ^ — ^^ ^^^ •H H m • « •H ^* rH * J3 rH rM « CO CM CO ■ « tf"l rH m o CJ to bO-3- co cn cn O cn m CO ■^» ■ ~v». O CM CO ~~^ CO 4J bO o **^ -H "••-^ ~*^ to ^^ ^-^ **^ •^ CM ^^ m bO m • — ■* ^^^ -8 • o C iH -9 c -* • CM • • -H i-{ O • ^^ o m-4 n — < o — l —1 CJ • a a '*^, a CO M O tH ^H 4J CO CJ •> CO •H O tH •H vO •H m •> CO •t rH •H •H « CO o 1 rH 0k rH * m O » * * CO CO CO • CO CO * CO ■^^ rH CO CO CO co •^ T3 CJ c bOM to <"i M U rH r-l ^ ■\ m ■•* — -^» — H ***^ *-*. rH ■■^^ o ^v^ "*-«^ -■^. •■^ *• — r-H C -«»» •H -■»» CO ~~^ — ^ -»^ --^ HC U o <-i lO in o m •H o • m o o o 00 •H ca o 1 o ■**^ «T m m o ^-* **«*. — ^ • to • • M • • CO • m • • • • • CO co • CJ « o • • • • in n o -^ — -t -H rH CM CM CM o cn -J- ON m — H ■*%^ ^^^ rH c CN • —i -H -H CM • • • O U CM •» • ^^ o o m m o CM -H O — -i •> • m « •H M •> • •> rH O * • A • » • *■ • • • ■ cj •t M ■> n rH r— I rH rH CO rH rH O rH tH CM rH O rH v£> rH rH rH rH sr o rH rH «. rH rH H rH • » m •H •H •H •H •H •H ■H ■H •H •H •H •H 00 CO rH CO 10 CO CO rH rH — 1 co co CO co CO CO 4J CO CO CO CO CO o o H T5 CU S3 CO CO HI CU CM c /^ •H .* 4-1 u a CM Q •H J3 H >-^ -H JS CO 4-1 r"> 4-i a. M cu CM CU CJ CO cr< - -a' <■ '„ —1 •"J TJ "»_/ 1— ) 1) w pq CO CO aJ CJ s-i U u-i C o ■H JJ CO O o •a T3 -o 0) 0) 0) cO CO cO u u u CO CO w c c c a) at at 3 3 3 CO o rH O •H CO kS m • H sO ^H CO iH O a • •h en CO in co • » H «H • CO CO en en co CN 60 i-S CO in o co 60 in o CO jr. CO m 60 CO in m ■ o m c CN m ■H O CO • — n •> •a - . . h « 60 Ul 01 vO CN -H -H • O U-l CO ^8 •> i— I ■O ">»» - - -^ « rH CD m CU O H rH O60C0 • mt-i .^-ico » * — "">»• ~~~ o co o • o tov cNino — i r»i tO — IN,"1 • • iN o c m • in •> en en — < • rH rH H «-H O .O • * «rH •H «H O «H • i-l H .H rH i-l » COCOCCO iH CO 05 0) CO CO rH in CN 60 o CN H be in m o 60 LO CO CO m CN 60 m I I I I O P** O -H -^ Ah (S sO in n in vo 4-1 u-i cn •* •— 1 O in CN m m n o CTi <• CN m CN m ■sO cn m ST cn m cn n in 3 Ed ■— / • pi Ed m m Ed in m Ed in Ed n Ed m Ed m Ed m m Ed m Ed m Ed in Ed m • z m 2 z z 2 2 Z vO z sO Z vO z sO 2 sO Z sO Z sO z sO »a- CN oo CN >-1 CN — * CN -H CN CN O r-i CN CN p> CN CN CN CN en CO vO < -* H <5 H > CN < > H n > > > M H H H M > H > cn cn «cr in so r>» M M H I H I— ' H M I— ( I— I I— I I— I I— I >>>>>> CO >■* .H s >< O CO -o o H c CO II CO iH II CO CJ CO c * O •H S CJ •—I IM CO O >s -- « U >> TJ iH T-t CO ■H y CO II CO ii cu rH II a CO CJ -H U-l iH M-l > iH M CO ^ >» * CO U S •» ^H CJ CO 4-1 CJ > o H H •H Ss II CO 4J >! rH co T3 II •H 144 e CO > CO ■H co CO 11 m ~o cu •> CJ c c S •H C3 •H CO CO CO u-i o 1-1 » CJ II E c >s CO •H H c O SM CO o rH U-l 4-1 II CO Ss * CO CO S II H CM O O O H •> H 4J >s -o CO c g >i o CO •a n 4-1 CO {3 e CO a CO II BO o II CO II Sn cj T3 co rH CO C 01 CU * > •» cn T3 CO 5 c u CO » O a r-l CO -4 CJ •H 60 r- 1 II U-l CJ H-l >» £ >. M CO fa CO "O o CO O c CU 60 CJ o iH CO •a II II CO II CO o- c .H CO co 1-1 rH co U-l m CJ 0) H B co CO l-l H CO n CJ • H l-l -a iH e CO c co CU o CO >» o 4J CJ CO •a c rH CO >1 >, CO ^ CU Vj e CO CO 0) CO > o >» o U5 II z o II CU 4J CO > H o to eg in CJ H >-i co > 60 II «T3 II ■H C tH Qrj 0) cfl rH O C3 > CD CO H pa co 60 co ■< J-i cu 60 CO •> • _ v- B S II CO CO eg o o o 60 CJ iH rH IH > Ed o CO CJ o C-6 ' APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO PREPARE PLATES III-l THROUGH III-9 D-l S® D-2 APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF METHODS USED TO PREPARE PLATES III-l THROUGH III-9 Plate III-l III-2 III-3 III-4 Borehole and outcrop locations . Points shown on this map indicate the locations of data points compiled from existing sources or collected during original field study for this report. Exist- ing data were compiled from (1) published reports (Wanless 1957), (2) borehole logs and other drilling information on file in the Geological Records Unit of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), (3) borehole logs provided by Freeman United Coal Mining Company, and (4) field studies of outcrops and boreholes drilled for this study. Summaries of borehole logs from Freeman United and from original field study are given in Appendix C. Data on file in the Geologic Records Unit of the ISGS are available for public inspec- tion in Room 227, Natural Resources Building, 615 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820. Geologic map . The geologic map was prepared from informa- tion compiled from published and unpublished sources and from date gathered for this study. Published sources were Wanless (1957) and Willman (197 3). Other sources included Mined-out Coal Area Map 11 available from the ISGS and work maps, field notes and open-file manuscripts available from the ISGS Map Library (Room 4 39, Natural Resources Building, 615 E. Peabody, Champaign, IL 61820). In addi- tion, data were compiled from mine notes and maps available from the Coal Section, ISGS. Original field work for this report included the description of two outcrop sections and drilling, sampling and description of 36 auger borings. The data collected from these holes are summarized in Appendix C. Topography of the bedrock surface . Data points used for pre- paration of the bedrock topography map include many of the points shown on Plate III-l. Within the RLCA, the map is based largely on borehole records supplied by Freeman United, borings drilled for this study, and borehole logs on file in the Geologic Records Unit, ISGS. Rock thickness above the Colchester (No. 2) Coal Member . Data points for this map are based largely on an "overlay" construction technique. This method consists of (1) comparing (overlaying) two maps which display different information, (2) interpolating values from the comparison, and (3) plotting these values on a third map utilizing an orderly grid system. To prepare the rock thickness map, a comparison was made of the bedrock topography (Plate III-3) and coal structure (Plate III-7) maps. The bedrock topography map shows elevation of the bedrock surface, and the coal structure map displays the elevation of the top of the No. 2 coal. The values used for the rock thickness map D-3 Plate were compiled by subtracting the elevation of the coal seam from the elevation of the top of the bedrock surface. Sixteen values per section were selected form a grid to construct the rock, thickness map. To assure accuracy, these data were supplemented with borehole information supplied by Freeman United and other drilling logs on file in the Geological Records Unit, ISGS. These borehole data points are shown on Plate III-l. III-5 Thickness of Quaternary deposits . This map was also prepared utilizing the "overlay" technique described for Plate III-4. The maps used for comparison were the Duck Island and Banner 7-1/2' topographic maps and the bedrock topography map (Plate III-3). The values used to construct the thickness of Quaternary deposits map were compiled by subtracting bedrock topography elevations from surface topography elevations. To assure accuracy these data were supplemented with borehole information from (1) Freeman United bor- ings, (2) auger borings drilled for this study, and (3) other drill logs on file in the Geologic Records Unit, ISGS. These borehole data points are shown on Plate III-l. III-6 Thickness of the Henry Formation . This map was prepared by contouring well log measurements indicating sand and gravel thick- ness. The Henry Formation thickness measurements were taken from information supplied by (1) Freeman United borings, (2) auger bor- ings drilled for this study, and (3) other drill logs on file in the Geologic Records Unit, ISGS. These borehole data points are shown on Plate III-l. §3 III-7 Structure of the Colchester (No. 2) Coal Member . This map was constructed using well log information from Freeman United as well as other borehole logs on file in the Geologic Records Unit, ISGS. A No. 2 Coal structure map for the area near RLCA prepared by Wan- less (1957) and several of Wanless' coal structure points were also used to construct this map. These data points are shown on Plate III-l. III-8 Mined-out coal areas . This map was prepared by enlarging ISGS Mined-out coal area map 11, which covers Fulton and parts of adja- cent counties. Mined-out coal area map 11 shows the extent of surface-mined land as well as the extent or location of underground mines as of February 1981. The Duck Island and Banner 7-1/2' topo- graphic quadrangles were used to adjust boundaries of surface mines from the area 11 map that did not agree with surface topography. III-9 Thickness of the Colchester (No. 2) Coal Member . This map was prepared by contouring well log measurements of No. 2 Coal thick- ness. These thickness measurements were taken from borehole infor- mation supplied by Freeman United as well as other drill logs on file in the Geologic Records Unit, ISGS. These borehole data points are shown on Plate III-l. D-4 APPENDIX E SOIL PROPERTIES OF THE RLCA SOILS E-l •:•• E-2 HMMIILH II Ui l ltllH»Ml *- ' C 1) «"» JC —I e — < — o> «s~ 3 *** vO in O 00 oo rs. r*. vO — in in CM CM 1 1 m oo in in 1 l 00 00 -a* *a* en en 1 1 >* 1 o 01 3 e ■ *o 1 in O CM *n oo 1 1 iO vD CM •»• CM CM 1 1 in oo CM CM 1 1 O O 1 1 J*, in CM CM O O -a- -a* i 1 o o CM CM *T CM CM CM o o 1 1 CM o CM CM o o o o CM CM 1 1 iO so o o sT 1 en 3 3 in co o o CM 10 1 1 o o CM CI 3 c ■1 fcl o Orion somewhat 0-5 sll low 1-3 0.6-2.0 0.22-0.24 1.20-1.30 20-30 4-10 10-18 5.6-7.8 5 .37 5 5 C poorly 5-21 sll low 0.6-2.0 0.20-0.22 1.20-1.30 20-30 4-10 10-18 5.6-7.8 .37 21-42 sll low 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.22 1.25-1.45 20-40 4-18 10-30 5.6-7.8 .37 42-60 all low 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.22 1.20-1.40 20-30 4-10 10-18 5.6-7.8 .37 Rodman excessively 0-7 gr-l low 2-4 2.0-6.0 0.10-0.12 1.20-1.50 <30 3-9 8-25 6.6-7.8 7 6 .20 3 8 A 7-13 gr-1 low 2.0-6.0 0.09-0.12 1.10-1.50 <30 np-10 5-25 6.6-7.8 .20 13-60 gr-cos low >20 0.02-0.04 1.80-2.00 - np 0-10 7.4-8.4 .10 llaymond well 0-10 sll low 1-3 0.6-2.0 0.22-0.24 1.30-1.45 27-36 4-10 10-18 5.6-7.3 10 34 .37 5 5 B 10-44 sll low 0.6-2.0 0.20-0.22 1.30-1.45 27-36 4-10 10-18 5.6-7.3 .37 44-60 fsl low 0.6-2.0 0.20-0.22 1.30-1.45 27-36 4-10 10-18 6.1-7.3 .37 E-3 (■aHHoaHHfnBHHBPHaBsaiKUHUruuUfnHSgnaHaBi mr E-4 BheSb •■■;■■..•■■■■:. ■ ■ ::?;■■■.■.■•■.■•■.':■■■.■■■•,., APPENDIX F ANIMAL SPECIES AT THE RLCA F-l F-2 Appendix F. Animal species of known or potential occurrence at the Rice Lake Conservation Area, Fulton County, Illinois. Common name * Scientific name 1 Status MAMMALS: Opossum Eastern mole Short-tailed shrew Least shrew Little brown bat Keen's bat Indiana bat Silver-haired bat Eastern pipistrelle Big brown bat Hoary bat Red bat Evening bat Raccoon Long-tailed weasel Mink River otter Striped skunk Badger Red fox Gray fox Coyote Bobcat Woodchuck Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Franklin's ground squirrel Eastern chipmunk Fox squirrel Southern flying squirrel Beaver Western harvest mouse Deer mouse White-footed mouse Meadow vole Prairie vole Pine vole Muskrat Norway rat House mouse Meadow jumping mouse Didelphis marsupialis Scalopus aquaticus Blarina brevicauda Cryptotis parva Myotls lucifugus Myotis keenii Myotis sodalis Lasionycteris noctivagans Pipistrellus subf lavus Eptesicus fuscus Lasiurus cinereus Lasiurus borealis FE Nycticeius hume rails Procyon lotor Mustela frenata Mustela vi son- Lu c ra canadensis Mephitis mephitis Taxidea taxus Vulpes fulva Ur ocyon cinereoargenteus Canis latrans Lynx rufus Marmota monax Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Spermophilus franklinii Tamias striatus Sciurus niger Glaucomys volans Castor canadensis ST ST Reithrodontomys megalotis Peromyscus maniculatus Peromyscus leucopus Microtus pennsylvanicus Microtus ochrogaster Microtus pinetorum Ondatra zibethicus Ratcus norvegicus Mus musculus Zapus hudsonius Relative Abundance' C C C U c c u MC C C R C C(?) C C(?) MC R MC U(?) c u u R C A C c c u A A MC A R C h A U F-3 ItSBe Common name 1 Eastern cottontail White-tailed deer Scientific name 1 Sylvilagus floridanus Odocoileus virginianus Status' Relative, A bundance" C C BIRDS: (endangered and Double crested cormorant Common gallinule Snowy egret Great egret Little blue heron Black-crowned night heron American bittern Cooper's hawk Red-shouldered hawk Bald eagle Osprey Marsh hawk Upland sandpiper Wilson's phalarope Forster's term Common tern Least tern Black tern Barn owl Long-eared owl Short-eared owl Brown creeper Bewick's wren Veery Loggerhead shrike Yellow-headed blackbird Hens low's sparrow REPTILES : Common snapping turtle Stinkpot Blanding's turtle Ornate box turtle Painted turtle Red-eared turtle False map turtle Map turtle Smooth softshell threatened specias only) Phalacrocorax auritus Gallinula chloropus Egretta thula Casmerodius albus Florida caerulea Nycticorax nycticorax Botaurus lentiginosus Accipiter cooperii Buteto lineatus Haliaeetus leucocephalus Pandion haliaetus Circus cyaneus Bartramia longicauda Steganopus tricolor Sterna forsteri Sterna hirundo Sterna albifrons SE UM Childonia niger Tyto alba ' Asio otus Asio flammeus Certhia familiaris Thryomanes bewickii Catharus fuscescens Lanius ludovicianus Xanthecephalus xanthocephalus Ammodramus henslowii Chelydra serpentina serpentina Sternothaerus odoratus Emydoidea blandingi Terrapene ornata ornata Chrysemys picta marginata x C.P. belli intergrades Pseudemys scripta elegans Graptemys pseudogeographica Graptemys geographica Trionyx muticus muticus ST OM,OS SE RM SE CS SE UM SE CM, US SE UM,RS SE UM,US,RS SE OM,OS,OW FE CM,CW SE UM SE CM,CW,OS SE UM,US SE UM SE CM SE CM SE RS,RM SE CM,RS SE RP SE UW.RS SE UM,US,RS SE CM,CW,OLS ST UM,US,RW ST CM,RS ST UM,OS,OW SE RM ST OM,LS C R C C C C R R (possibly extirpated, see Bellrose et al. 1977) F-4 Comnon name 1 Eastern spiny sof tshell Western slender glass lizard Five-lined skink Eastern hognose snake Western smooth green snake Eastern yellow- bellied racer Black rat snake Western fox snake Bullsnake Prairie kings nake Speckled kingsnake Milk snake Eastern plains garter snake Eastern garter snake Midland brown snake Northern redbelly snake Yellow-bellied water snake Graham's crayfish snake Diamond-backed water snake Queen snake Northern water snake Eastern massasauga Timber rattlesnake AMPHIBIANS: Small mouth salamander Eastern tiger salamander Mudouppy Western lesser siren American toad Fowler's toad Blanchard's cricket frog Relative, Scientific name Status Abundance Trionyx spinifer spinifer C Oohisaurus attenuatus R attenuatus Eumeces fasciatus C Heterodon platyrhinos C Opheodrys vernalis blanchardi R Coluber constrictor C flaviventris Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta c Elaphe vulpina vulpina c Pituophis melanoleucas sayi c Lampropeltis calligaster c calligaster Lampropeltis getulus R holbrooki Lampropeltis triangulum R triangulum x L.T. syspila intergrades Thamnophis radix radix C Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis c Storeria dekayi" wrightorum c Storeria occipitomaculata R occipitomaculata Nerodia erythxogaster R flavigaster ke Regin4 grahamx C Nerodia rhomblfera rhombifera c Kegina septemvLttaca. R Nerodia sipedon C sipedon Sistrurus catenatus catenatus R Crotalus horridus horridus R Ambystoma texamum C Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum C Necturus maculosus maculosus C Siren intermedia nettingi C Bufo americanus americanus C Bufo woodhousei fowleri C Aeris crepitans blanchardi C F-5 (MtMtsaaanBa Common, name 1 Scientific name Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata Northern spring peeper Eastern gray treefrog Bullfrog Green frog Leapard frog triseriata Hyla crucifer crucifer Hyla versicolor versicolor Rana catesbeiana Ram clamitans melanota Rana pipiens pipiens x R.P_. sphenocephala intergrades Status' Relative, Abundance' C R C c c c FISHES: Chestnut lamprey Lake sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeon Paddlefish Spotted gar Longnose gar Shortnosa gar Bowfin Skipjack herring Gizzard shad Goldeye Rainbow trout Rainbow smelt Grass pickerel Northern pike Goldfish Carp Golden shiner Creek chub Hornyhead chub Speckled chub Silver chub Blacknosu dace Suckermouth minnow Emerald shiner River shiner Striped shiner Bigmouth shiner Pugnose minnow Spottail shiner Red shiner Silverband shiner Sand shiner Southern redbelly dace Silvery uinnow Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Bullhead minnow Ichthyomyzon castaneus Acipenser fulvescens Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Polyodon spathula Lepisosteus oculatus Lepisosteus osseus Lepisosteus platostomus Amia calva Alosa chrysochloris Dorosoma cepedianum Hiodon alosoides ST Salmo gairdneri Osmerus mordax Esox americanus Esox lucius Carassius auratus Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysolencas Semotilus atromaculatus Nocomis biguttatus Hybopsis aestivalis Hybopsis storeriana Rhinichthys atratulus Phenacobius mirabilis Notropis atherinoides Notropis' blennius Notropis chrysocephalus Notropis dorsalis Notropis emiliae Notropis hudsonius Notropis lutrensis Notropis shumardi Notropis stramineus Phoxinus erythrogaster Hybognathus nuchalis Pimephales notatus Pimephales promelus Pimephales vigilax U U u u u u C R U A U R R R R U C C u R U D C U A U R U R C C R U R U C C C F-6 MWWllMIWMllllllllMUHMMmHMPlBMIIIllH — Common name* Scientific name 1 Status' Relative Abundance' Common stoneroller Blue sucker Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo Black buffalo River carpsucker Quillback Highfin carpsucker Golden redhorse Shorthead redhorse Northern hogsucker White sucker Spotted sucker Lake chubsucker White catfish Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Flathead catfish Tadpole madtom Pirate perch Trout-perch Burbot Starhead topminnow Blacks tripe topminnow Mosquitofish Brook silverside White bass • Yellow bass Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Green sunfish Pumpkinseed Warmouth Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Redear sunfish Spotted sunfish Rock bass White crappie Black crappie S auger Walleye Yellow perch Logperch Blackside darter Slenderhead darter River darter Mud darter Campos toma anomalum Cycleptus elongatus Ictiobus bubalus Ictiobus cyprinellus Ictiobus niger Carpiodes carpio . Carpiodes cyprinus Carpiodes velif er Moxostoma erythrurum Moxostoma macrolepidotum Hypentelium nigricans Catostomus commersoni Minytrema melanops Erimyzon sucetta Ictalurus catus Ictalurus melas Ictalurus natalis Ictalurus nebulosus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris No turns gyrinus Aphredoderus say anus Percopsis omiscomaycus lota lota Pundulus dispar Fundulus notatus Gambusia affinis Labidesthes sicculus Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis M icropterus dolomieui Micropterus salmoides Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gulosus Lepomis humilis Lepomis macrochirus Lapomis microlophus Lepomis punctatus Ambloplites rupestris Pomoxis annularis Porno xis nigromaculatus Stizostedion canadense Stizostedion vitreum Perca f laves cens Percina caprodes Percina maculata Percina phoxocephala Percina shumardi Etheostoma aspringene U R C C R C C R U u R U R R R U U R U R R R R R U R R R C R R C C R R R C R R R C C R R R R R R R R F-7 Common name Scientific name Status 1 Bluntnose darter Slough darter Orangethroat darter Freshwater drum MUSSELS: Mapleleaf Three ridge Giant floater Washboard Fragile papershell Rocks hell Pimpleback Pink papershell Yellow sandshell Fat mucket Paper floater Flat floater Pink heelsplitter Pigcoe White heelsplitter Buckhorn Threehorn Deertoe Warfyback Fawnfoot Lilliput Ebonv shell Relative, Abundance" Etheostoma chlorosomum Etheostoma gracile Etheostoma spectabile Aplodinotus grunniens Quadrula quadrula (Raf inesque) Amblema plicata (Say) Anodonda grandis (Say) Megalonaias gigantea (Barnes) Leptodea fragilis (Rafinesque) Arcidens conf ragosus (Say) Quadrula pustulosa (Lea) Proptera [ Potamilus , Leptodea ] laevissima (Lea) Lampsilis teres (Rafinesque) Lampsilis radiata siliquoidea (Barnes) Anodonta imbecillis (Say) Anodonta suborbidulata (Say) Proptera [ Potamilus ] alata (Say) Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque) Lasmigona complanata (Barnes) Tritogonia verrucosa (Rafinesque) Obliquaria ref lexa (Rafinesque) Truncilla truncata (Rafinesque) Quadrula olivaria (Rafinesque) Truncilla donaciformis (Lea) Carunculina parra (Barnes) Fusconaia ebena (Lea) R R R C A A C R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R CLAMS: Fingernail clam Asiatic clam CRAYFISHES : Musculium transversum Corbicula manilensis Cambarus diogenes Fallicambarus fodiens Orconectes immunis Orconectes propinquus Orconectes rusticus Orconectes virilis Procambarus acutus Procambarus" gracilis (see text) (see text) A :i A C c ^Common and scientific names follow Hall (1981) for mammals, Bohlen (1978) for birds, Smith (1979) for fishes, Smith (1961), Morris et al.(1983) for reptiles and amphibians, Fuller(1980) for mussels, Parmalee (1967) for clams, and Hobbs (1974) for craytishes. 2 FE = federally endangered, FT ■ federally threatened, SE - state endangered, ST = state threatened; Source: Sheviak and Thorn (1981). ^Mammals: A = abundant, C = common, MC ■ moderately common, U = uncommon, R = rare, in Central Illinois; after Hoffmeister and Mohr (1972). F-8 ■ .:.. . Birds: C ■ common, U ■ uncommon, ■ occassional, R ■ rare, L ■ local, M ■ migrant, S ■ summer resident, W ■ winter resident, P - permanent resident; in Central Illinois after Bohlen(1978) . Reptiles and Amphibians: C = common, R " tare state-wide; after Smith (1961). Fishes: A = abundant, C ■ common, U = unccmmon, R ■ rare in the LaGrange pool; after Lubinski et al. (1980). Mussels: A ■ abundant, C ■ common, R ■ rare in the Illinois River; after Starrett (1971) . Crayfishes: A ■ abundant, C ■ common, R = rare in the Illinois River System; after L. M. Page, Illinois Natural History Survey, personal communication. F-9 bRhsHHhm F-10 muwUMinnmumHiuMti Biit ■•■••:■•.•.■■.■ '■:••"■ APPENDIX G LETTER - INHS TO DOC G-l G-2 MBI^WBM IUILII ■lUmi l lWHIUB BII Il B '■■•■■...... vyo •■'■'■...■'.■'■.■■'■'■•■.■ State Natural History Survey Division €N? Natural Resources Buildmq ',', _^'3P''''^ 607 East Peabody Dnv»; [[a&ZXlst Champaign. I L 61320 "fiSfiPtiCi 217/333-6380 % River Research Lab Box 599 Havana, IL 62644 11 April 1983 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Allan S. Mickelson Illinois Department of Conservation Div. of Forest Resources & Natural Heritage 600 N. Grand Ave. , West Springfield, IL 62706 Dear Al: On 14 and 18 March 1983, John and Lorraine Grigsby and Bob Williams from the Rice Lake Preservation Association brought me some mussel shells for identification. They had obtained the shells from muskrat or raccoon middens on the west shore of Miserable Island in Rice Lake. The specimens included the flat floater, Anodonta suborbiculata (Say), the floater, Anodonta grandi s (Say), and the pink papersnell, Proptera [Leptodea] laevissima (Lea). If exact identification of the mussels from Rice Lake is important, I would suggest that specimens of Proptera laevissima be submitted to a malacologist because small specimens are difficult to distinguish from small fragile papershells, Leptode a fragil is (Raf inesque) . "Also, some taxonomists split the floaters into subspecies, Anodonta grand is grandis and Anodonta grandis corpulenta . I side with the taxonomistswho consider them to 5e forms of the same species, Anodonta grandis . None of these are rare in still or slow-moving wate Illinois River only one livi from Lake Matanzas, but this Starrett's collecting was do bottomland lakes. Earlier s common in backwater areas, were quite fresh, indicating and this is good circumstant beds in Rice Lake to the wes muskrats may be selective in several other species of mus species found in the middens or endangered species, r. In W.C. Starrett's ng specimen of Anodont is not surprising bee ne in the river proper urveys had shown subor and all of them are found 1966 survey of the a suborbiculata was taken, ause almost all of , rather than in biculata to be quite The periostraca of all that the mussels had ial evidence that ther t of Miserable Island, the mussels they cons sels occur in the bed the specimens I examined recently been taken alive, e are one or more mussel Since raccoons and ume, it is likely that in addition to the three If it is important to determine the size and composition of the mussel beds in Rice Lake, a survey could be conducted by a team wading and "pol lywogging" through the area west of Miserable Island during low water levels in mid to late summer. The people from the Rice Lake Preservation Association would probably help conduct such a survey, if someone from the Department of Conservation or Illinois Natural History Survey were available 5vVa Xrj«y V'SVM ■MM G-3 Al Kin r >. Mir.koKnn II April 1 983 Page 2 to help identify these specimens. I would suggest that most of the specimens be returned to the lake, with some placed as voucher specimens in the Illinois Natural History Survey mussel collection at Champaign. Please let me know if I can supply any additional information. Sincerely yours, Richard E. Sparks _V.; « ./ RES:va cc: John and Lorraine Grigsby Bob will iams Carl Becker Don Webb Li ane Suloway Warren Brigham G-4 ■•:■"■ f H-2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS - - FULTON COUNTY - Figure 1 19R0 LU CO oc rr * CM CM •2 lo CO CO I o co CTi r-. i LO i o CT> I LO CO CO I o CO CM o en CM i O en LO LO LO I o LO en i LO •^1 i ro i LO ro ro i o -2000 -1800 1600 ,1400 •1200 o o "■4- O Q. Q CO o c 4000 E CTl CM I LO CM CM I o CM s- Q- O CL O C_ LL. -4-> CQ CO IZ> -r- (/) s. O) +J o o co en H-3 o o CO t- POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS - 1990 - FULTON COUNTY -* Figure 2 o ffl , ■ - i en CO Cv. o IT. cc cc cc IT. «=3 a- ir: ^3- LT) :_n i o LT us CO o o c. m o CO C\J CvJ CSJ _u en tn en i LT) 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 * 800 600 400 m, c 200 o s_ a> Q- <4- o 200 400 -600 •800 1000 '1200 •1400 1600 1800 K2000 c c o cr s- E «/> «/i a> i/> E O c o u c m o o I/O H-4 >> i- o o .G c o a) c c o en s_ o > +-> e 3 o <_> c o +J v> u a) o s_ Q_ (T3 Q. O Q_ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0661 \ 5861 \ \ \ CO ^Sk. ooo \ s: O X^ co X. coc v <: Old) > LU i— i >v S^t-CJ \ GO 0861 '. \ \ \ \ \ \ v \ \ \ \\ 9Z6T \a 0Z6I a o c: o o o o C_J o c: o o o o a o cz o o o o • i 9 * r*» VO LC «d- CO CVJ I— 1 *3" >3- <* «3- <* <3- **■ c o 'ia +3 4-> <0 O i— I— 3 Q. O Cl H-5 she H-6 APPENDIX I METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING RESIDENCE OF RICE LAKE VISITORS M& 1-1 " : '. :• H H 1-2 Methodology for Estimating Geographic Distribution of Visitors to Rice Lake The methodology used for analyzing how far visitors live from Rice Lake was a basic gravity model of human behavior. This type of model assumes that the people's behavior in response to some attraction is directly related to the attractiveness of the area and inversely related to the distance from the area. In this example, the recreational amenities at Rice Lake represent the attraction of the Lake. Since we are examining only one attraction (not com- peting attractions) the relative attractiveness of Rice Lake is irrelevant to modeling trip-making behavior. The sole determinant of trip-making behavior is, therefore, the relative distance from place of residence to Rice Lake. According to conventional gravity modeling, the probability of any given person making a trip to Rice Lake is inversely proportional to the distance between the Lake and the residence, raised to some exponent. i.e., P(T) X = k ^ Where P(T) X represents the probability of a trip being made from place X D x is distrance from X to lake °^is some exponent. Drawing on the science of physics, the exponent would be 2. i.e., P(T) X = k 1-3 The exponent could take on any value greater than zero, in fact. For the purpose of this exercise it was assumed to equal 2. The total population in the population centers within a 50-mile radius of the Lake was known (510,200). Furthermore, the number of trips made by people with this radius was known to be 75% of all Rice Lake visitors (about 73,749 per year, average 1978-82). The purpose of this model in this instance, therefore, was to determine the geographic distribution of visitors who traveled to Rice Lake. The average probability of a trip being made from within the 50 miles radius was given by: 21,211. ox. O.IHS 3 ' ■ 033 vfiss .-■■■' The relative probability of a trip being made from any given place can then be determined based on the distance between the place and the RLCA. When the relative probabilities are weighted by the population of each place, then the actual probability of a trip from each place can therefore be determined as follows: Actual P(T) X = Relative P(T) X *Average Probability Sum (Population *Relative P(T) X ) Where Relative P(T) X = 1 1-4 For convenience, all distances D x were expressed as multiples of the distance between the Lake and the closest population center, Canton. The relative probability for this, therefore, equals 1.0 by definition. The population-weighted sum of relative probabilities equals 0.069, which is slightly less than the average probability, 0.145. This means that the actual probabilities are all slightly larger than the relative probabilities by a factor of 2.1. For the town of Canton this means an average of 2.1 trips per resident over the course of one year. The actual number of trips from each place within the 50 mile radius was then calculated as the product of the population and the actual probability for each place. The total number of trips for each place, aggregated for each distance zone, are shown in Table IX— 1 1 (page IX-30). 'The fraction of all trips to Rice Lake which originate in any given place or distance zone is simply the ratio of the number of trips from that place or zone to the total number of trips each year. 1-5 ■'■'■■'■• $m . ••■ . * a O — •• cu 00 _» ri- o al c 3 — 1 o a> a> c-t- oo ^« o oo 3 zr 00 o s S - 3 03 <* -s 03 r+ zr 3 0) Qj -5 Cl 03 03 -*\ O — J> -5 3 fD •* 3 cz Cu —J -5 c-t- 03 — «« •a 3 —j O 03 r+ 00 a> o o -h r+ c t— > Cu ro _J c-t- Q_ o _j. 00 a- c-l- o Cu n 3 o o c 03 3 00 c-t- -h -to -. O o -s 3 Q. r+ ^« 3" 00 03 c-t- -5 00 — j» — -t. cr r+ c 03 c-t- • ^* O 3 IS 2 2 "a -a tiwsn r— m en ca O O CO GO CT3 ~C O a> o 03 03 03 T3 Ol 3" — *• ai cu — i Cu -5 Cu 03 1 O 3 o -5 ;*- o O "i W J. 3 O0 — i o 3 03 -5 cu 03 "CI =1 O r+ -i. ~5 -S _i. 3- _i O c-t- a> o r+ < (-+ -% & C O 3 O 3 — J« — *. 3 -^* — i o 00 a o 03 O Cl c-t- — ' c cr 3 QJ a> to 3 ->■ — J -a o- 3 3 oo 03 a* f+ -hoa o 3 03 c 3 O < c-t- -5 c-t- 3" re ->• e* o O -5 03 o — j. O ■Jl o> 03 o n- -5 03 r+ c — i £ —1 O -'•—'3 3- ^* O -1 —t 3 3" 3 03 O. 03 Oi 3 03 a> 3" 3 O Ct 03 00 nter 5,000 OO t— ' O ro o o o o o ro go ro ro CO vl M i— i-vj i— i^j ivj vu ^— t— • — oj vj i— •— 'WWNsIOONOOivj i^vl Q J5>0^O> 03 OCnrOCOOrO-taOOOotr-vJI— >rOO0l— *rO oooooooooogoooooo oooooooooo°oooooo OOOOroOt-'OOOOOt-'OOOO ro-p*roo>ooi— 'corot— »Go.p»vj.p»rot— >i— »i— » r\3aicr>(jo ooi— 'Oro-p»Go-ts»i£3COGororo o T3 C CU TD T| O TO -S "O 03 Cu C 00 n _j _i. e-f Cu O -J. c-t- 3 O _i. Cu 3 O — ' 3 O *>WI\3l-'l\3IN:*'OJOJOJIN30J4i PO t— 'GO CDcn-p>CD-^'-(s>oocrio^-P»CDCTi ooooooooooooo o o o OOOt— 'OOOOOOOOOi-'Ot-'O I— TOOK- » Oo OI t— 'PO(V3(\3 oo oo c-t- Cu 3 O 03 * "U -5 TO O 03 cr — I Cu Cu cr n- ^a —J. 1 < —>■ 03 & ■a o T3 Cu ft- rt- 03 Cu O 0> N o 3 03 O Oi V£3 O vl CD O O O O O O O O O O i- 1 O o i—* i— ' C3*> cn »— » go ro oo ^o OO -p» -vi ro *-o ro go c» cn <*o oo ro CD GO ooooooooooo oooooooroooo roOOOrororocoOi— > o CD OI U) IT) Ol O OJ CDGOGO ro oo go -P» Co uo ro i— * go go oj G0I— 'I— 'GOCDCDCDl— 'CDGO t— ' GO CO VI GO VI V£3 K-H- VI Ol M W ro i— « ro ro ro v£> GOGo-ocriOooOcriGoOCOi— 'Gncoco-P»Go OooororoGovj^.co-P-.roiwOCDt— -rooorooo wwiaoivij-noocoHonviHOyiHO 4i>Goroi— •roro-£«GOGoGoroGo-P» ro i— • go i i i i i i i i i cnjs»GoroGOGocri-P»-p.-P»Go-^crii— 'Goro oooooooooocooooo 1-6 -J O 3» cr o CU c+ cr c _i. a, < m -i. (/. 00 =*fc cf •>A — ■■ c-t- O 3 O -+> Qj -s a- oo o> a. r«j ->. o — ' 3 03 03 Cu 03 03 APPENDIX J PRODUCTION AND RESERVES OF COAL Sw J-l I J-2 Fulton County Coal Production : 1975 - 1982: All Coal July - Total Production Feet of Overburden Year 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 :C. 1975 1,243,541 6,000 676,435 561,106 1976 2,888,718 743,524 1,089,195 1,055,999 1977 2,759,200 1,688,162 1,071,038 1978 2,457,659 741,938 1,715,721 1979 2,798,341 1,091,572 1,706,769 1980 2,803,112 1,265,034 530,400 1,007,678 1981 2,129,582 1,000,003 1,129,579 1982 2,555,407 917,011 1,338,396 TOTAL 19,335,560 6,000 2,684,993 7,058,281 9,586,286 (19.34) (0.01) (2.68) (7.06) (9.59) Stripped 24,169,450 7,500 3,356,241 8,822,851 11,982,857 Reserves (24.17) (0.01) (3.36) (8.82) (11.98) Fulton County Coal Production : 1975 - 1982: Colchester (No. 2) Coal July - Total Year Production c. 1975 282,713 1976 743,524 1977 559,191 1978 741,938 1979 1,091,572 1980 1,265,034 1981 1,000,003 1982 917,011 TOTAL 6,600,986 (6.60) Stripped 8,251,233 Reserves (8.25) Feet of Overburden 0-50 50 - 60 182,713 1,265,034 1,547,747 (1.55) 1,934,684 (1.93) 50 - 75 743,524 559,191 741,938 1,091,572 1,000,003 917,011 5,053,239 (5.05) 6,316,549 (6.32) 50 - 100 Production = 80% of stripped reserves Numbers in parentheses = Million tons of coal J-3 Knox County Coal Production : 1975 - 1982: All Coal* July - Total Production Feet of Overburden Year 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 c. 1975 632,656 632,656 ■i . 1976 1,534,248 1,534,248 , , 1977 1,151,893 1,151,893 1978 745,401 745,401 1979 809,283 809,283 1980 269,743 269,743 1981 1982 TOTAL 5,143,224 (5.14) 5,143,224 (5.14) Stripped 6,429,030 6,429,030 Reserves (6.43) (6.43) * No Colchester (No. 2) coal production Year 1975 - 1981 1982 TOTAL McDonough County Coal Production : 1975 - 1982 Production* 283,428 283,428 (0.28) Stripped Reserves 354,285 354,285 (0.35) * All Freeman United Industry mine; all Colchester (No. 2) coal; all from 0-50 foot overburden Production = 80% of stripped reserves Numbers in parentheses = Million tons of coal J-4 Peoria County Coal Production ; 1975 - 1982: All Coal* July - Total Year Production c. 1975 347,896 1976 716,653 1977 917,492 1978 590,726 1979 615,453 1980 476,325 1981 425,041 1982 502,580 TOTAL 4,592,166 (4.59) Stripped 5,740,208 Reserves (5.74) Feet of Overburden 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 590,726 476,325 1,067,051 (1.07) 1,333,814 (1.33) 615,453 425,041 502,580 1,543,074 (1.54) 1,928,843 (1.93) 50 - 100 347,896 716,653 917,492 1,982,041 (1.98) 2,477,551 (2.48) * No Colchester (No. 2) coal production Production = 80% of stripped reserves Numbers in parentheses = Million tons of coal 1975 - 1982 coal production in Schuyler and Warren counties was 0.00 Source: Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, Coal Report of Illinois (relevant years). J-5 Fulton County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 14 7 0.38220 0.38220 133 6 1.86372 0.27956 — ,_ 1.58416 134* 6 125.00334 32.50087 92.50247 135 6 6.88750 0.41325 6.47425 15 5 35.39932 9.91181 25.48751 37* 5 12.05700 1.68798 10.36902 38* 5 77.26200 15.45240 61.80960 39* 5 50.05200 6.50676 43.54524 40 5 21.44200 2.78746 18.65454 41 5 19.61600 0.78464 18.83136 42 5 6.31000 2.46090 3.89100 43 5 7.28600 0.51002 6.77598 45 5 6.46700 6.40233 0.06467 46 5 6.63600 6.63600 53 5 11.38100 11.38100 Sub Tot al 388.04508 98.09718 289.94790 Blocks wil :h Obstacl es 264.37434 56.14801 208.22633 Sub Total less Blocks wil th Obstacl es 123.67074 41.94917 81.72157 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-6 Fulton County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 32 2 0.364 34 0.25868 0.10566 47 2 8.98600 8.62656 0.35944 48 2 10.03400 2.30782 7.72618 49 2 12.91100 4.00241 8.90859 50* 2 34.51994 17.95037 16.56957 51 2 16.71292 7.85507 8.85785 52 2 11.97200 4.07048 7.90152 54 2 22.69900 10.89552 11.80348 55 2 52.44400 22.02648 30.41752 56* 2 14.23600 6.69092 7.54508 57 2 7.85500 3.53475 4.32025 58 2 17.51600 8.93316 8.58284 59 2 18.00816 9.54432 8.46 384 60 2 21.52900 6.88928 14.63972 61 2 11.38568 6.83141 4.55427 62 2 8.05244 3.54307 4.50937 Sub Total 269.22548 123.96030 7.72618 137.53900 Blocks wil :h Obstacles 48.75594 24.64129 24.11465 Sub Total less Blocks wil :ta Obstacles 220.46954 99.31901 7.72618 113.42435 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-7 Fulton County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) All Coal (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 657.27 367.32 229.78 222.06 Blocks with Obstacles 313.13 104.90 80.79 80.79 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 344.14 262.42 148.99 141.27 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 269.23 269.23 131.69 123.96 Blocks with Obstacles 48.76 48.76 24.64 24.64 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 220.47 220.47 107.05 99.32 J-8 1983 Fulton County Coal Reserves (7/1975 Reserves less 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves) All Coal (M Tons) Feet of Ove rburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 24.17 12.19 3.37 0.01 1983 Total 633.10 355.13 226.41 222.05 1983 Total Less Blocks with Obstacles 319.97 250.23 145.62 141.26 1983 Total less Blocks with Obstacles Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 8.25 1983 Total 260.98 212.22 0-75 212.22 0-60 105.12 0-50 8.25 1.93 0.00 260.98 129.76 123.96 99.32 J-9 Knox County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 14 7 1.98744 1.98744 ___ 118 6 11.32800 10.98816 0.33984 119 6 58.34900 28.00752 30.34148 120 6 39.73400 13.90690 25.82710 121* 6 25.54500 14.30520 11.23980 122 6 7.27100 7.27100 132 6 6.04128 3.02064 3.02064 133 6 18.84428 2.82664 16.01764 11* 5 58.28340 19.23352 39.04988 15 5 45.05368 12.61503 32.43865 16* 5 26.45100 14.28354 12.16746 17 5 11.14635 3.45537 7.69098 18 5 15.03600 12.93096 2.10504 19 5 6.19500 6.13305 0.06195 20 5 11.57200 11.57200 21* 5 9.81400 9.81400 22* 5 26.64500 26.64500 31 5 10.86300 10.86300 Sub Total 390.15943 209.85897 0.40179 89.37186 90.52681 Blocks wil th Obstacles 146.73840 84.28126 23.40726 39.04988 Sub Total less Blocks wil th Obstacles 243.42103 125.57771 0.40179 65.96460 51.47693 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-10 Knox County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 23 2 6.42528 2.89138 3.53390 26* 2 6.20313 6.14110 0.06203 29* 2 6.09840 6.03742 0.06098 30 2 8.57300 7.80143 0.77157 32 2 36.06966 25.60946 10.46020 33 2 9.04700 8.50418 0.54282 34 2 22.01800 20.91710 1.10090 35 2 25.51900 15.31140 10.20760 36 2 9.26 300 3.61257 — — ™" 5.65043 - — — Sub Total 129.21647 96.82604 11.10218 21.28825 Blocks wil :h Obstacles 12.30153 . 12.17852 0.12301 Sub Total less Blocks wi1 :h Obstacles 116.91494 84.64752 10.97917 21.28825 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-ll Knox County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) All Coal (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 519.38 428.85 318.19 306.69 Blocks with Obstacles 159.04 119.99 96.58 96.46 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 360.34 308.86 221.61 210.23 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 129.22 129.22 107.93 96.83 Blocks with Obstacles 12.30 12.30 12.30 12.18 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 116.92 116.92 95.63 84.65 J-12 ..'•:-■■•■/•■■..■. 1983 Knox County Coal Reserves (7/1975 Reserves less 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves) All Coal (M Tons) Feet of Ove rburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 6.43 6.43 6.43 0.00 1983 Total 512.95 422.42 311.76 306.69 1983 Total Less Blocks with Obstacles 353.91 302.43 215.18 210.23 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1983 Total 129.22 129.22 107.93 96.83 1983 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 116.92 116.92 95.63 84.65 J-13 McDonough County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 50* 2 3.41406 1.77531 1.63875 ■ ■ 51 2 0.34108 0.16031 0.18077 61 2 24.60776 14.76466 9.84310 62 2 3.66020 1.61049 2.04971 63 2 10.39900 9.46309 0.93591 64 2 35.88100 25.47551 10.40549 ~~~ — — Sub Total 78.30310 53.24937 10.40549 14.64824 Blocks wi1 :h Obstacles 3.41406 1.77531 1.63875 Sub Total less Blocks wit :h Obstacles 74.88904 51.47406 10.40549 13.00949 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-14 McDonough County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) All Coal (M Tons)* Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 78.30 78.30 63.66 53.25 Blocks with Obstacles 3.41 3.41 1.78 1.78 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 74.89 74.89 61.88 51.47 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only* (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 78.30 78.30 63.66 53.25 Blocks with Obstacles 3.41 3.41 1.78 1.78 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 74.89 74.89 61.88 51.47 * McDonough County has only Colchester No. 2 coal. J-15 ji?i>V~;„. BHH 1983 McDonough County Coal Reserves (7/1975 Reserves less 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves) All Coal (M Tons)* Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 1983 Total 77.95 77.95 63.31 52.90 1983 Total Less Blocks with Obstacles 74.54 74.54 61.53 51.12 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only* CM Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 1983 Total 77.95 77.95 63.31 52.90 1983 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 74.54 74.54 61.53 51.12 * McDonough County has only Colchester (No. 2) coal. J-16 Peoria County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 10 7 22.08008 15.89766 6.18242 13 7 13.25600 13.25600 14 7 5.19792 5.19792 123* 6 205.08048 67.67656 137.40392 124 6 6.49700 5.58742 0.90958 125 6 12.37100 2.72162 9.64938 126 6 19.92600 4.58298 15.34 302 127* 6 29.4 3900 6.47658 22.96242 128 6 12.71600 4.45060 8.26540 129 6 8.92200 2.31972 6.60228 130 6 17.48300 5.59456 11.88844 131 6 16.77200 9.39232 7.37968 132 6 31.71672 15.85836 15.85836 134* 6 1.26266 0.32829 0.93437 135 6 4.98750 0.29925 4.68825 136 6 53.18900 11.16969 42.01931 137* 6 19.50300 4.48569 15.01731 138 6 6.34900 1.26980 5.07920 139 6 10.60300 0.63618 9.96682 11* 5 135.99460 44.87822 91.11638 12 5 9.98600 1.09846 8.88754 17 5 0.58665 0.18186 0.40479 ___ Sub Total 643.91861 223.35974 12.57599 407.98288 Blocks with Obstacles 391.27974 123.84534 267.43440 Sub Total less Blocks with Obstacles 252.63887 99.51440 12.57599 140.54848 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-17 Peoria County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) All Coal (M Tons)* Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 643.92 235.94 22 3.36 223.36 Blocks with Obstacles 391.28 123.85 123.85 123.85 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 252.64 112.09 99.51 99.51 1983 Peoria County Coal Reserves* (7/1975 Reserves less i 1975 - 1982 ' Stripped Reserve; Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 1975 - 1982 Stripped Reserves 5.74 3.26 1.33 0.00 1983 Total 638.18 232.68 222.03 22 3.36 1983 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 246.90 108.83 98.18 99.51 * Colchester (No. 2) coal is not present in Peoria County. J-18 Schuyler County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number Member 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 71* 5 27.92900 25.13610 — — 2.79290 72 5 56.73400 39.14646 17.58754 Sub Total 84.66300 64.28256 20.38044 Blocks with Obstacles 27.92900 25.13610 — _ 2.79290 Sub Total less Blocks with Obstacles 56.73400 39.14646 17.58754 59 2 19.50884 10.33969 9.16915 61 2 0.73456 0.44074 0.29382 62 2 24.88936 10.95132 13.93804 65 2 0.90870 0.87235 0.03635 66 2 33.25896 10.31028 22.94868 68 2 8.70300 8.52894 0.17406 69 2 6.88900 6.88900 70* 2 12.37600 7.54936 4.82664 — — Sub Total 107.26842 55.88168 5.00007 46.38604 Blocks with Obstacles 12.37600 7.54936 4.82664 Sub Total less Blocks with Obstacles 94.89242 48.33232 0.17406 46.38604 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-19 1983 Schuyler County Coal Reserves (No 1975 - 1982 Production Occurred) All Coal (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 191.93 171.55 125.16 120.16 Blocks with Obstacles 40.30 37.51 37.51 32.69 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 151.63 134.04 87.65 87.47 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-7! 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 107.27 107.27 60.88 55.88 Blocks with Obstacles 12.38 12.38 12.38 7.55 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 94.89 94.89 48.50 48.33 J-20 Warren County Coal Reserves (c. 7/1975) Block Coal Member M Tons of Reserves Feet of Overburden Number 0-50 50 - 60 50 - 75 50 - 100 23 2 0.19872 0.08942 0.10930 24 2 11.86500 11.74635 0.11865 25* 2 16.16800 14.55120 1.61680 26* 2 5.95987 5.90027 0.05960 27* 2 7.83200 7.44040 0.39160 28* 2 11.67200 8.98744 2.68456 29* 2 0.83160 0.82328 0.00832 - - - ■ — — Sub Total 54.52719 49.53836 4.87953 0.10930 Blocks with Obstacles 42.46347 37.70259 4.76088 Sub Total less Blocks with Obstacles 12.06372 11.83577 0.11865 0.10930 * Highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-21 1983 Warren County Coal Reserves (No 1975 - 1982 Production Occurred) All Coal (M Tons)* Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 54.52 54.52 54.42 49.54 Blocks with Obstacles 42.46 42.46 42.46 37.70 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 12.06 12.06 11.96 11.84 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only * (M Tons) Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 TOTAL 54.52 54.52 54.42 49.54 Blocks with Obstacles 42.46 42.46 42.46 37.70 Total less Blocks with Obstacles 12.06 12.06 11.96 11.84 * Warren County has only Colchester No. 2 coal. J-22 Total July 1975 Coal Reserves (Million Tons of Coal) All Coal Feet of Overburden County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 657.27 367.32 229.78 222.06 519.38 428.85 318.19 306.69 78.30 78.30 63.66 53.25 643.92 235.74 223.36 223.36 191.93 171.55 125.16 120.16 54.52 54.52 54.42 49.54 TOTAL 2,145.32 1,336.48 1,014.57 975.06 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 269.23 269.23 131.69 123.96 129.22 129.22 107.93 96.83 78.30 78.30 63.66 53.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.27 107.27 60.88 55.88 54.52 54.52 54.42 49.54 TOTAL 638.54 638.54 418.58 379.46 Source: Colin G. Treworgy, Lawrence E. Bengal and Amy G. Dingwell, Reserves and Resources of Surf ace-Mi nable Coal in Illinois , Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 504, 1978, Appendix 2, pp. 21-33. J-23 July 1975 Coal Reserves* (Million Tons of Coal) All Coal Feet of Overburden County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 344.14 262.42 148.99 141.27 360.34 308.86 221.61 210.23 74.89 74.89 61.88 51.47 252.64 112.09 99.51 99.51 151.63 134.04 87.65 87.47 12.06 12.06 11.96 11.84 TOTAL 1,195.70 904.36 631.60 601.79 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 220.47 220.47 107.05 99.32 116.92 116.92 95.63 84.65 74.89 74.89 61.88 51.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.89 94.89 48.50 48.33 12.06 12.06 11.96 11.84 TOTAL 519.23 519.23 325.02 295.61 * Less reserves where a highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municiapality. J-24 Total 1983 Coal Reserves (Total 7/1975 Reserves less 7/1975 - 12/1982 Stripped Reserves) (Million Tons of Coal) All Coal Feet of Overburden County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren TOTAL - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 633.10 355.13 226.41 222.05 512.95 422.42 311.76 306.69 77.95 77.95 63.31 52.90 638.18 232.68 222.03 223.36 191.93 171.55 125.16 120.16 54.52 54.52 54.42 49.54 2,108.63 1,314.25 1,003.09 974.70 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 260.98 260.98 129.76 123.96 129.22 129.22 107.93 96.83 77.95 77.95 63.31 52.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.27 107.27 60.88 55.88 54.52 54.52 54.42 49.54 TOTAL 629.94 629.94 416.30 379.11 J-25 1983 Coal Reserves* (7/1975 Reserves less 7/1975 - 12/1982 Stripped Reserves) (Million Tons of Coal) All Coal Feet of Overburden County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 319.97 250.23 145.62 141.26 35 3.91 302.43 215.18 210.23 74.54 74.54 61.53 51.12 246.90 108.83 98.18 99.51 151.63 134.04 87.65 87.47 12.06 12.06 11.96 11.84 TOTAL 1,159.01 882.13 620.12 601.43 Colchester (No. 2) Coal Only County Fulton Knox McDonough Peoria Schuyler Warren Feet of Overburden - 100 0-75 0-60 0-50 212.22 212.22 105.12 99.32 116.92 116.92 95.63 84.65 74.54 74.54 61.53 51.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.89 94.89 48.50 48.33 12.06 12.06 11.96 11.84 TOTAL 510.63 510.63 322.74 295.26 * Less reserves where a highway, pipeline, railroad and/or stream runs through block or block surface area and/or block adjacent to a municipality. J-26 APPENDIX K LOCAL COAL CONSUMPTION K-l .■:.■:■ - K-2 CO o c o fD a. fD l-« O « fD n o 3 o 3 rr ■y Ui -■J tO 00 00 t— ' Ui on v© v£3 o o o Ui H 33 H T3 n a w pd o a O 0> t- 1 O o c • • M a H < l- 1 c s o o co r 1 H- > 0) H- 0) ?r • • o rr t- 3 9 n PI o 03 O cn ha o I rr O 3 ex Wallace Edwards Creek Ui Ui tO If O to 0> 00 Ul «■ O 00 00 00 tO Ul a ui o o o NO to o 00 tO S3 ■ *• 00 o O 00 IO m U3 tO tO U3 Ui Ul u> o Ul tO UJ Ui 00 o I J> N* o o UI Ui u> Ui V£> v£ o> * *• 00 Ui H- t— 1 *- vo U3 to o o N3 tO ■^1 v£3 00 00 to to Ui to Ul £ -J Ul v£3 \£> Ul U> 00 00 On 00 o 00 NO I o U3 00 to -P- NO v© O *© to vo oo «# »• *# ~-J to -p» Ul o U3 1— I *- o NO Ul N© «* *• w ^J on t— to on on 00 H- OJ IO H- I -P- 00 o " *• l o u> N) H H Nl SJ Ul I— on 00 U3 tO ** I— oo to 00 NO Ul 00 oo U3 o> \o ON 00 -P- to .p- on 00 UJ ON Ul <© o »— o >• v* •* 00 H- \© -O N> U) \© on to U) ^J to *- to o^ <■ *• V O^ H- tO ui ui o to Ul -vj to .p. IO VO *- o to U) UJ •P-O N O U) ^ ^J Ul ^— US ^x> i — ' H- Ui H- ^* t« ON -t- to o to o> VD v£> h- H O H 00 C cn rr (D rr 0) I- (15 "I o O H 3 O cn rr C 03 3 r- fD 3- C/J rr M O 3 n ex ?r CO w W fD 3 a> oo a. rr h* O 3 CA3 O 3 rr fC r" O 3 n OP 1 W H O O C rr 00 cc 3* t- 1 rr 93 H *a n OW?) n e 03 t- 1 o o B • • M D < t- 1 « 3 O O CO r 4 H- 03 H- fD ?r • • n rr 3 3 ii H o 03 O H- 03 O I <1 rr O 3 a Wallace Edwards Creek to O Ul v£3 U> to o> 00 00 o u> 00 U3 Ul ON 00 o 1— ■ 1— • Ml w Ul 00 o o Ul to to w ON o 00 00 1* V u> Ul Ul o Ul 00 o> u> Ul V to 00 CO u> ^J U3 Ul Ul Ul Ul o> u> to Ul to to to U3 00 ON o ON o ON ro to to to to o ON U> v£3 V£3 O Ul 00 00 to -p~ ON to u ^ w V >• w 00 00 00 v£> Ul ^J to to 00 o ►— On 00 h- ■■■> ># N* ON H- tO r— t— 00 ^£3 Ul to ■vj tO ON Ul IO •# ■# ■* U> O -P- 4> h- 00 On to 00 v£3 I— N* ^ ■* U3 ^3 I— O Ul On H - UJ -P- ^ *0 U3 ■* -* ^ »— ^4 O O U) 00 ON H- Ul UOh N* ~* * Ul 00 H O O r— vr> o on ^ to o ui on i— o o ON ON U3 00 to (jj ■»J I— ' I— ' oo o> to *• <# >• ON H- 00 r- 00 NO Ui H- vO 03 CO fD rr oo O H- n 3 ?r 3 03 H" 3 00 3 C CU it K fD cr c N it 2 3 o z H X f n o > f n o z CO hd H r-H O z o ■n w r 1 w o H pa M o. o w z PI z c z H CO v£3 00 H O Z CO K-3 :-'." : ";-r- CO O c If o to to to o> O i-i O o 3 o 3 rt 3* H O H 33 3 O rt> f< rt o 3 O c o pi pa • • o co 1 Ul o to co 00 <# w H- Ln *> ro oo 00 *» 00 ro 00 41- w M vl 00 vO vO 00 VO Ul vl CO O vO w >• o tO vO O vl o> 41- 00 vO & * w vl 41- o> 00 o> o ro u> o o> I o 41- CO 8 o> o> t$ v v£> o o ON ro to ■•'•'' 00 1— to on U) CO «# 4>- ** vl o to o> 1 VJ h- to co vi N* *• *• Ln o> vl 1— ■ ON Ul vl U> to u> UJ CO W VP 41- o> 41- u> ►— 00 to 00 VI 41- 00 VI £ ro vl vO o to VO on vO 00 Ul co to vO CO CO vO o to Ul VO U> 4> I VO U> On vO 41- Ul to VO Ov vl to VI O i-t a- vO 00 On 41- On O I— VO U) 4>Ui oo a\ Ul VO vj vO vl vO vl O 4> U> O vl vO vl vO 4> 00 ■* >* * O i— o i— vO vi vO U) 0> Ul 00 •— vl on i— ■ <* If *• 00 vl vl MNJO on ui o 00 VO 00 O Co *• « *# On vO On 0> 4> CO Co Ul \^/ VO i— 00 Ul vO H— H— 41- O ►— 41- 00 h- to On CO On Ul I— t— VO to Ul to o O vO CO CO vl Ul 00 vO Ul 00 to I o o ui 4> 00 CO U) to Ul on 4>- to o> vl 00 f— vO Ui vO O N UNI to vl 4> H O H > C OO c CO rt co ha rt n 3 cr ro |-i CO rr PI O 3 O Pu JC CO w PI (0 3 woo O- rt H« O 3 CO O D rr ?r r* O 3 o 00 ?r 33 M fj n o pi ?a 03 r-> o o c • • <: l-> C 3 o a co 03 H- (B W • • 3 3 i-t W 0) O rr a. r> m s: H- O ii a» CO 3 trj ?r i-t oj o o- o c CD (D (t» l-t Ul 1— ' CO Co ON Ul I* w VO 00 CO co CO o Ov 4S- co ^4 to «# <■ 4>- ro I— i H- vi vO Ov 4>- Ul 8g w ^ (— • o o H- Ov ON Ul 4S- Co CO CO W *• o ON CO ->4 H- co CO vO to o> ro V v VO ro ►— o H— VO Ul 4> 00 o to 00 VO to VO VO Ui VO VO co o 00 to o «• 00 vO ro 0> to ON to 00 CO I— 4> 00 ON 00 o 00 vO ro »# Ul ON CO ON Ul 8 Ul 4> o -*4 ro Ul 4> ON 4 00 CO ON VO Co I— co vi to 4>- to On -* ■* * on i— ro Ul ui o ro ui vi vo ro k- on co ro ^ Sl H 00 00 vl co ro o vo to Ul On vl O Ul vl On 00 vO 00 t— o vl to to Ul On «• w *• I— • t— ■ ON On 4> 4> ui co co to to 4>- 00 On >* — ** h- 4> On Ul CO CO CO "-4 0> VO 00 to 00 4>- vO vl On CO -> vj 00 00 to VO ON H- I— 00 •4 * -* O O Ui 00 00 00 ON ON VO 00 VO H- ►— vo 41- On Ul ro co on Ul I— vo o o C rr oo o> ST H CO (D rt 00 O 3 3 H- 3 00 03 3 C 03 i-t M rt) cr C 03 I-t it 3 03 S o z H 33 r 1 n o > f o z CO T3 H M o z o PI r pi o H ?a M o PI z P3 z o H CO vO 00 to H o z CO K-4 I I I APPENDIX L MIDWEST /ILLINOIS BASIN COAL FLOW L-l j S3 ■I L-2 TOTAL COAL FLOWS FROM MIDWEST/ ILLINOIS BASIN SUPPLY REGION (% OF TOTAL) Demand Area Actual 1982 Projected 1985 Projected 1990 1995 2000 Illinois 17.18 18.30 19.93 18.61 16.20 15.18 Indiana 25.70 23.66 23.45 22.97 11.75 7.25 Michigan & Ohio 2.32 1.89 0.95 0.67 0.43 0.26 Iowa, Minnesota & Wisconsin 7.74 7.89 7.82 5.74 3.65 2.35 Kansas & Missouri 12.62 10.17 9.45 7.04 4.51 2.92 Kentucky & Tennessee 20.36 22.24 22.51 28.87 40.32 42.78 Alabama & Mississippi 3.48 3.47 1.20 2.14 3.35 4.80 Florida & Georgia 8.90 11.28 14.00 13.32 19.18 24.05 Regional Sub-Total 98.30 98.90 99.31 99.39 99.39 99.58 Others 1.70 1.10 0.69 0.61 0.61 0.42 U.S. Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 N 129.2 126.8 116.4 130.6 164.2 191.7 Source computed from : 1982 Actual - Mary B. McNair, Coal Distribution: January - December 1982 , U.S. Department of Energy, March 1983. Projected Values - DRI/Zimmerman Coal Model Baseline Forecast, January 1983 N = Million Tons L-3 i L-4 :•• •'■>}■-:■.<■■}••■■ 'SJSSkw APPENDIX M COAL PRICES M-l I M-2 '■■' Discounted Coal Prices (Cu rrent Dollars) > 3. 05% 2.25 - 3.04% Sulfur Coa 1 Sulfur Coal Coal Model Discounted Coal Mode 1 Discounted Year Forecast* by 9.8% Forecast * by 9.8% 1985 $ 36.60 $ 33.33 $ 38.63 $ 35.18 1986 39.76 36.21 42.94 39.11 1987 43.01 39.17 47.23 43.01 1988 47.22 43.01 52.46 47.78 1989 51.58 46.98 58.67 53.43 1990 56.16 51.15 65.00 59.20 1991 60.82 55.39 71.37 65.00 1992 65.68 59.82 77.94 70.98 1993 69.84 63.61 84.24 76.72 1994 73.68 67.10 90.00 81.97 1995 78.13 71.16 97.00 88.34 1996 83.23 75.80 104.93 95.56 1997 88.38 80.49 112.83 102.76 1998 93.90 85.52 120.18 109.45 1999 99.48 90.60 129.24 117.70 2000 $105.45 $ 96.04 $137.96 $125.65 *Source: DRI/ Zimmerman Coal Model, Baseline Forecast, January 1983. M-3 Discounted Coal Prices (1983 Dollars) Year GNP Price Deflator (198 3=1.000)! Discounted Price for 23.05% Sulfur Coal2 Current $*s 1983 $'s Discounted Price for 2.25-3.04% Sulfur Coal Current $*s 1983 $*s 1985 1.112 $ 33.33 $ 29.95 $ 35.18 $ 31.64 1986 1.180 36.21 30.69 39.11 33.14 1987 1.252 39.17 31.29 43.01 34.35 1988 1.331 43.01 32.31 47.78 35.90 1989 1.413 46.98 33.25 53.43 37.81 1990 1.500 51.15 34.10 59.20 39.47 1991 1.593 55.39 34.77 65.00 40.80 1992 1.690 59.82 35.40 70.98 42.00 1993 1.790 63.61 35.54 76.72 42.86 1994 1.895 67.10 35.41 81.97 43.26 1995 2.006 71.16 35.47 88.34 44.04 1996 2.124 75.80 35.69 95.56 44.99 1997 2.248 80.49 35.81 102.76 45.71 1998 2.377 85.52 35.98 109.45 46.05 1999 2.514 90.60 36.04 117.70 46.82 2000 2.658 $ 96.04 $ 36.13 $125.65 $ 47.27 Notes: 1.) Source: DR1 Energy Price Forecasts for U.S. East North Central Region (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin), April 1983. 2.) Discount via percent annual price changes recorded in DRI, Review of the U.S. Economy , June 1983, Table 11.2, p. 1.100. M-4 ft ■•:#;•? : -■•.:,-■■ ■ APPENDIX N MARKET VALUE OF COAL AND SALES TAX REVENUES N-l p. \ .-/i-lj4i^:** 1 w 1 N-2 RICE LAKE COAL BLOCK SALES TAX REVENUE (in 1983 dollars) (if >_ 3.05% sulfur content, assuming 100% sold in-state, total of 9,200,000 marketable tons, with production beginning in 1986) Lower-Bound Projected Price Estimates Mine Life of 9 Years (1,022,222.2 tons produced annually assuming constant production) Price Total Market State Sales Tax Local Sales Tax Year ($'s/Ton) Value (1983 $'s) (Value X 0.049) (V< alue X 0.0098) 1986 30.69 31,371,999.32 1,537,227.97 307,445.59 1987 31.29 31,985,332.64 1,567,281.30 313,456.26 1988 32.31 33,027,999.28 1,618,371.97 323,674.39 1989 33.25 33,988,888.15 1,665,455.52 333,091.10 1990 34.10 34,857,777.02 1,708,031.07 341,606.21 1991 34.77 35,542,665.89 1,741,590.63 348,318.13 1992 35.40 36,186,665.88 1,773,146.63 354,629.33 1993 35.54 36,329,776.99 1,780,159.07 356,031.81 1994 35.41 36,196,888.10 1,773,647.52 354,729.50 TOTAL 309,487,993.30 15,164,911.67 3 ,032,982.32 Vendor Collection Year Fee (Value X 0.001) 1986 31,372.00 1987 31,985.33 1988 33,028.00 1989 33,988.89 1990 34,857.78 1991 35,542.67 1992 36,186.67 1993 36,329.78 1994 36,196.89 State Administra- Total Sales Tax tive Cost (0.0002) (Value X 0.060) 6,274.40 1,882,319.96 6,397.07 1,919,119.96 6,605.60 1,981,679.96 6,797.78 2,039,333.29 6,971.56 2,091,466.62 7,108.53 2,132,559.95 7,237.33 2,171,199.95 7,265.96 2,179,786.62 7,239.38 2,171,813.29 TOTAL 309,488.01 61,897.61 18,569,279.60 N-3 RICE LAKE COAL BLOCK SALES TAX REVENUE (in 1983 dollars) (if >_ 3.05% sulfur content, assuming 100% sold in-state, total of 9,200,000 marketable tons, with production beginning in 1986) Lower— Bound Projected Price Estimates Mine Life of 15 Years (613,333.3 tons produced annually assuming constant production) Price Total Market State Sales Tax Local Sales Tax Year ($'s/Ton) Value (1983 $'s) (Value X 0.049) (Value X 0.0098) 1986 30.69 18,823,198.98 922,336.75 184,467.35 1987 31.29 19,191,198.96 940,368.75 188,073.75 1988 32.31 19,816,798.92 971,023.15 194,204.63 1989 33.25 20,393,332.23 999,273.28 199,854.66 1990 34.10 20,914,655.53 1,024,818.12 204,963.72 1991 34.77 21,325,598.84 1,044,954.34 208,990.87 1992 35.40 21,711,998.82 1,063,887.94 212,777.59 1993 35.54 21,797,865.48 1,068,095.41 213,619.08 1994 35.41 21,718,132.15 1,064,188.48 212,837.70 1995 35.47 21,754,932.15 1,065,991.68 213,198.34 1996 35.69 21,889,865.48. 1,072,603.41 214,520.68 1997 35.81 21,963,465.47 1,076,209.81 215,241.96 1998 35.98 22,067,732.13 1,081,318.87 216,263.77 1999 36.04 22,104,532.13 1,083,122.07 216,624.41 2000 36.13 22,159,732.13 1,085,826.87 217,165.37 TOTAL 317,633,039.40 15,564,018.93 3,112,803.88 ■ -'.' Vendor Collection State Administra- Total Sales Tax Year Fee (Value X 0.001) tive Cost (0.0002) (Value X 0.060) 1986 18,823.20 3,764.64 1,129,391.94 1987 19,191.20 3,838.24 1,151,471.94 1988 19,816.80 3,963.36 1,189,007.94 1989 20,393.33 4,078.67 1,223,599.93 1990 20,914.67 4,182.93 1,254,879.33 1991 21,325.60 4,265.12 1,279,535.93 1992 21,712.00 4,342.40 1,302,719.93 1993 21,797.87 4,359.57 1,307,871.93 1994 21,718.13 4,343.63 1,303,087.93 1995 21,754.93 4,350.99 1,305,295.93 1996 21,889.87 4,377.97 1,313,391.93 1997 21,963.47 4,392.69 1,317,807.93 1998 22,067.73 4,413.55 1,324,063.93 1999 22,104.53 4,420.91 1,326,271.93 2000 22,159.73 4,431.95 1,329,583.93 TOTAL 317,633.06 63,526.62 19,057,982.36 N-4 RICE LAKE COAL BLOCK SALES TAX REVENUE (in 1983 dollars) (if 2.25-3.04% sulfur content, assuming 100% sold in-state, total of 9,200,000 marketable tons, with production beginning in 1986) Upper-Bound Projected Price Estimates Mine Life of 9 Years (1,022,222.2 tons produced annually assuming constant production) Price Total Market State Sales Tax Local Sales Tax Year ($'s/Ton) Value (1983 $'s) (Value X 0.049) (V, alue X 0.0098) 1986 33.14 33,876,443.71 1,659,945.74 331,989.15 1987 34.35 35,113,332.57 1,720,553.30 344,110.66 1988 35.90 36,697,776.98 1,798,191.07 359,638.21 1989 37.81 38,650,221.38 1,893,860.85 378,772.17 1990 39.47 40,347,110.23 1,977,008.40 395,401.68 1991 40.80 41,706,665.76 2,043,626.62 408,725.32 1992 42.00 42,933,332.40 2,103,733.29 420,746.66 1993 42.86 43,812,443.49 2,146,809.73 429,361.95 1994 43.26 44,221,332.37 2,166,845.29 433,369.06 TOTAL 357,358,658.90 17,510,574.29 3 ,502,114.86 Vendor Collection Year Fee (Value X 0.001) 1986 33,876.44 1987 35,113.33 1988 36,697.78 1989 38,650.22 1990 40,347.11 1991 41,706.67 1992 42,933.33 1993 43,812.44 1994 44,221.33 State Administra- Total Sales Tax tive Cost (0.0002) (Value X 0.060) 6,775.29 2,032,586.62 7,022.67 2,106,799.95 7,339.56 2,201,866.62 7,730.04 2,319,013.28 8,069.42 2,420,826.61 8,341.33 2,502,399.95 8,586.67 2,575,999.94 8,762.49 2,628,746.61 8,844.27 2,653,279.94 TOTAL 357,358.65 71,471.74 21,441,519.53 N-5 RICE LAKE COAL BLOCK SALES TAX REVENUE (in 1983 dollars) (if 2.25-3.04% sulfur content, assuming 100% sold in-state, total of 9,200,000 marketable tons, with production beginning in 1986) Upper- Bound Projected Price Estimates Mine Life of 15 Years (613,333.3 tons produced annually assuming constant production) Price Total Market State Sales Tax Local Sales Tax Year ($»s/Ton) Value (1983 $'s) (Value X 0.049) (Value X 0.0098) 1986 33.14 20,325,865.56 995,967.41 199,193.48 1987 34.35 21,067,998.86 1,032,331.94 206,466.39 1988 35.90 22,018,665.47 1,078,914.61 215,782.92 1989 37.81 23,190,132.07 1,136,316.47 227,263.29 1990 39.47 24,208,265.35 1,186,205.00 237,241.00 1991 40.80 25,023,998.64 1,226,175.93 245,235.19 1992 42.00 25,759,998.60 1,262,239.93 252,447.99 1993 42.86 26,287,465.24 1,288,085.80 257,617.16 1994 43.26 26,532,798.56 1,300,107.13 260,021.43 1995 44.04 27,011,198.53 1,323,548.73 264,709.75 1996 44.99 27,593,865.17 1,352,099.39 270,419.88 1997 45.71 28,035,465.14 1,373,737.79 274,747.56 1998 46.05 28,243,998.47 1,383,955.93 276,791.19 1999 46.82 28,716,265.11 1,407,096.99 281,419.40 2000 47.27 28,992,265.09 1,420,620.99 284,124.20 TOTAL 383,008,245.90 18,767,404.05 3,753,480.83 Vendor Collection State Administra- Total Sales Tax Year Fee (Value X 0.001) tive Cost (0.0002) (Value X 0.060) 1986 20,305.87 4,065.17 1,219,551.93 1987 21,068.00 4,213.60 1,264,079.93 1988 22,018.67 4,403.73 1,321,119.93 1989 23,190.13 4,638.03 1,391,407.92 1990 24,208.27 4,841.65 1,452,495.92 1991 25,024.00 5,004.80 1,501,439.92 1992 25,760.00 5,152.00 1,545,599.92 1993 26,287.47 5,257.49 1,577,247.91 1994 26,532.80 5,306.56 1,591,967.91 1995 27,011.20 5,402.24 1,620,671.91 1996 27,593.87 5,518.77 1,655,631.91 1997 28,035.47 5,607.09 1,682,127.91 1998 28,244.00 5,648.80 1,694,639.91 1999 28,716.27 5, 743. 25 1,722,975.91 2000 28,992.27 5,798.45 1,739,535.91 TOTAL 383,008.29 76,601.63 22,980,494.75 N-6 APPENDIX LETTER - FREEMAN UNITED TO EEA 0-1 i 0-2 FREEMAN UNITED COAL MINING COMPANY DIVISION OF MATERIAL SERVICE CORPORATION P O BOX 1SS~ • 123 SOUTH lOTH STREET • MT VEBNDN, ILLINOIS 62Se<3 • 618/244-5233 April 29, 1983 Ms. Elizabeth Johnson State Geological Survey Division Illinois Department of Energy & Natural Resources Natural Resources Building 615 East Peabody Drive Champaign, IL 61820 Dear Liz : The request as to the estimated real estate taxes that might be paid,, if the Rice Lake coal project should materialize, is estimated to be approximately $20,000 per year. The esti- mate was made assuming a farm land assessment value of $145 per acre, with a rate of .05004 on approximately 2800 acres. Also , enclosed are two Rice Lake composite photographs show- ing the proposed mining area in red and the Conservation Department ' s Rice Lake Conservation Area being shown in green This should provide you with all the information requested. Very truly yours , M. V. Harrell Senior Vice President MVH.-ld Enc. cc: Dale E. Walker ENR Note: $145 per acre times rate of .05004 equals $7.2558 per acre, 0-3 :••;"«=».;„ 0-4 ■ v'- . ill ■MB APPENDIX P SEAM OUTPUT P-l i '.:■'■' P-2 c 3 o o o to CO CO CO 0) 5- u Q. O en O < UJ a. u 3 o •b co i UJ I _J CO t-4 I M t 2 M _j I 2 > !-■ i 3" r— ^ «a- m i -O 00 «3" «— • 00 vr (~^ IO O o> *— i fO O CM m CM CM CM O T— GO \*- i o 00 IO in IO CM Nl" eo i Lfl • 00 CJ I CO I LU I CJ I l-t I > I to S- o -a co CT> E +-> l/» c o u o en * •5 CO I LU I i-l «> a r- vr -eO o o CD v3" s o < CD o CD CD CD 1 CD 1- o o O o CD 1 • - o IO 1 in z O T~ CM o I C* CM V - oo in in I m r- CJ CM I >S- 1 1 m LU 1- e: z < »- LU LU — z _J LU > I— LU (- z O < CO z co a CO CO LU 2? _i _l < tH LU Qi o < 1- LU LU < QL < h- o < M U co a LU < C£ a: < t- l-l a. l-l LU 3- v3- o oo T t- sr r~. »o CM CM C* CD O CM ? m i < a o z «— CD (■». CD «T IO 00 § < m oo ■a- CM m o 00 CM CM <7» CM CM O I 3 ! M) I m i m i CD in IO CM £ 8 g J^ CM m CD r». in 82 S3 IO o p>- eo vO in CD 1 CD m i •00 SO 1 CT» m i m CM 1 T™ >3- 1 m CO CU s- cu oo +j cd CO S- /-^ ^ en cu co " o i-H Ovi M i_ CU cu > CO o cu -a c. oj o +J c c •■- 3 O C U O CO +j '-5 I— COr — 3 +J CU Q. tOT3 O O O D_ US o co<: o cuuj cm -r-cn +J I •!- O -r- CU oo a u cr> «J i_ i-H U_ 3 o * * CO * P-3 J J J J J ! . a> +-> (O * E * ■I™* «u cn i CD o CD o CD CD o CD CD o CD 1 o +-> UJ 1 o o O CD CD ^ o CD CD C3 O 1 o CO JU)H 1 < UJ 1— 1 o <=> o O o O CD CD o CD CD 1 o LU 3UH 1 • ro o C\J o >s- ro -O 1— 1 ^~ Z M _l 1 in ro ^ «3- O' IO C3 *— CM CD vO 1 <7» 4-> Z > M 1 M SO p^ m ^ «o CT» C3 00 vD 1 s3" 3" sO sr i ro UJ --£ 1 v ^* O 1 m UJ CO u. 1 i T— ■o to 3 «t I* •«► i/» CD UJ a. O) ►H +J CO 1 < CD o o CD < o C3 C3 CD O 1 CD 1>£ UJ 1 (- O CD CD CD r- CD O CD CD CD 1 O < 1-1 1 < • • • • - -O M3 ^ ro i O CO —1 o o CD CM CD O r»» vO sr in o t 00 z ►H 1 z SO *o r ro i in 3 o u o m V" o o rO ro in CD 1 c»> 3" T— CM >r i m a> ,— ' 1— u. ^— CM I m s- r— 3 3 o CO ■o h- CO co CO z o ■i~ r^ (_> CO a e CD CD CD o CD CD CD CD O 1 CD o CT> UJ o CD CD O CD CD CD o CD CD O 1 CD c r-H u ™ ►H cd O o o CD CD CD CD CD o CD 1 O +J > ro o ^~ ^3• O K> r^ C3> !■«• ro vT 1 00 r~- Of m o «r r>. to rO m m \3- r m CT* 1 CS r— c UJ *— CD m v3- O r>. m sO CM ^ si- ►— 1 ro CO «— l»* CM IO T~ •■* K> vT CD sO ■ +j CO i O j-> v> V> «► «> w 41* CO CO o OJ rtJ u i- cu Ul r— Z r- •r— H- 1 Ul t- z O < CO o X co o CO o Ul XL _l ** c CT> -J < l-t UJ CZ O < 00 o cn < 3 I— r-l _i »— r-H h- ■ -j r- UJ Ul < a: < r- O "r - ?— i +J i-i a. l-t UJ < ►H cz oc UJ UJ CJ to (O i CJ CO _J ai z _l CJ a Z >- 3 a o O >H UJ o Ul •H UJ «I o CO 3 o CO z Q- UL CO CO 01 _l CO Z UJ a. CO ra o o-> * o OJ o. I— 1 ■K r>. >> •a CO <=> o O CD o o o CD CD CD a o CO r— • UJ o o o CD CD o CD a CD CD CD o m o » +J < Ul t— o o o O CD o O o a <=> o o DUH IO o» CM CD m o o 1- II i- Z HI — 1 in ro T - >r C* IO CD ^» CM o sO e» +-> c Z > n fO vO r«. u-» o> eo o o oo vO \r r •£> si- ro 0J > z o C_> Ul Ul < CO U. ^- C7> 1 in CO «3 O o CO OJ -a +J c o < UJ UL CJ CJ cu OJ *-> c c 3 r— z •?■• 3 o 3 t-t CO ■« o O o o < CD o o CD o a o VI u_ a o UJ H- r- < a o o o o o o o CD r— < a CD CD CD o o o CD O CD CD CD CD c o a 10 -M H »-l T - f»» CT» CD r^ •o o *— ro O •f^ cu CO a: -J o o C3 CM CD o r*. vD ^3- m o s +J "O' — O o UJ ►H z 00 ^J^ <0 1^ z m ro r^ »3- ro (O cu a. (J < CFs rO in *" o 00 ro IO m CM o m CO "O e> U. ^* CM m 3 J-> o o z Q- cos: "r- 3 (-1 •w 4/> v> ■«> v> 4» O o 1— < a. ^3 S cc ro o ^~ •3- vO IO f>. O !>• IO sT 00 1 •i— cu OS. m CD MT r^ ro ro m m >s- ^" tT» o» r— u •r- S- (O UJ ^ O m «3" o r>- m vO CM ^ sT o o i_ f»» C7» 03 O 3 o cn ra o c «— • * * P-4 J J J J J J J o J J ■ ■ "MM mi APPENDIX Q IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATORS Q-l Q-2 Year 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983* Implicit Price Deflators for State and Local Government Expenditures (1972 = 1.000) Expenditures for: Services Structures Total Costs 1.359 1.435 1.383 1.464 1.519 1.484 1.565 1.716 1.597 1.680 1.975 1.737 1.838 2.208 1.916 2.010 2.30 3 2.082 2.179 2.325 2.227 2.280 2.313 2.305 * Preliminary 1st Quarter Estimate (Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rate) Sources: 1976 - 1981 - U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "Revised Estimates of the National Income and Product Accounts," Survey of Current Business , 62 (July 1982): Table 7.14 B, p. 109. 1982 - 1983 - U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business , 63 (April 1983): Table 7.14 B, p. 21. Year 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983* Implicit Price Deflators for State and Local Government Expenditures (1976 = 1.000) Expenditures for: Services Structures Total Costs 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.077 1.059 1.073 1.152 1.196 1.155 1.236 1.376 1.256 1.352 1.539 1.385 1.479 1.605 1.505 1.603 1.620 1.610 1.678 1.612 1.667 * Preliminary 1st Quarter Estimate (Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rate) (1976 = 1.000) Deflators = Each annual (1972 = 1.000) deflator divided by the respective 1976 deflator (1972 = 1.000) Q-3 Q-4 BffiMBBP^ APPENDIX R SEAM FINDINGS R-l J R-2 Increased Public Costs Due to Natural Population Increase: Fulton County: 1980 - 1990 (1983 Dollars) Annual E for Se stimates rvices Total Estimates for Facilities Low High Annual Estimates Services and Facilities** Public Service Low High Low High Social Welfare 671 889 No Data No Data 667 884 Hospital 5,873 18,458 1,366,508 2,253,592 149,763 255,701 Police 48,712 118,148 54,808 90,385 54,161 126,892 Fire 6,947 43,192 15,927 26,259 8,585 45,676 Sewage 5,672 57,656 782,948 1,291,212 88,101 193,272 Solid Waste 4,161 32,436 No Data No Data 4,134 32,223 Recreation 3,557 29,482 484,599 799,181 54,578 113,456 Libraries 1,762 9,229 130,653 215,460 15,520 31,856 General Government 31,379 61,197 36 , 609 60,386 35,024 67,163 Water Treatment 42,873 70,694 370,212 410,270 81,583 113,439 Education 714,207 1 ,177,855 2,508,885 3,873,684 973,778 1,578,132 TOTALS 865,814 1,619,236 5,751,149 9,020,430 1,465,893 2,558,695 Population Increase 1619* 26701 1619* 2670T 1619* 2670T * SEAM T IBoB ** Facilities' costs discounted over 20 years at 8% interest. R-3 Increased Public Costs Due to Natural Population Increase: Fulton County: 1980 - 2000 (1983 Dollars) Annual Estimates for Services Total Estimates for Facilities Low Hi gh Annual Estimates Services and Facilities** Public Service Low High Low High Social Welfare 1,330 1,86 3 No Data No Data 1,322 1,852 Hospital 11,641 38,679 2 ,708,556 4,722,402 296,845 535,821 Police 96,552 247,579 108,635 189,402 107,353 265,902 Fire 13,770 90,509 31,569 55,026 17,016 95,714 Sewage 11,242 120,818 1 ,551,881 2,705,735 174,625 405,001 Solid Waste 8,248 67,970 No Data No Data 8,194 67,523 Recreation 7,050 61,780 960,524 1,674,684 108,179 237,747 Libraries 3,492 19,339 258,967 451,496 30,762 66,754 General Government 62,196 128,238 72,563 126,539 69,421 140,740 Water Treatment 84,979 148,139 733,797 859,721 161,706 237,711 Education 1,415,630 2 ,468,195 4 ,972,861 8,117,305 1,930,125 3,306,976 TOTALS 1,716,130 3,393,109 11,399,352 18,902,311 2,905,547 5,361,745 Population Increase 3209* 5595t 3209* 5595t 3209* 5595T * SEAM t IBoB ** Facilities' costs discounted over 20 years at 8% interest R-4 Increased Public Costs Due to Natural Population Increase: Fulton County: 1990 - 2000 (1983 Dollars) Annual Estimates Annual Es timates Total Es .tiraates Services and for Servii :es for Facilities Low High Faciliti es** Public Service Low High Low High Social Welfare 659 974 No Data No Data 655 968 Hospital 5,768 20,221 1,342,048 2,468,810 147,082 280,120 Police 47,840 129,431 53,827 99,017 53,192 139,010 Fire 6,823 47,317 15,642 28,767 8,431 50,038 Sewage 5,570 63,162 768,933 1,414,523 86,524 211,729 Solid Waste 4,087 35,534 No Data No Data 4,060 35 , 300 Recreation 3,493 32,298 475,925 875,503 53,601 124,291 Libraries 1,730 10,110 128,314 236,036 15,242 34,898 General Government 30,817 67,041 35 , 954 66,153 34,397 73,577 Water Treatment 42,106 77,445 363,585 449,451 80,123 124,272 Education 701,423 1 ,290,340 2,463,976 4,243,621 956,347 1 ,728,844 TOTALS 850,316 1,773,873 5,648,203 9,881,881 1,439,654 2,803,050 Population Increase 1590* 2925t 1590* 2925t 1590* 2925t * SEAM t IBoB ** Facilities' cost discounted over 20 years at 8% interest. R-5 R-6 •:-r-- <;.;•■ • ..:•••'■■• APPENDIX S REMI/ILFS SCENARIOS S-l _ S-2 ■ ■>:>x E. N. R';. Illirfois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program 325 W. Adams St., Room 300 :. L Springfield, 111 62706 ■■ •. - . ■ ;* - Subject: Comments on draft Illinois Land Report: Rice Lake Conservation Area Gentlemen: In review of the Draft Land Report for the Rice Lake Conservation Area we find the following areas in need of correction: 1) Section XI Page ** 9 Lines 11-15 Delete lines: Although miming and reclamation procedures at Rice Lake probably would differ considerably from those used at Banner Marsh, the two areas have many common features indicating that the most reliable approach to reforestation planning for Rice Lake would be to initiate pilot experiments at Banner Marsh as soon as possible. Reason for change: Banner Marsh no longer has any resemblence to Rice Lake and is a poorly reclaimed area. Soils are no longer similar nor were they ever similar. 2) Section XI Page ^9 ! Line 17 Change to read: Prediction of Negative long-term change in the value of the timber resources is justified. Reason for change: Previous documentation in land report supports this conclusion. 3) Section XI - m Page 50 - -Lines H-19 . J Change to read: A well designed and executed reclamation t V would not result - in an overall increase in the value of \_ the area for migratory waterfowl , since recent waterfowl founts as high as 85. 000 already tax the area's ability to support such large numbers . This high usage by waterfowl ^\ continue-d 10,000 PEOPLE UNITED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT ■ • - - s ! , i A COUNCIL CF NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY CHAPTERS AUD -V. : OGiETY l'. ' '_!. " "■•■...• _ • :.c: Bit or •••, F •-*■;-.- STEF-5-. C'J C : UN" ' au: .'=c ■. i Faiy F res'. VER 1 .' ■_''.'■ suggests the area already has the ingredients needed to support large numbers of waterfowl and this would be difficult to improve upon by the reclamation after mining . Reason for change: Evidence in Chapter VII Page 30, Lines Ur and 5 of Land Report. 4) Section XI Page 50 Line 20 Change to read: Given relatively clear and stable water levels, Rice Lake again(delete<) could be Reason for change: Rice Lake is currently a marsh area as supported by the use of the area by ducks, herons and cormorants. 5) Section XI Page 51 Line 11-14 Change to read: Although remnant forest patches may remain for Wood Duck rearing there v/i 1 1 not be water ad.jacent to these areas and the Wood Ducks will not be willing or able to move their young north through mining area to Round Pond . Reason for change: Mining disturbances and distance will not permit Wood Ducks to move young from nesting area to open water of Round Pond. 6) Section XI Page 52 Line 6 Change to read: Lowering of the water table' to dewater mining areas will render these areas Reason for change: The drying out of these habitats will make them unsuitable for amphibians and reptiles. 7) Section XI Page 55 . _ Line 2-5 "Change line starting with" If" to read: Post reclamation " : food conditions for eagles would not improve over present conditions because , as evidenced by their usage , current v/ater conditions and fish populations are favored by T v Bald Eagles . continued 10,000 PEOPLE UNITED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT - T N ^s*l C >" ■ •? /^*4 - Lll L U /; COUNCIL OF NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY CHAPTERS . i • ■• Reason for change: There is no supportive evidence in Land Report, or elsewhere, that a reclaimed Rice Lake would be more to the liking of Bald Eagles. From their usage, evidence is clear they prefer the current habitat. The stress of finding different winter habitat could cause the loss of many Eagles. s: : • r -, Sincerely, Marvin P.Schwartz President RW'LlC'. 1 :." s~ 10,000 PEOPLE UNITED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT • . ■ ■'■ :■:.•■:■•:: •; Critique of 1DEINK L.'ind Report pertaining to i-etition to Declare RI.CA Unsuitable for Surface Mining Chapter: VII Currently Reads « Page i VII-7 Faragraph i 2 Line : 3 "Most aquatic plant beds have been eliminated and marsh p] ants have been reduced drastically as the result of decreased light penetration and the unconsolidated nature of the lake sediments" • Changed to Read: Most aquatic plant beds have been eliminated and marsh plants have been reduced drastically as the result of fluctuating water levels, decreased light penetration due to the un- consolidated nature of lake sediments, and the heavy application of herbicides used to control aquatic plant growth during the 1950's . Reason for Change (Rationale) and Substantiating Evidence i The evidence fox^ "fluctuating water levels" is confirmed by the natural and artificial (man-made) influx of water from the Illinois river to Rice lake. The raising and lowering of Rice lake water levels through the use of levees and culverts by the DOC results in lowered lake levels during late spring, and raised levels during autumn. The purpose of this drawdown and flooding, respectively, is to promote small grain crop production, and to improve hunting in and around the conser- vation area. A dramatic, sudden rise and fall of water levels (as evidenced by waterfowl hunting enhancement techniques in the spring and fall) could have an adverse effect on native marsh and aquatic plant communities. The "heavy application of herbicides to control aquatic plant growth during the 1950' s" is documented by various in- dividuals (Bellrose at Morton Arboretum, 1981; DOC personnel at a Teoria public hearing in 1981; and eye-witnesses to the event). There wore two accountable aprplications i Ono was the aerial spraying of the herbicide, and the other method was by direct application of the herbicide into the water from the back of a boat. Apparently, the aquatic vegetation interfered with motor boat use in the Rice lake area. Complaints to the DOC by irritated motor boat users that the aquatic vegetation seriously hampered motor boat performance resulted in the ensuing herbicide application. Unfortunately, the herbicide did not contain itself to the designated channels and target areas. The- toxin then proceeded to adversely affect the «?] AUG 12 1983 ' E.N.R. entire marsh and aquatic plant populations in the Rice lake area. The exact herbicide used has not been identified at this time. Conclusion Throughout the Biological Resources Chapter (VII) in the Illinois Land Report, numerous references to the con- spicuous absence of submerged aquatic vegetation can be traced not only to water management policies practiced by the DOC, but more importantly, to the J_950's herbicide fiasco. Such a profound reduction in aquatic plant growth must be accountable somewhere, and the evidence of herbicide use would substantiate that claim. Christopher Bronny 56: N. Prairie Galesburg, Illinois 61401 (309) 3^2-9759 A Jgf 1 ~1 (9-# *» ^-^ .-<;";.,- A QjLj^ Xa ~>?<-jUlJz^ \^l i ^L -uu-tLuU , £& ^^ CXt ^ s£. ~^_*_-« _* 2 a j 'jut cjL Ol-sor_ JU -vL-e-. , £ .£_« — ^ (^ jZ L-£^£a-«-_ / cr< Critique of IDS and KR Report Pertaining to Petition to Declare RCLA Unsuitable for Surface Mining Chapter IA-page k "Tha Land Report also addresses all of the allegations in the petition and will document the quality and quantity of exis- ting resources in both the petition area and in the surroun- ding region. It also examines how these resources might change in the future under two conditions: 1) raining doe s not occur or 2) raining does occur in the petition area." Omission in the Land Report : 1) The Crendorf site, a large temple town, overlooked Lake Rice had been strip mined, and is gone. 2) Hiring of Lake Rice would destroy the many possible sites for further exploration in this region. These possible sites for exploration are listed, with evidence which susrs;ests earlier civilizations. Helen Pence, CPKC Board Abingdon, IL AUG 12 1983 E. N. R. - Critique of IDS and NH Report Pertaining to Fetition to Declare RCLk Unsuitable for Surface Kinlng Chapter Xl-Pac-e 9 Geolop-ic Hazards . . . Second, sand and gravel deposits that are hydraulically connected with lakes or with the river outside the mine area night yield significant colunes of water to the nine pit. This could affect the stability of a levee which crosses such a depositif the difference in water levels across the levee is large . . . This potential difficulty could be nitigated by noving the nine boundary and levee to an area not underlain by gravel or by designating an engineered solution to the problen." Conclusion : The problen is stated, but either solution for construction of the levee is not outlined. Cbviously, the location of the levee as presented is not feasible. Either solution listed above :'*ould change conditions in the area, which means we do not know what we are beinp; asked to respond to. Therefore, the land report is incomplete and irrelevant, - and more work is needed before we can respond in a meaning- ful manner. 'MUL^ ^2- %%W\ AUG 12 1983 Helen Pence, CPKC Board Abingdon, II E. N. R. Critique of IDE and XI Report Pertaining to Petition to Declare RCL/i. Unsuitable for Surface Mining; Summar y of Findings: P. 23-- "Although it is a possibility, there is no geologic or hydraulic evidence presently available to support the conten- tion that these springs and seeps are perennial and are fed by some source of water other than surface drainage." P.ission in the Reoort : A field investigation of these streams would be the best and most scientific way to check for evidence. It could be done through the i\ T indshleld of a car, and would be very simple to do. In this August of I983, one of the most prolonged drought periods in recent years, many of these streams were still running. This could not be surface runoff. The report is Inconclusive at best. . « IS AUG 12 1983 . ^w-<_JLd_^ pi- Helen Pence, CPKC Board Abingdon , IL E. N. R. - Critique of IDE and Nr Report Pertaining to Petition to Declare RCli. Unsuitable for Surface Mining Summary of Findings P. 22 — "Since the post-mining area will be enclosed by levees high enough to protect it from the 100-year flood, proper con- trol structures make it likely that a reclaimed Rice Lake will be better able to meet the DOC management goals than the exist- ing lake." 01 : 1 S SI ON I! T THE REPORT : In wha t wa y will the DOC management goals be improved? Rice Lake is already providing food and habitat for wild life under DOC management. P. 19--"Rice Lake is presently the only permit duck hunting area in the state open to the public (DOC 19?3). During the period 1975-1922, the RCLA has annually hosted an average of 1,1517 hunters who bagged an average of 1 , 363 "waterfowl per year. . . 3oth sport and commercial fishing occur at RCLA." DOC management •practices would appear to be successful at the present time. The Land Report has not documented the above statement in any way, so it Is entirely without supporting evidence. Helen Pence, CPKC Board Bonn Ablngdon ' IL AUG 12 1983 E. N. R. Critique of IDE and I'R Report Fertalninc to Fetition to Declare °.CLi. Unsuitable for Surface fining Ch. Xl-6 Non-Coal Resources Sand and Gravel . . ."the mine plan could be implemented to maximize the time that the existing gravel operation has to operate, delaying the raining of the sand and gravel areas." Om i s s i on in the r e po r t : In the first place we do not have a mine plan to address, so anything said here is hypothetical. In any mine plan, the ind- ustry is lost, and the impact on the community in terms of services and construction materials is not addressed, and, in terms of jobs lost, the meaning of this to the community. Helen Fence, CFKC 3oard Abingdon, IL ' AUG 121983 E. N. R. Critique of IDS and !*R Report Pertaining to Petition to Declare RCLA Unsuitanle for Surface Kinlng Summary of Flndlnp-s — page 26 "Although no endangered or threatened species of mammals are known from Rice Lake.," • • . Ch VI .L cage 3 9 . . . "three species are potential Inhabitants of the area and cannot be regarded as absent without further study . . . the more mature floodplain forests of RL provide critical summer habitat for the Indiana bat, including both maternity roost sites and foraging areas. However,' no studies of the bat fauna of BL have been conducted. Consequently the INKS will conduct a study at RL during the *-933 breeding season. With its large acreage of wooded shoreline and bottomland forest, the RCIi- , in combination with adjacent land, provides many of the habitat requirements of the river otter and the bobcat, both state threatened mammals. Neither species, however, has been documanted in the area in recent years . ' Conclusions : This would indicate that these have been found in the area in the past, and have been known here. Appendix F lists these as "known or potential" occurence at RCLA. Therefore, the above statement has been made without consideration of past ev- idence, and without research into present population of endan- If AUG 12 1983 E. N. R. I Helen Pence Abingdon , IL igle Valley Environmentalists, Inc. <■•• Off,. ,; Bm MS. iprl* H.rrr. II. f> J <*» / f»feiMiri(MJ5j5V4-2£5V August 9, 1983 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lanis Unsuitable for Mining Program 325 W. Adams Street, Room 300 Springfield, IL 62706 Dear Sirs: AUG 15 1983 I appreciated receiving a copy of your draft Illinois Land Report: Rice Lake Conservation Area for public comment. I am commenting primarily on the biological section as that is the section over which I have the most know- ledge. Basically, I am going to comment on deficiencies and inconsistencies of this draft copy. On page VI-36 under Wildlife Habitat Suitability you state that Table VI-10 rates the RLCA for general habitat potential. What is your source of informa- . tion for this table? Is this a standard table of soil types or something you developed? On page VII-9 you state that the lake depth has been increased in 1945, 1953 and 1961. Then you state what effect this has had on the plant life. Be- cause DOC draws down the water level every summer, the time of year when Bellrose's study was conducted in 1979, could affect his results. On page VII -10 it is stated that the secluded nature of Round Pond and Fiddler's Slough provides good foraging uonditions for herons and eagles. I challenge this statement concerning eagles. These ponds are the first to freeze over and thus, are not able to be used by a majority of eagles, as they are pri- marily in the area during the winter months. What studies have been done to document the eagles' use of these areas? If any had been conducted, it would have recorded far more eagles in the RLCA than you state elsewhere in this report. From your statements on page VII-10 and VII-11, it seems there appears to be a difference of opinion as to the amount of vegetation in Rice Lake according to the two studies you quote (Paveglis 1979 and Bellrose et al. 1979). On page VII-11 you state "no biological studies appear to have been con- ducted on the shrub swamps of the RLCA." On page VI1-20 it is stated a DOC sponsored bird study was conducted in June of 1983. On page VII-39 the report states "INHS will conduct a study to investigate the presence of the Indiana bat at Rice Lake during the 1983 breeding season." On VII-43 .you state that "a systematic winter study is needed in addition to the breeding bird survey,." The results of these studies should be considered in the final report. How is this going to be possible? — see page 2 ; ; i liioj i> i'i.pdi crnen t Natural ke: Hirers August 9,. 198' Page 2 t-.Ii.Vl g , When you discuss the use oi the area oy the only federally endangered species., the bald eagle, there is no recoi .nendation tor an ind..>pth study of the eagle use of the area. why not? The axisting duta which you quote is very limited nnd misleading. For the public hearing, 1 will present evidence which shows that Rice Lake is important t' • as many as 75-80 eagles foraqing along the Illinois River, and several of. i s back water lakes and that we know of at least three (3) nighttime roosts wi lin the RLC\. You tnve available signed affidavits from DOC personnel scat i iig they have seen far more than the misleading 20 eagles stated in your repor? on page VII 40. We also have a signed affidavit from retired DOC personnel r.hat bald eagles have nested at Rice Lake for many years in the past. Thus, your state- ment that eagles were first observed at Rice Lake in 1973 is very misleading. You state that the eagle use is increasing. Perhaps only observations are in- creasing and no attempt was ever made to uetermine eagle use of the area- in the past. On page VII-46 it is stated that."th< area used oy the eagles (on the north end) as a communal roosting site is being considered for inclusion in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Mickelson - 1983,". And on page XI-51 you stated that "the central and southern portions of the area would not be mined." What, pray tell, portion of the area will be mined? On page VII-48 it is state 5 that, "b< rause it it covered .;ith a productive community of green plants which is accumu ating organic matter, Rice Lake, in contrast to the cornbelt in general, servt s as a sink f o r. _ca rbon . " Phis is quite a contrast to your statements from Bellro: a on page VI 1-9. Be careful of how you put your tongu- in your, cheek as you do on page Xl-46 with the following statement - you are li.ble to bite it off. "Furthermore, productivity of existing floodplain tree would be e-> counter- balance the predicted improvement." The facts speak for themselves - the RbCA was purchased for and is being managed ;or waterfowl. Destruction of this habi- tat through mining would have a devastating effect on many species which presently find their life requirement in the RLCA and are enjoyed by many pec pic, either fishing, hunting, bird watchinq or conducting nature studies. This long-term destruction out weighs by far the short term economic gain for a few-. I will be anxious to see the final report and see the addition of the various stucies that are or have been conducted on the RLCA. Thank you for the opportunity to present my comments on this draft report. Sincerely, Terrence N. Ingr Executive Direcfo TNI:ava c/c John Grigsby Jim Engel Al Mickelson Marvin Schwartz HE FREEMAN UNITED COAL MINING COMPANY DIVISION OF MATERIAL SERVICE CORPORATION PO BOX 1SB7 123 SOUTH lOTH STREET • MT VERNON, ILLINOIS 62881 • 81S/2«a«l-3232 August 12, 1983 (gOT AUG 1 5 1983 E. N. R.\ Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program 325 West Adams Street, Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Dear Sir: In reviewing the Draft Illinois Land Report: Rice Lake Conservation Area , I would like to commend the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources for the quality of work involved in the preparation of this report. However, I would like to make a few comments which relate to Freeman United Coal Mining Company's proposal to the Illinois Department of Conservation (DOC) to mine the Rice Lake Area. 1. The report does not assess the immediate contribution to the natural resources and recreational potential of the area gained by the resulting control of an additional 1764 acres (Fulton and Peoria Counties) in the Banner Marsh Area by the DOC, and how this might offset any possible short term losses by mining within the Rice Lake Conservation Area (RLCA) . (Note that this acreage is incorrectly described as 338 acres on Page 7 of the summary . ) 2. Our proposal would also involve transferring to the DOC after mining an additional 2,382 acres contiguous to the present 2,694 acre RLCA. The future value of a greatly expanded RLCA to the wildlife resources and recreational needs within this area has not been assessed in the draft report. The DOC acquires Banner Marsh and Rice Lake, which becomes an integral resource management unit of approximately 10,000 acres. 3. As stated on Page 29 of the summary, coal mining at Rice Lake would produce an estimated 2.3 million tons of processing wastes. In our proposal to the DOC (as -noted on Page 5 of Chapter XI) , the coal would be processed and the refuse dis- posed of by burying and covering with non-acid producing material at our Buckheart Mine facilities outside of the RLCA. Given this assumption, then the statement (Page 49 of the summary) that the hypothetical reclaimed RLCA is assumed to be hydrologically similar to the Banner Mine Area probably will not be applicable especially as to water quality. The assumed slight decrease in alkalinity, as a result of buffering acid drainage (Page 49 of the summary) and the pure speculation that concentrations of some trace metals, probably lead and Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program August 12, 1983 Page 2 cadmium, would exceed recommended limits (Page 50 of the summary) would probably be mitigated. It should also be noted that the Illinois EPA tested for lead at the Banner Mine in 1976 and found that the concentration was below their level of detection. In discussing the recoverable reserves within a sixty mile radius of Rice Lake, the ENR report states "within a relevant six county region there is about 600 million to two billion tons of other surface mineable coal resources with high de- velopment potential". These projections were made from ISGS Circular 504, published in 1978. Quoting from Page 2 of Circular 504, "This report is an overview and should be used only as a guide to more detailed investigation for specific areas". Almost all of the undeveloped blocks of "high de- velopment potential" are based on insufficient exploration data to outline proven economically strippable deposits. Also, many limiting factors to strip mining could obviously not be assessed in such a state-wide overview. The strippable reserves for this six county area were mapped in the early 1960's and are influenced (including the "high development potential" resources) only by the coal data avail- able to the ISGS at that time. Since the time these reserves were mapped, most all of the present economically proven strippable Springfield (No. 5) Coal has been exhausted. In addition, the Herrin (No. 6) Coal has been determined by the coal operators in this area to be uneconomical at the present time due to the large amount of reject material associated with this seam. Therefore, increased attention in recent years has been given to the Colchester (No. 2) Coal, resulting in additional explora- tion data which has not been utilized by the ISGS in its strip- pable reserve determination. Excluding reserves already con- trolled by coal companies, all the remaining blocks of strippable No. 2 Coal with "high development potential" for which we have additional exploration data, were found to be less than adequate for present mining. Substantial portions of the areas projected to contain No. 2 Coal at depths of less than 75 feet were found to be barren due to the occurance of thicker than anticipated unconsolidated surficial (drift) deposits resulting in erosion of the coal. Therefore, excessive stripping ratios (due in part to variance in the projected elevation of the coal) and inadequate quantities of coal were found. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program August 12, 1983 Page 3 Several of the outlined strippable blocks consist of areas of the No. 5 and No. 6 Coals abandoned by Consolidation Coal Company and Midland Coal Company; also, Amax Coal Company has announced its intention to suspend operations in the No. 2 Coal in Fulton County. These actions certainly cast doubt as to the "high development potential" of these reserves . After reviewing the complete report, we feel the content is supportative of our proposal to mine the Rice Lake Area and is not in conflict with public interest. Sincerely, / a^uf M. V. Harrell Senior Vice President MVHtld Regarding: Land Report (Rice Lake) Illinois Dept. of ENR Lands Unsuitable for Mining 325 W. Adams, Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Pam Fortado Gibson 866 Doolin Ave. Jacksonville, Illinois 62650 AUG 1 5 1983 E M Ki (VIIC) Wildlife - Species/Habitat Relationships ■■••^••M The report states: " Because of the large number of species which occur in the petition area and the small amount of information available on many of these, it is impractical to assess existing resources or to predict how these resources will change on a species by species basis." The above statement is inaccurate; a great deal of information is readily available to any competent researcher, both historical information, local collections, museum specimens and current notes of species documentation that contain documentation for all seasons. Both government agency and private bird documentation is available. Without at least a primary assessment of wildlife species, one cannot possible ascertain the unsuitability of mineral extraction from this area. Thus in my opinion, ENR has failed to present the full wildlife picture of this public owned acreage. (VII-20) Birds: This section is in gross error by stating, "These birds nest in a colony on the east side of the Illinois River approximately 2 miles from the the petition area." The statement refers to mixed herons. Extensive documentation exists for heron nesting immediately in the Rice Lake Conservation area historically, found in Graber and Graber , ~J^\(\J.\\- *?> • Black Crown Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) is a documented nester for the Rice Lake Conservation area, CURRENTLY with multiple observers. It is easily deemed probable that this area will be extensively used for nesting by ALL heron species (AS IT HAS IN THE PAST) as the herons population cycles continue and their nest sites are changed AS PROVEN IN THE PAST FOR THIS SAME AREA. (VII-20) Birds: The study states, " More complete and reliable information on the breeding birds of the area will be available after completion of an DOC sponsored study being conducted in June 1983." It is unfortunate that personel of ENR should choose to say that information gathered by anyone else would be more "reliable" than the information historically gathered by employees of ENR, namely Drs . Richard and Jean Graber. It is a noted lack that overlooks the TYPE of DOC sponsored study which should be detailed. BY DOC DEFINITION, the avian survey is no more than a "sampling method" for comparative use. The guide- lines for this specific DOC sponsored survey are «^^ and restricted. This survey began by date, AFTER NESTING OF IMPORTANT RAPTORS AND ENDED BEFORE FLEDGING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES and does not incorporate the vital function of both spring, fall and winter use by birds, endangered, threatened or even uncommon species. This same DOC sponsored survey does NOT specifically allow for extensive time in nest documentation or even allow for full coverage of the 2 500* acres of the Rice Lake Conservation area because it deals with specific observation points, I object that a mere "sampling method" would be employed as "more complete and reliable information" to extensive studies available within the ENR (Grabers) with absolutely no effort to obtain or use other information and studies available in the private and public sector. (VII-30 - third paragraph: The report states, " Wood Ducks are the only waterfowl which regularly breed at Rice Lake (Emerick 1982) . Again, this statement is in error, one must suppose that Emerick DID NOT CONDUCT AN EXTENSIVE SURVEY OF THE RICE LAKE AREA PRIOR TO HIS COMMENT or he would have DISCOVERED other "waterfowl" species that REGULARLY BREED in Rice Lake Conservation area. I must assume that members of the Illinois Natural History Survey did not conduct even a primary survey of the area either. Perhaps ENR does NOT include Mallards ,H-Mergansers & B-winged Teal, Waterfowl ? By all other definitions these species are considered I waterfowl and have regularly reproduced in the Rice Lake area and OTHERS. (VII-40) Birds: The report states : "Eagles were first observed at Rice Lake in autumn during the 1973 sampling and in spring during the 1980 sampling." Historical reference to Bald Eagles at Rice Lake is easily obtained through local references for at least the past 40 years for both winter and breeding seasons. One should pay most particular attention to the SPRING sighting by Illinois Natural History Survey; it is quite commonly accepted that wintering Bald Eagles within the Illinois River Valley LEAVE on a mean average , generally accepted by all government agencies on or near the FIRST OF MARCH. Bald Eagles sighted AFTER March 1st are not considered "winter species". In the early days of March, in direct connection to weather patterns, some Bald Eagles could be termed as "late migrants", individuals. It should be noted that IN the state of Illinois, the breeding season for Bald Eagles, even farther north than Rice Lake actually BEGINS in March. ^ The glaring omission of discussion regarding possible "nesting" of Bald Eagles at Rice Lake is inexcusable in a competent and unbiased presentation of the natural resources of Rice Lake, historical, current and potentials. ._ . In light of the fact that both the Illinois DOC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have both been notified that adult Bald Eagles were observed regularly throughout April and May of 1982 and that notification occured PRIOR to the petition procedure and the Land Report, one must seriously question the efforts made by the ENR staff to present a complete and unbiased data base for the petition area. PLEASE NOTE: The habitat of the Rice Lake Conservation area does include all known habitat components for use by Bald Eagles during their known nesting season within the Central Zone of Illinois; and that their presence has been observed and documented by multiple observers that include DOC employees^ , numerous residents of Fulton County, Richard S. Sandburg , W.V. O'Brien, members of the Great Lakes Sierra Chapter and myself. An ENR publication was dedicated to W.V. O'Brien and that same publication includes verified and accepted sightings by O'Brien, Sandburg and myself AND that same publication is listed in the references used by this very J.and report. These same observers, ALREADY RECOGNISED BY ENR did observe regularly, adult Bald Eagles during the months of April and May of 1982. Why was this discussion omitted ? It is probably the single most serious deficency in the entire land report. STILL on page VII-40 The use of aerial census to determine Bald Eagle numbers in a heavily wooded area is a questionable procedure with relatively few conclusions verified by ground observers. |\iUO.L "TUOpS \& &*i~ lO^^iL ~?O^AL- The relatively undisturbed part of the petition area being considered for inclusion in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory: Considering that even the Illinois DOC have taken steps to legally protect this area from future destruction of many types, this report should indicate how this area would be protected from mining and what steps would eliminate the IMPACT from mining nearby on this rare and unique portion of public land. In actuality, the steps taken by the DOC to PRESERVE this area should be viewed as surpassing a request to declare the petition area unsuitable for mining. > Page X-64 Regarding the economy and this ridiculous statement: "People could go elsewhere within the state for recreation. They probably will." The statement is so faulty, it really does not deserve detailed comment. However, let it be NOTED that no other public owned acreage contains the same components of recreational values as the Rice Lake Conservation area within a hundred mile drive. To list only a few of these components: :£-*v oav PubVf fc. >ft rapt/o^^ ; 1. suitable canoe course during flood season, the ONLY one in the Illinois River Valley. 2. more than 100 herons easily viewed for more than 5 consecutive months. 3. Bald Eagles, easily observed throughout the winter and breeding seasons 4. A large variety of rare bird species easily viewed throughout the year. 5. numerous endangered species (avian) easily observed both winter and summer. 6. large and diverse species of waterfowl easily viewed in flocks 7. numerous bars and shallows for shorebirds in all the appropriate seasons 8. overnight camping 9. easy access by foot and canoe to natural backwater woodlands and 10. A unique outdoors experience worth driving hundreds of miles for across or down the entire state. The potential of Rice Lake as a midwestern drawing card for increased tourism was totaly ignored I In fact, the factual INCREASE of tourism due to publicity of rare bird sightings in the petition area was not even noted. Page XI-28 Impact ? to Wetlands ? i Incredible that this report would state " Thus, this area will be removed from wetland-backwater lake habitat for the duration of mining, BUT IGNORES THE IMPACTS OF THIS REMOVAL WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THIS REMOVAL ???? Page XI-50, AGAIN, the erroneous statement that Wood Ducks are the only breeding waterfowl of Rice Lake I A question; It is suggested by Emerick that some of the migrants probably will be able to meet their requirements by utilizing adjacent lakes, reservoirs and bottomlands. How did Emerick arrive at this questionable conclusion ? Are the requirements even known for Double- crested Cormorants and many other bird species ? What base does Emericl use for habitat availability+ carrying capacity of what areas ??? Such questionable probabilities have no place in a data base but are only the supposition (without supporting text) of an individual. U Page XI-55 Endangered and Threatened Species (Birds) I find it entirely deficient I Not one word regarding the loss of nesting endangered bird species I Documentation regarding such is readily obtained. The mere mention of "artificial roosts" without proper reference and text of established success ANYWHERE is unquestionably a piece of far flung theory by someone. WHO ? Notes regarding endangered and threatened bird species of Rice Lake and KNOWN Illinois CURRENT distribution in relation to their historic distribution should be included by SPECIES, individual. By omitting discussion of each individual species, ENR clearly biases this Land Report by an obvious subtraction of Natural Resource values. If this is the best information that the combined sources of ENR can produce regarding Endangered and threatened bird species, it is quite clear that additional personnel should be sought ! Because a complete lack of even a check list for this area was not included in this report, values as a natural resource, as a recreational area and as a wildlife area in general cannot be ascertained from this report, for they are all understated I It is sincerely hoped that prior to producing another such document, ENR will acquire staff with avian expertise for the specific production of same I Those of ENR with avian expertise at this writing obviously did not project many man-hours on the Land Report. Were they even allowed imput and why is the avian information so lacking in proportion to other issues ? ALL other issues ? It is obvious that the entire Land Report was dedicated by hours, pages, paragraph by paragraph to the "SUITABILITY OF MINING RICE" not the "Unsuitability" claimed by the petition. A total of hours for this projection and incidentally, the cost per discussion should be made available to the Illinois public. In general, regarding avian species, it is my opinion that this report does not clarify the significance overall or individually of rare bird species and is therefore dreadfully biased by this lack. ^w^-A 3 ^^ Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program 325 W. Adams St. Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Subject: Comments on draft Illinois Land Report: Rice Lake Conservation Area. 1. Chapter X. XD, Economic Issues : The Land report omitted an important economic loss to Pulton County. Within the proposed mining area is II65 acres of farm land that would be affected. This does not include approximately 600 acres on Duck Island. The perimeter of Rice Lake and Duck Island is subject to flooding, but each year this acreage is in farm production with no substantial loss due to flooding. The average yeild, bushel per acre of corn in Fulton County 1979- I98I was 111 bushel. The Average price $2.50 per bushel. Taking these figures, $2.50 x 111 bushels' x H65 acres x 15 years - $4,8^-9,312 that will be lost due to mining. This problem should be studied more indepth before the final land report is completed. I. Chapter X Page ^9. Paragraph 2. Currently reads: "If Rice Lake is mined r it is estimated that the State of Illinois could recieve approximately $13 to $19 million in sales tax revenue. Fulton County could recieve about $2 to $4 million. However, this assumes that 100% of the Rice Lake coal will be sold in state." Delete : The above sentences . Reason for change: The Rice Lake report should be based on facts, research, and data available. In your report it is stated that 65%- 68% of coal will be sold out of state and this is normal for Illinois . Therefore all sales tax revenue that would be received should reflect this data. The land report should not be based on assumptions or possible senarios. Kenneth Grigsby R. R. #3 Canton, II. 61520 (309) 647-1568 AUG 15 1983 E. M. R. UG 11 1983 A AE.N.I& OIS ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 102 Circle Drive Cambridge, IL 61238 August 8, 1983 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program 32$ W. Adams Street, Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Dear Sirs: As president of the Illinois Association for Advancement of Archaeology I wish to comment on the contents of the draft Land Report on the Rice Lake Conservation Area. Since our prime concern is the archaeology of the area these comments will be directed at those sections pertaining to the cultural resources of the Rice Lake Conservation Area. Our members are interested in both preservation and the scientific investigation of important archaeological sites in Illinois. Because of the lack of information on a definite mining plan we feel hampered in an evaluation of the overall effect to the archaeology of the surrounding region if the Rice Lake Conservation Area should be declared suitable for surface mining. The Report deals only with the State property but we are concerned as well with the effect on the archaeology of contiguous properties now in private ownership. Taken as a whole, the resource person who developed the cultural resource sections of the Rice Lake Lands Report is to be commended for being as thorough and objective given the constraints of time allotted to examine the site and the limitation of being able to comment only on State property. Chapter VIII, Page 5, Paragraphs 2&3 indicate that Site F-39 is important archaeologically but Chapter VIII, Page 6, Paragraph 1, Lines 5 & 6 reads, "Unfortunately, the present location of this collection of materials is unknown, so further appraisal is impossible." Since the site includes earthen mounds and a village site, there is need for further scientific investigation of Site F-39. Chapter VIII, Pages 6 & 7 lists Site F-40 and indicates that it is a multi-component site showing both Archaic and Woodland manefestations yet the record is incomplete as to where the site fits into these time frames which span 9>000 years of pre-history. Further study and evaluation is needed for Site F-40. Chapter VIII, Page 7, Paragraphs 2 & 3 deals with Site F-284 and states that "there is no record of the nature of the artifacts found." Paragraph 3, Lines 5 & 6 States "that two Paleo-Indian projectile points were found near F-284." Paleo- Indian cultural period is not well dfined except to a time period of 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The antiquity of F-284 should call for further investigation as stated in Paragraph 4, Lines 3 & k which reads "More extensive investigations will be required to assess adequately F-284.." A ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEttENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY Land Report RLCA page 2 A Chapter VIII, Page 7, Paragraph 5, tells that the limited survey that was conducted disclosed three more prehistoric sites and illustrates again the need for further investigation. Chapter VIII, Page 12, Paragraph 3, Lines 8,9 & 10 states, "Further coring will be needed to provide more definitive" conclusions about these valley margin deposits, but it is likely that buried sites are present along the valley margin." Chapter VIII, Page 13, Paragraph 1, Lines 3 through 7 states, "The interface between valley margin slope wash deposits and floodplain deposits has a particularly high potential for buried sites. The belt of valley margin/f loodplain deposits to the west of Rice Lake is a high potential area." Chapter VIII, Page 15, Paragraph 2 discusses historic cultural resources and sites and says, "There are no historic sites recorded in Illinois master site file for RLCA. However, limited site reconnaissance indicates that there are three historic scatters along the western margin of Duck Island and documentary searches of the area indicates that there are five potential historic sites." Chapter VIII, Page 16, Paragraph 3, states, "As in the case with prehistoric resources, the data base for historic sites is probably incomplete and under represents the actual number of historic sites." A thorough reading of Chapter XI, Pages 58 & 59 reinforces the necessity of more complete survey of the RLCA before the impact of mining on the socioeconomic resources can be evaluated. Mining does not damage but totally destroys prehistoric and historic sites. In Fulton County this destruct- ion has been an ongoing process for years leading to the d&sfuction of hundreds of sites. The public deserves not only to have scientific study of these resources but action must be taken to preserve our cultural heritage for future generations . cc: John Grigsby,SRLAA Most sincerely. **c ^ oR 3 C^'° n August lA, 1983 AUG 15 1983 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program 325 W. Adams St. Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Subject: Comments on draft Illinois Land Report: Rice Lake Cc|^e§N2vtK* v Area. Sirs, It is very difficult to formulate a comment on the Pre-draft of the land report concerning RLGA. The bulk of the document, the very short allotted time and the evasiveness of your considerations. The report is saturated with the following descriptive words and phrases : ( is expected- make it likely -will have to address- could probably- would probably - may be - should provide - could be improved - might be - should be- probably would be - would appear - are expected - should not affect - should not - are assumed - we anticipate - it is unlikely - it seems reasonable- tend to be - little is known - presumably). The above descriptive phrases which are not conclusive do not reflect facts. Time and space will not permit us to comment on all of the discrepancies;. = = in the report. Following are a selected few. 1. Page ^3 (summary), line 13. Reads : " The area affected by reduced visibility would be restricted to only a few feet down-stream from the mine. Delete: The word downstream. Should read: Due to the prevailing wind direction at Peoria which is from the South during all months except I^bruary and March, the the affected area would have reduced visibility for several hundred feet upstream . Reason for change: If the wind is out of the South it is impossible for the mine dust and aerosols to drift downstream. 2. Page ^4- (summary). Paragraph 2. Reads : It is not known where specific mining might take place in the RLGA and there-fore assessment of impacts regarding buffer area is not possible. However, it is anticipated that any potential conflict could be mitigated. Delete : The statement- "However it is anticipated that any potential conflict could be mitigated." Reason for change : How can ENR anticipate mitigation of a potential conflict of which they have no knowledge of the magnitude or the location? 3. Page 11-26. Figure II-2. (chart) You omitted the review and recommendation by the Conservation & Natural Resource Committee of the Fulton County Board. Please re-address this exclusion. b. Page ^9. (summary) Line 1. Reads: Inflow to this area, instead of being held "by the lake, will be pumped away. Please clerify: Pumped away to where? Reason for question: This is not clear facts and should be addressed in. great detail the discharge area, the discharge rate, the size and description of the resevoir from which it is pumped away . JX&^-T^^ John R. Grigsby Sr. President SRLAA R. R. #3 /Canton, 11. 61.520 (309) 6^7-^865 ■ : southern illinois audubon society a chapter of illinois audubon society box 1267 carbondale, illinois 62901 15 August, 1983 TO: Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Lands Unsuitable for Mining Program 325 W. Adams St. , Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 FROM: W. Clark Ashby, Conservation Chairman RE: Illinois Land Report Rice Lake Conservation Area I aM QAl- a wish to comment on the draft land report which reached me just this after- noon. We have since then spent a considerable amount of time studying and discussing its contents. I request that my comments be included in the lands unsuitable decision process. The Report, and the Petition from which it originated, are both of great significance as the first of their kind under the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87, so far as I know in Illinois. I wish to commend the preparers of the draft land report for a thorough and comprehensive presentation, given time constraints and limitations in the present data base for such studies. Its strength is greater in postulating expected short- term losses (costs) in present values of the Rice Lake area from mining compared to possible long-term gains (benefits). More attention could well be given to the processes of succession in community development, and to the significance of introduced species (weeds) in the early stages of succession. The Petition is the first instance known to me in which a citizens group has endorsed natural communities as a higher and better land use, compared to corn for example, under P.L. 95-87. This action could well herald a new and important change of philosophy toward reclamation. The societal values of natural areas and wildlife have too long been neglected in land-use planning of surface-mined areas. Rice Lake has high value for possible demonstration of both aquatic and terrestrial reclamation techniques for non-agricultural needs. If I may also wear my hat as a professor at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale who has worked with reclamation of disturbed lands since 1950, I feel a serious omission in such a Report is a failure to document, or even recognize, the possibilities of improved soils and vegetation in reclamation. Restoration may not be good enough. With reference to page XI-31, par. 1, much research information is already available showing the value of using materials lower in the overburden for constructing post-mining soils. Attention must be paid to particle sizes greater than 2 mm in building minesoils. Coarse fragments contribute to improved soil air and water relations, to better pH and nutrient levels, and lessen compaction damage. The literature cited emphasizes agricultural studies which are scarcely appropriate for the land uses proposed in the Rice Lake plan. Page XI-36, par. 3, speaks of, "...best current practices...", which needs clarification. "Current practices" have yet to merit a connotation of "best". Mining an area such as Rice Lake should be planned to use reclamation practices which maximize the potential for productive ecosystems. Alternative practices should be implemented under P.L. 95-87 as variances and as experimental practices to the prevailing requirements. Examples of potentially better practices are too per cent recycled paper -2- use of dragline pullback for approximate grading to lessen compaction, greater mixing of overburden materials, and band plantings of trees and grass-legume mixes to eliminate the problem of herbaceous cover overwhelming tree seedlings. Use of these practices will fulfill the intent of the Act for better long-term reclamation. Clarification may be needed in the Report that mining is a process which takes place over a number of years. Habitats are improved for some species and degraded for others. Species are displaced to other habitats over a period of time, and the reclaimed areas rapidly become available for wildlife use as shown by the return of the giant Canada goose to Knox and Fulton Counties on stripmined lands. The Southern Illinois Audubon Society will be pleased to respond to further requests for comments on the Rice Lake Conservation Area. I am enclosing a copy of our earlier Resolution on Surface Mining of Rice Lake. We wish to encourage greatly the recognition of ecological values in reclamation assessments. If possible please allow at least six weeks for action by the Society on conservation issues. Enclosure fihtifttr* IM. A*fl/, $»*, RIC E UKE PROPOSED MIKING PasSCcL *'*U, /3, /?// In August 1976 the SIAS passed a Surface Mining Policy after a series of discussions by the membership. There is now a proposal by the Freeman United Coal Mining Company to surface nine the Rice Lake Conservation Area near the Illinois River south of Peoria. Plans for the mining include Freeman giving the Illinois Department of Conserva- tion its lands in the adjacent Banner Marsh area to consolidate the DOC holdings. The Rice Lake area would be restored to fish and wildlife habitat and a sea wall built to prevent continued siltation. In keeping with our tradition of concern for maintaining the dwin- dling amounts of natural habitat I propose the following resolution for consideration at our next meeting. Clark Ashby Conservation Chairman RESOLUTION ON SURFACE MINING OF RICE LAKE Be it resolved: 1. The Southern Illinois Audubon Society (SIAS) has had a continuing interest in protection of environmental quality, maintenance of natural areas, and development of mined land into habitat similar to its original condition prior to mining. This interest is docu- mented by our Surface Mining Policy of August 1976. 2. The SIAS does not have adequate information to endorse or condemn the proposed mining of the Rice Lake Conservation Area and the pro- posed plans of the Illinois Department of Conservation for later J-and use in the Rice Lake-Banner Marsh area. 3. If plans for the surface mining of Rice Lake are further developed and implemented, the SIAS strongly recommends and urges that the mined area be developed into habitat similar to its condition prior to mining. We urge the maintenance of the dwindling amounts of original vegetation and wildlife habitat in' this and other parts of Illinois. The Illinois Department of Conservation should v/ork actively with the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals and other regulatory agencies to assure that suitable provisions are included in the mining permit to authorize and direct the restora- tion of the original vegetation and habitat. *K We instruct the Secretary to send copies of this resolution to David Kenney, Director, Illinois Department of Conservation and to Brad Evilsizer, Director, Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, along with copies of the Surface Mining Policy passed by the Southern Illinois Audubon Society in August 1976. •:; AUG 15 1983 E.N.& t„*~t** .- ^w ^~^^^V~ -^ fix 5^2 :^ J>*fS. ef <&*■ **T <^^ /"■ <&>S<<£- ^ TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DOUGLAS HALL INTERIM CAMPUS ILLINOIS CENTRAL COLLEGE MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 2200 EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61611 25th YEAR PHONE (309) 694-4391 CHAIRMAN Reginald Willis Peoria County 1st VICE-CHAIRMAN Dan Bell Tazewell County 2nd VICE-CHAIRMAN Carl Tellor Woodford County SECRETARY Maynard Durst Woodford County TREASURER Dorothy Sinclair Peoria County EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Robert L Pinkerton AICP, ASPA, ICMA August 3, 1983 (Corrected Letter) Mr. Michael B. Witte, Director Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 325 W. Adams St. Room 300 Springfield, Illinois 62706 Re: •*tn*3 £861 now JUS0 Draft "Illinois Land Report Lake Conservation Area" Rice Dear Mr. Wi tte: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced report. This agency is very concerned about the potential for increased flood heights, on the Illinois River, when flood plain storage area is removed by constructing a levee at the Rice Lake Conservation Area. The Rice Lake Conservation Area is directly west of the southwest corner of Tazewell County. Tazewell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The federal government has pre- pared a detailed flood insurance study for Tazewell County which has established the required floodway for the Illinois River. The study indicates that the floodway, for this segment of the Illinois River, extends from the Spring Lake Drainage District Levee on the east side of the Illinois River to the westerly shoreline of the Rice Lake Con- servation Area. The construction of a levee, within the designated floodway, to separate the Rice Lake Conservation Area from the Illinois River may cause flood levels to rise above the permissable 1/10 of a foot limit established by the Illinois Division of Water Resources. Any increase in flood height could have an adverse impact upon Tazewell and Peoria Counties and the Village of Kingston Mines, each a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Chapter XI, page 26, of the above referenced report points out that "Downstream stages would not be affected by the loss of 50,000 acre- feet of storage volume as a result of a Rice Lake Levee." Excess floodwater tries to spill over the floodplain, but, hemmed in by levees, flood crests are forced even higher. Can the river safely discharge the ten-feet of water (50,000 acre-feet 7 4,500 acres of floodplain) previously stored in the lost floodplain area without significantly increasing upstream flood flow elevations? __ J. ■-.-... .'■-«( Mr. Michael B. Witte August 9, 1983 Page 2 (corrected letter) Re: Draft "Illinois Land Report: Rice Lake Conservation Area" The U.S. Geological Survey Water - Data Report IL~79~2, page 204, presents the following extremes for the Illinois River at Kingston Mines On May 23, 19^3, the maximum discharge was 83,100 C.F.S. and the maximum gage height 26.02 Ft. (45^.0 M.S.L.). On March 2k, 1979, the maximum discharge was 72,300 C.F.S. and the maximum gage height 25.22 Ft. (453-2 M.S.L.). A difference of 10,800 C.F.S. but only .8 Ft. in elevation. We understand that when the river stage reaches k56 - kSl M.S.L., in Peoria, every 5,000 additional C.F.S. raises the river nearly one-foot. Should the same 19^3 discharge (83,100 C.F.S.) be experienced again in the future, with the proposed levee in place, we are concerned that the additional channel constriction and levee building will cause further flooding problems. We recommend that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Illinois Division of Water Resources be asked to address the hydraulic ramifications of the report and that their evaluations be incor- porated as an amendment to the final version, and that detail con- siderations be given to upstream flooding potential. Si nee rely Robert L. Pinkerton Executive Director DGM:RLP:jr H ' *" ^-^ - @OTj "frtffi fff i983 : '3 i/ E. N. R. ^ ^ <4^ ^ ^^ ^- ^ Z2L *0 / «*V <S^ ^^< ^ X^ ^,J~ ^^ t&iC^i "*>. Z ^, *>£* •4. <&£i & ti^^>. ZZ. C /&>-zj,^ ^4, ^£z-*<-<^ *£^ ^<2*^£i M, ***£ ~£ ^^ ^^ %&. -<£. <#=^-<-<^ -^^ *£<^e i^^^^ ^■^J^ ^ -^i^&l-LSjC C -4^7 £? /- ~p^ «**i- ^~« 7 <£<+*. ^y^z^^ ^ <2>'*Z^ 7* ^ &/c/A^ *?7t^2xj2s2^ 7?*p£X> ~J x^^Z^ 3 ?7- ^Ka.^ s{*s{<. ^>, 7 *? Sty*z ^C ±j <— ^^^a ^/Z^. /f^ <&?£2 *«^^ /^ sL^t^e* A?£e^ <^p/U- /^y ^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^7%, JZ2 ^ ~£<"f -^■^-z ^2<£^_ <&p> ^C^-e ,^^4^, . y^*'*^ pp^tZ^-u S^0t^6?S J?^ ^t^^?<^c_ <£2** f S >^£C^- . W^<- y'rtsZ^. -^f*&n^ <£/*?* j- i ■•■ ! ---' ^ ^y ^ & /Zt?*>^ JZ<2^*z^L O^S -^>^-^d- \s£ ' *Z^3^, of "zCs. *^£ & *2^r. 7 ■y- /^y JWL^, <^U^e 7^^*^ 2T (? cr}*^. JZZs^ ~7^£<& S?z^. C?s£m^ J?z*^ y^P^^^r J^^f^ -_ /!r~^ ^ s%c y&zs^?***' j^ypp- *z%^s ^i 7* /*y _ jP^t*/*^*j ^^a^jC ^*L^C* /z^e *~& x^. *y yy&s "j> c.<*> As^^y^e. <&y<7^ 7. *j K> / ^^C^ ~^c c^- s^crt*^/ y^^^f s^^zzcs %~~u^ > T^ZZc <&zs * %£& A2lc^ <&l<6 tu^<^ . - <£T 72L ^L^ ^^ ^2c^ cTU^S &^L^~ f e c- 7 'U^, ^*1 nHDonm /<* I 'iCts/sn^ 2Z?*?« ^C^^ ~ZT y^, ^^yic^^ /s^zJ^ ^^y/y^^^y .yc&* *^*^r ^y ^ 2< - ^"^z ^y Zr y&^s ^> ^yZ&^s Jn&t,^ -f a fL^ /&kc4( Osuc^ /Pet**, y^^^^y^ y Z?m^ _^ ^ ^^t^y 277/±cS Jh^^>^^ C^*-/ /^>-^-< Jz^^€ & <^*r, -/*" ^ XT "^rp^-^EH^T^^ — .^*^^Z^r2Z ^i^yi, y^ nX*S <££* vzs&^ot^S' *n-~C-,. A/stcStsS 4U^^ ^Ju^ ^A^r 7 ~~ ' ' JU^A z^&S ^st?/^*/ <^ £t* 7 *a&i^ -^^>i^^>^^7:y ^/&. y S* a^ J&? &-**££_ ZZ^z '<^^^z^^ ^i&zt*^/ ?Cf r y/^ asX^<^£ ^ 5^ ^■t- 7 &<2 < z i /^ dZS <&<**-, <2j^x-g / A S?77< '- y9^u/a«^^ Z7 (? <&? ^-* #&<^a &**f f>~ x^<^ . i 6? ^L 4^6 tzS <&*^Z<*rT S2 ££/ {?J£^< JiS J??*t7 ^ <& ^fe^S of y&£*iS r £*t- **? S^s*** <6/C ^ , Z£c jA^/ 1 ^ ^t*Sj s£&t a^c~a^ ^ ^y "£< jt*~ s&^ &£*<& -^?? <&il^^S -? ^Zz£. yi?^~&^c A^ A^> str^tz^Cr ^*<-r y{ REFERENCES REF-1 REF-2 REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1977. Testimony given before the Subcommittee on Oversight House Committee on Ways and Means. November 2 9. American Society for Testing and Materials. Part 2 6. 1980. Annual Book of Standards, Anderson, H.G. 1959. Food habits of migratory ducks in Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 27(4) : 289-344. Andreas, L. and Company. 1871. Atlas map of Fulton County. Davenport, Iowa. Andrews, K. 1982. Department of Conservation; memo to Randy Vogel (DOC) regarding hunters at Rice Lake and total hunters in the State of Illinois, March 3. Andrews, K. 1983. Department of Conservation; memo to Liz Johnson regarding campers at the Rice Lake Conservation Area. Ashby, W.C., C. Kolar, M.L. Guerke, C.F. Pursell, and J. Ashby. 1978. Our reclamation future with trees. Coal extraction and utilization research center, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Asphalt Institute. 1969. Soils manual for design of asphalt pavement structures. Manual Series 10, the Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD. 2 67 pp. Associated Planners. 197 3. Spoon River parks and recreation plan — Fulton County, Illinois. Fulton County Planning Commission. Ball, J. 1983. Wood duck nest structures; Rice Lake Conservation Area results of inventories; 1975-1982. Illinois Department of Conservation. Bartholomew, H. and Associates. 1969. Fulton County Comprehensive Plan. Fulton County Planning Commission. Bellrose, F.C., Jr. 1941. Duck food plants of the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 21(8):237-280. Bellrose, F.C., R.E. Sparks, F.L. Paveglio, D.W. Steffeck, R.C. Thomas, R.A. Weaver, and D. Moll. 1977. Fish and wildlife habitat changes resulting from the construction of a nine-foot navigation channel In the Illinois waterway from LaGrange lock and dam upstream to Lockport lock and dam. Prepared for Chicago District, U.S. Army Crops of Engineers by the Illinois Natural History Survey, River Research Laboratory, Havana, and Illinois State University, Normal. REF-3 Bellrose, F.C., F.L. Paveglio, Jr., and D.W. Staffeck. 1979. Waterfowl populations and the changing environment of the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 32(1): 1-54. Bellrose, F.C., S.P. Havera, F.L. Paveglio, Jr., and D.W. Steffeck. 1983. The fate of lakes in the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History Survey Biol. Notes. No. 199. 27 pp. Bennett, D.L., E.L. Mathias, W.H. Armiger, and J.N. Jones. 1978. Plant materials and their requirements for growth In humid regions, pp. 285-306. In Schaller, F.W., and P. Sutton, eds. Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin. Bertram, B. 1980. Illinois commercial catch report exclusive of Lake Michigan. Illinois Department of Conservation, Div. Fish. Wildl. Res. Proj. - Comm. Fish. Prog. - unpublished. Bhowmik, N.G., and R.J. Schicht. 1980. Bank erosion of the Illinois River. Illinois State Water Survey Rept. Invest. 92. 52 pp. BIrkenholz, D.E. personal communication. (21 June 1983). Unpublishesd bird census by Birkenholz and plant survey by John Anderson of Illinois State University. Birkenholz, D.E. 1983. Final report: avian ecological investigations of Rice Lake Conservation Area. Illinois Dept. of Conservation. Springfield. 20 pp. Bjorklund, R. G. 1975. On the death of a midwestern heronry. Wilson Bull., 87(2):284-287. Bjorklund, R.G. 1983. Unpublished data on the Clear Lake heronry. Dept. of Biology, Bradley Univ., Peoria, IL. Bohlen, H.D. 1978. An annotated checklist of the birds of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Pop. Sci. Ser. Vol. IX. 156 pp. Booth, N. and J. Ball, personal communication. March 14, 1983. Past crop production on the cultivated portions of RLCA. Superintendent, and staff of the RLCA. Illinois Department of Conservation. Booth, N. personal communication. April 8, 1983. Office memorandum on Rice Lake commercial fish harvest. Superintendent, Rice Lake Conservation Area, Illinois Department of Conservation. Brown, J. A. 1965. The prairie peninsula: an Interaction area In the eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation. Dept. Anthropology. University of Chicago. Brown, J. A. and R.K. Vierra. 1983. What happened in the Middle Archaic? Introduction to an ecological approach to Koster Site archaeology. In J. Phillips and J. A. Brown, eds. Archaic hunters and gatherers in the Midwest. Academic Press, New York. REF-4 Brown, S. 1983. Bottomland hardwood frest. Illinois Res. 25(1): 6-8. Buck H.D. 1956. Effects of turbidity on fish and fishing. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 21:249-261. Buck H.D. 1956. Effects of turbidity on fish and fishing. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. 21:249-261. Buikstra, J.E. 1981. Mortuary practices, paleodemography and paleo- pathology: a case study from Illinois. Tn R. Chapman, I. Klnnes and K. Randborg, eds. The archaeology of death. Cambridge University Press , New York. Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, and R.J. McCracken. 1980. Soil genesis and classi- fication. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 404 pp. Burr, B.M. 1977. The bantam sunfish, Lepomis symmetricus : Systematics and distribution, and life history in Wolf Lake, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 31 (10):437-466. Butzer, K.W. 1977. Geomorphology of the Lower Illinois River Valley as a spatial- temporal context for the Koster Archaic Site. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations 34. Cady, G.H. 1935. Classification and selection of Illinois coals. Illinois State Geological Survey Bull. 52. 354 pp. Carlson, D.L. 1979. Hunter-gatherer mobility stragegies: an example from the Koster Site in the Lower Illinois Valley. Ph.D. dlsseration. Northwestern University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Carmichael, D.L. 1977. Preliminary archaeological survey of Illinois uplands and some behavioral implications. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2:219-51. Carter, V., M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki, and W.O. Wilen. 1979. Water resources and wetlands, pp. 344-376. I_n P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: The state of our understanding. American Water Res. Assoc, Minneapolis. Caspall, F.C., A.R. Longwell and M.A. Yergler. 1974. Western Illinois coal: a regional surface mining report. Also entitled Surface mining for coal: a regional report. Western Illinois Regional Council. November. 86 pp. Chapman, C.C. and Company. 1879. History of Fulton County. Peoria, Illinois. Chironis, N.P. 1977. Crude to plants for mine spoils. Coal Age 82:122-130. REF-5 Clark, J. 1978. Fresh water wetlands: Habitats for aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and fish, pp. 330-343. In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: The state of our understanding. American Water Res. Assoc, Minneapolis. Clausen, A.T. 1970. The vascular flora of Forest Park Wildlife Refuge. Western Illinois University Ser. Biol. Sci. No. 8. 17 pp. Cleland, C.E. 1976. The focal-diffuse model: an evolutionary perspective on the prehistoric cultural adaptations of the eastern United States. MIdcontinential Journal of Archaeology 1:59-7 6. Cobb, J.C. et al. 1980. The abundance of zinc and cadmium in sphalerite- bearing coals In Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois Mineral Note 74. 28 pp. Cole, F.C. and T. Deuel. 1937. Rediscovering Illinois: Archaeological explorations in and around Fulton County. Archaeological Series, University of Chicago Press. Conard, N. , D. L. Asch, N.B. Asch, D. Elmore, H. Gore, M. Rubin, J. A. Brown, M.D. Wiant, K.B. Farnsworth, and T.G. Cook. 1983. Prehistoric horti- culture In Illinois: Accelerator radiocarbon dating of the evidence. MS. Submitted to Science. Conlin, M. W. 1983. Affidavit of 1/19/8 3 regarding observations of bald eagles at Rice Lake. Conrad, L.A. 1981. An introduction to the archaeology of Upland West Central Illinois: a preliminary archaeological survey of the Canton to Quincy corridor for the proposed FAP 407 highway project. Western Illinois Unviersity Archaeological Research Lab Reports of Investiga- tions 2. Conrad, L. personal communication. June 1983. Letter and marginal notations on draft manuscript regarding cultural resources research for Rice Lake Land Report. Department of Anthropology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois. Conrad, L.A. and D. Jones. 1978. A preliminary report on sub-surface testing of four and mitigation of two archaeological sites affected by IDOT District 4 Project EBRF-404-1 in Sections 94-1 6A and 94-1 6B (HB) , Warren County, Illinois. Western Illinois University. Conrad, L.A. Undated. The Berry Site: Illinois River Valley. a multicomponent site In the Central Cook, T.G. 197 6. Koster: an artifact analysis of two archaic phases In west central Illinois. Northwestern University Archaeological Program Prehistoric Reports 1. REF-6 Cooper, H.H., Jr., J.D. Bredehoeft and I.S. Papadopulos. 1967. Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water. Water Res. Res. 3(l):263-269. Crawford, Murphy and Tilly, Inc. 1980. Rice Lake Conservation Area - water level control feasibility study, prepared for Illinois Department of Conservation. 55 pp. + figs. Csallany, S. 1966. Yields of wells in Pennsylvanian and Misslssippian rocks In Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Rept. Invest. 55. A3 pp. Damberger, H.H. 1970. Petrographic character of the Colchester (No. 2) Coal Member at the Banner Mine, Peoria and Fulton counties, Illinois pp. 99-105. In W.H. Smith, et al. Depositional environments In parts of the Carbondale Formation - western and northern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook No. 8. 119 pp. Data Resources, Incorporated. 1983 a. Coal Service. DRI/ZImmerman Coal Model. January. Data Resources, Incorporated. 1983 b. Energy Price Forecasts for U.S. East North Central Region. April. Data Resources, Incorporated. 1983 c. , Review of the U.S. Economy. June. Dawes, J.H. , and M.L. Terstriep. 1966. Potential surface water reservoirs of north-central Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Rept. Invest. 56. 144 pp. Dawson, J.D. 1979. Nitrogen- fixing trees and shrubs. Illinois Res. 21:8-9. Deevey, E.S. and R.F. Flint. 1957. Postglacial hypsithermal interval. Science 125:182-4. Delcourt, H.R. 1981. The virtue of forests, virgin and otherwise. Natural History. 90(6): 33-38. Dunker, R.E., I.J. Jansen, and M.D. Thorne. 1982. Corn response to irriga- tion on surface mined land in Western Illinois. Argron J. 74:411-414. Dwyer, J. P. 1978. An archaeological test excavation of proposed improve- ments at Galena Road and Illinois Route 29, Peoria County, Illinois. Dickson Mounds Museum. Dwyer, J. P. and T.L. Burge. 1978. Archaeological Investigations in the Cedar Creek Drainage, west central Illinois. Illinois State Museum Society. Dwyer, J.P. , A.D. Harn, B.L. Rosenbaum, and R.B. Grunwald. 1978. An archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed FAP-405 corridor between Mossville and Peoria, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Society. REF-7 Dwyer, J. P., M.D. Wiant, M.A. McConaughy, C.V. Jackson, J.D. Applegarth, B.W. Styles, and F.B. King. 1983. An archaeological survey for the Freeman United Coal Company: Fulton, McDonough, Perry and Jackson Counties, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Society. Ellefson, P. and G. Jamsen. 1971. Michigan salmon and steelhead trout fishery: An economic evaluation. Michigan academician. 4(2): 237-44. Emerick, N. 1982. Comments concerning issue number 2 related to the proposed surface mining of the Rice Lake Conservation Area. Illinois Dept. Conservation, Springfield, Mimeo. 9 pp. Environmental Systems Application Center. 1983. Illinois Basin coal planning assistance project - coal resources fact book, volume one. Environmental Systems Application Center, School of Public and Environ- mental Affairs, Indiana University. 323 pp. Esarey, D. , and L.A. Conrad, comp. 1981. The Orendorf Site preliminary working papers, 1981 (Vols. I-III). Western Illinois University Archaeological Research Laboratory. Faulkner, C.H. 1970. The late prehistoric occupation of northwestern Indiana: a study of the Upper Mississippi culture of Kankakee Valley. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Indiana University. Federal Power Commission. Monthly. Form #4, monthly power plant report. Report filed by utilities. Fehrenbacher, J.B., B.W. Ray, J.D. Alexander, I.J. Jansen, and G.R. Oliver. 1977. Soil Associations of Fulton County, Illinois. University of Illinois Coll. Agric, Urbana. Spec. Publ. 49. 36 pp + maps. Fehrenbacher, J.B., R.A. Pope, I.J. Jansen, J.D. Alexander, and B.W. Ray. 1978. Soil productivity in Illinois. University of Illinois Coll. Agric. Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 1156. 21 pp. Fenner, G.J. 1961. The Bowmanville Site. Iji E.A. Bluhm, ed. Chicago area archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 3:37-5 6. Follmer, L.R., E.D. McKay, J. A. Llneback, and D.L. Gross. 1979. WIsconsinian, Sangamonian, and Illinoian stratigraphy In central Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook 13. 139 pp. Fowler, M.L. 1952. The Clear Lake Site: Hopewellian occupation. In T. Deuel, ed. Hopewellian communities in Illinois. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 5:131-174. Freeman United Coal Company. 1980. Map of Rice Lake area property legend. April 4. Drawn by JAK. REF-8 Freeman United Coal Company. 1981. Map of conceptual post-mining pond locations at Rice Lake. Map #IL-F-U-CA 02 1882-1. Freeze, R.A. , and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 604 pp. Fritz, A.W. 1981. Illinois commercial catch report exclusive of Lake Michigan. Illinois Dept. Cons., Div. Fish Wildl. Res., Spec. Proj. - Comm. Fish. Prog., unpubl. Fritz, A. W. 1982. (citation same as above) . Fuller, S.L.H. , E. Ambrogio, and M. Fuges. 1980. Freshwater mussels of the upper Mississippi River, parts I and II. U.S. Army Corps Eng. and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. (poster). Fuller, S.L.H. 1980. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Rivalvia: Unionidae) of the upper Mississippi River: Observations at selected sites within the 9-foot navigation channel project for the St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977-1979. Vol. I: Text, Vol. II: Appendices. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Fulton County. 1982. Land atlas and plat book: Fulton County: 1982. Rockford Map Publishers, Inc. 5 3 pp. Fulton County Board. 197 3. Zoning Regulations. Fulton County Zoning and Planning Office. 1983. Draft transportation plan. Gardner, J.E. and J.B. Taft. 1983. Determination of presence and habitat suitability for the Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) and gray bat (Myotis grisescens ) at nine Illinois Department of Transportation project areas. Illinois Department of Transportation. Springfield. 117 pp. Gibb, J. P., and R.L. Evans. 1978. Preliminary evaluation of final cut lakes. Illinois State Water Survey Circ. 130. 87 pp. Gibbon, G.E. 1969. The Walker-Hooper and Bornick Sites: Two Grand River phase Oncota sites in central Wisconsin. Ph.D. disseration. Department of Anthropology. University of Wisconsin. Gibson, P.F. 1983. Public comment regarding draft Land Report on Rice Lake, undated. 5pp. Glover, F., M. Augustine, and M. Clar. 1978. Grading and sloping for erosion control and rapid vegetative establishment In humid regions, pp. 271-283. In Schaller, F.W., and P. Sutton, eds. Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin. Graber, J.W. , R.R. Graber, and E. L. Kirk. 1978. Illinois birds: Ciconiiformes. 111. Nat. Hist. Survey Biol. Notes No. 109. 80 pp. REF-9 Graber, R.R. and J.S. Golden. 1960. Hawks and owls: population trends from Illinois Christmas counts. 111. Nat. Hist. Survey Biol. Notes No. 41. 24 pp. Graham, R.W. , C.V. Haynes, D. L. Johsnon, and M. Kay. 1981. Kimmswick: a Clovis-Mastodon association In eastern Missouri. Science 213:1115-7. Grandt, F., and A.L. Lang. 1958. Reclaiming Illinois strip-mined lands with legumes and grasses. University of Illinois Agric. Exp. Stat. Bull. 628. 64 pp. Green, W. 197 6. Preliminary report on the Bauer Ranch complex, a late Woodland manifestation in west central Illinois. Wisconsin Archaeolo- gist 57:172-88. Green, W. 1977 a. Final report of Ipava field archaeological survey, Fulton County, Illinois. Upper Mississippi Valley Archaeological Research Foundation Reports on Archaeology 2. Green, W. 1977 b. Final report on Littleton field archaeological survey, Schuyler County, Illinois. Upper Mississippi Archaeological Research Foundation Reports on Archaeology 1. Griffin, J.B. 1968. Observation on Illinois prehistory in the late Pleistocene and early recent times. In R.E. Bergstrom, ed. The Quaternary of Illinois. University of Illinois Special Publications 14:123-37. Hajic, E.R. 1981. Geology and paleopedology of the Koster archaeological site, Green County, Illinois. M.S. thesis. Department of Geology. University of Iowa. Haley, G. 1980. Illinois forest inventory data processing system — Rice Lake cruise. Illinois Dept. Conservation, Springfield. 34 pp. Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2 Vols. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1,181 pp. Hall, R.L. 1962. The archaeology of Carcajou Point with an interpretation of the development of Oncota culture In Wisconsin. 2 vols. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Hanson Engineers, Inc. 1982. Proposed Rice Lake levee Illinois River - Fulton County, Illinois. Summary report prepared for Freeman United Coal Mining Company. 9 pp. + figs. Harn, A.D. 1978. Mississippian settlement patterns In the central Illinois River valley. In B.D. Smith, ed. Mississippi settlement patterns. Academic Press, New York. Harn, A.D. 1980. The prehistory of Dickson Mounds: the Dickson excavation (revised). Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations, 35. REF-10 Harn, A.D. 1983. Variation in Mississippian settlement patterns: the Larson community in the central Illinois River valley. In Mississippian Site Archaeology In Illinois: II. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin 11. Harper, G. 1980. Rice Lake Conservation Area — Bureau of Natural Resources Development Proposal. Illinois Dept. Conservation, Springfield. 8 pp. Helfinstine, R. J. , N.F. Shimp, J. A. Simon, and M.E. Hopkins. 1971. Sulfur reduction of Illinois coals - washability studies. Part 1. Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 462. 25 pp. Herndon, W. Undated. Rice Lake-Banner Marsh fishery resource development plan. Illinois Dept. Conservation, Springfield. Unpubl. report. 18 pp. Herndon, W. 1981. Supplemental survey - Rice Lake fall population survey. Illinois Department of Conservation. Division of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Springfield. 7pp. Herndon, W. 1983. Supplemental survey - Rice Lake fall population survey. Illinois Dept. Conservation. Division of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Springfield, 12 pp. Herricks, E.E., D.J. Tazik, J.R. Karr, and M.E. Leary. 1980. Planning for fish and wildlife on Illinois coal surface mines. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Office Biol. Serv. FWS/OBS-80/36. 579 pp. Herricks, E.E., A.J. Krzysik, R.E. Szafoni, and D.J. Tazik. 1982. Best current practices for fish and wildlife on surface-mined lands In the Eastern Interior Coal Region. Eastern Energy Land Use Team, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Office Biol. Serv., 212 pp. Hobbs, H.H. , Jr. 1974. A checklist of the North and Middle American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae and Cambaridae) . Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. No. 166. 161 pp. Hoffmeister, D.F., and CO. Mohr. 1972. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Fieldbook of Illinois mammals. 233 pp. Hopkins, M.E., and R.B. Nance. 1970. Sulfur content of the Colchester (No. 2) Coal Member at the Banner Mine, Peoria and Fulton Counties, Illinois, pp. 96-98. In W.H. Smith, et. al. Depositional environments* In parts of the Carbondale Formation - western and northern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook No. 8. Hopkins, M.E., and J. A. Simon. 1975. Pennsylvanian System, pp. 163-201. In H.B. Willman et al. Handbook of Illinois stratigraphy. Geol. Surv. Bull. 95. 261 pp. Illinois State REF-11 Hoyer, B.E. 1980. The geology of the Cherokee sewer site. In D.D. Anderson and H.A. Semken, Jr., eds. The Cherokee excavations, Holocene ecology and human adaptations in northwestern Iowa. Academic Press, New York. ICF, Incorporated. 1982. Coal Forecast. September. Illinois Bureau of the Budget. 1982. Illinois population trends from 1970 - 2025. Springfield. Illinois Bureau of Employment Security. 1982. Illinois labor force reports. Illinois Department of Labor. Springfield. Illinois Commerce Commission. 1980. Map of electric utilities In Illinois. January 1. Illinois Commerce Commission. Monthly. Schedule 5, fossil fuel receipts. Report filed by utilities. Illinois Crop Reporting Service. 1978-1982. Illinois agricultural statistics, annual summaries. Illinois Dept. Agriculture, Springfield. Illinois Crop Reporting Service. 1980. Illinois agricultural statistics, assessors' annual farm census for 1979. Illinois Dept. Agriculture, Springfield. 28 pp. Illinois Dept. Agriculture. 1982. Farmland protection, priority area determination. Illinois Dept. Agriculture, Springfield. Illinois Dept. Commerce and Community Affairs. Undated. County economic profiles for Cass, Fulton, Knox, Logan, Mason, Menard, Peoria, and Tazewell. Springfield. Illinois Dept. Conservation. Undated, a. Addendum to final report for Study 105 — Documentation of bald eagle wintering areas and populations In Illinois. Illinois Dept. Conservation. Undated, b. A master management plan for Banner Marsh state wildlife area. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1978. Outdoor recreation in Illinois - the standard comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1981. Illinois plants for habitat restoration. Illinois Dept. Conservation, Mining Program, Springfield. 61 pp. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1982 a. Illinois public hunting areas. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1982 b. Land and water report. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1982 c. Rice Lake mining issues. March 25. 15 pp. REF-12 Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1983 a. Bureau of land and historic sites attendance report 197 3-1977 and 1978-1982. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1983 b. Outdoor recreation In Illinois: the 1983 policy plan. Draft. January 19. Illinois Dept. Conservation. 1983 c. Rice Lake/Banner March — Development and operations. Mimeo. 20 pp. Illinois Dept. Energy and Natural Resources. 1982. An Inventory of the coal resources of Illinois. Volume IV of the Illinois energy plan. September. 66 pp. Illinois Dept. Energy and Natural Resources. 1983. Illinois coal severance tax study. Staff working paper. Draft. April 29. 60 pp. Illinois Dept. Mines and Minerals. Yearly. Coal Report of Illinois. Illinois Dept. Transportation. 1980. 1980 average daily multiple-unit traffic map. Office of Planning and Programming. Springfield. Illinois Dept. Transportation. 1982. Design manual; Section 7 pavement design. Illinois Dept. Transportation. 1983. Illinois coal: markets and delivery systems. April. 147 pp. Illinois Dept. Transportation. District 4, 1983. Pavement rating condi- tions marked on Fulton County highway map. Planning Section. Peoria. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Water quality management plan. Vol. III. Nonpoint source of pollution. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Illinois water quality management plan. Greater Egypt Regional Planning Commission. Illinois State Geological Survey. 1978. Illinois: Description of coal seams. Illinois State Geological Survey. Reprint 1978M. 12 pp. Illinois Natural History Survey. 1980. Projected effects of increased diversion of Lake Michigan water on the environment of the Illinois River Valley. Prepared for the Chicago District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ingram, T.N. 1983. Public comment regarding draft Land Report on Rice Lake. 9 August 1983. 3 pp. Jansen, I.J. 1981. Reconstructing soils after surface mining of prime agricultural land. Mining Eng. 33:312-314. REF-13 Jeffries, R.W. and B.M. Butler, eds. 1982. The Carrier Mills archaeological project: Human adaptation in the Saline Valley, Illinois. Vols. I and II. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Center for Archaeologi- cal Investigations, Research Paper 33. Jelks, E.B. personal communication. April 15, 1983. Letter and unpublished report regarding archival research on historic sites in the Rice Lake area. Professor, Department of Sociology-Anthropology, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. Jennings, L.R. 1978. A study of road damage as a result of weight of trucks. Indiana State Police. Jenny, H. 1961. Derivation of state factor equations of soil and eco- systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 25:385-88. Kadlec, R.H. , and J. A. Kadlec. 1979. Wetlands and water quality, pp. 436-456. In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: The state of our understanding. Amer. Water Res. Assoc, Minneapolis. Kenney, D. 1983. Public comment regarding draft Land Report on Rice Lake, 12 August 1983. 11 pp. King, J.E. 1981. Late Quarternary vegetational history of Illinois. Ecological Monographs 51:43-62. Kirk, J.R. 1983. Public comment regarding draft Land Report on Rice Lake, undated. 4 pp. Klingebiel, A. A. , and P.H. Montgomery. 1966. Land capability classifica- tion. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Agric. Handbook 210. 21 pp. Klippel, W.E. and J. Maddox. 1977. The early archaic of Willow Branch. MIdcontlnental Journal of Archaeology 2:99-130. Kolar, C.A. , and W.C. Ashby. 1978. Potential for woodland habitat from surface-mine tree plantings. Trans. 43rd North Amer. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 43:323-330. Kothandaraman, V., R.A. Sinclair, and R.L. Evans. 1981. Water chemistry of the Illinois Waterway. Illinois State Water Surv. Circ. 141. 23 pp. Kroodsma, D.E. 1979. Habitat values for nongame wetland birds, pp. 320-329. In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: The state of our understanding. Amer. Water Res. Assoc, Minneapolis . Lanyon, W.E. 1982. Fallow field guide to birds. Natural History. 91(5): 61-67. REF-14 Leedy, D.L., and T.M. Franklin. 1981. Coal surface mining reclamation and fish and wildlife relationships in the Eastern United States. Vol. II. Opportunities and approaches for fish and wildlife planning and manage- ment In coal surface mining reclamation and post mining land uses. Eastern Energy Land Use Team, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Office Biol. Serv. FWS/OBS-80/25. Lehr, J.H. , T.E. Gass , W.A. Pettyjohn, and J. DeMare. 1980. Dometlc water treatment. McGraw Hill Book Company. New York. 2 64 pp. Linder, J.R. 1974. The Jean Rita site: an early woodland occupation In Monroe County, Illinois. Wisconsin Archaeology 55:99-162. Lorman, J.G., and J.J. Magnuson. 1978. The role of crayfishes in aquatic ecosystems. Fisheries 3(6): 8-10. Lubinski, K. S. personal communication. May 2, 1983. Field notes on Individual haul reports and station summary for Rice Lake minnow seining survey. Assistant Aquatic Biologist, Illinois Natural History Survey, Grafton. Lubinski, K. S. , R.E. Sparks, W.U. Brigham, D. McCormick, and E.A. Atwood. 1980. Fishes, pp. 19.1-19.95. In S.P. Havera, F.C. Bellrose, H.K. Archer, F. Paveglio, Jr., D.W. Steffect, K.S. Lubinski, R.E. Sparks, W.U. Brighman, L. Coutant, S. Waite, and D. McCormick, eds. Projected effects of increased diversion of Lake Michigan water on the environment of the Illinois River valley. Prepared for the Chicago District, U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana and Champaign. Luchterhand, K. 1970. Early archaic projectile points and hunting patterns in the lower Illinois River valley. Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations 19. Marlin, J.C., S.K. Dragula and D.W. Marlin. 1982. Increased truck size and weight: the impact on highways, safety and energy. Central States Resource Center. Champaign. Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and plants. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. 500 pp. Mason, W.T. , ed. 1978. Methods for the assessment and prediction of mineral mining impacts on aquatic communities. A review and analysis. Eastern Energy and Land Use Group, U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Office Biol. Serv. FWS/OBS-78/30. 157 pp. Mausel, P.W. , E.C.A. Runge, and S.G. Carmer. 1975. Soil productivity indexes for Illinois counties and soil associations. University of Illinois Coll. Agric. Bull. 752. 49 pp. REF-15 McGImsey, C.R. 1981. Ambrose Flick, an early woodland site in the Missis- sippi Valley. Foundation for Illinois Archaeology Contract Archaeology Program Reports of Investigation 61. McGregor, J.C. 1952. The Havana site. Iji T. Deuel, ed. Hopewellian com- munities in Illinois. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 5:43-92. McMillan, R.B. and W.E. KLIppel. 1981. Environmental changes and hunter- gatherer adaptations In the southern Prairie Peninsula. Journal of Archaeological Science 8:215-45. McNair, M.B. 1981. Coal distribution: January - December 1980. U.S. Dept. Energy. April. McNair, M.B. 1983. Coal distribution: January - December 1982. U.S. Dept. Energy. March. McSweeney, K. , I.J. Jansen, and W.S. Dancer. 1981. Subsurface horizon blending: An alternative strategy to B horizon replacement for the construction of post-mine soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45:794-799. McWhorter, D.B., J.W. Lowe, M.N. Van Liew, and R.L. Chandler. 1979. Surface and subsurface water quality hydrology in surface mined watersheds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-600/7-79-193a . 98 pp. McWhorter, D.B. 1982. Procedures for predictive analysis of selected hydrologlc impacts of surface mining. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 600/7-82-055. 87 pp. Meeting. March 24, 1983. Among ENR staff and representatives of the Save Rice Lake Area Association. Meeting. April 11, 1983. Among ENR staff and Freeman United representa- tives . Merewitz, L. 1966. Recreation benefits of water resource development. Water resources research. 2(4): 625-40. Michelson, Al . 1983. Department of Conservation; memo to John Grigsby regarding Rice Lake Area qualifying for Natural Areas Inventory; March 11. Mickelson. A.S. 1983. Letter dated March 7, 1983 to Mr. John R. Grigsby, Sr., President, Save Rice Lake Area Association, Inc. 2 pp. Mills, H.B., W.C. Starrett, and F.C. Bellrose. 1966. Man's effect on the fish and wildlife of the Illinois River. Illinois Natural History Survey Biol. Notes. No. 57. 24 pp. Montgomery, P.H. , and F.C. Edmlnster. 1966. Use of soil surveys in planning for recreation, pp. 104-112. In L.J. Bartelli, et. al., eds. Soil surveys and land use planning. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin. REF-16 Moore, K.R. 1982. Final report of archaeological investigations in the Cedar Creek Drainage, FAP 404. MS. Illinois State Museum. Moore, K.R. , T.L. Burge, J.J. Moore and M.A. McConaughy. 1981. Interim report of archaeological Investigations in the FAP-404 corridor, Knox and Warren Counties, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Society. Morris, M.A., R.S. Funk, and P.W. Smith. 1983. An annotated bibliography of the Illinois herpetological literature 1960-1980, and an updated checklist of species of the state. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 33. Art. 2. Morse, D.F. and P. Morse. 1964. 1962 excavations at the Morse site: ochre cemetery in the Illinois Valley. Wisconsin Archaeologist 45:79-98. a red Munson, P.J. 1966. The Sheets site: a late archaic-early woodland occupa- tion in west central Illinois. Michigan Archaeologist 12:111-9. Munson, P.J. and A.D. Harn. 1966. Surface collections from three sites in the central Illinois River valley. Wisconsin Archaeologist 47:150-68. Muncy, R. J. , G.J. Atchison, R.V. Buckley, B.W. Menzel, L.G. Perry, and R.C. Summerfelt. 1979. Effects of suspended solids and sediment on repro- duction and early life of warmwater fishes: a review. U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency. EPA-600/3-79/042. National Cooperative Soil Survey. 1982. Soil Survey of Champaign County, Illinois. Soil Conservation Service, USDA in cooperation with Illinois Agric. Exp. Sta. 178 pp. and maps. National Research Council. 1981. Coal mining and ground-water resources in the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 197 pp. National Wildlife Federation. 198 3. Fifth bald eagle survey completed by lcoal coordinators in 48 states. News release #83006. January 24, 1983. Niering, W.A. 1973. The ecological role of inland wetlands, pp. 100-109. In T. Helfgott, M.W. Lefor, and W.C. Kennard, eds. Proceedings: First Wetlands Conference. Inst. Water Res., Univ. Connecticut Rept. No. 21. 199 pp. Nixon, CM., L.P. Hansen, J.E. Chelsvig, and P. A. Brewer. 1983. Ecology and management of white-tailed deer. Illinois Natural History Survey. Monthly Wlldl. Res. Letter 2 6(3): 2-3. Odum, E.P. 1979. The value of wetlands: A hierarchial approach, pp. 16-25. In P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. Wetland functions and values: The state of our understanding. Amer. Water Res. Assoc, Minneapolis. REF-17 O'Hearn, M. , and J. P. Gibb. 1980. Groundwater discharge to Illinois streams. Illinois State Water Survey. Contract Rept. 24 6. 31 pp. + figs. Oldenburg, J.F. 1983. The ecology of Acer saccharinum in floodplain forest communities in central Illinois. M.S. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana. 125 pp. Olson, G.W. 1981. Soils and the environment. A guide to soil surveys and their applications. Chapman and Hall, New York. 178 pp. Palmer, J. P., and L.R. Iverson. 1983. Factors affecting nitrogen fixation by white clover ( Trifolium repens ) on colliery spoil. J. Appl. Ecol. 20:287-302. Paloumpis, A. A. and W.C. Starrett. 1960. An ecological study of the benthic organisms In three Illinois River floodplain lakes. Amer. Midi. Nat. 64: 40 6-35. Papadopulos, I.S., and H.H. Cooper, Jr. 1967. Drawdown In a well of large diameter. Water Res. Res. 3(1 ): 241-244. Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The fresh-water mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum Pop. Sci. Ser. Vol. 8. 108 pp. Paveglio, F.L., Jr. 1979. Acreage of plant species mapped at Rice Lake September 28, 1977 - October 3, 1979. Mimeo. 1 pp. Pentecost, E.D., and R.C. Stupka. 1979. Wildlife investigations at a coal refuse reclamation site in southern Illinois, pp. 107-118. In D.E. Samuel, J.R. Stauffer, and C.H. Hocutt, eds. Surface mining and fish/ wildife needs In the eastern United States. Addendum to proceedings oj. a sumposium. West Virginia University and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/0BS-78/81A. Prickett, T.A. 1974. Hydrologic conditions in Banner Strip Mine area. Fulton and Peoria counties, Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey. Unpubl. Rept. 17 pp. + figs. Quimby, G.I. 1966. Indian culture and European trade goods. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Reed, J.E. 1980. Type curves for selected problems of flow to wells in confined aquifers. Techniques of water resources investigations at the United States Geological Survey, Book 3, Chapter B3. pp. 37-46, 91-102. Reese, M.C. and K.S. Lubinski. In press. A survey and annotated check list of late summer aquatic and floodplain vascular flora, middle and lower pool 2 6, Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. REF-18 Wm Rice, C.A. 1983. Data provided by general office. Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals. Springfield. Russel, E.W. 1971. Soil structure: Its maintenance and improvement. J. Soil Sci. 22:137-151. Samson, I.S. 1983. Illinois mineral industry in 1979/1980 and a review of preliminary mineral production data for 1981. Illinois State Geological Survey. Illinois Mineral Notes 8 6. 40 pp. Sandberg, C. 1973. Land use survey of strip mines in Fulton County Illinois. Associated Planners, for Fulton County Planning Commission. June. Save Rice Lake Area Association. 1981. Articles of incorporation filed with Illinois Secretary of State. October 27. Schwegman, J.E. personal communication. October 20, 1982. Letter and attachments regarding the status of Boltonia decurrens in Illinois. Botony Program Manager, Division of Forest Resources and Natural Heritage, Illinois Department of Conservation. Schwegman, J.E. 1973. Comprehensive plan for the Illinois Natural Preserves System. Part 2. The Natural Divisions of Illinois. Illinois Nat. Pres. Comm. , Rockford. 32 pp. Sheviak, C. J. , and R.H. Thorn (Project directors). 1981. Endangered and threatened vertebrate animals and vascular plants of Illinois. Illinois Dept. Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 189 pp + appendices. Smith, H.R. and P.W. Parmalee. 1955. A distributional check list of the birds of Illinois. 111. State Mus. Pop. Sci. Ser. IV. Springfield . 62 pp. Smith, P.W. 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 29(1): 1-298. Smith, P.W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana. xxix +314 pp. Smith, R.S., E.E. DeTurk, F.C. Bauer, and L.H. Smith. 1932. Fulton County soils. Univ. Illinois Agric Exp. Sta. Soil Rept. No. 51. Urbana, IL. Smith, W.H. , and D.J. Berggren. 1963. Strippable coal reserves of Illinois, part 5A - Fulton, Henry, Knox, Peoria, Stark, Tazewell and parts of Bureau, Marshall, Mercer, and Warren counties. Illinois State Geo- logical Survey Circ. 348. Smith, W.H. , R.B. Nance, M.E. Hopkins, R.G. Johnson, and C.W. Shabica. 1970. Depositional environments in parts of the Carbondale Formation - western and northern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook No. 8. 119 pp. REF-19 Snarski , R.R. , J.B. Fehrenbacher, and I.J. Jansen. 1981. Physical and chemical characteristics of pre-mine soils and post-mine soil mixtures in Illinois. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45:806-812. Soil Survey Staff. 1971. Guide for interpreting engineering uses of soils, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Dept. Agriculture. 87 pp. South, D.W., and M.J. Bragen. 1981. User 1 s guide for the social and eco- nomic assessment model (SEAM) - a county level energy facility impact assessment model. Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, Illinois. Sparks, R.E., and W.C. Starrett. 1975. An electrofishing survey of the Illinois River, 1959-1974. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 31(8): 317-380. Sparks, R.E. 1980. Macroinvertebrates , pp. 18.1-18.31. InS.P. Havera, F.C, Bellrose, H.K. Archer, F. Paveglio, Jr., D.W. Steffeck, K.S. Lubinski, R.E. Sparks, W.U. Brigham, L. Coutant, S. Waite, and D. McCormick, eds. Projected effects of increased diversion of Lake Michigan water on the environment of the Illinois River valley. Pre- pared for the Chicago District, U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana and Champaign. i Starrett, W.C, and A.W. Fritz. 1965. A biological investigation of the fishes of Lake Chautauqua, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 29(1): 1-104. Starrett, W.C. 1971. A survey of the mussel (Unionacea) of the Illinois River: A polluted stream. Illinois Natural History Survey Bull. 30(5): 267-403. Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of wintering bald eagles. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/0BS-78/79. 59 pp. Stenehjem, E.J. and J.E. Metzger. 1980. A framework for projecting employ- ment and population changes accompanying energy development: volume II. Energy and Environmental Systems Division. Argonne National Laboratory. May. 77 pp. Styles, B.W. 1981. Faunal exploitation and resource selection: Early late woodland subsistence in the lower Illinois valley. Northwestern Archaeological Program Scientific Paper 3. Styles, B.W., M.L. Fowler, S.R. Ahler, F.B. King and T.R. Styles. 1981. Modoc rock shelter archaeological project, Randolph County, Illinois 1980-81. Illinois State Museum and University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Styles, B.W., F.B. King, J. Gerlach, C. Stiles-Hanson and J. Peterson. 1981. Archaeological site distributions in the Sangamon drainage and grand prairie: Testing and refinement of predictive models for site location. Illinois State Museum. REF-20 '''',■'■■■'■•■'■■■'■••■ ■■■,■■■'■■ ' Styles, B.W., S.W. Neusius and J.R. Purdue. 1983. The evolution of faunal exploitation strategies in the Midwest: perspectives from the lower Illinois Valley. InC.R. Stafford and M.D. Wiant, eds. Understanding settlement-subsistence in west central Illinois. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois. Styles, T.R. Undated. Results of sediment coring In the vicinity of Rice Lake State Wildlife Conservation Area. MS. Illinois State Museum. Sweet, M. 1982. Comments concerning issue number 4 related to the proposed surface mining of the Rice Lake Conservation Area. Illinois Dept. Conservation, Springfield. Memeo. 9 pp. Temple, W.C. 1966. Indian villages of the Illinois country. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 2. Terpening, V.A., M.J. Sweet and D.L. Damrau. 1975. Environmental inventory and assessment of navigation pools 24, 25 and 2 6 upper Mississippi and lower Illinois rivers. Contract report Y-75-2. ]70 pp. Teskey, R.O. , and T.M. Hinckley. 1977a. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Vol. I: Plant and soil responses to flooding. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. FWS/OBS-77/58. 31 pp. Teskey, R.O. , and T.M. Hinckley. 1977b. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Vol. Ill: Central forest region. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-77/60. 36 pp. Thomas, D.W. 1978. Soil development In Illinois surface mine spoils. M.S. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana. 106pp. Thurn, E.A. 1953. Agronomic land use of leveled mined areas on stripped coal lands of Illinois. M.S. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana. 62 pp. Treworgy, C.G. , L.E. Bengal, and A.G. DIngwell. 1978. Reserves and resources of surface-minable coal in Illinois. Illinois State Geo- logical Survey Circ. 504. 44 pp. Treworgy, C.G. , and M.H. Bargh. 1982. Deep-minable coal reserves In Illi- nois. Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 527. 65 pp. Treyz, G.I, and D.J. Ehrlich. 1982. The Illinois forecasting and simulation (ILFS) model. Regional Economic Models, Incorporated. March. 82 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 197 6. Analysis of supply and demand of urban oriented nonreservolr recreation. Research report 7 6-R2. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1978. Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Part 13, Illinois. U.S. Department of Commerce. REF-21 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980a. Census of population, characteristics of the population, Part 16, Illinois. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980b. Census of population and housing: summary characteristics for governmental units and standard metropolitan statistical areas. Part 15, Illinois. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980c. Census of population and housing, final population and housing unit counts. Part 15, Illinois. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980d. Census of housing, characteristics of housing units. Part 15, Illinois. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Dept. Agriculture. 1978. Correlated soil mapping units that qualify as prime farmland in Illinois. Soil Conservation Service, Champaign, Illinois. U.S. Dept. Agriculture. Committee on Land Use. 1975. Perspectives on prime lands. Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Serv. 1979. User guide to soils. Intermt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Ogden, Utah. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- 68. 80 pp. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 1982. Revised estimates of the national income and product accounts. In Survey of current business. 62, July. Bureau of Economic Analysis. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 198 3. Survey of current business. 63, April. Bureau of Economic Analysis. U.S. Dept. Housing and Urban Development, Fed. Insurance Admin. 1980. Floodway flood boundary and floodway map, county of Tazewell, Illinois (unincorporated areas), panel 25 of 250. Community-Panel No. 170815 0025B. U.S. Dept. Housing and Urban Development, Fed. Insurance Admin. 1978 a. Flood hazard boundary map, Fulton County, Illinois, uninc. areas, p. 6 of 10. Community-Panel No. 170241 000 6A. U.S. Dept. Housing and Urban Development, Fed. Insurance Admin. 1978 b. Flood hazard boundary map, Mason County, Illinois, uninc. areas, p. 1 of 10. Community-Panel No. 170241 0001A. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv. 1982 a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv., Office of Migratory Bird Management. 1982 b. Trends in duck breeding populations, 1955-1982. Administrative Report — July 9, 1982. 9 pp. REF-22 U.S. Dept. Interior, Geological Survey. 1972 a. Map of flood prone areas, Glasford, Illinois, Quadrangle. U.S. Dept. Interior, Geological Survey. 1972 b. Map of flood prone areas, Manito, Illinois, Quadrangle. VanVoast, W.A. , and R.B. Hedges. 1975. Hydrologic aspects of existing and proposed strip coal mines near Decker, southeastern Montana. Montana Bur. Mines Geol. Bull. 97. 31 pp. Vogel, W.G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal minespoils in the eastern United States. U.S. Dept. Agriculture (GTR-NE-68), Berea, Kentucky. Gen. Tech. Rept. NE-68. Walker, W.H. , R.E. Bergstrom, and W.C. Walton. 1965. Preliminary report on the groundwater resources of the Havana region in west-central Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey and Illinois State Geological Survey Coop. Groundwater Rept. 3. 61 pp. Walton, W.C. 1965. Groundwater recharge and runoff in Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Rept. Invest. 48. 55 pp. Wanless, H.R. 1957. Geology and mineral resources of the Beardstown, Glasford, Havana, and Vermont quadrangles. Illinois State Geological Survey Bull. 82. 233 pp. Weigel, H.S. 1979. Demand for world coal through 1979. U.S. Dept. Energy. Order No. 509. May. Westfall, R.D. 1982 a. The positive annual economic impact of Pere Marquette State Park on Jersey County Illinois. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Park Association Congress for Recreation and Parks. Phoenix, AZ. October 2 9. 14 pp. Westfall, R.D. 1982 b. Dollars and sense. In Outdoor highlights. 10, December 20. pp. 16-8. Illinois Dept. Conservation. Westfall, R.D. and S.R. Luber. 1982. Variation in visitor expenditures at Illinois Department of Conservation sites. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Parks Association Leisure Research Symposium. Louisville, KY. October 2 4-2 6. Western Illinois Regional Council. 1975. Existing land use report - Western Illinois. June. Western Illinois Regional Council. 197 6. Western Illinois regional land use plan. Western Illinois Regional Council. 1977 a. Floodplalns in western Illinois. May 10. REF-23 Western Illinois Regional Council. 1977 b. Policy framework for community development in western Illinois. Western Illinois Regional Council. 1978. Western Illinois land use goals, policies and objectives. March 29. White, J. 1978. Illinois natural areas inventory technical report, Vol. I, survey methods and results. Dept. Landscape Arch., University of Illinois, Urbana, and Natural Land Inst., Rockford. 42 6 pp. Wiant, M.D. and C.R. McGimsey. 1983. Napoleon Hollow site: a study of human adaptation and Holocene geomorphology in the lower Illinois River valley. Wiant, M.D., E.R. Hajic and T.R. Styles. 1983. Napoleon Hollow and Koster site stratigraphy: Implications for Holocene landscape evolution and studies of Archaic period settlement patterns in the lower Illinois River valley. I_n J. Phillips and J. A. Brown, eds. Archaic hunters and gatherers in the Midwest. Academic Press, New York. Willman H.B., and J.C. Frye. 1970. Pleistocene stratigraphy of Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Bull. 94. 204 pp. Willman, H.B. 1973. Geology along the Illinois waterway - A basis for environmental planning. Illinois State Geological Survey Circ. 478. 48 pp. Willman, H.B., and T.C. Bushbach. 1975. Ordovidian System, pp. 47-87. In H.B. Willman, et. al. Handbook of Illinois stratigraphy. Illinois State Geological Survey Bull. 95. Wilson, J. P. 1961. An archaeological survey of the upper - centra] Spoon River drainage, Illinois. M.S. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois. Worthen, A.H. 1970. Geology and paleontology. Geological Survey of Illinois. V. 4, 508 pp. Wray, D.E. 1937. A red ochre mound in Fulton County. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 30:82. Wray, D.E. and R.S. MacNeish. 1961. The Hopewellian and Weaver occupations of the Weaver site, Fulton County, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 7. Wright, D.L., H.D. Perry, and R.E. Blaser. 1978. Persistent low maintenance vegegation for erosion control and aesthetics in highway corridors, pp. 553-583. In Schaller, F.W. and P. Sutton, eds. Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin. && REF-24 Wright, H.E. 197 6. The dynamic nature of Holocene vegetation: a problem In paleocliraatology, biogeography, and stratigraphlc nomenclature. Quaternary Research 6:581-96. Yardas, D. , A.J. Krupnich, H.M. Perkin and W. Harrington. 1982. Directory of environmental asset data bases and valuation studies. Resources for the Future. November. REF-25 m i$ REF-26 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS TEL-1 I TEL-2 342 06/82 , in oi TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS Kathy Andrews; May 6, 1983, Data on number of campers at Rice Lake annually. Department of Conservation. Kathy Andrews; May 12, 1983, Data on Fiscal Years 1981 and 1982 Department of Conservation expenditures for Rice Lake. Department of Conservation. Bill Arndt; June 9, 1983, Information on police departments and sheriff office. Fulton County Sheriff Office. Warren Baxter; Assistant Regional Superintendent of Schools Fulton County, June 9, 1983, Information on numbers of students, school districts and school closings. Frank C. Bellrose; April 25 and May 12, 1983, Information on waterfowl resources and management at Rice Lake. Principal Scientist, Section of Wildlife Research, Illinois Natural History Survey, Havana. Neil Booth; Rice Lake Conservation Area Site Superintendent; May 3, 1983, Discussion of numbers and percentages of Rice Lake visitors from the local area. Department of Conservation. Gene Burchett; June 20, 1983, Information on fire protection In Fulton County. Emergency Services Disaster Director, Canton, IL. Fulton County Dept. Public Health; June 9, 1983, Information on hospital care. Miny T. Lee; May 10, 1983. Information on the percentage clay in Illinois backwater lake bottom sediment. ISWS, Champaign. Frank Lewis; June 20, 1983, Information on public water systems in Fulton County. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, L. M. Page; June 16, 1983, Informtion on crayfish distribution and abundance In the Illinois River system. Fish Taxonomist and Acting Head, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign. Dave Roberts; June 21, 1983, Information on road conditions. Illinois Dept. Transportation. R. E. Sparks; June 15, 1983, Information on Fulton County property tax assessments. Fulton County Supervisor of Assessments. Vernon Thompson; Fulton County Supervisor of Assessments; March 21, 1983, Fulton County property tax assessments. TEL -3 I . ■■. UNIVERSITY OF ILUNOI9-URBANA 3 0112 048197583